Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> The risk of #3 is that they don't create fusion but they do develop a machine that can emit streams of hot plasma which is then turned into the Navy's weapon of choice for close weapons support on carrier battle groups.

The possibility of pivoting your business model to "building plasma cannons for the Navy" is less of a risk and more of an awesome opportunity. I mean, defense contracting is a bit of a drag and there's tons of red tape, but if there's anything as cool as building fusion reactors small enough to replace diesel generators, it's building plasma cannons for the Navy.




"I mean, defense contracting is a bit of a drag and there's tons of red tape"

Not to mention the tremendous moral hazard. I am unclear as to how anyone can function as a reasonable moral actor when they profit from war.

Calling it "defense" does not solve that problem.


Generally I would expect direct fire weapons to have much less collateral damage than bombs.

Building a better bullet can save lives.


And of late someone has: guided .50BMG bullets which can adjust their flightpath to assuredly hit a target (which, one can presume, is being shot to prevent others from being killed). EXACTO .50-caliber demonstration: http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2014/07/10a.aspx


Plasma cannons don't kill people, people kill people, and we've already invented those.


Changes in topology kill people.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: