Re: metaTHAAD was: Son of Star Wars

Spike Jones (
Thu, 14 Oct 1999 21:39:31 -0700

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.

Ye of little faith! We already *have* clean fission reactors, in a sense: nuclear subs. As antimissile missiles make the sub's payloads irrelevant, we convert them to great undersea fission reactors [waaay undersea], uninhabited, turning former bomb material into power, which it delivers to the surface via long cables [verrry long cables].

When the whole mess gets too radioactive, you sail it to the Marianas Trench and down it goes, 12 km down, at a velocity of over 30 horseturds per fortnight. {8^D

If any kind of accident occurs, like the ones at TMI, Chernobyl or the recent one in Japan, a few hundred meters of water protects the environment, and should a really bad meltdown happen, everthing goes to the bottom of the sea. The water solubility of plutonium is low enough, there should be no three eyed fish born.

> 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