The "Domino theory" goes on: from Apocalypse Now to Odyssey Dawn

"By early 1954, it was clear to many U.S. policymakers that the French were failing in their attempt to re-establish colonial control in Indochina (Vietnam), which they lost during World War II when the Japanese took control of the area. The Vietnamese nationalists, led by the communist Ho Chi Minh, were on the verge of winning a stunning victory against French forces at the battle of Dien Bien Phu. In just a few weeks, representatives from the world's powers were scheduled to meet in Geneva to discuss a political settlement of the Vietnamese conflict. U.S. officials were concerned that a victory by Ho's forces and/or an agreement in Geneva might leave a communist regime in control of all or part of Vietnam. In an attempt to rally congressional and public support for increased U.S. aid to the French, President Eisenhower gave an historic press conference on April 7, 1954.
He spent much of the speech explaining the significance of Vietnam to the United States. First was its economic importance, "the specific value of a locality in its production of materials that the world needs" (materials such as rubber, jute, and sulphur). There was also the "possibility that many human beings pass under a dictatorship that is inimical to the free world." Finally, the president noted, "You have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the 'falling domino' principle." Eisenhower expanded on this thought, explaining, "You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is a certainty that it will go over very quickly." This would lead to disintegration in Southeast Asia, with the "loss of Indochina, of Burma, of Thailand, of the Peninsula, and Indonesia following." Eisenhower suggested that even Japan, which needed Southeast Asia for trade, would be in danger. A year later in 1955 the Vietnam War started...

Eisenhower's words are having big impacts in history as the domino theory and later its reverse with Iraq's invasion is still being applied and Apocalypse Now is in Lybia called Odyssey Dawn as somebody "loves the smell of napalm in the morning".

Is nuclear power an option worthing the risks and costs?

Reading this article about The lessons of Fukushima, one should draw few conclusions without fallacies:
a) people tend not to learn from previous mistakes. Learning from lessons is a psychological human being, particularly politician, constraint and limit. Black Swans, in financial markets, earthquakes or nuclear accidents, do exist, but some prefer to ignore them. 

b) Nuclear power is an option that never undergo proper cost-benefit analysis and impact and risk assessment. Its "true" cost is never revealed whereas the benefits are always overstated for political and ideological reasons.
c) Renewable energy alternatives, energy savings and energy efficiency are options which still find some difficulties to be understood and be widely accepted because of ideologies, political lobbies and special interests not really economic or strategic reasons. 

Think about: to build a nuclear plant it takes 10-12 years and unknown costs and risks whereas renewables, energy saving and efficiency options take only few days to be built while costs and risks are known in advance. Which rational option one should choose? It's quite clear that the nuclear option is neither rational nor economically sound. Rather a risky option.