Comments (33)

• R.P. McCosker

  Rockwell's commentary leaves the impression that during the Cold War Rothbard was more or less calling for American nuclear disarmament -- presumably of the unilateral kind if the Soviets were unwilling (or could even be trusted) to undertake such a venture.

  Now, I agree that the US's general Cold War project against the Soviets was wrongheaded -- the wars of intervention, the worldwide military bases, the foreign aid, the "special operations" ad nauseum. All unfathomably wasteful, destructive, and counterproductive.

  But at the same time, the USSR was hellbent on imposing its geopolitical control throughout the planet. It seems to me the height of idealistic foolishness to suggest that the US ought to have abandoned or even curtailed its nuclear weapons development under the circumstances.

  By analogy, one important reason that for so long imperialistic neighbors of Switzerland have elected to not invade it is that neutral Switzerland has been militarily very well-prepared, and any prospective invader, no matter how powerful, knows that a dear price would have to be paid for its conquest.

  During the Cold War, the US needed a vigorous nuclear program to secure its sovereignty. Or am I misinterpreting history? Or am I misinterpreting Rothbard?

  Published: April 8, 2005 3:07 AM

• Paul D

  "During the Cold War, the US needed a vigorous nuclear program to secure its sovereignty."

  McCosker, assuming that you are a libertarian, can you explain what possible morally valid use a weapon designed purely for killing enormous numbers of civilians has? Many, many countries somehow survived the Cold War without developing nuclear weapons.

  Switzerland is a poor target for invaders, not because the Swiss will nuke a million innocent people if you invade, but because every Swiss man has a rifle and will defend his home to the death against an aggressor. That sounds like a much better deterrent than threatening mass murder.

  "Or am I misinterpreting history?"

  I think it's possible. Note that the Soviets rarely (if ever) gained political influence by outright invasion. They preferred to sponsor revolutions and coups in countries where communism enjoyed public sympathy.

  Published: April 8, 2005 3:28 AM

• Rolf

  For Rothbard to actually have supported the likes of
  Bush Senior certainly does not do much for his credibility. He certainly should have been more awake than that for being such an "Astute " political thinker.
  Bush had been the director of thieves for starters.

  Published: April 8, 2005 9:34 AM

• J D

  "How could conservatives champion small govern-nment and also call for vastly expanded nuclear
  weapons and a US global empire? He kept asking
  the question but wasn't getting satisfactory
  answers."

  Surely Mr. Rothbard knew why the answers were unsatisfactory -- the "call for vastly expanded
  nuclear weapons and a US global empire" came
  from those who expected to gain from the process.

  Bastiat knew that.
  

  Published: April 9, 2005 1:57 AM

• Jacob Steelman

  Rothbard was the most consistent of all the libertarians taking the philosophy to its logical conclusion - no government. Generally the rest of us conceded government for defense and to police/remedy violations of individual rights of property and person. This was our comfort zone but the older I get the more I believe Rothbard is correct - government can not do its limited role correctly so why have it all? Let the market figure out how to handle defense and redress wrongs (there is already a large business of private dispute resolution due to the failure of the government court system) . No government at all is the great unknown for many of us libertarians - Rothbard bravely and consistently entered this philosophical territory. He shall always have my deepest admiration and regret that his voice is silent.

  Published: April 9, 2005 2:00 AM

• Jacob Steelman

  Rothbard was the most consistent of all the libertarians taking the philosophy to its logical conclusion - no government. Generally the rest of us conceded government for defense and to police/remedy violations of individual rights of property and person. This was our comfort zone but the older I get the more I believe Rothbard is correct - government can not do its limited role correctly so why have it all? Let the market figure out how to handle defense and redress wrongs (there is already a large business of private dispute resolution due to the failure of the government court system) . No government at all is the great unknown for many of us libertarians - Rothbard bravely and consistently entered this philosophical territory. He shall always have my deepest admiration and regret that his voice is silent.

  Published: April 9, 2005 2:00 AM

• J D

  Post an intelligent and civil comment.??

  It is difficult to be intelligent and civil when commenting the disimilar appearance of what is written in the provided box and the preview.

  JD

  Published: April 9, 2005 2:08 AM

• J D

  Post an intelligent and civil comment.??

  It is difficult to be intelligent and civil when commenting the disimilar appearance of what is written in the provided box and the preview.

  JD

  Published: April 9, 2005 2:08 AM

• Dennis Sperduto

  Mr. Steelman,
  I fully agree with much of your comment; parts of it are similar to what I've thought for quite while. I particularly agree with your observation that a characteristic of Rothbard's thought was his ability and desire to take an argument to its logical conclusion. While whatever modest knowledge I have is in economics and I probably can not currently quite bring myself to 100% support the anarcho-capitalist position, I am greatly appreciative and respectful of Rothbard's thinking in virtually all fields of knowledge. And as far as I am concerned, he has, to date, done more than anyone else to defend and elaborate the Misesian tradition in economics. It was such tragedy that Murray N. Rothbard passed away at a comparatively young age.
  

  Published: April 9, 2005 9:50 AM

• R.P. McCosker

  Paul D: "McCosker, assuming that you are a libertarian, can you explain what possible morally valid use a weapon designed purely for killing enormous numbers of civilians has?"

  First, yes, I am a libertarian. That's why I founded and moderate the Yahoo! group Paleolibertarian Forum (follow my URL if interested). But I'm afraid that, outside strictly economic issues, I'm apt to be fonder of the later, neo-Old Right Rothbard of the '90s and the John Randolph Club than the quasi-New Left Rothbard of the late '50s to early '80s. For instance, I admire the Rothbard who appreciated that until government is ended, open borders means the ruination of everything libertarians strive for.

  Second, though it's a terrible thing that nuclear weapons tend to kill "enormous numbers of civilians," it's also simply untrue that they were "designed purely for" that. Actually, they were mostly conceived to strategically destroy enemy administrative and military centers. (They ended up not being used that way against Japan because the administration decided it preferred to intimidate the Japanese government into unconditional surrender rather than simply snuff it out altogether, as well as destroying the economic and cultural center of Japan, by annihilating Tokyo.)

  More to the point, though, nuclear weapons can serve as an extraordinary deterrent to attack from other countries. Unfortunately, like all weapons, they can just as well be used to intimidate others to submit to one's will. I don't maintain there was ever anything saintly about US foreign or defense policy. But to the extent that the US held a monopoly over the defense of the American people, it seems to me to have been more than justified in keeping and updating the nuclear weapons it developed during WWII.

  For the record, I think US intervention in WWII was morally and practically catastrophic. But the Manhattan Project happened, and it and other parts of the federal government were heavily infiltrated with Communists and Communist sympathizers, so it was just a matter of time before the Kremlin developed similar weapons.

  (Pat Buchanan interestingly argues that, though the US ought to have stayed out of WWII, it needed to have developed nuclear weapons then, because Germany probably would've done so eventually anyway, whereupon the US could've been blackmailed into surrendering its sovereignty to Germany.)

  Again: The Soviet regime was hellbent on ruling the earth. Once it had The Bomb, it was tantamount to surrender of sovereignty for the US to give them up, at least until other powerful nations like the UK and France had them along with effective means of delivery.

  Paul D: "Many, many countries somehow survived the Cold War without developing nuclear weapons."

  Of course, but it's seriously questionable whether any of them would've survived with their sovereignty intact had the Soviets possessed a monopoly of being able to deliver large numbers of nuclear weapons.

  Paul D: "Switzerland is a poor target for invaders, not because the Swiss will nuke a million innocent people if you invade, but because every Swiss man has a rifle and will defend his home to the death against an aggressor. That sounds like a much better deterrent than threatening mass murder."

  My point was simply that a country can be justified in warding off attack by being well defended. (Tragically, that idea has been perverted by those who deliberately confuse well defended with "preemptive" aggression.) The US had little to fear from the Soviets if the former had just minded its own business -- except loss of sovereignty due to nuclear blackmail. Having its own nuclear inventory and the means of delivering it seems as though it would've been the best US policy. Sort of a speak-softly-but-carry-a-big-stick thing (though not in the belligerent sense the imperialist TR presumably intended by the phrase).

  Paul D: "Note that the Soviets rarely (if ever) gained political influence by outright invasion. They preferred to sponsor revolutions and coups in countries where communism enjoyed public sympathy."

  Kind of like the US!

  Actually, the Soviets moved hard against weak neighbors when opportunities presented themselves: Eastern Finland, Mongolia, Eastern Europe and northern Korea at the end of WWII, and Afghanistan. Of course, the regime was wary of getting into a direct war with the US or a massive alignment of other nations. But it's chilling to consider -- to repeat -- what would've happened had the Soviets held a monopoly on large numbers of nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them around the world.

  Published: April 10, 2005 3:40 AM

• David J. Heinrich

  Dear Mr. McCosker,

  So, do you think that there is some need for the US to have enough nuclear weapons to murder every person on Earth? Why does the US military need to be five times larger than the next-largest military in the world? Even presuming the Soviets did want to conquer the world, nuclear weapons -- destroying everything -- are not useful for that (in that one wants to obtain the resources/infrastructure of the conquered nation). US officials both consistently over-estimated the strength of the USSR's economy and the quality of their military.

  In any event, none of your arguments justifies the US developing a program of mass nuclear-weapons, which only have one purpose: to murder millions and millions of people indiscriminately. Such a thing cannot be justified. Nuclear weapons are not defensive weapons: they aren't weapons that can prevent an attack on your nation. All that they can do is murder millions of people. Even in the supposed use of them as a "bargaining tool" to "defend" one's self, what is really being done is threatening to murder millions of people, which also cannot be justified.

  Published: April 10, 2005 1:02 PM

• Rolf

  Mr. David J. Heinrich

  A wonderful response to Mr. McCosker absurd nuclear rationalization.

  I could not agree more with your fine post.

  Rolf

  Published: April 10, 2005 3:32 PM

• R.P. McCosker

  David J. Heinrich: "So, do you think that there is some need for the US to have enough nuclear weapons to murder every person on Earth?"

  LOL. Do you think there's some need for the Swiss to have enough bullets to murder every person on earth?

  Your point here eludes me. I was discussing the seeming need for Americans (whether via the US federal regime or, preferably, by voluntary self-defense organizations) to avoid Soviet nuclear blackmail, not some specific number of weapons.

  It might be useful here to stress that I in no way endorse the Cold War, or at least US participation therein -- the UK and other countries being free to act as they saw fit. It's true that the USSR was exhibiting some very predatory imperialistic behaviors (even worse than the US!) as WWII wound up and the Postwar era began. But it was contrary to Americans' interests to have taken the bait. (Of course, the Truman administration also had its own quasi-imperialist ambitions in play here.) So in discussing nuclear policy, I'm being somewhat hypothetical, as though a Robert Taft or, probably even better, a Howard Buffett had become president at the time and I was an advisor to him.

  I don't know exactly how much weaponry was needed. Actually, nobody knows with certainty. But the fact is that the dynamics of nuclear war strategy evolved over time. Originally, about all that was needed, as was done with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was a high-speed, high-altitude withstanding aircraft such as existed at the time. A few atomic bombs were enough to do the trick. But military technology gradually advanced to where it became easier to detect incoming aircraft and to shoot them down from the ground. The counter to that was to build ultra-high-speed nuclear warhead missiles that, at first, were extremely difficult to accurately knock down. So advanced technologies developed to try to take down those missiles. The success of a nuclear strike became a crapshoot, the odds improving by sending more and more warheads than actually needed to hit their targets. Decoy missiles were also invented to further divert anti-missile systems. Further complicating things is that (fortunately, of course) no nuclear exchanges ever occurred after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so nobody could have much confidence in the effectiveness of their nuclear attack and defense systems. Consequently there was much motivation to err on the side of overkill.

  But if the US had stayed home and out of the Cold War, it seems likely that the nuclear arms race would've been much less frenetic.

  D.J. Heinrich: "Why does the US military need to be five times larger than the next-largest military in the world?"

  Are you talking about the US military in general, or only its nuclear strike and defense systems? Are you talking about the post-WWII Soviet era to its collapse (c. 1946-80), or now?

  To answer your literal question, it doesn't. It ought to be completely absent from the c. 136 nations it has military presences in. It oughtn't have a standing military corps any bigger than, say, New Zealand's. The US shouldn't even have diplomatic representation in more than half a dozen countries. (And those latter should only consist of tiny attaché offices, not embassies.) It ought to quit the UN, NATO, and all other "entangling alliances."

  What, did you think I'm a liberventionist? (I eat them for breakfast.)

  Heinrich: "Even presuming the Soviets did want to conquer the world, nuclear weapons -- destroying everything -- are not useful for that (in that one wants to obtain the resources/infrastructure of the conquered nation)."

  Having a virtual monopoly on delivering nuclear weapons is an excellent way, if one is so inclined, to blackmail others into surrendering their sovereignty. It's the credible threat that's important.

  When a thug abducts someone and threatens to kill the latter unless his PIN number or the location of his valuable is revealed, the thug naturally doesn't really want to kill the victim and thereby permanently close down access to the information. But the victim is usually intimidated into surrendering the information anyway, because he can't predict the thug's mindset.

  In nuclear blackmail, the perp may even find it to its advantage to launch a nuclear strike. It sets an example to other countries. And all that'd probably be needed is to anihilate a couple of big cities or military bases. Think of how the US only atom bombed two medium-sized cities in Japan. It's only in a war between two nuclear well-armed sides that general anihilation becomes a likelihood.

  Heinrich: "US officials both consistently over-estimated the strength of the USSR's economy and the quality of their military."

  True, and yet another reason for the US not to have pursued the Cold War. But that doesn't change the fact that the Soviets had a very large number of deliverable warheads.

  Heinrich: "In any event, none of your arguments justifies the US developing a program of mass nuclear-weapons, which only have one purpose: to murder millions and millions of people indiscriminately. Such a thing cannot be justified."

  They don't "only have one purpose," as I explained in my previous message here. Interested viewers here are asked to reread it so I don't have to repeat myself.

  By the way, that's a perverse thing for a libertarian to say, since we support the right of people to be armed against threats. It'd be more typical of anti-gun rights propagandists to claim that defensive firearms only have the purpose of murdering people indiscriminately. (Rubbish, of course.)

  Heinrich: "Nuclear weapons are not defensive weapons: they aren't weapons that can prevent an attack on your nation. All that they can do is murder millions of people."

  That's not an argument. It's a repeated claim that I've already refuted.

  Heinrich: "Even in the supposed use of them as a 'bargaining tool' to 'defend' one's self, what is really being done is threatening to murder millions of people, which also cannot be justified."

  That's an argument for pacifism. People shouldn't have guns to protect their homes from intruders because the former are threatening to murder people is the logical interpolation of what you're saying.

  Sorry, if threatening millions of their people is what it takes to prevent threatening millions of my people, I'll take it. Do you simply propose to turn the other cheek?

  Published: April 11, 2005 5:22 AM

• Dan Mahoney

  In (at least partial) support of R.P. McCosker's
  claims, I would ask rhetorically whether, in the
  libertarian world of the future, the mere
  *possession* of a nuclear weapon would justify
  (physical) force against the possessor (i.e.,
  involuntary disarmament). If so, does this not
  contradict the primary objective of
  libertarianism to evaluate *actions* as
  legitimate or non-legitimate? (And let's skip
  the party-line questioning about libertarian
  credentials; this is a fair question that I
  believe McCosker has made some good points on.)

  
  Dan
  

  Published: April 11, 2005 5:54 PM

• Peter

  Possession of nuclear weapons is an action. Since nuclear weapons cannot, by their very nature, be used in a defensive rôle (at least, not unless interstellar space-travel becomes possible, and people live on separate planets, or something), their possession is an active threat to anyone nearby, and justifies the use of force against any possessor, yes.

  Published: April 12, 2005 12:08 AM

• Dan Mahoney

  I would think that what matters is what you
  *do* with a weapon, not the mere fact of
  *having* that weapon. Peter is simply repeating
  claims that McCosker has already dealt with.
  Substitute the word "gun" for "nuclear weapon"
  in his comment, and you have the standard left-
  liberal "argument" for gun control.

  Dan

  Published: April 12, 2005 6:43 AM

• Peter

  Yes and no. With a gun, you can shoot a specific, targetted individual. That is the difference between self-defense (assuming the individual in question is attacking you) and mass murder. A nuclear weapon cannot be targetted as a specific individual (or set of individuals) without "incidentally" killing a huge number of other people as well. It is thus useless for any purpose a non-criminal could possibly conceive of. Unless the targetted individual inhabits his own planet or asteroid or something, hence the proviso in my previous response. I suppose they could also be used for large construction projects (building the Suez canal, for example, would have gone a lot faster with nukes), if you can avoid poisoning the surrounding environment.

  McCosker hasn't "dealt with" the question at all. He just made some bad collectivist assumptions, talking about "the USSR" vs. "the USA", rather than individuals residing in those places, the vast majority of whom have nothing to do with the actions of the entities named. (As usual, the entire problem is created by government)

  Published: April 12, 2005 8:23 AM

• Rolf

  With nuclear weapons the focus is most often the distruction of humans and their related activities.
  Though when viewing the distruction done to the earth enviorment and the different ecosystems + their life forms just for the solving of a human conflict problem, I can find no other word appropriate than the word Absurd that such distructive devices should even be on the planet earth and without a doubt, Criminal(if the word has any meaning at all) for any country or individual to possess such a distructive device.

  Published: April 12, 2005 11:09 AM

• Curt Howland

  For the same reason that using a grenade in a room full of people is not "self defense" merely because the person attacking you happened to be caught in the blast radius, using a nuclear weapon for "defense" is itself an offense to the others who will be effected by that use.
  

  
  Where I am going to differ with some on this issue is that mere ownership of such a device in no way defines its use. Having, and not using, a grenade in a crowded room is not an attack upon the people there, any more than having but not using a firearm.
  

  
  Remember that the principle of those who favor prohibition is that individuals cannot be trusted with (weapons, drugs, fast cars, etc).
  

  
  If you agree with prohibition in principle, all that is left is a pissing match of opinion about what is and is not trustworthy. Liberty has already lost, and to then call yourself a proponent of Liberty is a falsehood.

  Published: April 12, 2005 11:29 AM

• Dan Mahoney

  Name-calling ("collectivist assumptions") and
  conflation of points ("using a grenade in a room
  full of people"). Really nice job, kids.

  Since none of you is going to bother reading
  McCosker's points, there's little point in
  continuing the discussion. Just let me leave
  with a small question: How do the libertarians
  of the future plan to justifiably or practically
  disarm a nuclear-armed outlaw, if the
  possession per se (not *use*, kids) of such
  weapons is illegal?

  Published: April 12, 2005 11:54 AM

• Curt Howland

  Dan, that's ammusing. I was agreeing with you.

  Published: April 12, 2005 4:45 PM

• Peter

  Curt: so why own the device, if it can never be used? Just as an ornament? Why not just the casing, then? I already said it could have a legitimate purpose for demolitions, so if that's what you've got it for (not as a weapon), that's not a problem (design would be different, too).

  Dan: why would it be necessary to disarm him, per se? He probably just wouldn't be able to get any protection from defense agencies, insurance, electricity, phone service, etc., from people who knew he had it. And he'd be a target for all his gun-totin' neighbors every time he stepped off his own property.

  Published: April 12, 2005 7:38 PM

• Curt Howland

  Peter, who are you to choose for someone else? "Purpose of ownership" is not the issue, prohibition is.
  

  
  Once you have ceded the principle, once you allow the prohibition of someone from the mere possession of a (insert noun here), Liberty has been lost. You and I now trade postings in a pissing match of opinion exactly as I said above. I guess you didn't understand what I wrote the first time.

  Published: April 13, 2005 8:00 AM

• Rolf

  It is absurd to say there would be a lose of liberty for someone not to be allowed to own a device which could distroy the world. It is to the point of ridiculous.

  Published: April 13, 2005 9:31 AM

• Curt Howland

  Rolf, "a device which could distroy the world" is what is ridiculous.

  Published: April 13, 2005 10:27 AM

• Rolf

  Just one last comment before I depart this truely over the edge discussion:

  I think it is really quite tragic and pathic
  Curt that you would actually feel a sense of the lose of your liberty if you were not allowed to sit with a device which could distroy all life on earth and of course your own family, friends and aquaintances, school mates and teachers, professors, your church minister and your local gorcery clerk and last but not least yourself.

  The device itself is the real threat to liberty Curt.
  Just as the slow decaying radiation laying all over Europe from the Kenobel fire in 1986.
  The cancers are still being counted. The many thousands still being buried.

  Published: April 13, 2005 10:36 AM

• David Heinrich

  Regarding nuclear weapons, Prof. Block has written about whether or not they should be banned. The issue is if they can have any conceivable use that doesn't involve the mass initiation of aggression. The answer is yes: primarily, for destroying any asteroid that may hit the Earth. However, private courts could require that no-one have a "stationary" nuclear device (a bomb) as that could not possibly be used for such purpose. Furthermore, various safety requirements may be imposed, including location. Of course, community covenants could ban the things.

  Published: April 13, 2005 11:17 AM

• Curt Howland

  Rolf, the Chernobyl reactor was State built, owned and operated. Still is.

  
  The only relevance it has to this discussion is as an example of how the State is not to be trusted. Same with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Auschwitz and Nanjing, Waco and Cambodia and limitless examples I cannot begin to catalog.

  
  You want to argue extremes? Then tell me how any statute prohibition will prevent a "Dr. Evil" from having/using your life-ending device when it cannot even prevent the kids down the street from posessing cannabis.

  Published: April 13, 2005 11:26 AM

• Rolf

  Yes Curt Chernobyl is the correct spelling and yes it was state built and operated though that aspect is irrelevant, it could just as well have been another corporation. It does not make a damn bit of difference whose ownership title is listed in the yellow pages. Those aspects become meaningless when the burning starts as no one on earth has enough gold to pay the compensation anyway.

  Curt wrote: The only relevance it has to this discussion is as an example of how the state is not to be trusted:
  Curt that is really quite ridiclous and perhaps a bit peranoid.

  Curt, slow decay radiation when coming off a reactor which is on fire is no less deadly than an atomic explosion. Enormous amounts are put into the atmosphere which then is moved over much larger areas than one explosion effect would have. When I use the term device, I am refering to All atomic forms of power including atomic powered submarines which the American military has a fleet of loaded with up to 36 multi tiped nuk war heads. ( why the military use the word head is self discriptive)

  I am totally against nuclear in all its varied shapes and forms. The cost is vastly to much to the point of just being ridiculous. None of us can afford it though the industry has been trying to sell it for years but they never told us the cost because they knew no one would buy it.

  As for a Mr. Evil showing its presence in the months, or years or decades to come, we will have to cross that bridge when we come to it. The best way to prepare for that 30 minutes never arriving is by getting rid of what is presently in the world. To sit and worry about that 30 minutes in the future and doing nothing only increases its possibility.

  Mr. Heinrich posted one conceivable possibility
  where a nuclear device might help in the preservation of life on earth with its potential for distroying an incoming asteroid.

  Though I would rather take my chances with the asteroid as I do not have enough faith and trust
  in the tecnology which would be required to develop such a system of defence and as history as shown us in the past would also be misused.

  There are already a number of nuclear satelites in orbit.

  I realize I have begun to rant so will concude.

  Have a fine day.

  Published: April 13, 2005 1:46 PM

• Curt Howland

  Rolf, "I am totally against nuclear in all its varied shapes and forms."
  

  
  Go outside and look up. You're only 8 minutes away from a huge nuclear fireball that incidentally supplies every erg of energy on Earth, directly or indirectly.
  

  
  Every horrible example you give is provided by governments, yet you call me paranoid for being concerned about governments.
  

  
  You did not answer the question: How will a paper prohibition PREVENT what you fear so much?

  Published: April 13, 2005 2:09 PM

• Rolf

  You blame it all on governments Curt.

  Goverments are composed of people, Curt. People who have learned their particular perspectives to the point of what others call fanaticism.

  It is the human additude which needs changing.

  The word paranoid perhaps was misused in your case.

  Where I live we have groups working for the elimination of nuclear.

  As the mouse said when it secreted into the ocean,"Ever little bit Helps"

  Published: April 13, 2005 3:04 PM

• David Heinrich

  Curt,

  "Go outside and look up. You're only 8 minutes away from a huge nuclear fireball that incidentally supplies every erg of energy on Earth, directly or indirectly."

  I assume you mean 8 light minutes away. 8 minutes away, at the speed of light, perhaps.

  Rolf,

  An asteroid hitting the Earth would be equivalent to thousands, or millions, of nuclear bombs. When a volcano erupts, that's the equivalent of 10,000 Hiroshima bombs.

  I don't see why you're against all nuclear uses. I can understand being against nuclear bombs completely. With regards to missiles, the only conceivable non-aggressive use that can be imagined is destroying an asteroid (someone else pointed out to me destroying an invading army that's in an abandoned area, e.g., middle of desert).

  Certainly, nuclear power can do us a world of good. It can provide a lot of energy, and is very "environmentally friendly". Fusion power, when we can use it, will be even better, but now we're stuck with fission reactors. However, even those are environmentally friendly. There's a burning process which turns the waste into an innert solid. (Also, as for nuclear waste, if the aforementioned isn't an option, I've always been a fan of shipping it into space on a collision course with the sun).

  Published: April 13, 2005 3:27 PM

• Rolf

  Mr. Heinrich

  Yes, a asteroid hit could be fatal for a large percentage of surface organizms on earth.

  I have come to believe that the nuclear discoveries and development humanity has made has been a tragic
  entrance into an area of knowledge humanity should never have gone. And the government was in there again.

  Published: April 14, 2005 1:01 AM