Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> You would have to sit me down and show me quite concretely however
> that such devices would cost less than the offensive weapons they
> are attempting to destroy.
I dont have the cost of the missile on me, but I can assuuuuuuure you Robert, they are pennies compared to an ICBM.
> Well, I don't think in general promoting the selling of advanced
> technologies to emerging countries that have had little time or
> history to mitigate their aggressive tendencies is a good idea.
Perhaps not, but I would rather the emerging countries have buttloads of THAAD missiles, that really are good for nothing but knocking out incoming missiles, than seeing them obtain front line fighter planes, bombers, etc. In practice it may not work tho: dictators love their fighters and bombers. These may become quite obsolete too: if we can hit a freaking *missile* it should be trivial to hit an airplane. {8-[
> Regarding the use of the uranium/plutonium as a "clean" energy
> source -- you should know better. Fission will never be a
> clean energy source until you have nanotech microscales to
> isolate each atom of radioactive isotopes generated for
> "safe" disposal.
> There is a use for the materials which is
> in breeder reactors for alpha-particle emitting Gandolinium
> for use in our own personal (body) nuclear power sources.
Ja. What I propose is getting rid of only the highly enriched plutonium, so that no crazy yahoo will ever again be tempted to make bombs outta the stuff. spike