"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> Since they would be nanodetectors that should be only interested in
> homing in on plutonium or uranium, then I would have no real trouble
> with that, if its restricted to that.
You know tho, as soon as they perfect helium detection, some yahoo
will modify them to detect butt scratching. {8^D
> Have them set to set off
> air-network alarm through other nanites when they come in contact with
> weapons grade plutonium, and to home in on sources of helium (which is
> an alpha decay product, right?)
Right. I need to calculate how much helium is produced by a slightly
subcritical mass of 239, but it sounds like it might work.
> >... diplomacy is
> > so very much more effective if one has the appropriate weapons
> > to demonstrate one's sincerity. spike
>
> THe thing I find so funny is that the scientists who were adamant for
> many years that MAD was unacceptable now find it acceptable rather than
> have NMD.
The irony is not lost on me. Of course the present sitch has presented
many such ironies. Consider the conflict in Kosovo. I had come to
think that liberals were always against all war, but it was the left that
urged UN intervention into that intractible morass. The right wingers
were downright dovish: "...Lets stay out of it, let them fight! They dont
even have any oil!"
> Now, one of the reasons the US seems big on getting Russia in on being
> an NMD player in alliance with us is that Russia owns a finger of land
> that goes down the coast of the sea of Japan and touches on North Korea,
> right around where NK missiles would fly if headed for the US...
Yes, and its obvious that Russia really does have enough nukes to
overwhelm NMD, so why not bring them in as allies? {I mean, other
than the fact that they are COMMIES!} In the next 5-20 yrs, the
biggest threat on the horizon is China deciding to nuke Taiwan, and
if that were to happen, what would we do? Any ideas? Im open to
suggestion. John?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:14 MDT