Here is my idea for multi-use of taxpayer funds--the Powership.

An LNG carrier with multiple reactors to crack seawater into hydrogen and oxygen. In an emergency--the cryogenics help cool reactors that have multiple redundancy. The hydrogen and oxygen can be burned in turbines and add their power to that of the reactors for a large energy weapon.

So you actually have US Naval assets (and our nuclear navy) give us new ways to both power and protect our cities (not to mention fuel Sea Dragon very quickly ).


Or you can waste billions on a handful of carriers, with a handful of planes, dropping a handful of bombs on a handful of terrorists--do your Top Gun thing, and return to port with very little actually done--seeing that oil money that we send overseas goes to arm terrorists for all we know--with more tax money going to defense contractors.

We are paying for both sides of this war.

Wouldn't it be better to pay for a truly futuristic future free of this nonsense?


Back on topic--we have flash-bang type EMP weapons being considered--that's the only reason I find any of Vlads threats credible. The claim about sonics may also be true.

When we think of sonic weapons, we think about some little thing that we saw on Sci-Fi or cartoons emitting little waves that quietly go "Eeee." All you need for true sonic weapons is to be really LOUD.

Here is a thought:

USA gives money to oil states with some terror background.
Oil states give that money to Russia for missiles (and keep arms in production)
USA taxes us to fight for weapons we paid for.

Better:
USA buys oil only from Russia while drilling for our own. (and one or two friendlier nations)
Oil states dry up.
Scuds dry up.

Problem solved.