Climate change will come with humans, or without. It's been going on since long before humans arrived on the scene, and there is no reason to believe it'll stop just because we ask it nicely.
There is also no reason to believe we know enough, or have power enough, to hold the planet's climate in long-term stasis. So let's forget that option.
Concentrate on what we CAN do.
If we are shifting the CO2 balance in the atmosphere, then work on fixing our contributions. But don't expect that because we stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, that the CO2 balance will stabilize. There's no reason to believe it will, and even less reason to believe that the "historical" level is some magical stable point.
Another thing we can work on is becoming less dependent on environmental fresh water. Rain is all well and good, but if we don't start making our own fresh water soon, we'll be in deep before too much longer.
Same with food supplies - too dependent on weather. We've been able to grow things hydroponically and aeroponically for a long time, so it's time to start looking at them in the large scale. It'll help in all sorts of interesting ways, not least will be reduction of our (current) need to dump fertilizer into the Gulf of Mexico.
think those crazy maneuvers they depicted in ID4 for existing aircraft
Actually, what bothered me most about ID4 wasn't that. It was the possibility that we (or anyone else) would try to use conventional air-air missiles (specifically AMRAAMs) to attack a spacecraft the size of a city.
I mean, that almost makes as much sense as attacking, well, a city with conventional air-air weapons. Last time we seriously got into wrecking cities was WW2. Thousands of tons of explosives did bad things to cities. But the cities were still there at the end of the war. And an AMRAAM is barely 20 kg of explosive.
So, maybe if they'd fired 100,000 AMRAAMs or so (requiring an attack by 25,000 or so aircraft, of which the USA has a couple thousand), all scoring hits, we might expect to see some damage. It would take blind luck for that to be fatal damage to a ship that size, but it's possible.
As to Day After Tomorrow, I look forward to seeing it. From what I hear, it looks to be a good disaster movie, with much eye-candy. And how much more can you ask of a movie? If it is just a good plot, with no eyecandy, I'll watch it on DVD when it comes out, and won't bother with a theatre.
Just a couple nights ago, watching reruns, I saw a reference to the line item "Area 52" in the DoD budget being the funding for SGC.
Does anyone know when SGC was "moved" to Cheyenne Mountain? As I recall from the movie, they carefully changed the signs over the entrance to "Creek Mountain".
And I'm quite aware of the significance of Area 51.
During recent weeks I have also had the feeling very definitely that the Japanese government may be searching for some opportunity which they could use as a medium of surrender.
Doesn't sound nearly like we "knew" the Japanese were on the verge of surrender.
Much as I respect General Arnold, the Strategic Bombing Survey produced all sorts of interesting results that agreed that our bombing campaign was overwhelmingly more successful than other, more unbiased, sources think it was. I pretty much discount anything from it out of hand.
If the only constraint that Hitler would remain alive (but with no real power), then yes. Remember, if you're going to make an analogy, it needs to be an equivalent one.
That's funny. The Japanese Emperor had no real power before the war. The Japanese High Command essentially wanted a status quo ante bellum agreement.
Oh really? You should have informed Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph Bard, who wrote to Truman about how there was absolutely no need to nuke Japan, since they were getting ready to surrender anyway.
Bard may have said that, but how did he know? According to Japanese rcords, Hirohito had no plans to get involved in the process of forcing his government to surrender until AFTER Hiroshima.
Also, the dichotomy you describe must be analysed within the scope of recent events. The Japanese civilians on Guam all commited suicide rather than be captured by the Americans. Kamikaze aircraft were causing more damage to the 3rd/5th Fleet than the rest of the IJN ever had.
"Conditional surrender". I take it you think the Russians should have pulled out of the war with the Germans? Unconditional Surrender was a policy adopted at the highest level, between Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin. We had to carefully avoid even the possibility that something might be seen as a separate peace, or risk having the Russians quit. And remember, right up till the end of the European part of WW2, it was none too clear that we'd be able to beat the Japanese without Soviet assistance (at least for kicking the Japs out of China)
Sounds like a lot of hypocritical scientists. It's not like they weren't aware of the British and American bombing campaigns. Incidently, did you know that the firebombing of Tokyo did FAR MORE damage than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima? The scary thing about Hiroshima was that it could be done with one bomber, not that it was the most destructive attack in history (it was no better than fourth, I think - two attacks on Tokyo, and one on Dresden were certainly worse. there may have been others)
It's as if the senior military decision makers don't really understand how the military is really just another tool of diplomacy, and should be used in concert, planning and execution of all other diplomatic means.
I understand that British generals think this way (and, based on much reading, that most European generals think much the same)- that war is just part of the diplomatic process. American generals are trained on the assumption that the diplomacy is done by the State Department, and that the military is only called in when it's time to bust heads. So they concentrate on being good at busting heads, and let the striped-trouser types concentrate on the diplomacy parts.
In other words, its a difference of opinion about the role of a general. A fairly common difference of opinion, at least between Americans and Europeans.
Actually, despite the fact that our public schools are miserable failures of education these days,
Interstingly, the US Military has one of the most effective teaching systems in the world. The sudden dramatic expansion of the US Military in WW2 pretty much required that they learn how to teach pretty much anyone anything, quickly.
And a long service professional military helps there too.
So why are guerilla tactics used by an opposing force often decried as unfair or underhanded?
The idea is inherited from the Napoleanic Wars. Back in the day, Armies did the fighting, and Civilians were not really much affected by war (unless a battle happened in your backyard) - "The farmer in his field and the Burgher in his town should neither know, nor care, when the state has gone to war". An older phrasing of the idea, already fraying in Napolean's day.
Guerrillas ("little wars") required Armies to make war on the populace at large, or give up. And Armies, traditionally, don't really like making war on the populace or giving up. Note that Air Forces have always been a bit less discriminating that way. Comes from having only area effect weapons.
In any case, the traditional view is that wars have a distinct beginning, middle and end. And Guerrillas mess up that "end" part no end.
Yah, it is a bit of an esoteric art. Generally, one must assume that long-odds events don't happen. That is, that for a given neutron flux, no more than the "average" events occur. You don't design assuming that the statistical miracle of every atom in a given cubic centimeter of reactor vessel will transmute at the same time into something water-soluble. It COULD happen (theoretically), but all the air in the room you are in could also rush into the space within an inch of your left hand too....
Most metals have a low neutron capture cross section. That is, they don't actually absorb neutrons very well. Metals that DO absorb neutrons well are not used in reactor structures, since they would act as a damper on the chain reaction. So only transmutations in the reactor vessel are quite small in number (say, on the order of mg in a 100Mg+ reactor vessel, and that over some years of operation).
Ahh! I see. You are confusing US Military doctrine with "political pressure".
It is an article of faith among US Military leaders (especially the Army and Air Force) that Unity of Command is a "Good Thing" (note the caps). ANYTHING which endangers Unity of Command is therefore a "Bad Thing".
An EU Reponse Force is a "Good Thing" so long as there is no "NATO Response Force", and a "Bad Thing" if there is. In other words, an EU RRF is a threat to the Unity of Command inherent in 50 years of NATO. This is not a political issue in the USA (outside the Military, noone cares), it is a Military Issue. The generals get nervous when they can't draw a chain of command that leads to one person at the top.
History has shown that a divided command is a bad thing. WW1 is a classic example. The American Civil War is another one, on both sides. WW2 was one to a lesser extent (the Brits and Amis worked closely, the Chinese less so, the Russians hardly at all). In any case, pretty much anything that you can imagine that splits the chain of command makes our generals nervous. And probably makes some of your's nervous as well.
I should note that from a purely political standpoint, America would be delighted if the EU would take over policing Europe. Then we wouldn't have to be in Bosnia, Kosovo, and similar places we really have no interest in.
Neat idea, but I'd hate to even consider driving one of these on the highways. A normal car loses when it has an arguement with an 18-wheeler. I imagine this thing would lose just as badly if it encountered a normal car.
That said, the autopilot mode I like. Though it would be better if it could drive autonomously, rather than surrendering control to someone else (who's as likely to fall asleep at the wheel as I am). Course, the networking would have to be designed so that it was proof against some random attack. Giving up control of my car to someone else is one thing, having him TAKE control against my will is "right out".
And it changes colours to indicate what is going on inside! I wonder what colour it turns if you're making out?
Well, DGPS is really pretty useless if you're "the enemy". It requires a stationary GPS unit transmitting constant corrections to the mobile GPS, and anything sitting on the ground bleeping RF like that is gonna be blown up real quick like.
To a certain extent, this is true. But only to an extent. If we were at war with Belgium, we woud no doubt blow up any Belgie DGPS Station we could find. Which wouldn't actually stop the Belgies from using, say, French DGPS. Or, for that matter, American ones during terminal guidance of a cruise missile.
Our ability to blow up any transmitter around is only meaningful if EVERYONE is on the other side - wouldn't do at all to blow up some neutral, or even an ally.
Fallout is a potential issue, but should be largely restricted to the Northern Hemisphere by prevailing weather patterns, and is lessened in significance by airbursts, which would NOT be used in a counterforce strike (which wouldn't kill very many people, since the silos aren't in cities), but WOULD be used in a strike against the population of the world (since it kills so many more people per bomb).
And nuclear winter should nicely cancel out global warming, so what's the problem?
Seriously, we have far more bombs than would be needed to knock the world back into the Dark Ages. There are only so many cities, after all. But killing everyone? Not likely. Killing MOST people? Possible, just, I think. But we could kill 4,000,000,000 people, and still leave the world with a larger population than it had 100 years ago.
Note that MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) is an inherently evil idea ("if you blow up our children, we'll blow up your's", essentially), but it does have the virtue that it worked when it counted. Hasn't been a nuke popped in anger since 1945.
Well, no. Clinton ordered SA (selective availability) turned off. Since that time, the US (and the rest of the world) have made increasing use of GPS to the point that the US economy would suffer tremendously if SA were turned back on.
In spite of the advantage that SA theoretically gave us, it was turned off in both Iraq Wars. First time, because not enough milspec GPS receivers were available, second time because it had been turned off years before by Clinton, and it was no longer practical to disable it.
Note further that differential GPS was developed specifically to overcome the limitations imposed by SA. Most commercial-grade GPS receivers support it. Even if they didn't, it isn't so difficult a concept that it couldn't be reinvented if it were needed by a potential belligerent.
It is impossible to add neutrons to aluminum (atomic number 13) such as to cause it to decay to carbon (atomic number 6).
In general, radioisotopes of Aluminum undergo beta decay. Which results in silicon. Which also undergoes beta decay. Note that with beta decay, atomic number of the product is higher than before, rather than lower.
You'd need, for a start, an isotope of aluminum that undergoes alpha decay that happens to decay into a isotope of Sodium that undergoes alpha decay, that happens to decay into an isotope of Flourine that undergoes alpha decay that...you get the idea. Somewhere down the line, you have to end up with Boron-[12:14], which will beta decay into C-[12-14]. Since the known isotopes of all the elements between Boron and Silicon use beta decay (with the occasional emitted neutron in the more extreme isotopes), chances of finding such a chain are slim to none, with the odds on none.
"Even before indictment". The Grand Jury is the only source of indictment in places where it is practiced.
It actually protects people even from the initial burden of defense. No lawyers involved, unless one is subpoenad by the Grand Jury. Usually the person being considered for subpoena only knows that the Grand Jury is considering him/her/it because of his/her/its previous arrest on whatever charges.
In case I did not make it clear, the Grand Jury's proceedings are SECRET. Noone not present has a clue what really goes on, and, in fact, many of those present don't. The DA, for instance. He offers up a case (or, more likely, stack of cases) for the Grand Jury to consider. We go into a different room to look things over. If we want to talk to someone, we subpoena him/her/it. When we DO talk to someone, the DA is NOT present. There is no court recorder taking down every word that is said. When we vote to indict, noone is present but us. Note here that I speak for the jurisdiction where I served. Rules no doubt vary from State to State.
Yes, it does require reasonably honest judges/DA's and such to work properly. So does any other system. In fact, "our" DA DID mention Nullification. Told us to use the concept as we saw fit. If he hadn't, those of us who knew about it would have done so in spite of his lack of foresight.
As to the Fifth Amendment being suppressed: it is not. You are not incriminating yourself if you tell a Grand Jury that you killed your wife. The immunity granted prevents the concept of self-incrimination from applying. Note that the DA is one of the people NOT present when a Grand Jury hears testimony.
Grand Juries aren't "commonly feared" by people, so far as I can tell. They are "commonly ignored" by people, in that most people neither know nor care when a Grand Jury is sitting. The people who "fear" them mostly have no clue about what they do, or how they do it.
It is a real shame that avoiding Jury Duty has become such a common practice in our society, and the notion of "civic duty" has fallen in such ill-repute, that normal people really have no idea how the system works - they watch a cop show, and a lawyer show, and a courtroom farce, and think they have an understanding of the legal system. They see a news account of a bad cop (we certainly have enough of those where I live), and assume all/most cops are bad, without ever realizing that "bad cop" wouldn't make the news if it were "normal" - it makes the news entirely because it is unusual enough to be of interest to people. Same with corrupt judges - they make the news, but the hundreds (thousands) of honest, hard-working judges are never mentioned (unless they make a ruling that disagrees with local editorial prejudice, of course).
As to "Jury of your peers", that concept did not assume that some Klansman accused of murder must be judged by a panel of local rednecks. It just means that a Jury judging a "commoner" must consist of "commoners", etc. The distinction is from English Common Law, as I recall.
Two last notes, for those who are unaware: there are two kinds of Juries, Grand and Petit. They mean, respectively, Big and Little. The only other distinction between them is the selection process - a Grand Jury is chosen randomly, a Petit Jury is chosen randomly, then vetted by the Prosecution/Defense/Judge.
And finally: the biggest impediment to the "normal" Judicial process in the USA today is the tendency of one side or the other to take cases into the "court of public opinion", which taints Juries, causes cases to be relocated to obscure places far from the events, that sort of thing. The OJ Trial is a classic example of such - did he get Justice? only by blind chance (I should note that, based on the evidence as presented on TV, which is not necessarily all the evidence that was presented to the Jury, *I* would have voted to acquit, even though I think he was guilty).
PS. My discussion of Grand Jury procedures is specific to the Jurisd
Checked your link. Interesting. So, they check sheep with a geiger counter, then change their pastures for a few weeks if the results are too high.
Doesn't sound all that serious to me. I didn't see any figures on how many sheep per year are so identified, nor for how many are downchecked again after being in the lower pasture for a few weeks. Biological halflife of ten days, according to one article.
I notice a mention of 13,000,000 pounds as the cost so far (to Britain). In 17 years. Spread over between 386 and 10000 farms. So, a maximum (theoretical, averaged over all the 386 farms still so restricted) cost per year is 2000 pounds per year or so. Again, none too serious. I doubt it was enough (on average) to even get over the deductible on their insurance (speaking with complete ignorance about "normal" deductibles on British farm insurance).
Now, for a small suggestion to mitigate the longer than expected duration of the contamination, and the expected (by me) contamination of the lower, safer, pastures: shovel sheep-shit. One of the things leading to the equilibrium being noted is that the cesium is being excreted by the sheep, and the fertilizer so formed is restoring some of the cesium to the bioshpere. Shovel the stuff up, and get it out of the bioshpere, and the concentration of cesium-137 in the bioshpere will go down faster.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Parking Tickets count as misdemeanors. And Speeding Tickets. So, basically, everyone would be tracked?
Except the real criminals, of course. They would just get the RFID tag removed.
No. The thing to do is adapt.
Climate change will come with humans, or without. It's been going on since long before humans arrived on the scene, and there is no reason to believe it'll stop just because we ask it nicely.
There is also no reason to believe we know enough, or have power enough, to hold the planet's climate in long-term stasis. So let's forget that option.
Concentrate on what we CAN do.
If we are shifting the CO2 balance in the atmosphere, then work on fixing our contributions. But don't expect that because we stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, that the CO2 balance will stabilize. There's no reason to believe it will, and even less reason to believe that the "historical" level is some magical stable point.
Another thing we can work on is becoming less dependent on environmental fresh water. Rain is all well and good, but if we don't start making our own fresh water soon, we'll be in deep before too much longer.
Same with food supplies - too dependent on weather. We've been able to grow things hydroponically and aeroponically for a long time, so it's time to start looking at them in the large scale. It'll help in all sorts of interesting ways, not least will be reduction of our (current) need to dump fertilizer into the Gulf of Mexico.
think those crazy maneuvers they depicted in ID4 for existing aircraft
Actually, what bothered me most about ID4 wasn't that. It was the possibility that we (or anyone else) would try to use conventional air-air missiles (specifically AMRAAMs) to attack a spacecraft the size of a city.
I mean, that almost makes as much sense as attacking, well, a city with conventional air-air weapons. Last time we seriously got into wrecking cities was WW2. Thousands of tons of explosives did bad things to cities. But the cities were still there at the end of the war. And an AMRAAM is barely 20 kg of explosive.
So, maybe if they'd fired 100,000 AMRAAMs or so (requiring an attack by 25,000 or so aircraft, of which the USA has a couple thousand), all scoring hits, we might expect to see some damage. It would take blind luck for that to be fatal damage to a ship that size, but it's possible.
As to Day After Tomorrow, I look forward to seeing it. From what I hear, it looks to be a good disaster movie, with much eye-candy. And how much more can you ask of a movie? If it is just a good plot, with no eyecandy, I'll watch it on DVD when it comes out, and won't bother with a theatre.
I beg to differ.
Just a couple nights ago, watching reruns, I saw a reference to the line item "Area 52" in the DoD budget being the funding for SGC.
Does anyone know when SGC was "moved" to Cheyenne Mountain? As I recall from the movie, they carefully changed the signs over the entrance to "Creek Mountain".
And I'm quite aware of the significance of Area 51.
Isn't Area 52 Stargate Command?
During recent weeks I have also had the feeling very definitely that the Japanese government may be searching for some opportunity which they could use as a medium of surrender.
Doesn't sound nearly like we "knew" the Japanese were on the verge of surrender.
Much as I respect General Arnold, the Strategic Bombing Survey produced all sorts of interesting results that agreed that our bombing campaign was overwhelmingly more successful than other, more unbiased, sources think it was. I pretty much discount anything from it out of hand.
If the only constraint that Hitler would remain alive (but with no real power), then yes. Remember, if you're going to make an analogy, it needs to be an equivalent one.
That's funny. The Japanese Emperor had no real power before the war. The Japanese High Command essentially wanted a status quo ante bellum agreement.
Oh really? You should have informed Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph Bard, who wrote to Truman about how there was absolutely no need to nuke Japan, since they were getting ready to surrender anyway.
Bard may have said that, but how did he know? According to Japanese rcords, Hirohito had no plans to get involved in the process of forcing his government to surrender until AFTER Hiroshima.
Also, the dichotomy you describe must be analysed within the scope of recent events. The Japanese civilians on Guam all commited suicide rather than be captured by the Americans. Kamikaze aircraft were causing more damage to the 3rd/5th Fleet than the rest of the IJN ever had.
"Conditional surrender". I take it you think the Russians should have pulled out of the war with the Germans? Unconditional Surrender was a policy adopted at the highest level, between Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin. We had to carefully avoid even the possibility that something might be seen as a separate peace, or risk having the Russians quit. And remember, right up till the end of the European part of WW2, it was none too clear that we'd be able to beat the Japanese without Soviet assistance (at least for kicking the Japs out of China)
Sounds like a lot of hypocritical scientists. It's not like they weren't aware of the British and American bombing campaigns. Incidently, did you know that the firebombing of Tokyo did FAR MORE damage than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima? The scary thing about Hiroshima was that it could be done with one bomber, not that it was the most destructive attack in history (it was no better than fourth, I think - two attacks on Tokyo, and one on Dresden were certainly worse. there may have been others)
It's as if the senior military decision makers don't really understand how the military is really just another tool of diplomacy, and should be used in concert, planning and execution of all other diplomatic means.
I understand that British generals think this way (and, based on much reading, that most European generals think much the same)- that war is just part of the diplomatic process. American generals are trained on the assumption that the diplomacy is done by the State Department, and that the military is only called in when it's time to bust heads. So they concentrate on being good at busting heads, and let the striped-trouser types concentrate on the diplomacy parts.
In other words, its a difference of opinion about the role of a general. A fairly common difference of opinion, at least between Americans and Europeans.
Actually, despite the fact that our public schools are miserable failures of education these days,
Interstingly, the US Military has one of the most effective teaching systems in the world. The sudden dramatic expansion of the US Military in WW2 pretty much required that they learn how to teach pretty much anyone anything, quickly.
And a long service professional military helps there too.
So why are guerilla tactics used by an opposing force often decried as unfair or underhanded?
The idea is inherited from the Napoleanic Wars. Back in the day, Armies did the fighting, and Civilians were not really much affected by war (unless a battle happened in your backyard) - "The farmer in his field and the Burgher in his town should neither know, nor care, when the state has gone to war". An older phrasing of the idea, already fraying in Napolean's day.
Guerrillas ("little wars") required Armies to make war on the populace at large, or give up. And Armies, traditionally, don't really like making war on the populace or giving up. Note that Air Forces have always been a bit less discriminating that way. Comes from having only area effect weapons.
In any case, the traditional view is that wars have a distinct beginning, middle and end. And Guerrillas mess up that "end" part no end.
Very Friendly People ;-)
Most metals have a low neutron capture cross section. That is, they don't actually absorb neutrons very well. Metals that DO absorb neutrons well are not used in reactor structures, since they would act as a damper on the chain reaction. So only transmutations in the reactor vessel are quite small in number (say, on the order of mg in a 100Mg+ reactor vessel, and that over some years of operation).
Ahh! I see. You are confusing US Military doctrine with "political pressure".
It is an article of faith among US Military leaders (especially the Army and Air Force) that Unity of Command is a "Good Thing" (note the caps). ANYTHING which endangers Unity of Command is therefore a "Bad Thing".
An EU Reponse Force is a "Good Thing" so long as there is no "NATO Response Force", and a "Bad Thing" if there is. In other words, an EU RRF is a threat to the Unity of Command inherent in 50 years of NATO. This is not a political issue in the USA (outside the Military, noone cares), it is a Military Issue. The generals get nervous when they can't draw a chain of command that leads to one person at the top.
History has shown that a divided command is a bad thing. WW1 is a classic example. The American Civil War is another one, on both sides. WW2 was one to a lesser extent (the Brits and Amis worked closely, the Chinese less so, the Russians hardly at all). In any case, pretty much anything that you can imagine that splits the chain of command makes our generals nervous. And probably makes some of your's nervous as well.
I should note that from a purely political standpoint, America would be delighted if the EU would take over policing Europe. Then we wouldn't have to be in Bosnia, Kosovo, and similar places we really have no interest in.
You don't think you could fit two very friendly people into one of those? Trust me, if these things become common, people will try it.
That said, the autopilot mode I like. Though it would be better if it could drive autonomously, rather than surrendering control to someone else (who's as likely to fall asleep at the wheel as I am). Course, the networking would have to be designed so that it was proof against some random attack. Giving up control of my car to someone else is one thing, having him TAKE control against my will is "right out".
And it changes colours to indicate what is going on inside! I wonder what colour it turns if you're making out?
Well, DGPS is really pretty useless if you're "the enemy". It requires a stationary GPS unit transmitting constant corrections to the mobile GPS, and anything sitting on the ground bleeping RF like that is gonna be blown up real quick like.
To a certain extent, this is true. But only to an extent. If we were at war with Belgium, we woud no doubt blow up any Belgie DGPS Station we could find. Which wouldn't actually stop the Belgies from using, say, French DGPS. Or, for that matter, American ones during terminal guidance of a cruise missile.
Our ability to blow up any transmitter around is only meaningful if EVERYONE is on the other side - wouldn't do at all to blow up some neutral, or even an ally.
Can you cite some references? I've never heard that we're applying political pressure to prevent the Europeans from having bigger militaries.
Come to that, I've never heard that any Europeans WANT bigger militaries.
More than two. The Russion GLONASS is already up there.
I'm curious. How is the USA doing this?
China doesn't actually have all that many.
Fallout is a potential issue, but should be largely restricted to the Northern Hemisphere by prevailing weather patterns, and is lessened in significance by airbursts, which would NOT be used in a counterforce strike (which wouldn't kill very many people, since the silos aren't in cities), but WOULD be used in a strike against the population of the world (since it kills so many more people per bomb).
And nuclear winter should nicely cancel out global warming, so what's the problem?
Seriously, we have far more bombs than would be needed to knock the world back into the Dark Ages. There are only so many cities, after all. But killing everyone? Not likely. Killing MOST people? Possible, just, I think. But we could kill 4,000,000,000 people, and still leave the world with a larger population than it had 100 years ago.
Note that MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) is an inherently evil idea ("if you blow up our children, we'll blow up your's", essentially), but it does have the virtue that it worked when it counted. Hasn't been a nuke popped in anger since 1945.
In spite of the advantage that SA theoretically gave us, it was turned off in both Iraq Wars. First time, because not enough milspec GPS receivers were available, second time because it had been turned off years before by Clinton, and it was no longer practical to disable it.
Note further that differential GPS was developed specifically to overcome the limitations imposed by SA. Most commercial-grade GPS receivers support it. Even if they didn't, it isn't so difficult a concept that it couldn't be reinvented if it were needed by a potential belligerent.
My, what an active imagination you have!
It is impossible to add neutrons to aluminum (atomic number 13) such as to cause it to decay to carbon (atomic number 6).
In general, radioisotopes of Aluminum undergo beta decay. Which results in silicon. Which also undergoes beta decay. Note that with beta decay, atomic number of the product is higher than before, rather than lower.
You'd need, for a start, an isotope of aluminum that undergoes alpha decay that happens to decay into a isotope of Sodium that undergoes alpha decay, that happens to decay into an isotope of Flourine that undergoes alpha decay that...you get the idea. Somewhere down the line, you have to end up with Boron-[12:14], which will beta decay into C-[12-14]. Since the known isotopes of all the elements between Boron and Silicon use beta decay (with the occasional emitted neutron in the more extreme isotopes), chances of finding such a chain are slim to none, with the odds on none.
"Even before indictment". The Grand Jury is the only source of indictment in places where it is practiced.
It actually protects people even from the initial burden of defense. No lawyers involved, unless one is subpoenad by the Grand Jury. Usually the person being considered for subpoena only knows that the Grand Jury is considering him/her/it because of his/her/its previous arrest on whatever charges.
In case I did not make it clear, the Grand Jury's proceedings are SECRET. Noone not present has a clue what really goes on, and, in fact, many of those present don't. The DA, for instance. He offers up a case (or, more likely, stack of cases) for the Grand Jury to consider. We go into a different room to look things over. If we want to talk to someone, we subpoena him/her/it. When we DO talk to someone, the DA is NOT present. There is no court recorder taking down every word that is said. When we vote to indict, noone is present but us. Note here that I speak for the jurisdiction where I served. Rules no doubt vary from State to State.
Yes, it does require reasonably honest judges/DA's and such to work properly. So does any other system. In fact, "our" DA DID mention Nullification. Told us to use the concept as we saw fit. If he hadn't, those of us who knew about it would have done so in spite of his lack of foresight.
As to the Fifth Amendment being suppressed: it is not. You are not incriminating yourself if you tell a Grand Jury that you killed your wife. The immunity granted prevents the concept of self-incrimination from applying. Note that the DA is one of the people NOT present when a Grand Jury hears testimony.
Grand Juries aren't "commonly feared" by people, so far as I can tell. They are "commonly ignored" by people, in that most people neither know nor care when a Grand Jury is sitting. The people who "fear" them mostly have no clue about what they do, or how they do it.
It is a real shame that avoiding Jury Duty has become such a common practice in our society, and the notion of "civic duty" has fallen in such ill-repute, that normal people really have no idea how the system works - they watch a cop show, and a lawyer show, and a courtroom farce, and think they have an understanding of the legal system. They see a news account of a bad cop (we certainly have enough of those where I live), and assume all/most cops are bad, without ever realizing that "bad cop" wouldn't make the news if it were "normal" - it makes the news entirely because it is unusual enough to be of interest to people. Same with corrupt judges - they make the news, but the hundreds (thousands) of honest, hard-working judges are never mentioned (unless they make a ruling that disagrees with local editorial prejudice, of course).
As to "Jury of your peers", that concept did not assume that some Klansman accused of murder must be judged by a panel of local rednecks. It just means that a Jury judging a "commoner" must consist of "commoners", etc. The distinction is from English Common Law, as I recall.
Two last notes, for those who are unaware: there are two kinds of Juries, Grand and Petit. They mean, respectively, Big and Little. The only other distinction between them is the selection process - a Grand Jury is chosen randomly, a Petit Jury is chosen randomly, then vetted by the Prosecution/Defense/Judge.
And finally: the biggest impediment to the "normal" Judicial process in the USA today is the tendency of one side or the other to take cases into the "court of public opinion", which taints Juries, causes cases to be relocated to obscure places far from the events, that sort of thing. The OJ Trial is a classic example of such - did he get Justice? only by blind chance (I should note that, based on the evidence as presented on TV, which is not necessarily all the evidence that was presented to the Jury, *I* would have voted to acquit, even though I think he was guilty).
PS. My discussion of Grand Jury procedures is specific to the Jurisd
Thank you. I had not considered that factor. Consider my objections to biodiesel to be withdrawn.
Checked your link. Interesting. So, they check sheep with a geiger counter, then change their pastures for a few weeks if the results are too high.
Doesn't sound all that serious to me. I didn't see any figures on how many sheep per year are so identified, nor for how many are downchecked again after being in the lower pasture for a few weeks. Biological halflife of ten days, according to one article.
I notice a mention of 13,000,000 pounds as the cost so far (to Britain). In 17 years. Spread over between 386 and 10000 farms. So, a maximum (theoretical, averaged over all the 386 farms still so restricted) cost per year is 2000 pounds per year or so. Again, none too serious. I doubt it was enough (on average) to even get over the deductible on their insurance (speaking with complete ignorance about "normal" deductibles on British farm insurance).
Now, for a small suggestion to mitigate the longer than expected duration of the contamination, and the expected (by me) contamination of the lower, safer, pastures: shovel sheep-shit. One of the things leading to the equilibrium being noted is that the cesium is being excreted by the sheep, and the fertilizer so formed is restoring some of the cesium to the bioshpere. Shovel the stuff up, and get it out of the bioshpere, and the concentration of cesium-137 in the bioshpere will go down faster.