REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA (Robert Elton Maas) (11/17/86)
NOTE: This topic is straying from SPACE into ARMS-D and I'd like to switch it there, except that last time I did that I got bitched at badly by the author of the message I was replying to, so for the moment I'll CC to SPACE. Feel free anyone to switch this conversation to ARMS-D if it continues. <GL> Date: Sun, 02 Nov 86 16:11:03 EST <GL> From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu <GL> To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa> <GL> Subject: fusion energy PFD> There's a form of fusion power that is possible today.... PFD> Fill [a] cavity with high pressure steam... PFD> and detonate about 100 kilotons of bombs per day. <GL> Yes, that's an old idea of Teller's, abandoned about the <GL> middle of the sixties when it seemed that *nobody* would take <GL> it seriously. Bombs have too bad a rep. Sounds like a good idea <GL> for what to do with old H-bombs after they become "impotent and <GL> obsolete" Yes, I assume you're comparing Teller's idea to our stockpile of weapons, saying it'll be an improvement, using old H-bombs for mining or artificial geothermal energy etc. is better than using them to vaporize cities, thus it would seem the idea would now be acceptable. But realize that H-bombs for vaporizing cities is supposed to be merely a last resort in case of attack from the USSR, not something we do by choice, a deterrent we hope we will never use, not something we actually plan to use during normal times. Thus comparing deliberate artificial geothermal energy to deliberate thermonuclear attack is not relevant. The comparison is between deliberate artificial geothermal energy and deterrence, where it's not obvious which is more acceptable. Perhaps never using H-bombs for any reason (except when our world is ending anyway and we don't care any more) is more acceptable than using them for specific purposes which effectively tests them to see if they still work thus would be a violation of the proposed total test ban. Perhaps a more valid comparison would be between testing H-bombs in artificial geothermal facilities vs. testing H-bombs in Nevada for SDI research. In both cases we're actually detonating H-bombs rather than just holding them for emergency use, but one way we're getting some legitimate use out of them to help society whereas the other way we're just building more war machine. Eliminating conventional Nevada tests, replacing with actually using H-bombs for practical use such as energy, would be an improvement in our way of thinking, treating H-bombs as a tool that can be used for multiple purposes rather than as a weapon with no other use. Unlike the Orion spaceship, it wouldn't pollute the environment with detonation byproducts and direct radiation, thus might have a chance of being acceptable to the general population.