I meant to say that any military OFFICER will see the advantages of cold
fusion powered equipment, such as aircraft and tanks. A cold fusion
powered nuclear bomb would not be necessary and I doubt such a thing is
possible. Direct use of cold fusion energy to destroy objects with
lasers, heat or by accelerating objects is likely but it will be on same
scale as chemical energy releases from conventional munitions. I hope
so, anyway.
Note that the primary differences between the British and Chinese fleets
in the first Opium War (1839 - 1842) was in the use of energy. Mainly in
two ways: the British fleet has auxiliary steam power, especially in the
ironclad Nemesis, and they had better cannons. You can think of a
19th-century cannon as a device to concentrate energy. They were not
particularly accurate over long range. The Chinese also had artillery
and muskets.
In the U.S. Civil War, the Confederate ironclad Virginia was technically
possible because it used steam rather than sails. The power supply was
the main difference, and the enabling technology. Sail-powered ironclad
ships would be impossible, especially in narrow channels and inland
waterways. The Virgina was designed right at the edge of its power
limits, meaning it was so heavy, it barely able to navigate. (The steam
engine was 1,200 HP, manufactured in Boston in 1856.)
The Virginia easily destroyed two large wooden U.S. Navy ships in one
day, March 8, 1862. This is an excellent example of how energy
technology can decisively improve military effectiveness. The energy
need not be used directly in combat, to cause harm.
- Jed
