Agreed, but I think more likely never. We already have trains competing on time against aircraft on many routes and they'll get even faster. That is far more economic. It may be that the only time in future we take to the air is for crossing wide oceans, but advanced sophisticated communication could even rule out most of that with holographic meetings.
At one time in this country major road hauliers operated/out of town "shunting" yards. Large loads were delivered there, and then distributed by smaller vehicles. Worked perfectly well, until the shunting yards became prime sites for property profiteers, and then companies like Stobart changed the "game". AI, which indecently used to stand for " artificial insemination " may well help society, but a lot of the rhetoric surrounding it is "reinventing" the wheel.
This is the problem. The nuclear stalemate which existed for many years is being further eroded as each new country comes on-line with nuclear weapons. Miniaturisation is now a big threat. The ability to produce a 20 000 tonne device which can be carried in a rucksack has existed for many years, but only the USA have done it (I think). If it's been invented, it's only a matter of time before the technology falls into the hands fanatics.
true enough but the first outcome is to stop the bullying USA.
I remember reading that the US had developed nuclear shells that are a realistic possibility to use in a battlefield situation....that was over 10 years ago,with miniaturisation of electronics this must be possible?
Indeed, and not just road hauliers. The railways had shunting yards with the train delivered goods carried forward locally by three wheeled Scammell Mechanical Horse tractors pulling semi trailers, powered by a little Ford 10hp car engine at town speeds. Very efficient, and a modern electric version would be even better at giving door to door rail services.
The USA definitely had, or still have if not destroyed as part of a disarmament programme, rucksack sized 20 000 tonne yield devices, weighing in at a little over 20 Kg. Highly portable. They were known as Davey Crocketts and were intended to be used in mainland Europe to destroy infrastructure ahead of an advancing Soviet Army.
Very difficult to know if this is true due to misreporting. For four decades now some shells have been tipped with depleted uranium extracted from nuclear wastes. The density and hardness of this material is ideal for penetrating armour on tanks and the like and we used them in the Balkans conflict. They've often been misreported as being nuclear shells since there were fears (unfounded) that they would irradiate the area where used.
I remember them well. "Scammell Scarab's" at the railway yards, BRS truck depot's with "Karrier" trucks for town delivery. Accusations of "rose tinted spectacles" alert. Also, where I live, the inter city bus operators offered a depot to depot parcel service. I live in a rural location down a dead end road. When the postal/parcel delivery service was nationalised, we got two vans a day. One for letters, the other for parcels. Now, after privatisation, there can be in excess of 30 vans per day. I've had seven deliveries in one day by seven different companies, whereas before it would have been one. Taking time to sit back and look at the transport infrastructure in this country requires looking at the bigger picture in its entirety, and not just short term flash in the pan fast buck ideas to line your mates pockets.
But it's largely background radiation of the same type and effect that the earth has always had naturally for the last 4.5 billion years since it was created, so harmless.
Its not quite that simple Flecc. The DU shells if left undisturbed are exactly as you describe but unfortunately that's not normally the case. The tank hit will burst into flames creating clouds of radio active smoke. If that's breathed chances are you will at some stage develop cancer. The smoke settles on ground etc and finds a way into food chain in a way it would not normally. Yes, if DU shell struck earth and was simply left...well that's putting the stuff back where it came from...not in our lungs or food. We dont know how much represents the two scenarios.. Besides with reactive armour I,m not sure DU gives any benefits.
But they haven't have they? just resulted in proxy wars that are hugely damaging to humanity.
Or 7,500 miles of Coastline that cannot realistically be defended?
I remember them well as my grandmother's home was close to a shunting yard and those little Scammells were in and out alll day long. They were incredibly useful machines as they could turn on a sixpence and were pretty nippy compared to full-blown, flatbed lorries, many of which were still steam-powered in those days.
Wrong as usual
But the great majority of the radioactive content, even where concentrated and no matter what the circumstance, is as I've said, at the lowest level. There's far too much hysteria on this subject. Lawsuits mean nothing without proofs, and independent investigations of the Balkan areas where they were used have shown no lasting harm. They are becoming tourist visiting areas now, like Hiroshima and Chernobyl.
I think this was dismissed as propoganda OG. They couldn't get " bomb* to cope with acceleration in barrel...but who knows. Could be.( but not in 1953)
And you don't have to be so confrontational.
