Your position rests, though, on one key principle: that absolutely
nobody can be trusted. I think the fact that most intelligence analysts
will admit that at least one if not more nuclear weapons may be already
in the hands of one or more terrorist groups, yet they have not been
used is a pretty good indicator that even the most extreme individuals
can still have the capacity to retain some sanity in their judgement.
The mere fact that the russians, chinese, cubans, and others have had
them and not used them is a pretty good indicator that most people are
pretty good at being responsible with such power. Accidents do happen,
no doubt, however you have not shown any indications that advanced
nanotech would be as uncontrollable as you claim. You have no evidence
(nor, IMHO, any knowledged to judge) that any accidents would not be
containable.
john marlow wrote:
>
> All true, all true--but irrelevant; point is it can happen. Two further
> points: nukes can be tracked, perhaps even by satellite, by rad emissions,
> making use difficult. Not so nannite packages. Also, any party employing a
> backpack nuke must fear massive retaliation from the target nation. With
> the proper nanoweapon, however, the target nation can be obliterated,
> making retaliation improbable and use more likely.
>
> john marlow
>
> Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
>
> > > RUSSIA MISSING NUCLEAR DEVICES
> >
> > http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/lebedlg.htm
>
> How long have they been missing? For years, so far as I know. Not one
> has been used. How about that?
> Here's another question? How do we know they actually had them to begin
> with? Perhaps its just a matter of a commie official reporting x number
> were made and not actually making that many, then pocketing the
> difference. Not unheard of.
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:17 MDT