"S.J. Van Sickle" <email@example.com> wrote: On Fri,
5 Jan 2001, John Marlow wrote:
> In 1957, the Air Force dropped a ten megaton nuclear
> bomb outside Albuquerque. In 1967, two, twenty four
> megaton bombs in North Carolina; five of six
> were tripped on one bomb—the one with the parachute,
> mind you. The other one they never found. The chute
> didn't open and it went into soft ground. Somewhere.
> It's still there. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was
> one-fiftieth of one megaton.
And how many of these weapons detonated? None?
**Obviously. There was, however, a missile which
exploded in its silo when a tech dropped a wrench. The
warhead was blown through the 740-ton concrete slab
covering the silo. Such an event would rupture ANY
nannite containment mechanism.
> Nuclear warheads do not eat through their own
> containment mechanisms.
And nanoreplicators would? Why?
**Because the primary design function of nanoweapons
will be to self-replicate and disassemble. Programming
them to be incapable of disassembling any particular
substance (as a substance used for containment
purposes) would make them useless as weapons because
the enemy could employ that material to shield its
forces. True, they should be programmed not to exceed
a given total number of replications--but a bug in the
code of a single nannite could destroy the earth.
> Three more bombs off Delaware and two in Texas the
> same year. Another off Georgia the next year. Two
> on Spain in 1966. Four more on Greenland in '68…
> Detonators have gone off. The same year we torpedoed
> our own sub with two nukes on board. Classified for
> twenty five years. It's still going on; it just
> been declassified yet. The Russian record is, of
> course, far worse.
And despite all these mishaps, there were no nuclear
**The conditions required to produce fission, and
particularly dual-stage implosion leading to fusion,
are exacting and will not, generally speaking, occur
on their own. Thus, blowing a warhead through a
740-ton concrete slab is not sufficient to detonate
that warhead. (Detonation requires symmetrical
implosion.) Do the same thing with a shell containing
disassembler nannites--and they enter the environment.
Unlike radiation form a warhead, the nannites go forth
and multiply--and disassemble.
> As to reactors: Browns Ferry, I believe it was,
> burned to the ground because some idiot with a
> or a candle was poking it into FLAMMABLE
> insulation--AND the redundant wiring ran right
> alongside the primary wiring. Windscale, Chernobyl,
> Three Mile Island all released radiation into the
And despite the most appalling of human stupidity, all
*combined* have killed only a small fraction of those
who have died in
other industrial accidents.
**Yes. Again because the results of an accident are
not self-replicating. They are local. Even if a nuke
detonates in Manhattan--the effects are geographically
limited. Not so with nanoweapons.
> We release self-replicating nannites,
> ONCE, and it's over.
Why? Nanotech is not magic.
**A single nonlimited disassembler will destroy the
earth in a matter of days. Period.
You might find "Some Limits to Global Ecophagy by
Nanoreplicators, with Public Policy Recommendations"
by Robert Freitas at:
**I'll take a look.
> We are not competent to control nanotechnology
Possible. It is a more difficult problem than nuclear
weapons and power,
since nanotech does not require exotic, easily
However, it is far from obvious that it is hopeless,
as you seem to think.
**The nature of Man makes it hopeless, or nearly so.
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:16 MDT