The question is not if it will allow deadly weapons. It will, sure drones, autonomous vehicles of many kinds, vessels, trucks, and less probably high power bombs, but why not.
the question is if it will gives a stable advantage to some actors, like a super poser, or to the weak power or citizen via terrorism. To avoid the worst scenarii the paradox is that the weapons should be available to everybody. the seconds is that like for deadly diseases or biowarfare, we should have countermeasures availeble, counter drones, bomb detectors, dissemination diagnostics, and last resource, awful global regulation to deter anyone trying to play with tha dragon's tail (something more or less like: we will find you and your beloved and make you and them suffer the fire of hell, so that you ask us we achieve you all)... Le jeu. 16 août 2018 à 20:45, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> a écrit : > Martin Fleischmann worried about the possibility the cold fusion might be > used for a weapon. He discussed that in his letters with Miles. The > discussion is spread out over many letters. See p. 11, p. 430, and look for > "D.U.": > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf > > Martin told me that Edward Teller also worried that cold fusion might be > used as a weapon. > > I cannot judge whether cold fusion might be weaponized, but I am sure it > will revolutionize every aspect of conventional weapons, just as steam > engines revolutionized naval weapons in the 19th century. Without steam, > you could not have ironclad warships with large, modern cannons. They would > be too heavy. (Granted, there were lighter steel-hulled sailing ships in > the late 19th and early 20th century.) > > - Jed > >
