You really don't know your history if you think that WWII happened because "the world didn't have the balls to stop German and Japanese aggression when it would have been easy". WWI was still fresh in the minds of the people, the great depression was in full swing, Germany was not aggressive, Japan was still (for the most part) keeping to its self.
The obvious counter is that Germany was aggressive (both with a vast military buildup and multiple invasions and forced annexations before the Second World War officially began) and Japan was not keeping to itself (such as their invasions of Korea and China and their well-telegraphed war with the US and the UK).
And a military push by France in 1936 to reverse the remilitarization of the Rhine, would have been pretty easy. But having said that, it would be easy to underestimate Nazi Germany in 1936. They had over the course of a few years rebuilt a world-class military from the stunted post-Versailles remnants. I believe the Second World War would have been easy to prevent in 1936 or 1937, but I also believe that it wasn't that clear what course to take.
Still when one looks at the bizarre things that France did, such as building a vast and expensive defensive network of fortresses (the Maginot line), but not actually defending against the invasion path taken in the previous war (and which Nazi Germany used again), it's painfully clear that they weren't making good decisions even given the uncertainty of the times.
Now, though, I'd say that the people who will use the opportunity will be the ones like Strelkov and Borodai
And do what? They have no power base outside of the Ukraine. And a few thousand "battle-hardened fighters" won't make much of a difference politically or militarily.
I'd look rather at the people surrounding Putin or domestic unrest.
Self defense is not "in anger."
Actually, it is a case of "in anger". The term has nothing to do with anyone's emotional state or any particular defense/offense scenario under which they might find themselves. "Used in anger" with respect to a weapon means that the weapon is being used as designed with intent to kill someone.
Power consumption is proportional to usage, plus a constant.
But that is the case whether one downloads the music or buys a SD. The latter requires actual movement of physical objects, which I think is more costly relatively speaking.
I see when I googled, an estimate for "large" "loss of coolant accidents" around 5*10^-6 per year per plant. That sounds like your number. It's worth noting that the accident category in question hasn't happened yet since they're speaking of loss of coolant from pipe corrosion and mechanical failure in a plant with proper maintenance and the following of procedures, not the many other sorts of loss of coolant accidents that can happen to a nuclear plant (such as the real world examples caused by earthquakes, incompetence, and poor maintenance).
This has nothing to do with "nuclear FUD websites". This is just rudimentary statistics.
It really harms the credibility of the NRC when their risk calculation come to a accident every ten thousand years while the real world rate is one every 18 years.
while the real world rate is one every 18 years
Over 400+ nuclear reactors in the world.