sicetaitsimple wrote:Flytox wrote:The "top" of the invention of the century:
- more cooling problems (difficult to heat an ocean).
- no more waste problems (discreet evacuation and "infinite" spreading zone).
- ideal deterrent weapon (ho shit, the moorings have broken and the boat will play in the waters of neighboring countries). And re: Ho shit! the waste has gone overboard without the knowledge of their full sandstone ... and just next to this beautiful seaside resort ...)
- Nice, there are international waters to do anything with impunity
- Sure that it will please our irresponsible nuclocrats ... especially when it is managed by a highly demokratik country ...
- And this thing is not even classified as a weapon of war / mass destruction .... too much these popof.
The other solution in the corner where this platform will be deployed are large diesel engines.
I have no opinion on the relevance of this choice, but to denounce it on the simple fact that it is nuclear seems to me just a little short.
If boats equipped with large diesel engines of equivalent powers were not invented, it was that there was not much advantage to doing so but would have significantly increased the costs.
For my part what I find "a little short" is that you have not found a single valid argument to thwart mine. What is the use of increasing costs and risks more than significantly if not because it allows easy disposal of waste from the most "acceptable" to the most radioactive / dangerous and without control while acquiring a new mobile, uncontrolled nuclear weapon ....
These ships remind me of the deployment of ballistic missiles carrying nuclear charge in Cuba during the Cold War, in the sense that one can come and cram a bomb under the mustache of the adversary without knowing of his full sandstone. ... But in your mind, this nuclear "strategic" aspect, is it comparable to Diesel?
