• Madison420@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Good luck, they’d have to ban nuclear subs and no nation wants to throw that protection away.

    Also fuck Greenpeace and their often more harmful than helpful stunts.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      Good luck, they’d have to ban nuclear subs and no nation wants to throw that protection away.

      No, that doesn’t follow. I’m pretty sure nuclear subs – or nuclear aircraft carriers, for that matter – rarely dock at commercial ports, and there’s no reason (other than hypocrisy, which is not relevant) that a country can’t decide to bar nuclear ships from commercial ports while still allowing them at military naval bases.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Depends on the sub but yeah they do. Lots and I’d go so far as to say most naval bases are the deepest port inland for protection often surrounded by private commercial businesses. Hell the shipyard most of the us nuclear subs are made is adjoining one of the nations largest ports.

        They wouldn’t port ban them since that doesn’t actually solve the complaints, it would be exclusion from territorial waters and no one wants to do that. A. because they’re safer B. Because the protection nuclear navies provide is something everyone values C. These things are usually decided between nations not generally by a sole nation.