Risk-less warfare, part 2

Part 1 is here.

In part 1, i discussed how risk-less warfare is both immoral, and practically speaking highly likely to create terrorism. Somewhat ironic since we are in the midst of a war on terror, that will create what it it is against (and has already done so) in the very act of carrying out the war. No wonder it is seen as an endless war.

But i personally think that the 3rd issue is where the true cost of risk-less war lies, not because of a higher monetary value, but rather due to the hidden nature of the cost itself.

Risk-less warfare is a product of technology. It takes place in a sort of "virtual warfare" setting. The nature of risk-less war is such that the only way it can be achieved is through sufficient technological advancement that humans are removed from the location of the conflict. We direct death at the targets of this style of warfare from miles, hundreds or even thousands of miles, of distance. The machines and technology required to do this have certain things that are characteristic about them.

First, they are expensive to build. Not in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of allocation of resources. Unfortunately we don't have a simple metric for determining the cost of lost production and innovation due to the war machine. But we do have some staggering figures.

In 2006, the United States spent over 528 billion dollars on defense. 2.3 million people work for the department of defense in the US. Roughly 75% of all US federal research dollars go to military projects.

Ever wish that the batteries and electric engines in a hybrid car were more efficient so that you could not worry about gas prices? Ever wish you could get all the power you need from the sun? Ever wish that products were safer or that they lasted longer? How much difference in these areas would we see if the massive kinds of money going to military research went to these projects instead?

To be fair, and to answer critics before they ask, a great many military projects have had later civilian uses. I am not suggesting otherwise. I am suggesting that research directed at solving the above problems is more likely to produce results than directing research at military problems and awaiting secondary or even tertiary benefits.

As i pointed out, i don't mean this solely in terms of dollar cost, however they are also expensive in this way as well. A single cruise missile can cost several million dollars. And remember, this is a single use weapon. It is quite literally throwing money at a problem. A lot of money.

Surely this is inexpensive compared to lives that may be lost if it were not used, isn't it? Let us assume that a military target is identified in a small village. Let us further assume that we can choose between "sending in the marines" in a very literal sense, or firing a cruise missile into the area. It is entirely possible, perhaps even likely that we will lose one or more marine lives if we choose the first course of action. No lives will be lost (obviously) if we choose the second.

Astute observers will notice that that the question is misleading. Lives will be lost if we fire a cruise missile into a village. In fact despite the talk of so-called 'smart missile' in the military and press today, it is highly likely that innocent lives will be lost. But the math is seldom if ever done in that way. The lives of the 'enemy' simply don't make it into the loss column in the calculus of war. That is is one part of the cost. There is a great deal of talk about "winning hearts and minds" in the war on terror. But it largely remains talk. You can't win them if you are blowing them to bits.

There is a great deal of risk in sending troops into a situation verses simply playing the video game of virtual war and destroying a "target" from long range. But there is a benefit as well. Cruise missiles don't capture people. They don't discriminate between targets. They don't destroy potential members of your cause. They don't make judgement calls about when it is better to abort a mission rather than killing innocent civilians.

The costs of risk-less warfare are moral, in that they abandon the moral high ground. They are strategic, in that we lose the opportunity to bring others to our cause when we abandon that high ground. They are tactical, in that the very nature of risk-less warfare means that we abandon the decision making process at the point of the encounter. The cost is further both strategic and tactical in the manner in which it actually creates enemies and encourages terrorism as the only effective response. And finally it diverts large amounts of capital, resources, development and research into the war machine. This, in turn, makes war profitable. And if war is profitable, rather than expensive, then we can hardly blame a capitalist society for doing what it does best. Chasing the dollar signs into the battle field.....

on the true costs of risk-less war

There is a concept in political philosophy, specifically in regards to the just war concept, called "risk-less" war, or risk-less warfare. The discussion surrounding this concept generally centers on two issues: moral issues, and terrorism issues. i think that there is a third. And i want to say a few things about each of them...

The first issue is the moral one. It seems odd to many people that there is a discussion about the morality of warfare. And it doesn't always get clearer when you engage the actual substance of the issue. Still, it is a topic of some concern in philosophy. Generally in warfare the moral issue of multiple people trying to kill each other is dealt with by assuming the the parties involved are acting in self defense with reference to each other. In short, it is ok that i am trying to kill you in a war, because i am only trying to defend myself from you, because you are representing another country or side in the conflict. Why is ok that you are trying to kill me? Why because you are acting in self defense to my trying to kill you, which is in self defense of your trying to kill me, which is......

Now you might reasonably ask yourself, "but if we are both acting in self defense, can't we both simply not be trying to kill each other? Wouldn't that end the entire conflict? Surely someone has to start the action! We can't both be trying to kill each other first in order to defend ourselves from an attack that hasn't come, can we?" I can't answer that. As someone who is essentially a pacifist, i am just as confused as you. But to quote one philosopher i have read on the matter, "wars have been and will continue to be fought. the self defense notion and just war theory allow them to be fought on moral grounds."

Got that? No, neither did i. I have some suspicion that this sort of ad hoc adjustment to the ideas of ethics and warfare is just an excuse to allow us to do what we wish and yet feel good about behaving ethically. Morals are not determined by actions, rather morals determine our actions. War remains inherently immoral in any case that is not true self-defense. And even then it may not be a moral endeavor depending upon the ways and means that are used to execute that war.

Which brings us to the moral issue of risk-less war. Even if we are to assume the questionable stance of mutual self-defense, risk-less warfare destroys this concept. The american military, as well as any other technologically advanced military, are simply immune to the self-defense concept when engaging less modern forces. In earlier wars, a technologically advanced military was an asset on the battlefield, but it was hardly an automatic success. More advanced and better supplied armies fell to lesser equipped forces with some regularity. But not always. The gap between the technological haves and have nots was simply no sufficient to guarantee success.

But the advanced technology of the modern battlefield is quickly approaching the point that this is no longer true. A single man in a modern stealth jet fighter is simply not at risk to a man with a rifle on the ground. Or even ten thousand such men. But he is certainly capable of destroying them....

So in what way is he acting in self-defense? He is not threatened. We might as well claim that a tank platoon is threatened by a kindergarden class. Would we think that the tank commanders have a moral right to open fire on the class? That would be a ridiculous claim. Similarly, it makes no sense to invoke self-defense in the case of our above mentioned fighter pilot.

This is the moral crux of the concept of risk-less war. We would not ask that soldiers go into battle less well protected or armed than they are capable. To do so would be both immoral and unreasonable. Yet if we send them into a conflict in which they are (nearly) invulnerable, they cannot act morally under even the already questionable concept of war as mutual self-defense. Practical reason demands that we protect soldiers. Morality suggests that the more protected they are, the less able they are to follow the dictates of morality.

Risk-less war and Terror

But practical reason also suggests that we have still further problems. Contrary to the oft discussed view of terrorism that we see in the news, terrorism is not a tool used only by a particular few, or an ideology that will be defeated, or a force that can be engaged. Terrorism is a tactic. A tactic engaged in by any group that sees no legitimate method of engaging a foe. Terrorism is defined as the use of violence and fear in the pursuit of political aims. Terrorism is the refuge of those who have no legitimate voice in a political system that they see as constraining their rights of capabilities. Terrorism is a natural outgrowth of risk-less war.

Any group seeking a political goal that is totally denied to them, who further perceive that they have no voice or options in the determination of policy, and who are unable to resist in anyway against a technologically superior force that is in effect practicing risk-less warfare, is highly likely to resort to terrorism. When all other possible avenues of addressing the concerns they hold are exhausted, terrorism becomes a highly likely option.

Our ability to make war at extremely little risk to ourselves, greatly increases the likely hood of terrorism against us. Presented with a force that they have no option of swaying in its opinion, and no possibility of defeating in a conflict, any motivated group that is not deeply pacifistic in nature will strike instead at the targets that they can hit. the civilian population. They become terrorists.

And yet, i will argue that neither of these things is the true cost of risk-less warfare.

america's manhood deficiency

i know, what you are likely thinking. what with America having a massive 2% of the members of congress being female over the years, and even today being under the global average for elected females, clearly we have the manhood.

and remember that is the global average. that includes countries that don't even allow women to vote let alone run. we are below that average. chew on that awhile.

Finland, Indonesia, Ireland, Latvia ,Panama, the Philippines, Sri Lanka; the Prime Ministers of Bangladesh, Britain, Finland, New Zealand, Peru, Sâo Tom and Príncipe; the Vice Presidents of Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Gambia , Palau, Taiwan; and the Governor-Generals of he Bahamas, Canada , Saint Lucia, New Zealand? all women!

in 1995, Sweden became the first country to have an equal number of women and men in ministerial posts. by the end of 2002, Argentina, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Mozambique, the Netherlands Norway, South Africa and Sweden had reached a goal of 30 percent of parliamentary seats being held by women.

we are behind all of those countries.

but the real problem in America is, it seems, that we aren't manly enough.

behold the evidence:

Palin And America's Manhood Deficiency
By Pastor Matt Trewhella

no, seriously. that is the trouble, and this guy is a pastor, so you know it must be true.

"I was never keen on McCain to begin with, and his decision to add a woman to his ticket sealed my decision. I won't vote for them. Why? Because I'm a sexist (as many accuse)? No. But because I'm a theist."

that is right people. if you believe in god you don't go voting for women. all good god fearing people know a woman's place is 8 months pregnant, barefoot, nursing, and yelling at the 11 other kids. it is right there in the bible. book of asshat chapter 11 i think.

"From the time they are young boys, the onslaught to effeminize, neuter, and rob males of their manhood begins in this culture and continues relentless upon them till the day they die. The agenda creates confusion in males regarding what exactly their role as men is. The agenda results in rampant male irresponsibility."

at this point you kinda have to wonder what color the sky is where this guy lives, don't you?

i have lived here in what some of us refer to as the "real world" for pretty much whole life (not counting that vacation when i was 15) and i am just not seeing it. culture is pretty clear on mens roles so far as i can see. does this guy not have TV? does he see ads? i am pretty sure mens role in the world is to wear suits, make money, and be incompetent when it comes to children and emotions. right?

oh, and we ogle women, buy sports cars, and do manly mechanical things, right? i am pretty sure i got all of this drilled into me during my entire life. so where did pastor moron grow up?

"They have no problem with the man staying home and the woman being the provider. They pompously challenge me (as they condescendingly look at me as though I'm some kind of cultural Neanderthal)"

those bastards!

oh and the cultural neanderthal thing? if the shoe fits...... but i am sure it is a manly steel toed shoe.

but it is the next paragraph that i just love.

"The egalitarian agenda has been pushed in this nation for about 100 years now, and is historically rooted in socialism. The Suffrage movement, wherein women obtained the right to vote, was manufactured by socialists who - because of the Christian consensus in the country at that time - guardedly used Christian words (and dress) to move their God-hating agenda forward. You can go to countless pro-abortion and pro-homosexual (lesbian) websites today which boast of their roots being founded in the Suffrage movement."

those socialist suffragists! they are canny. they are willy. those nasty socialists invented women's suffrage (1718 in Sweden) before there was even socialism (1859), that is how deceiving they can be! and time travel! they invented time travel!

and we know they are god hating, because only god haters would want women to have opinions. the jerks.

but i especially like that he points out that lesbian web sites are rooted in suffrage. i wonder how much research he did on that? and does he know the difference between lesbian sites and all girl porn? (no honey all those girl on girl sex sites are just research for a sermon. what? oh i don't know, maybe next month. second sunday i think. multimedia? oh i haven't decided yet.)

"Men being led by women is also a sad commentary on the state of manhood in a nation."

ya know, (princess bride moment) you keep using that word. i don't think it means what you think it means.

is that really what "manhood" means?

as a taoist i have a natural distrust of words. they hide meanings a lot. so i fire up the ol' dictionary app, and.....

manhood: noun
the state or period of being a man rather than a child : boys in the process of growing to manhood.
• men, esp. those of a country, regarded collectively : Germany had lost the best of her young manhood.
• qualities traditionally associated with men, such as courage, strength, and sexual potency

we have a shortage of that around here do we?

lemme try out my theory. pastor shinky-dink has such a pathetic manhood himself that he personally is projecting just a bit. i mean we are talking about a man whose courage, strength, and sexual potency are threatened by women being treated as if they might actually be human. the gall. damn uppity women.

just a thought here, but not everyone thinks that manhood equals the worst of the bravado style of stupidity. some of us have evolved a bit from that.

....but i guess as a right wing christian nutbag american taliban type, evolution is something you don't believe in, is it?

so in the end i leave you with a different conception of manhood.

You are the bravest man I've ever met
You unreluctant at treacherous ledge

You are the sexiest man I've ever been with
You, never hotter than with armor spent

When you do what you do to provide
How you land in the soft as you fortify

This is in praise of the vulnerable man
Why won't you lead the rest of your cavalry home

You, with your eyes mix strength with abandon
You with your new kind of heroism

And I bow and I bow down to you
To the grace that it takes to melt on through

This is in praise of the vulnerable man
Why won't you lead the rest of your cavalry home
This is a thank you for letting me in
Indeed in praise of the vulnerable man

You are the greatest man I've ever met
You the stealth setter of new precedents

And I vow and I vow to be true
And I vow and I vow to not take advantage

This is in praise of the vulnerable man
Why won't you lead the rest of your cavalry home
This is a thank you for letting me in
Indeed in praise of the vulnerable man
-Alanis

yeah, me and Ghandi and Buddha and Jesus and a whole lot more are going with a different definition that you are pastor. just a heads up.

women's rights as human rights

i am reading a brief philosophy article titled "are women human? feminist reflections on 'women's rights as human rights.'" i have read it before. what i find baffling about the article is in fact something it takes for granted, that there is a serious split between the "liberal" and "cultural" feminists. despite having read the article several times, and generally understanding its view point and direction, i keep coming back to this point of splintering in feminism. the tiny bit of research i have done says that this split in american feminism is identified in about 1985.....

a quote: "American Feminism has been dominated by two interrelated but often conflicting propositions: that women should be treated as the equals of men, and that feminine qualities deserve to be revalued and their power in society acknowledged."

now granted, as a feminist male, i may not be fully up to date, but i see a lot more interrelation than conflict there. perhaps i am too simple minded.

one key issue in the possibility of seeing women's rights as human rights is the simple fact that rights and laws and systems of justice tend to be male dominated and based on a series of male ideals. they are, for example, seen as a system of "independent rationally self interested individuals" rather than, for example, dependent or social creatures. this is amazing to me.

while cultural feminists see this as reason to not seek to include women's rights as human rights, or even to question if women are "human" by this overtly male definition, i see this as all the more reason to seek inclusion. first, to assert that humans are "independent rationally self interested individuals" is nearly senseless. certainly this is a view that is popular in america, but the lone cowboy spirit in the USA in more an aberration to the rest of the world than a norm, isn't it? isn't this mad-cowboy disease something that we should be trying to change rather than just stepping away and attempting to ignore?

as the rest of the world slowly comes around to the nonsense of the "independent rationally self interested individuals" idea, isn't this something that feminists should be leaping at? a chance to fill the void and make some corrections? or is that just me being male?

i know i for one would like to see a more balanced world. how about we try finding some feminine systems of rights and laws? or better yet, can't we at least try a system that could steer a path between them both?

i don't know, maybe you can't teach an old male philosopher new tricks, but i am willing to try. is someone willing to teach?

Stan Winston

Stan Winston has left this world. he isn't somebody that most people knew something about. the news of the day wasn't replaced by stories about him on 24 hour news networks. thousands of people didn't do TV interviews about him that day. the president didn't mention him. many people have no idea who he is.

some do though. some might have caught a little about his death in the news. hollywood mentioned it. many there knew him.

he was the kind of person the geeky types might have known. he did things we respect.

what did he do? he brought aliens to life. he gave rise to the terminator. he helped dinosaurs walk the land. he gave vampires the power to frighten us.

Stan was a makeup/special effects/CGI wizard.

when i was still pretty young, i recall watching "Aliens" and "Terminator" and being scared outta my wits by the incredible effects. that was Stan.

Predators? he brought those to life too. Dinosaurs? them too.

T3, Ironman, Bigfish, Pearl Harbor. what he did best was mix together makeup work, animatronics, models, and CGI. he did a little of it all. that is why the stuff he did looked so good. it never depended on a single method, but used every possible tool in the box to make the effect look as real as possible.

he won an entire closet full of awards, including 4 oscars, by making things that couldn't possibly be real, exist on the screen.

i am geek, i admit it. when i heard that he had died, i actually knew the name without hearing the rest of the news blurb. my first thought was that without him, some of the scenes that snuck into my nightmares would never have happened.......

damn he was good. i am gonna miss his work.

critical thinking

there are two kinds of idiots in our climate

Part whatever in a series...

in what may have to be an on going theme, i post another comment on critical thinking...



that is not a great picture. i mean it is ok, but nothing special. i took it, and post it here for one reason only.....

imagine standing in front of this view. imagine that it is about 40 degrees. imagine that you have just learned that the weather is so cold and the growing season so short that the trees in the distance stand only 3 feet tall, even though they are 400 years old. imagine that you just learned that 3 glaciers feed into the lakes in this valley. imagine that all you can smell is pine, and the ice floating on the water. you can actually Smell the ice....

now imagine that you stepped into the edge of the lake, in about 8 inches of water, in sandals, and then turned and yelled at the tour guide who told you all of the above information, "You didn't warn me that it is cold water!"

cause about 4 seconds before i took that picture, that is what i watched a woman do.

it boggles the mind.

the stupidity goes on

"“John McCain stood up to the President and sounded the alarm on global warming five years ago. Today, he has a realistic plan that will curb greenhouse gas emissions,” an announcer says in the ad. The 30-second spot also says that McCain’s plan “will help grow our economy and protect our environment.”"

As mentioned below, the "realistic plan" includes drilling for less than a years worth of oil that we won't see for 17 years. By destroying ANWR.

I missed the realistic part. And the protecting the environment part. And the part where giving more cash to the already loaded oil companies is an economy grower. And the part where that cuts emissions.

OK, not one word of the plan actually relates to one word of the claims. Except as an antonym.

McCain, not just fail, Epic Fail.

how do these people walk and chew gum at the same time?

there are two kinds of fools in our government

Part whatever in a series...

John McCain, today:

""We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production,” McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, will say at a Houston speech late Tuesday afternoon, according to advance excerpts released by his campaign. “And I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use.""

So lets do some math...

1. America currently uses 22 billion barrels a year.

2. McCain, is wrong (or lying, he is a republican after all) about the figure. 21 billion was 2 years ago. It hasn't stayed at that amount, and it isn't growing. The current estimate is 18.

Even if he was right, and we could get at all of it, (which we can't, and not because of a moratorium) that is a whole year of oil. Less actually.

So Mr. Straight talk, what do we do for 2010?

Naturally that is an oversimplification. First of all, we can't get it all. Some is simply not accessible by modern technology. And the stuff we can get too? Well it will take about 17 years to get a meaningful amount to market. Won't that be helpful? If it is going to take 17 years anyway, why not use that time and money to develop alternative energy?

And when it does get to the market, it will make a huge difference. In fact the department of energy estimates that if the current price holds until then, that drilling will drop the price 50 whole cents! Go wild! Buy an SUV! Buy 2! Buy a Hummer!

But then that is assuming that the oil companies pass the savings on to us.

....you know, those companies that just posted record profits even though they are getting record size tax breaks?

Yeah, I bet they slash prices to the bone......

a lack of critical thinking

there are two kinds of denial in our climate

Part whatever in a series...

I am sitting an airport, waiting to board, and listening to a man explain that global warming is all a lie, because, "when you see chunks fall off those glaciers? That has been happening for like, 75, or even 100 years!"

Actually, make that hundreds of thousands of years. And it is called sluffing or calving. And it has less than nothing to do with warming, or cooling, or ice growth, or loss. It has to do with the fact that the glacier is leaving a stable land area and over hanging the water. At that point the weight of the ice overcomes the strength of it, and pieces fall off.

It is hard to prove any fact to man that has an interest in not believing a fact. But the fact remains.

the enemy as the 'other'

there are two kinds of characters in our story

Part whatever in a series...

a woman came up to me and said "I'd like to change your mind, with wrong ideas that appeal to you though I am not unkind"
They Might Be Giants

There is a quote about how your enemy is not the bad guy of the story is his or her own mind. We are a story telling creature. We love our lives as a narrative. We are each, in our minds, the hero or heroine of a special tale that takes us to be the center of the story. The center of the universe. And that exactly how the "villian" of our own story sees themselves. As the hero...

I have been involved in a discussion group about global warming the last few weeks. The people in it are pretty good about not demonizing people who think that climate change is just a load of shit. Not everyone is like that. It is easy to see those who disagree with as deluded, idiots, fools. But they are the Hero in their own story. And we are often the villian.

It is harder to see people like oil executives as not being the villian. That is why I keep thinking of the first line of the above song...

What is the villian in any story, except a potential hero that accepted an appealing, yet wrong, idea as truth? Doesn't even the hero sometimes accept mistaken beliefs that have an appeal at the time? So what is evil exactly? Is there any evil that cannot be explained this way?

But why should we accept such an explination. An explination that humanizes our "enemies" and leaves us all a mistake away from being "evil" ourselves.....

Those who battle monsters...

Blogging by phone

I actually have nothing to say, I just wondered if I could blog by iPhone. If this works, then the answer is yes.

That sounds like a "if you can read this" type of note.

"If you can read this I have been captured by two kids who claim to be mine. They are holding hostage and forcing me to pick them up from school!"

If you told me abouting blogging, and that one day I would post from a phone, way back 26 years ago when I first used a computer, what would I have thought......

blogging, i just don't do it

Look i know this is likely pretty obvious to the 3 people who might read it, what with the 3 month gap between posts and all, but i am struggling with this whole blogging idea.....

this is where the generation gap hits for me.

just writing that seems odd. i was the administrator to a computer network for about 6 years, i ran an irc network for several years. i have a laptop, 2 desktops, 2 iphones and 2 other ipods in the house. i have an AppleTV. i have built over 2 thousand computers myself, by hand, from the ground up. i remember using BBS. i used the first version of netscape. hell i paid for it! most people who would read a blog didn't even know there was a time browsers weren't free.....

but. i. just. don't. blog.

i have two blogs. but damn it it is a habit that i have just not been able to get into.

anyway, i bring all that up in order to post a single link.

this one.

that is the blog of my little brothers SO. and that post is about a car accident. my car accident.

....of which i sent pictures to her, so that she could blog it. cause i am just too damn lazy. i guess.

anyway, she does a nice job with it. and she saved me having to write it.

....so that i could instead write about how i don't ever write.

seriously, that is all you really need to know about me...

the nuclear option, part II

Lets imagine that the issues i covered in part I are simply either wrong,or immaterial. Are there further objections to the nuclear option?

Water is a resource that has long been taken for granted in some parts of the world, but is more and more becoming an issue as increasing populations and food growth pressures bring water usage policies to the fore. Here in the mountain west, it is not at all uncommon to be restricted in water usage. The southeast US is experiencing an exceptionally harsh drought this year. water is quickly become a serious concern, and climate change will only exacerbate the problem.

So we need nuclear power to stop climate change and help relieve water issues, right?

Here is a little fact from Georgia, a state currently hit rather hard by drought: "the (four) Nuclear power plants in Georgia require huge amounts of water, consuming tens of millions of gallons of water per day."

So we should change the warming earth problem for a lack of water problem?

Interestingly, in looking for information on this problem, the primary response from pro-nuclear writers is that nuclear plants can easily operate in drought conditions. Or the even more disturbing "there is no technical reason preventing future plants from being built to minimize water usage." Thats nice. i am glad there is no technical reason...

the issue, to me at least, is not "will the plant still be able to make energy while people are unable to get water for drinking or cleaning," but rather the whole "unable to get water for drinking or cleaning." i am sure that is rather picky of me, but i rate drinking above electricity. i know which one i can live longer without.

yes, before anyone asks, i am well aware the fact that we are not in such desperate straights that we can not get water to drink. Yet. And yes, i also know that other electrical generation methods need water. But the fact that we are not yet looking to trade drinking water for power does not mean that we should proceed as if that is not a future concern. short sighted solutions are how we got into the state we are in now. such solutions are not going to correct the problem as much as they will create new problems.

But lets even forget the question of water usage. Lets assume that perhaps some other cooling method (not sodium, that has proven disastrous) is usable, or perhaps that plants can be situated in such a way that water usage is not an issue. Lets take that concern and put it with the misleading "carbon free" claim and the "waste lasting longer than the human race" issue, and lets assume that they don't matter.

There is still a question of centralized vs decentralized power generation. Centralized power generation, in the form of nuclear, coal, gas, or even many solar, wave and wind plants, is simply less efficient. Generating power hundreds or thousands of miles from where it is going to be used is as intelligent as living on a farm, and raising your own wheat, but selling that wheat and then shipping in bread from the other side of the world.

Power that is generated by any method and then transfered over mile after mile of line is simply inefficient. The line loss, or amount of energy lost as power is sent long distances only increases with nuclear due to what the comedian George Carlin calls the NIMBY effect. "Nuclear power? Yeah i think we need more plants! But Not In My Back Yard!"

Centralized power is simply a bad choice in many respects. The University of Minnesota reported in September, 2006, on the economic advantages of community (decentralized) vs corporate (centralized) ownership of wind farms. Community owned projects provided benefits over corporate owned with a 16% increase in output, 42% increase in wages and 25% higher increase in local jobs. Local business revenues were 53% higher and tax revenues 8% higher than the corporate owned farms in the comparison.

Naturally there is no similar study on nuclear power, since the prohibitive price, technology, and risk of nuclear plants prevents decentralization. They are safe on that score. Even without the NIMBY effect, only a huge power company,with government help, can manage to built one of these massive and expensive plants. The cost of nuclear energy makes it the second most expensive power option, according to the University of Chicago. And that is once the plant is in production. The fact that the nuclear industry is given, year after year, R&D reimbursement, operational subsidies, construction subsidies, etc, etc, etc, never seems to be noticed. If you take away the taxpayer funding, nuclear is the single most expensive power generation in the history of mankind. We have spent, in the United States alone, we have well over half a trillion dollars into this industry. If your power bill reflected the tax dollars you have given to nuclear already, and further broke down the cost of electricity by how it was generated, people would be marching on Washington demanding that the remaining plants in operation be put out of commission, rather than asking for new plants to be built.

According to the Nuclear Energy Information Service, "Since 1950, nuclear power has received over $97,000,000,000 in direct and indirect subsidies from the federal government, such as deferred taxes, artificially low limits on liability in case of nuclear accidents, and fuel fabrication write-offs. No other industry has enjoyed such privilege." That is more than 30 times the amount that all alternative energy generations have received. Ever. Combined.

What could solar power be like today if that level of funding had been sunk into it? Or wind? Or tide generation? We may never know.

Finally, I started my questioning of the nuclear option with the statement that nuclear is being portrayed as a "green" energy solution. The argument is that climate change is now such a threat that we should, or even must, embrace nuclear energy as a way to save mankind. But even if all of the factors i have considered so far where not true, there is a final issue to address. Time. Nuclear plants are a huge under taking, and even beyond the price, risk, and long term solution, there is the simple fact that it would take several decades (as well as money and resourses we don't currently have) to build enough nuclear plants to make a difference in greenhouse gases. And most experts agree we simply do not have decades.

We can cut our energy use now. Immediately. By some estimates between 30 and 45% of the energy generated in the US is wasted. Replacing a few light bulbs or turning down the heat while you are away is actually be better for the environment than nuclear energy....

....and we can think of the lack of nuclear waste and things like that as little side benefit.

the nuclear option

There is a growing belief that nuclear is a green energy. i am, frankly, totally baffled by this. Not only is it an odd choice from an environmental perspective, but from an ethic perspective as well. I not only can't see how nuclear is assumed to be a possible choice, I fail to even see how it has benefits...

The carbon assumption
As author and environmentalist Bill McKibbean says in answer to the 'why nuclear' question, "because it is low carbon- and that is the only reason." Nuclear energy is being pushed by many as a green energy because of its assumed low carbon foot print. There is just one little problem with the nuclear carbon foot print. It isn't all that small. Nuclear creates a carbon foot print in mining, milling, enrichment, fuel rod assembly, plant operation, maintenance, temporary storage, reprocessing, and long-term storage. That is a lot of places to slip in some carbon exhaust in a "carbon free" energy source. And none of them are small.

Pretty much all energy production methods are going to require mining, but nuclear energy actually requires constant mining to supply it with uranium for reactions. And since uranium is low volume, and low concentration in its appearances in the earths crust, it tends to be mined in massive open pit mines. Or sometimes it is produced from a process known as heap leeching, which produces massive piles of low radiation tailings. Something you just love to have sitting around, a pile of radioactive dirt. And that wonderful by-product is created by burning massive amounts of fossil fuels to power the machinery used to create the open pit disaster that we leave behind. Since i live not far from the largest open pit disaster..... umm, mine in the world, i can tell you, they are great to have around. If huge hole of environmental destruction that is visible from space, and a pile of radio active dirt sound less than "green" to you, well, you just haven't been listening to the nuclear industry.

Naturally after the earth is ripped up, we have to create the fuel rods, burning still more dead dinosaurs, reprocess it to be enriched, (guess what, that takes energy too) then assembled, etc, etc.

Even if we discount the massive amount of energy burned in the building process, nuclear is a far cry from carbon free. But lets assume, as many studies do, that it is still more carbon friendly than, say, coal fire plants. That hardly seems to be a tough claim to defend. So isn't nuclear a real possibility?

Carbon and Environmentalism

The problem is that over the last few years carbon has become the representation of fear among environmental groups. Now i am not one these payed flacks by the "burn more dead dinos" companies that have fought even discussing the possibility of global warming being discussed, and i am not about to say that CO2 is good for you, but I am afraid that some of us have forgotten that there are other issues in the world.

Back up this post a few lines i mentioned the open pits and the radio active tailing piles, recall those? Many people would argue that those things are also environmental issues. If we trade CO2 for open pits and piles of U-238, will we be gaining ground?

The United States DOE has stated that America has "thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel and material" and also "huge quantities of contaminated soil and water" right now. Today. Some of the radioisotopes that come out of a nuclear reactor as waste will be radioactive for literally millions of years. 4000 thousand years ago, egyptians where building pyramids. 30,000 years ago humans were painting on cave walls. 300,000 years ago, the first modern humans evolved. One million years ago their ancestors left the very first signs of tool using "hominins" inside the borders of modern china. That is the kind of time scale we are dealing with when we talk about nuclear waste.

Seven generation sustainability, the idea that decisions should be considered for their impact on the seventh generation to come, inspired by the laws of the Iroquois, is sometimes mentioned in environmentalist circles. Figuring out how many generations we impact by leaving million year waste is an exercise left to the math inclined reader......