That would be a biological rather than a chemical weapon if weaponized.

To be fair, these people make good money going that through very specific crowd on Patreon. It's their business model.

That is why they are called "professional victims".

1. Because even with cheap electricity prices, they are still very profitable. This is really not that hard to comprehend. Lower operating costs per unit of electricity produced = more profit.

2. Except that it's not "French tax payers" but "Areva". And Areva is in fact a multinational corporation, not a French government subsidiary even though approximately 90% of ownership is in French state's hands.
Their main problems right now are German decision to phase out nuclear power, reduction of nuclear design and building contracts due to Fukushima accident as well as Olkiluoto 3 problems. This has caused French government to increase capitalisation of the company.

The obvious angle here is aggression towards one another, not aggression towards other species.

To be fair, it almost did survive it. Other reactors at Fukushima in fact did survive it.

Too many factual mistakes on which your house of cards is built make it difficult to argue on merits. Examples range from "permanent unemployed underclass in Germany" (Germany is close to full employment with exceptionally easy ways to get training and a part time job) to "homogenous cultures in Nordics" (have you ever actually looked at demographics in Sweden?)

I'll just finish off with the simple statement that when someone says "just you see, in twenty or so years it will be different because I say so", that usually means "I have no evidence to show why the outcome I suggest is the realistic outcome, so I put it far enough into the future that any outcome can be judged as possible".

Examples of these arguments were claims that world will end in nuclear conflagration in 20 years back in the 60s, that Russia would be fully integrated into West in 1990s and other similar brain farts. In real world on the other hand...

First of all, I'm not at all saying that "US should change its culture". As any advanced culture you should adapt slowly with times, and absolutely not aim to "change the culture" other than for self-betterment. All I'm saying is that you should cease pretentious bullshit about how your culture is "superior" when it's obviously superior in some areas - and drastically inferior in others. And generally unfit to most of the world because of its specific focus on selfishness, which is currently heavily taxing your society to the extreme such as general ungovernability due to pandering to special interests (see - selfishness) and inability to compromise (see - winner takes it all opposition style system over consensus).

On unemployment benefits in Europe - they are small because high taxes pay for most necessities through making them free or extremely cheap. That is, universal healthcare, free education, functional subsidised infrastructure and so on. US model is essentially "pay more and subsidise little". Nordic model is "pay less and subsidise a lot". Back when I was a student on state aid for about a year I had about 100EUR after paying for bare necessities like rent and food. But I never had to be afraid of getting sick, my education was basically free, food at university was heavily subsidised, sports activities were all but free, and so on. At the same time a US student has to take heavy loans just to pay his tuition in a high quality university, or have his family assist him. Or will have to work during his studies, unable to focus on studies alone. Same thing for unemployment benefits (which are notably low in Germany because Germany is currently a de facto full employment economy and most benefits are now in process of being moved to low income part time workers instead).

Overall, your entire argument is that of a supremacist. "We are superior, others are inferior, they should just adapt our superior system over their inferior one". You're in a good company that way. Historically, most of the worst tyrannies adopted just that particular attitude. This is a sign if inferiority complex, rather than any kind of superiority.

Now for the most ridiculous part of all. "Horrendous social, cultural and economic structures Japanese live under"? Has it ever occurred to you that to them, their lives are a norm and US social, cultural and economic structures seem horrendous? Which would be because different cultures create different expectations in people, alongside different reactions to exactly same situations. What you view as "horrendous", many of those who grew in the culture view as "great" and what you view as "great" many view as "horrendous". For example, must of current European opposition to TTIP is rooted in the fact that the deal would likely force us to relax some of the state structures related to universal healthcare and allow US style profiteering on suffering of others. Because in US the social norm is that open profiteering from suffering of those poorer is completely acceptable and even encouraged: see opposition to universal healthcare "but what if my money goes to take care of someone who I don't care about". In most of Europe it's viewed as horrendous and downright monstrous and paying taxes to help those less fortunate is viewed as a civic duty and insurance for oneself in case one ends up among those less fortunate.

Just one of many massive cultural differences that show particular inferiority of US culture's way of doing things. At the same time, one should also note the superiority in other things - such as for example being better at motivating entrepreneurship, being far more tolerant of failures (in much of Europe and Japan for example, starting a company and failing is considered a black mark on one's reputation which reduces motivation of potential entrepreneurs.) It's also notably less ethnocentric and as a result notably less inherently racist (Japan is especially bad here), tends to allow for significantly greater personal freedom in certain areas and so on.

Conclusion: one should not argue about "supremacy" of any given culture. The only thing that can judge that is history

P.S. FYI I'm a Finn (thanks for the lecture on terribleness of my culture and country in one sentence) and I'm very well travelled and knowledgeable on various cultures from my work with exchange students from six continents over the years.

There is no "hijack". "Western" is an accurate descriptor often used in anthropology for societies with specific set of values sourced from Western Europe. "Westernization" is the process of exporting these values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Other distinctly Western countries located in the East of globe are Australia and New Zealand for example.

You'll have to explain this one. What does "high level agreement among people" mean? Being one of these people, I would be interested in knowing what agreement I made that I don't even know of.

Also, your angle is inherently built on a house of cards of cultural supremacy of anglo culture of winner takes it all style conflict over cooperation and consensus. Yet this aspect of culture is rejected by most of the world in spite of massive efforts, both in soft and hard power to export it world wide.

P.S. I may not be a genius, but at least I'm not completely two-dimensional in my knowledge of things:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Japan finished Westernization in 1950s and is considered a "hybrid Western state" that has significant Western cultural influences while retaining much of its native heritage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

This is a lie often peddled in states with this system.

There are several concrete counter-examples that prove it false, ranging from Nordic countries (which view consensus and cooperation as primary tools of both political and economic systems) as well as much bigger Japan which has more of a top down system but where bosses initially even committed honourable suicide when they had to let workers go because it was considered such a significant loss of face.

These systems exist on large scale. What they require however, is a culture that promotes selflessness rather than selfishness. In the Western countries, such culture exists in Japan and Nordics. And to a lesser extent in Germany and Scotland. All of these are functional states (with exception of Scotland) where people routinely vote for and say in polls that they are willing to pay more taxes so that those who are not viable humans can live a decent life.

I believe the biggest problem was identified as the fact that for Areva, this was actually the first project they managed on their own. Before that, another french state energy company did the top level management and coordination and Areva was more of an executor than manager.

Areva lacked know-how in this area, and that is where the biggest problem with the project lied.

Actually the price of electricity in Finland is among the lowest in Europe. This is one of the chief reasons how our system works. You see, we have a lot of traditionally extremely energy-intensive industry related to forestry (i.e. paper, carton and cellulose production), metalworks (both smelting and advanced machining such as shipbuilding) and so on. As a result, one of the primary goals of the entire country's energy policy is to ensure that electricity would be as cheap as possible.

This kind of forward planning is what allows for those record profits. Not electricity prices, that are very cheap in Finland by European standards to the point that it was one of the chief reasons why most of the heavy industry stays in the country, and why modern energy intensive industries like heavy datacenters (i.e. Google) find Finland so interesting for their European operations.

Some other things you should understand before arguing on the topic of "eating profits".
1. Loviisa site is owned by a different power company, Fortum. Olkiluoto is owned by TVO. The third planned nuclear plant site is by a third company, Fennovoima at Pyhäjoki.
2. Financing in modern world is done through credit rather than through running profits.
3. Areva has actually agreed to fixed price delivery. Which is why Areva has done huge write downs for the plant. Most of the losses related to Olkiluoto 3 that TVO, the company that runs Olkiluoto site come from having no ability to produce power as planned and having to source energy elsewhere. Luckily we have solid interconnects with Russia (mainly Sosnovy Bor nuclear plant), Estonia (Narva's shale rock plant) and Sweden (Hydro across northern Sweden) to pick up the slack when needed.
4. Nuclear industry is considered so profitable here in Finland that third site by a separate company is in advanced planned stages. Fennovoima has selected a Rosatom reactor for a Pyhäjoki site just recently. To give you an understanding of how far decision making is on this, our government had anti-nuclear Green party as one of the smaller parties within it, and it ended up resigning from government when other parties, including much of opposition parties voted to proceed with the granting of necessary permits.

Olkiluoto #3 is, as the name implies, the THIRD unit. Other two are the most profitable endeavours ever, after two units at Loviisa.

I can't find you the source right away, however this was a part of investigative story made by YLE, our state broadcaster. They were doing an analysis of profitability of investments, I believe as a part of their story on which of our traditional industries are competitive and which are not, and then they hit the fact that there were four extreme outliers in their statistics which were extremely profitable. Loviisa unit 1, Loviisa unit 2, Olkiluoto unit 1 and Olkiluoto unit 2.

Olkiluoto unit 3 is the experimental new reactor Areva was selected to build, and they failed at it. It's fairly obvious to even a casual observer that I could not have been talking about Olkiluoto unit 3 because it's not operating yet - as a result it can post no revenue.

I know that you think you're being a smartass, but you should really look up what the terms used actually mean, rather than what you think they mean.

Then you won't like like a dumbass to others.