And now for something completely different...

[kandrathe]

I agree with this part and it frustrates me to no end when people discuss the energy ´crisis´when there is a solution sitting right there.

2 points though: 1) The more proliferated nuclear energy becomes the greater the chance that some enriched uranium may end up in the wrong hands/be stolen.

Yes, that is a problem, but one that has been solved with any number of deadly chemicals. For example, ricine from castor beans, or Sarin.

2) What do you do about countries, such as Iran which do not have nuclear weapons but want nuclear energy plants. Of course it´s possible, and perhaps economically profitable, to sell excess energy to foreign countries, however to me it seems somewhat immoral to enforce a monopoly by not allowing them to make their own energy, while we make it and sell it to them.

The problem is not nuclear reactors in Iran, it is the threats often recited by people in high places in their government, especially those in the IRG. Also, from recent inspections by the IAEA, it is clear that Iran is probably hiding its weaponization programs. I'm not worried about nuclear energy in Iran, it is the Shahab 3 (nuclear or not) landing in Israel, or elsewhere we should be worried about.

The war happening, on the other hand, affects whether we need to control the population.

Perhaps it is the lack of sustainable resources that compels us into war in the first place. Isn't it interesting that most of the trouble spots in the world are also the most impoverished? Iran is the notable exception. People tend to take more risks when they have nothing to lose.