Yes it is true; the use of wind power is a constant reminder and an insult to all the millions of people that suffered and died in the world wars. And the reason for this is steel.
Steel was used to kill, maim and terrorize countless millions of people from 1914 to 1919 and 1939 to 1945. It was used in rifles, in tanks, in artillery shells and hand grenades. All of it culminating with the steel birds Enola Gay and Bockscar dropping atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Steel and war are forever linked because you simply cannot wage war without steel.
The connection between war and wind power is steel. Practically every wind turbine in the world uses steel. Steel is everywhere in them: in the tower that holds up the turbine; in the gearbox; in the bolts that hold it together, just to mention a few examples. This of course means that wind power always connected with the use of weaponry and war.
Wind power is an insulting tribute to the memory of those who died in the world wars. Turning away from wind power and, in turn, weapons and war should be a true lasting legacy and memorial of those victims.
No folks, we haven't gone completely off our rockers just yet. The arguments above are (of course) pure nonsense. Using steel for killing and using steel for producing electricity are completely unrelated. The start of this article is just to show you through irony how utterly stupid such an argument is.
Still, this is exactly the kind of argument Greenpeace calls upon in their effort to try to abolish nuclear power. The boldface sentence above is copied nearly verbatim from a Greenpeace blog article posted on August 6, 2009, the 64'th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. You can read the post here.
We could count endless examples like this:
We could go on and eventually dismantle our entire way of living because of the atrocities mankind has committed in the past. But everyone knows it is absolutely silly to argue like this. It is not the origin or some vague, irrelevant common denominators that decide whether something is intolerable. It is the present intent and use that decides. So how does Greenpeace make the connection between the bombing of Hiroshima in 1945, and nuclear power in the year 2009 and onwards?
The entire Greenpeace article hinges on the following sentence: "Nuclear power and nuclear weapons go hand in hand - always have, always will." The critical thinker asks: "Do they now? Why? What would nuclear power and atomic bombs have in common?".
The answers are, in order: "no", "no reason at all", "nothing". The peaceful use of nuclear fission to generate electricity for millions of people has nothing in common with using fission for war and mass destruction. Nuclear power is about as similar to nuclear weapons as is cutting bread with a knife compared to stabbing someone else in the heart with the very same blade. The connection just isn't there.
Looking at the bottom of the Greenpeace blog entry there are three links. All three of them relate to the bombing of Hiroshima or the manufacturing of nuclear weapons. None of them even mention nuclear power. So where is the link that Greepeace say is "always" there?
It's not. It's missing. There is no link. This is guilt by association. The Greenpeace blog entry associating nuclear power with the atomic bombings is trying to exploit the deaths and suffering of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to try to gain points for a completely unrelated issue of opinion. Did Greenpeace take time to ask the over 200 000 still living hibakusha, "explosion-affected people" if it was alright to abuse their plight for a completely unrelated cause? We dare claim that Greenpeace didn't do that. They just chose to shamelessly exploit these victims despite having neither permission, nor cause for it. As if getting two atomic bombs dropped on them wasn't enough already, not only are the hibakusha, their relatives and children being discriminated against; now they also have to suffer Greenpeace swinging them around by the ankles as a bat in the debate on nuclear power.
And in the midst of this, Greenpeace speaks of "insulting" them. The irony is just staggering.
If Greenpeace cannot argue their standpoint against nuclear power without resorting to this kind of nonsense, it's time to look close at their other arguments as well. Something tells me we'll find a lot more holes in their reasoning...