> On a side note: I doubt that -- most technologies become generally 
> known
> pretty quickly; when they get discovered, it seems to be because 
> it's their
> time. Whoever it is who did it seems to be more a matter of chance: 
> if it
> hadn't been A, there would have been any number of B, C, D ... who 
> were
> working on the same thing and also pretty close.

I do believe (perhaps erroneously) that I mentioned "Steam Engine 
time".
BUT if you have a clue that it's about to Steam Engine and it's 
reall;y really important to you that you get there first then a few 
million dollars is a small price to pay - especially with a 'Steam 
Engine' of this sort.


>> While I suspect that if 'Cold Fusion' (CF) does exist then it will 
>> be a
>> genii that cannot be put back in its bottle, it seems highly 
>> desirable
>> for the US, that the US or those who walk reasonably in step with 
>> it be
>> the discoverer.
>
> Why? This is the question...

In deed.
And I thought I'd given my version of the answer. Maybe not.
If it is possible to keep the Genie in the bottle, and it probably 
isn't, and the genie may not exist, then being the one who lets it out 
*may* give you the best chance of knowing what it';s all about. For 
example (only) if acquiring as much of the world's Palladium ASASASAP 
was liable to make a substantial difference to the widespread 
implementability of CF then palladium acquisition by *every* means 
possible may seem suitably compelling to merit implementation. Stand 
clear!!!

Failing that, given it's rather widesprerad current distribution**, 
one may wish instead to buy a large shareholding in MMC Norilsk Nickel 
[[aka ?????????? ??????, if the email systemn lets that through]]. 
[[** At 15 parts per billion in 'soil' on average its not exactly 
common but also not exactly unavailable.]]

>> [...] the US already has essentially unlimited nuclear weapons 
>> capability
>> and has proven itself capable (albeit sometimes perhaps only just) 
>> of
>> not using it, [...]
>
> Homework assignment:
> a) List all countries that have or had nuclear weapons.
> b) List all countries that have used nuclear weapons.
> c) Use the results of a) and b) to discuss the above statement. :)

I was obviously (I would hope for your sake that it was obvious :-) ) 
aware of the answer to b.* and can have a good crack at a. out of my 
head. My statement stands as I intended it.
Having used something does NOT disprove your disability to not use it. 
The intent of the statement is, hopefully clear.
* Note that "all countries that have used nuclear weapons" is not 
publicly known with certainty if testing is included in "used" as it 
probably should be. It's possible and perhaps probable that both South 
Africa and Israel (jointly) have "used" a nuclear device in the Indian 
Ocean. The US military think this is so (or thought it was so) and 
perhaps only SA and Israel know for sure. Equally, North Korea may or 
may not have tested a nuclear bomb. The signature of their recent 
"test" was sufficiently unlike traditional conventional explosive 
signatures as to have convinced many of its bona fides, but 
sufficiently unlike a nuclear one to have made others less certain. 
Also, fwiw, it's arguably more likely that one (in particular) of the 
US's nuclear capable allies is more likely to use a nuclear weapon in 
the next few decades than the US is.

But: USA, Soviet Union/variants thereof, Britain, France, China, 
India, Pakistan, Israel*, South Africa*, North Korea?, ... - who did I 
miss.
South Africa is the only country I can think of who had nuclear 
weapons capacity and abandoned it. Funny that.

>> [...] it seems a somewhat more trustable body than some others to 
>> first
>> discover such power and seek to limit its applications.
>
> This is exactly where I can't follow. I accept for this discussion 
> that CF
> opens up practically unlimited power and nuclear weapons capability 
> to any
> organization of significant size, and that the US is a trustworthy 
> body of
> power.
>
> I don't see, however, that spending efforts in discovering it first 
> will do
> anything to prevent the feared disaster.

See above and example only re eg Palladium.
Pssst wanna buy a ring? Guaranteed at least 5% Palladium. Only 
$100,000, Cash.

> If anything, it will speed up the
> discovery process of everybody else -- so the to be feared 
> organizations
> will have the capability sooner rather than later, but they will get 
> it.

It doesn't matter too too much WHEN it happens if it's going to 
happen. What matters is how well you can control the event. And odds 
are, if it ever happens, it won't be very controllable.


> And the nuclear stalemate we've had in the later part of last 
> century won't
> work with them.

Indeed. My point.

>> If CF was discovered by any of a number of smaller countries which 
>> are
>> hostile to the US then there is significant prospect that new 
>> classes of
>> nuclear armaments would be both developed covertly and then used.

> I don't see how this is affected by the sequence of discovery; it 
> can
> happen no matter what. As far as the timeline goes, as I said before 
> I'm
> rather convinced that an early discovery by the US (or anybody else) 
> only
> speeds up the discovery by everybody else -- but doesn't delay or 
> even
> prevent it.

If, say, I_ _ _  (no, not Iraq), discovered CF and kept it a secret 
and it was not semi simultaneously steam engined elsewhere then the 
announcement would be liable to be delayed for some while, made in 
many locations worldwide simultaneously and be very very very loud 
:-(.   I know that statement won't sit comfortably with all but I'd 
find it hard, unfortunately, to be convinced that it wasn't probable.



        Russell



-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist