Environment & Energy

I never hear antinukes opposing fossil fuels because of jet fuel and high explosives, nor about biofuels because of the nature of napalm.

I would note, not that antinukes give a rat's ass about the 7 million deaths from air pollution their rhetoric kills each year, that the path to nuclear weapons disarmament passes through commercial nuclear power.

I covered this on another website: On Plutonium, Nuclear War, or Nuclear Peace.

Weapons grade plutonium is not going to be destroyed by slogans and innuendo thrown around by people who wallow in specious associations. It will be managed by denaturation, the process of swords into essential ploughshares.

Which is responsible for more deaths throughout history, weapons fueled by nuclear materials or weapons fueled by fossil fuels?

Which has caused more wars, the need to access uranium or the need to access oil?

The only thing weaker than the minds of antinukes is their ethics.