imported>Chunbum Park |
imported>John Stephenson |
| (38 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| == '''[[Battleship]]''' ==
| | {{:{{FeaturedArticleTitle}}}} |
| ----
| | <small> |
| [[Image:USS Massachusetts BB-59 Fall RIver.jpg|thumb|right|180px|{{USS Massachusetts BB-59 Fall RIver.jpg/credit}}<br />The [[USS Massachusetts (BB-59)|USS ''Massachusetts'' (BB-59)]] or "Big Mamie," on display as a museum ship in Battleship Cove, [[Fall River, Massachusetts]].]]
| | ==Footnotes== |
| The '''battleship''', though now essentially obsolete as a naval weapon, is a naval vessel intended to engage the most powerful warships of an opposing navy. Evolved from the [[ship of the line]], their main armament consisted of multiple heavy [[cannon]] mounted in movable [[turret]]s. The ships boasted extensive armor and as such were designed to survive severe punishment inflicted upon them by other capital ships.
| |
| | |
| The word "battleship" was coined around 1794 and is a contraction of the phrase "line-of-battle ship," the dominant wooden warship during the [[Age of Sail]].<ref name="OED">"battleship" The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. OED Online. Oxford University Press. 4 April 2000.</ref> The term came into formal use in the late 1880s to describe a specific type of [[ironclad warship]] (now referred to by historians as pre-''Dreadnought'' battleships).<ref name="Stoll">Stoll, J. ''Steaming in the Dark?'', Journal of Conflict Resolution Vol. 36 No. 2, June 1992.</ref> In 1906, the commissioning of [[HMS Dreadnought (1905)|HMS ''Dreadnought'']] heralded a revolution in capital ship design. Subsequent battleship designs were therefore referred to as "dreadnoughts." A general criterion from thereon in was that the armor of a true battleship must be sufficiently thick to withstand a hit by its own most powerful gun, within certain constraints. [[#The Diversion of the Battlecruiser|Battlecruiser]]s, while having near-battleship-sized guns, did not meet this standard of protection, and instead were intended to be fast enough to outrun the more heavily armed and armored battleship.<ref name=Massie>{{citation
| |
| | author = Robert K. Massie
| |
| | title = Dreadnought: Britain, Germany and the Coming of the Great War
| |
| | publisher = Ballantine
| |
| | year = 1992
| |
| | isbn = 9780345375568}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| From 1905 to the early 1940s, battleships defined the strength of a first-class navy. The idea of a strong "fleet in being", backed by a major industrial infrastructure, was key to the thinking of the naval strategist per [[Alfred Thayer Mahan]], writing in his 1890 book, ''The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660-1763'' (1890). The essence of Mahan from a naval viewpoint is that a great navy is a mark and prerequisite of national greatness. In a 1912 letter to the ''New York Times'', he counseled against relying on international relations for peace, and pointed out that other major nations were all building battleships.<ref>{{citation
| |
| | title =HOPELESSLY OUTFORCED."; Admiral Mahan Prophesies Plight of Nation Without More Battleships.
| |
| | author = [[Alfred Thayer Mahan]]
| |
| | date = 14 April 1912
| |
| | journal = New York Times
| |
| | url = http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9503E5DF103AE633A25757C1A9629C946396D6CF}}</ref>
| |
| Asymmetrical threats to battleships began, in the early 20th century, with [[torpedo]]es from [[fast attack craft]] and [[mine (naval)|mines]]. These [[#The underwater threat|underwater threats]] could strike in more vulnerable spots than could heavy guns. [[#Aircraft versus battleship|Aircraft]], however, became an even more decisive threat by World War II.
| |
| | |
| ''[[Battleship|.... (read more)]]''
| |
| | |
| {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" style="width: 90%; float: center; margin: 0.5em 1em 0.8em 0px;"
| |
| |-
| |
| ! style="text-align: center;" | [[Battleship#References|notes]]
| |
| |-
| |
| |
| |
| {{reflist|2}} | | {{reflist|2}} |
| |}
| | </small> |
After decades of failure to slow the rising global consumption of coal, oil and gas,[1] many countries have proceeded as of 2024 to reconsider nuclear power in order to lower the demand for fossil fuels.[2] Wind and solar power alone, without large-scale storage for these intermittent sources, are unlikely to meet the world's needs for reliable energy.[3][4][5] See Figures 1 and 2 on the magnitude of the world energy challenge.
Nuclear power plants that use nuclear reactors to create electricity could provide the abundant, zero-carbon, dispatchable[6] energy needed for a low-carbon future, but not by simply building more of what we already have. New innovative designs for nuclear reactors are needed to avoid the problems of the past.
(CC) Image: Geoff Russell Fig.1 Electricity consumption may soon double, mostly from coal-fired power plants in the developing world.
[7] Issues Confronting the Nuclear Industry
New reactor designers have sought to address issues that have prevented the acceptance of nuclear power, including safety, waste management, weapons proliferation, and cost. This article will summarize the questions that have been raised and the criteria that have been established for evaluating these designs. Answers to these questions will be provided by the designers of these reactors in the articles on their designs. Further debate will be provided in the Discussion and the Debate Guide pages of those articles.
- ↑ Global Energy Growth by Our World In Data
- ↑ Public figures who have reconsidered their stance on nuclear power are listed on the External Links tab of this article.
- ↑ Pumped storage is currently the most economical way to store electricity, but it requires a large reservoir on a nearby hill or in an abandoned mine. Li-ion battery systems at $500 per KWh are not practical for utility-scale storage. See Energy Storage for a summary of other alternatives.
- ↑ Utilities that include wind and solar power in their grid must have non-intermittent generating capacity (typically fossil fuels) to handle maximum demand for several days. They can save on fuel, but the cost of the plant is the same with or without intermittent sources.
- ↑ Mark Jacobson believes that long-distance transmission lines can provide an alternative to costly storage. See the bibliography for more on this proposal and the critique by Christopher Clack.
- ↑ "Load following" is the term used by utilities, and is important when there is a lot of wind and solar on the grid. Some reactors are not able to do this.
- ↑ Fig.1.3 in Devanney "Why Nuclear Power has been a Flop"
