Reply #5: That's incorrect, ill-informed, and naive

[bananas]

Every serious analysis has come to the same conclusion: nuclear energy will only be a small part of reducing CO2 emissions.

A couple of years ago, nuclear energy was 16% of global electricity generation, and was expected to increase slightly as a percentage. It's declined to 14%, and the IAEA projects it will remain between 12.5% to 14% over the next several decades.

Iran's enrichment facilities are in underground bunkers because they are military targets.Even if they aren't producing weapons-grade uranium now, at any point in time they can change their mind, start producing weapons-grade uranium, and prohibit IAEA inspectors from inspecting the facilities. According to Seymour Hersh, Bush wanted to bomb them with nuclear bunker-busters. Other countries don't have all the "checks-and-balances" we do that kept Bush in check.

"The deal was that the nuclear nations would assist other nations with development of nuclear power in return for security measures. These are impossible to fudge, really."

Some countries violated "the deal", and others never signed on. India violated "the deal" (its agreements with Canada) and made nuclear weapons. Pakistan got nuclear weapons because their enemy India got nuclear weapons. Now India has a special "deal", they have a waiver from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, only a few of their reactors will be subject to IAEA security measures, the others are off-limits to the IAEA and will be used for nuclear weapons production. This is an escalation, so Pakistan and China are responding by increasing Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.