←back to thread

1041 points mpweiher | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
yellowapple ◴[] No.45225313[source]
[flagged]
replies(12): >>45225401 #>>45225408 #>>45225486 #>>45225487 #>>45225540 #>>45225582 #>>45225601 #>>45225657 #>>45225689 #>>45225714 #>>45227579 #>>45228776 #
ben_w ◴[] No.45225487[source]
Greenpeace is both halves of the name.

While I agree that nuclear is green, IMO Greenpeace are correct about it not being compatible with the "peace" half: the stuff that makes working reactors is the most difficult part of making a working weapons.

This also means that during the cold war they suspected of being soviet plants.

Those suspicions and yours could both be correct for all I know.

replies(4): >>45225505 #>>45225541 #>>45225556 #>>45225585 #
echelon ◴[] No.45225556[source]
I've heard and think I've read multiple times that Greenpeace was fueled by Soviet monies to prevent Western energy independence and economic takeoff.

I don't have sources and would appreciate if anyone has anything to offer on this.

replies(1): >>45225603 #
idiotsecant ◴[] No.45225603[source]
I doubt it was for any particular energy policy objective, if they were Soviet funded. The soviets (or whatever name you want to give them now) are masters of finding fracture points in relatively stable western societies and exploiting them to make unstable western societies that are less effective at combating Soviet policy. See: almost the entirety of the modern political discourse.
replies(1): >>45225694 #
tehjoker ◴[] No.45225694{3}[source]
given how the united states starved them of foreign currency and then introduced economic shock therapy that reduced life expectancy of the population by 10 yrs particularly for men one might say the western imperialists were better at that
replies(1): >>45226501 #
1. idiotsecant ◴[] No.45226501{4}[source]
This comment is entirely orthogonal to my discussion, to the point that it's confusing.