Also, do you find it surprising in this context that the nuclear industry and even the government would seek to keep the existence of these transports secret so that tree-huggers cannot sabotage them?
Give me a break. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
(And I repeat, the security argument I raise is not about sabotage, but attack by terrorists to cause harm.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Do you chain yourself to sulfuric acid tankers to demonstrate that if terrorist wanted they could cause serious contamination? Do you steal biohazardous waste from hospitals and spread it in children's playgrounds to demonstrate the fundamental unsafety of modern medicine? guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Regarding the acid tankers, there have indeed been Greenpeace trespassings to closed chemical plants to prove a point.
Regarding the second, you use a false rhetorical analogy again. I repeat: blocking efforts are blocking efforts, none of them is capable to cause a spill, that's what terrorists could do if they wanted. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
On the second, you saw me denounce it, and separate it from public protesters.
On the first, no no CASTOR can be hurt by a simple derailment, and you saw me explain that serious blockades by public protesters were preceded by warning groups. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Maybe the coverage you saw of these German protests was just as sensationalist/biased/lacking in context as the US/UK coverage of the French 'riots' last year. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
On this specifically: said security arrangements were in place before the blocking efforts, and couldn't stave them off. So if you understand, why the opposed rhetorical question? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Could you run a railway if there were a determined group of SUV drivers ready to lie on the track in front of every train? guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
As for the second, of course not - question is which of these protests gains sufficient number of devoted supporters. (BTW, in Greece, private bus and lorry drivers did in fact protested against the upgrade of the Athens-Thessaloniki railway by leaving old buses/lorries in crossings.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
That's the kind of protest that leads me to forget all solidarity with bus and lorry drivers.
Hey, how about we get someone to sneak into a reactor core and get a lethal dose of radiation to demonstrate that nuclear power is deadly? guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
A question. How far should civil disobedience go before it is punished mildly, severely? Apply this to protesters who you disagree with e.g. anti-abortion activists. Is putting glue in the locks of clinics ok, is blocking the entrance of clinics ok, is harassing women entering the clinics ok, how about employees...? Arguing that such practices were equivalent to the mob enforcing protection money against businesses, the Clinton Justice Department sought to financially destroy the organizations that promoted the protests and their leaders. Any problems with that? How about applying it to those who organize the CASTOR blockades?
Do you consider a sit-in blockade sabotage?
What about people chaining themselves to the rails?
What about people climbing on the railcars? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
i think they're setting back their cause, don't you?
they look ridiculous!
why don't they write letters to the times instead, or better make some nice flan for their man? ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
the security argument I raise is not about sabotage, but attack by terrorists to cause harm.
(And I repeat, the security argument I raise is not about sabotage, but attack by terrorists to cause harm.)
And this demonstration is largely irrelevant for demonstrating or disproving the validity of that concern. Unless, that is, you want your government to start treating environmentalist organizations like terrorist organizations?
Yes, they demonstrated a flaw in the security. Yes, this flaw could theoretically be used by a terrorist organization.
But then the argument runs into pretty much the same flaws as the case for torture. Unlike an environmentalist organization, your government's intelligence apparatus will probably be keeping watch on any terrorist organization capable of actually taking action and carrying out a plot like this. If they aren't, you're screwed no matter what, as the terrorists will be able to use any method to achieve their aims.
As for the argument about terrorists crashing planes into nuclear plants... I think all that deserves is a derisive snicker.
