Community Votes to Deny Water to Nuclear Weapons Data Center (404media.co) 106
A Michigan township has voted to impose a one-year moratorium on providing water to hyperscale data centers, a move aimed at delaying a planned facility that would support Los Alamos National Laboratory's nuclear weapons research. The moratorium may not be enough to stop the project, however: "the University and LANL plan to break ground on the data center on Monday," reports 404 Media. From the report: The proposed data center in the Ypsilanti Township's Hydro Park has been a sore spot for the community since its proposal. The $1.2 billion 220,000 square foot facility would be used by Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL) some 1,500 miles away for nuclear weapons research. In February, UofM's Steven Ceccio told the University of Michigan Record that the facility would consume 500,000 gallons of water per day and that the University planned to buy it from the Ypsilanti Community Utilities Authority. (YCUA)
The YCUA has spent the past month lobbying for a moratorium on providing water and sewer access to hyperscale data centers and "artificial intelligence computing facilities," according to notes on a presentation stored on the organization's website. The moratorium would include LANL's data center. The YCUA cited an American Water Works Association white paper about data center water demands and concluded it needed more time to investigate the matter. "Hyper-scale data centers, as well as other mid-sized data centers, artificial intelligence computing facilities, and high-performance computational centers are 'high-impact customers' for water and sewer utilities," YCUA said in its presentation.
The moratorium places a 12-month stop on serving water to data centers while the YCUA conducts a long-term water supply analysis and looks into the environmental sustainability studies. "During the 12-month moratorium period, the Authority will refrain from executing any capacity reservation agreement." This is a delay tactic on the part of a Township that does not want to see the data center constructed. Many in the community have strong feelings about the use of parkland for a facility that researchers nuclear weapons. Beyond the moral and ethical concerns, some are worried about becoming targets in a war. Last month, Township attorney Douglas Winters told the Board of Trustees that building hosting the data center would make Ypsilanti Township a "high value target." He pointed to the recent bombing of Gulf Coast data centers by Iran as evidence.
The YCUA has spent the past month lobbying for a moratorium on providing water and sewer access to hyperscale data centers and "artificial intelligence computing facilities," according to notes on a presentation stored on the organization's website. The moratorium would include LANL's data center. The YCUA cited an American Water Works Association white paper about data center water demands and concluded it needed more time to investigate the matter. "Hyper-scale data centers, as well as other mid-sized data centers, artificial intelligence computing facilities, and high-performance computational centers are 'high-impact customers' for water and sewer utilities," YCUA said in its presentation.
The moratorium places a 12-month stop on serving water to data centers while the YCUA conducts a long-term water supply analysis and looks into the environmental sustainability studies. "During the 12-month moratorium period, the Authority will refrain from executing any capacity reservation agreement." This is a delay tactic on the part of a Township that does not want to see the data center constructed. Many in the community have strong feelings about the use of parkland for a facility that researchers nuclear weapons. Beyond the moral and ethical concerns, some are worried about becoming targets in a war. Last month, Township attorney Douglas Winters told the Board of Trustees that building hosting the data center would make Ypsilanti Township a "high value target." He pointed to the recent bombing of Gulf Coast data centers by Iran as evidence.
liquid-immersion cooling with radiators (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:liquid-immersion cooling with radiators (Score:5, Insightful)
Evaporative chillers are not necessary to cool a data center, certainly not in Michigan. We chill data centers in Arizona with no water usage at all. The data center designers / owners are just being cheap. Sure, if you can get the local municipality to give you water you can use that to lower your costs and increase your efficiency. But it's not necessary. All our data centers use 100% renewable power (if not available then we purchase credits), and we cool with air chillers, and despite these additional costs we're certainly not going bankrupt or being left with unsold capacity.
It's (as always) about the money. The fact that they are going ahead with the project anyway tells me that they will just switch to air chillers.
To directly respond to your comment (which is spot-on), a new facility being stood up for LANL is likely to be direct-to-chip liquid cooling. Generally we don't do full immersion because of the costs and complexity (a modern AI 52U rack is pushing 5000lbs now and fully immersing it will put additional structural strain on the slab floor), but the technology to distribute chilled water from the facility through CDUs (coolant distribution units) to manifolds in the racks and then directly to the chips needing to be cooled is finally getting mature.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't seem to be a huge problem. Mark the used water as "Non-potable, irrigation use only" and sell it at a discount to farmers for irrigation use. By the time the water gets to the fields it will be cool enough for irrigation use.
Re: (Score:2)
[insert joke about Luke and moisture vaporators here]
Nice data center ya got there! (Score:3)
Shame if sump'n 'unexpected' was to happen to the water supply...
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have the power-dynamic all backwards.
Re: (Score:3)
Los Alamos National Laboratory is a federal research facility, not just a "buisiness." This effectively is a fight between two branches of government, one federal, the other municipal. The latter can hardly be cast as a mobster with the kind of clout the OP infers.
But who knows? David just might defeat Goliath. I'll make the popcorn.
Re: Nice data center ya got there! (Score:2)
ICE as deployed by Trump is a terrible example here, because only a few at every level of government liked them *and* their legal status is very dubious. Of course, the rule of law is excruciatingly imperiled atm so maybe that doesnâ(TM)t matter.
But if it has a mind to, legally at least, the Fed can do just about damn near whatever it wants except take rich peopleâ(TM)s property.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Eh, these people are not nearly conservative enough to get away with something like that. Liberal messes with the water... eco terrorism that must be stopped at all costs! Conservative blows up a dam.. 'look at what those eco radical democrats have driven good patriotic americans to do!'
Re: Nice data center ya got there! (Score:1)
They're grasping. (Score:5, Insightful)
And then we get this: " Last month, Township attorney Douglas Winters told the Board of Trustees that building hosting the data center would make Ypsilanti Township a "high value target." He pointed to the recent bombing of Gulf Coast data centers by Iran as evidence. "
They're grasping.
Re:They're grasping. (Score:5, Interesting)
There isn't a shortage of water in Michigan.
They're grasping.
Good.
These datacenters are driving up electricity and water prices by increasing demand, regardless of there is currently sufficient supply to meet that demand. A community may have enough generation capacity and treatment capacity today, but when tomorrow's development of X new homes happens, the capacity either comes from today's excess or from having to add more capacity... which costs.
Datacenters don't contribute to communities financially the way home or even factories do. There are virtually no jobs, and definitely no secondary jobs. They negotiate bulk purchasing discounts and tax breaks.
The quantity of datacenters is just going to go up, dramatically over time. We need to figure out how to make their owners pay for what they really consume where they're built before there's an order of magnitude more of them.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Datacenters don't contribute to communities financially the way home or even factories do.
Uh, private datacenters pay a WHOLE LOT OF TAXES relative to the load they place on the local schools, hospitals, police/fire/first responders and roadways.
In this very particular case, being a federal facility, the numbers are different, but your comment was more general than just this one facility...
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Uh, private datacenters pay a WHOLE LOT OF TAXES relative to the load they place on the local schools, hospitals, police/fire/first responders and roadways.
In this very particular case, being a federal facility, the numbers are different, but your comment was more general than just this one facility...
They don't generate revenue, what is there to tax? In almost all cases big corporations get tax breaks. https://ryan.com/about-ryan/ne... [ryan.com]
Re: (Score:1)
They don't generate revenue
Are you serious? Regarding Private Datacenters (Think AWS or Azure, etc.) They build a multi-million dollar building, stuff it full of tens of millions of dollars of equipment (servers), and they do all this as a non-profit entity? That's what you think?
Here's a thought - perhaps they spend tens of millions of dollars to generate hundreds of millions of dollars, and they then pay income taxes on the spread between those two numbers, less operating expenses (salaries, electricity, water, etc)
FFS, you really
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They're grasping. (Score:4, Insightful)
They just buy a ton of power per month at wholesale (lower than we pay).
Same thing with water... and before they run the water through all the cooling lines, they add a bunch of chemicals to it so that all those water lines don't corrode and to minimize scale and all that from jamming up the whole works. And, once that amount of water has been used up, just dump it out which requires water treatment super-clean the water before even releasing it into the environment or city's water supply.
Re: They're grasping. (Score:2)
Wholesale does not mean below cost, it's a volume discount, esp if it is a consistent draw on the grid, not a wildly-dynamic load...
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, you are right on that one.
But, either way, they still pay for a huge amount of power at lower prices than we pay (most likely buy more than they'll need, so that excess they paid in for is there as credit for the next billing cycle, so they can get away with paying even less)... or, just do the volume discount transaction at the lowest price time to lock-in that price.
Same with the water they use... buy it when the price is low, drain all the cities water towers overnight.
Re: They're grasping. (Score:2)
Your link - https://ryan.com/about-ryan/ne... [ryan.com]
Is about tax deductions on datacenter equipment, not the profits generated on the revenue less operating costs, AKA 'profits' or 'income'.
Re: (Score:1)
Workers? These places employ a skeleton crew to change out hardware when it breaks. I doubt the payroll exceeds a dozen.
Re: (Score:2)
Workers? These places employ a skeleton crew to change out hardware when it breaks. I doubt the payroll exceeds a dozen.
Who said anything about "workers" being a significant contributor to the local economy?
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't a shortage of water in Michigan.
They're grasping.
Good.
These datacenters are driving up electricity and water prices by increasing demand, regardless of there is currently sufficient supply to meet that demand. A community may have enough generation capacity and treatment capacity today, but when tomorrow's development of X new homes happens, the capacity either comes from today's excess or from having to add more capacity... which costs.
To put numbers to this issue [umich.edu] but not necessarily settling the question: "And the authority has ample capacity. At our eventual highest operating level, we could potentially draw 500,000 gallons of water per day. The water utility currently has an excess supply of 8 million to 10 million gallons per day. So the utility actually has way more capacity than it can actually sell to their customers right now.”
Re: (Score:2)
Wow how could we have ever predicted that privatization of water and electricity would lead to producers raising prices rather than building out additional capacity.
Re: (Score:1)
There isn't a shortage of water in Michigan.
And then we get this: " Last month, Township attorney Douglas Winters told the Board of Trustees that building hosting the data center would make Ypsilanti Township a "high value target." He pointed to the recent bombing of Gulf Coast data centers by Iran as evidence. "
They're grasping.
Exactly - The Gulf Coast data centers that were bombed [apnews.com] were in the middle east - are they really concerned that Iran will attack the data center in Michigan? Or are they afraid it will be a target when Canada finally decided to bite the hand that feeds them and launch an all-out assault on the US?
They are grasping for reasons to oppose the datacenter.
Its a quarter million square feet facility, it really isn't that big - they are talking about a facility in Utah that will have up to 2 million square feet of [ksl.com]
Re: (Score:2)
when Canada finally decided to bite the hand that feeds them and launch an all-out assault on the US?
You really have no capacity for introspection. Gee, I can't understand why Canada is being economically hostile to the USA. Could it be threats of annexation and being called the 51st state? Oh he really didn't mean those things? Then why did he say them?
If Canada wanted to be shitty they would shut off the supply of potash. https://www.rbc.com/en/thought... [rbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"Lighten-up Francis" [youtube.com]
I didn't ask why Canada is being economically hostile to America, I tried to understand how a datacenter in Michigan would become a high-value military target - who would invade the US and go after such a "high value" target? I speculated Canada because of it's proximity, but I guess you could add Mexico to the list, i don't know.
Could it be threats of annexation and being called the 51st state? Oh he really didn't mean those things? Then why did he say them?
It's called humor? It's called "getting a rise out of your opponent" (when negotiating)...
As I recall, the angst between Canada and US recently started because
Re: (Score:2)
Could it be threats of annexation and being called the 51st state? Oh he really didn't mean those things? Then why did he say them?
It's called humor? It's called "getting a rise out of your opponent" (when negotiating)...
Canadians aren't laughing. Neither are people in the USA who work in the industries Canadians are boycotting: US tourist destinations, Kentucky bourbon, and other things from or in the USA. All of those industries are hurting from Canadians not getting the "joke."
Re: (Score:2)
As I recall, the angst between Canada and US recently started because Trump wanted to tariff steel & aluminum - Canadians thought it was an attack by their closest trading partner ...
No. A thousand time NO!. We're made of stronger stuff than that, and we negotiated through and shrugged off similar threats during the first CUSMA negotiations. Your mainstream media and your government are gaslighting you - find better sources.
The thing - THE thing - that pissed us off so heartily was Trump's 51st state rhetoric, along with calling our Prime Minister "Governor". That is the PRIMARY reason why Canadians started staying away in droves and boycotting US products in the grocery stores.
A second
Re: (Score:2)
This. I meant to respond to that part of kenh's post. Couldn't have done it better.
Tariffs are intended to protect domestic industries from unfair foreign competition. kenh might understand that, but misses the point: POTUS is using them to effect foreign policy.
And then kenh said this:
And when Canada started puffing up it's chest and pushing back against America, that just made it more humorous.
I'm sorely tempted to respond with some words I rarely post on this site, but I'll pass. The sheer arrogance in kenh's words are breathtaking. American exceptionalism combined with more mocking of "widdle Canada" fighting bac
Re: They're grasping. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Or are they afraid it will be a target when Canada finally decided to bite the hand that feeds them
The USA has a trade deficit with Canada. But if you exclude oil purchased from Canada, it becomes a trade surplus.
Fun fact: the USA imports more oil, by far, from Canada than from any other country. The USA is a net exporter of petroleum products, but a net importer of the heavy, sour crude its refineries are set up to process. The USA exports the light, sweet crude that most of its refineries can't process.
So, who is feeding whom?
Re: (Score:2)
The USA is a net exporter of petroleum products, but a net importer of the heavy, sour crude its refineries are set up to process. The USA exports the light, sweet crude that most of its refineries can't process.
So, who is feeding whom?
So what I see is we are a couple domestic refineries that can handle domestic light, sweet crude away from not needing to import heavy, sour crude from Canada...
Interesting. Why don't we build sufficient and proper refineries to refine all our domestic crude? Let Canada sell it's oil on the open market?
Re: (Score:2)
So the issue is we lack proper refineries to process our own domestic crude oil - if only there was a way to fix that...
Re: (Score:2)
If you build the refinery here, now you've gotta hire a bunch of people, have to pay them, have to do all the labor union stuff (breaks, lunch, vacation, PTO, 401K, stock options, insurance)... so they don't make as much money from refining as they expected.
But, fear young Padawan... here comes everyone's best friend, AI to replace all the human workers! And, then... we'll bring back manufacturing and staff the factory with nothing but robots run by AI and computer vision.
Re: (Score:2)
... when Canada finally decided to bite the hand that feeds them
OK - so let's put an end to all trade between Canada and the US - including electricity, petroleum, minerals, aluminum, food, and softwood lumber - and see who lasts longer.
Several of your states are already bleeding and crying because of a mere grassroots consumer boycott on American products and a drastic reduction of tourist trips to the US. And we have lots of countries lining up to trade with us - many of them the same countries that are in the process of drastically reducing their reliance on trade wi
Re: They're grasping. (Score:2)
1) He is a detestful person who plays the line between truth and lies all the time (I didn't 'tell' them to attack the capital building) so that alone made it not funny, and
2) He has the power to do it eventually (though the trouble he is having with Iran makes me think otherwise), so that makes it not funny.
3) he is the president which is a serious job, not a comedian, so that makes it not funny.
4) threatening anyone is just not funny.
I mean, I have a
Re:States Rights! (Score:2)
Oh hey we're not cheering for states rights on this one?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this isn't even a state. This is a municipal water district. This is more like "cities rights!"...which often *should* be cheered. And perhaps should be cheered this time.
OTOH, NIMBY is a real problem sometimes. We still don't have a place to put spent nuclear fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
NIMBY is a problem, but is also a right that should be respected.
If I don't want a hog farm next door, i should be able to take it to the city council. If I don't want a nuclear waste processing plant nearby I should be able to take it to the local council. Same with a nightclub or a datacenter or a dispensary or a refinery. People should have the right to have their desires for their community represented by their local elected officials.
Sometimes those decisions turn out to be wrong, but the right to s
Drinkable water (Score:2)
. The issue isn't how much water there is, it's how much is drinkable and who pays to make it so
Re: (Score:2)
It does seem like a convoluted way to say: "No."
The local community should be able to say N.I.M.B.Y. if they want to. It should not be so difficult that they have to find complicated excuses to delay. If the people do not want it, let the local city council vote NO and leave it at that. It should be acceptable to say "We don't want your business here" (as long as you are not specifically violating the rights of a protected class.)
Recent bombings? (Score:2)
Ok...can anyone point to links of any sort of "Gulf Coast data center bombings"....at all much less linked to Iran?
Re: (Score:3)
Probably Persian Gulf
Re:Recent bombings? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes: AWS data centers in Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates were damaged in drone strikes last month. [cnbc.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't really give a fuck about those Middle East gulfs....they're getting bombed by someone all the time it seems....
Same bombs...different "hats" worn by the bombers.
Not especially newsworthy as that it's a common occurrence over there.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it's never happened before so that makes it pretty news worthy
Define "consume" (Score:2)
In February, UofM's Steven Ceccio told the University of Michigan Record that the facility would consume 500,000 gallons of water per day
OK, what does that mean "consume" - if the facility takes in 500,000 gallons of water a day, how much is returned to the sewage system? None? Most of it?
Re: Define "consume" (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sad Libs: Oh no, X industry is emitting carbon and consuming water in my hometown. Me, a scientist: Matter is neither created nor destroyed, you clods.
When a gallon of gasoline is combusted, feel free to remind folks that the mass has been conserved. It doesn't change the fact that there's now ~10 kg of CO2 in the atmosphere that wasn't there before. And it is correct to say the gasoline has been consumed - it's no longer there; you can't use it again. Gasoline is a reagent in the reaction - a chemist (a scientist!) will happily tell you that it's been consumed. If you want to burn more gasoline, you'll have to go pump more from the ground.
You may
Re: (Score:2)
I *think* his point is that the water it still water. Which is correct. It may be contaminated or otherwise have fewer uses. It will certainly be a lot hotter, and had BETTER be cooled before being placed back in circulation.
If it's being dumped in the sewer, that will cause many additional problems. Sewage treatment systems are not free.
Re: (Score:2)
I *think* his point is that the water it still water. Which is correct. It may be contaminated or otherwise have fewer uses. It will certainly be a lot hotter, and had BETTER be cooled before being placed back in circulation.
If it's being dumped in the sewer, that will cause many additional problems. Sewage treatment systems are not free.
In this case, "consumption" means turning it into water vapor via the cooling tower. So, yes, it's still water, but it's not in a form that is available to the municipal water district.
Re: (Score:2)
You, a 'scientist' : My gas heater is emitting CO molecules containing atoms that have neither been created nor destroyed, therefore it's fine. Thud.
Or is there a little bit of difference depending on where the atoms now are and what state they are in?
Re:Define "consume" (Score:5, Informative)
OK, what does that mean "consume"
Usually it means what they draw from the pipes minus what is discharged. The "consumption" is mostly evaporation in cooling towers. It isn't destroyed; but it sure ain't drinking water anymore.
500,000 gallons of water is about 1.9e6 kg.
The heat of vaporization for water is 2257 kJ/kg.
Turning that much water to vapor therefore requires 4.3e12 J of energy.
Averaged over one day (86400 sec), that's ~50e6 J/s, or 50 MW.
The 50 MW of evaporation in the stacks is one component of cooling. A lot of non-evaporative cooling also happens just from the liquid conducting heat to the ambient air So the power consumption of this facility (classified) is probably several times that 50 MW. Still pretty small in the grand scheme of new datacenters these days.
fingers crossed (Score:1)
great, my city would like your city's jobs (Score:2)
That's fine because our city could really use the funds.
Open Loop cooling? (Score:2)
Why are they not using closed loop cooling? Seems like a waste.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are they not locating this DC in Shivering Moose, Montana?
Re: (Score:2)
If you've got access to plenty of water, closed loop cooling is much more expensive.
Their town, their choice (Score:2)
The "Nuclear Weapons Data Center" part is a bit gratuitous. But overall the voters of each town/county get to decide what they want built/not built. If they feel "juice is not worth the squeeze" on this deal, then it's fine. Not enough jobs, too much water usage, too much traffic not enough tax revenue, etc then Lawrence Livermore will have to improve their offer or find somewhere else. Does Ypsilanti get tagged as a bunch of YIMBY's now? Or is it that you can only be name-called a NIBMY for ce
Excess supply of water (Score:1)
Meanwhile, in Corpus Cristi TX (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Time was we gave saboteurs the chair (Score:1)
or the gallows.
Overall...not the worst of times.
Just sayin'...if the difference between treason or sabotage and what you're doing depends entirely on you pinky-swearing that it ain't like that...it's probably treason and/or sabotage.
Re:Iran (Score:4, Insightful)
Err...yep.
Were you trying to go somewhere with this keemosabie?
Re: Iran (Score:2)
Hypocrisy and double standards is, I suppose, the answer to your question. There is no ethical reason why one should be allowed and the other one not. Agitate all you want about the bad intentions of Iran, the US is still bombing civilians, and together with Israel has killed a staggeringly high amount of civilians.
Re: Iran (Score:2)
Re: Iran (Score:2)
Nice valid but irrelevant point. Let me follow the same line of thought. Israel has killed a lot more civilians than Iran, are you fine with them having nuclear bombs?
Re: Iran (Score:2)
I'd like to preface by saying that I often coming across to the less intelligent as if I'm being critical, which I am: if you're not even bright enough to figure out basic grammar for yourself
Please read your post with the same critical eyes as you read mine, how's your grammar?
Re: Iran (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely. While this has been used as a rallying cry for why we need to destroy iran for decades, it doesn't really match their operational patterns or objectives. It DOES meet the US and Israel's though.
Re: Iran (Score:1)
Re: Iran (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The moment Iran gets nukes, Israel ceases to exist. Also Washington D.C. if they have a missile with long enough range.
You don't need a missile. All you need is a shipping container aboard a cargo ship
.
Re: Iran (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah it does (and is honestly) hypocritical but this is one of those areas where we're just in reality and the world that exists is one where a few countries have nukes and that was destabilizing enough but more countries having more nukes is not good for everyone, like, on the planet. But you also can't just Superman IV and take all the nukes already so here we are trying to balance all that.
I would garner most of the countries on the planet Earth are uncomfortable with the idea of the Iranian regime manu
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd argue that nukes have a stabilising effect, because it creates a very strong disincentive for a major conflict between nuclear powers. India/Pakistan without nukes would have been more likely to have an all-out war.
Re: (Score:2)
There is something to be said about that for sure. The past 80 years have been relatively war-free in terms of history and nukes have added to that but then I think a world where every nation had nukes and the chances of something really devastating happening increases. Maybe like taxation there's a point on the curves where everything meets in balance but we can't really know where that is.
Re: Iran (Score:2)
I would garner most of the countries on the planet Earth are uncomfortable with the idea of the Iranian regime manufacturing nuclear weapons
Why would you believe that? Unless you mean "as uncomfortable as with the US, Russia or China". It is my perception that a lot more people hate the US than Iran, despite all the Iranian regime's flaws, and they are plenty. At this point most of the world hates the US I think, and it has been hard earned.
Re: (Score:2)
It is my perception that a lot more people hate the US than Iran
That's because you are probably brain broken by "America bad" nihilism. Also I didn't use the word "hate" for a reason. I don't think most countries hate any other countries, don't use emotional language to paper over a poor point.
At that point go ahead though, elucidate me, which nations are more comfortable with nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranian ayotollahs and clerics versus the US.
Re: Iran (Score:2)
I have no idea, but you're the one who claimed something, so the burden of proof is on you. All I did was question your claim and explain why. That being said, do you believe the people in China, India and Russia think that the US and Israel should have a nuclear bomb but Iran shouldn't?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, here's my proof. The 2018 JCPOA was signed by not just he US but China, the EU and was also signed off on by the P5+1 of the UN Security Council, so that includes Russia. Also all the EU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So there's my evidence, now show yours.
As to why they have that preference, stability. Again no matter how "America bad" you want to act like there's a certain confidence that nuclear deployment is going to be an absolute last resort from the US or any of those other countries.
Fact
Re: Iran (Score:2)
Thanks for the link. I don't think it proves your initial claim, or how I understood it, but it is also something in that direction. In exchange for lifting sanctions. I don't think anyone would have signed it if it didn't include compensation in the form of lifting sanctions, therefore it is not a proof that people want that, rather a proof that people governing certain countries are willing to give that in exchange for lifting sanctions, as a bargaining chip.
I agree that there's a risk that they would use
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it proves your initial claim, or how I understood it
My claim was more nations on Earth would prefer Iran not have a nuclear weapon as opposed the United States. The fact an actual deal (did you know about this?) signed off by *all of the UNSC* is evidence enough to make my claim, particularly when you have no evidence to the contrary other than vibes.
Of course there was a lifting of sanctions! It's a deal! A negotiation!
My whole point is that it is unfair that certain countries have the power to make other countries feel desperate.
Look if you don't want to dig into some history and learn about how geopolitics works that's just fine, nobody is making you but at the sam
Re: Iran (Score:2)
My claim was more nations on Earth would prefer Iran not have a nuclear weapon as opposed the United States.
And I do not believe you have established that. If the same signatory countries found a way to make the US not have nuclear weapons either, they'd do it in a heart beat. The option just isn't on the table, because the US has had the strongest negotiating position at that table for a long time. Not sure why you think you understand geopolitics better than me but the condescension is uncalled for.
Re: (Score:2)
. If the same signatory countries found a way to make the US not have nuclear weapons either, they'd do it in a heart beat.
And yet they still would rather Iran not have a weapon. This is relative, not absolute.
Not sure why you think you understand geopolitics better than me but the condescension is uncalled for.
Because you think fairness has anything to do with anything here. Also did you know about the JCPOA before i mentioned it? It's very important to anything regarding the current situation in Iran, it kinda forced the issue here. Can't not talk about it.
Re: Iran (Score:1)