[cambalache]

We already have something 10000000X worse: Nuclear Weapons, that cat is out of the bag. So either we dismantle all nuclear arsenals in the world or we stop giving the "potential socio-political inestability"as a reason to not building more nuclear plants.

You are stopping the butcher to use big knives for fear he may go insane in the future and kill some customers with them, when millions of weapons are highly available.

[eeZah7Ux]

> that cat is out of the bag

Not at all, this is a logical fallacy.

A small fraction of countries have nuclear weapons and yet they still engage in conventional warfare because they really don't want to trigger a nuclear holocaust.

On top of that, terrorist organizations, guerrilla fighters, criminal organization and so on never managed to launch an ICBM.

[cambalache]

> Not at all, this is a logical fallacy.

I dont think you understand what a logical fallacy is. The number of nuclear weapons in the world is in the 5 figures order, that is fact. Nuclear weapons are a fact.

> and yet they still engage in conventional warfare because they really don't want to trigger a nuclear holocaust.

Most experts assessed the chance of a nuclear war during the Cuban missiles crisis at 1/3. Maybe that is a number you feel comfortable with, I dont. In +70 years of nuclear plants the 3 "big" accidents (3 Miles Island,Chernobyl, Fukushima) are nothing compared with that.

> On top of that, terrorist organizations, guerrilla fighters, criminal organization and so on never managed to launch an ICBM.

And never managed to sabotage a nuclear installation and cause an accident so your point is moot.