I created new map: The map of global catastrophic risks connected with nuclear weapons and nuclear energy.
The map is interactive: if you press on the icons on the first page you will get detailed explanation of the topic. But it works only in pdf.
I hope it will make the map more readable but also will help to preserve all detailed information
You could download pdf with working links here: http://immortality-roadmap.com/nukerisk3bookmarks.pdf
Or you may read a presentation here: http://www.slideshare.net/avturchin/global-catastrophic-risks-connected-with-nuclear-weapons-and-energy
Old school map full of text is here: http://immortality-roadmap.com/nukerisk2.pdf
I would like to get a feedback about this new map type: Is it helping readability and understanding? Does it look more rational and convincing?
I include here jpg-screenshorts of the pdf, but working links are only in pdf.
It looks like you did not look into details provided inside each of the topic. This proves for me that the idea of interactive pdf was wrong. ((
"Home made nukes" are not about plutonium but about pure fusion weapons. Several ways to create them has been suggested, all listed in the document.
Natural fusion ignition is not about the Earth but about enriched layers of deuterium in Jupiter. The idea is highly speculative, any way.
Salted bomb could create much large contamination as it is specially designed to do so. Most fusion bombs are relatively clean now. Salted bomb may create not only cobalt-60 but other isotopes. Russia in 2015 publish (accidentally) a plan to use 100 MT cobalt bomb torpedos to contaminate US ports.
But the main difference is that cobalt doomsday bomb is very large bomb, probably stationary with yields of gigatons, and most of its energy is used to create dangerous isotopes. In this case it could create enough cobalt-60 to contaminate Earth's surface. It was calculated by Szillard in 1950s and while the exact calculations are secret, I tend to believe him. No known stationary doomsday devices has been created until now ( or we don't know about them.)
I understood your justifications and that's what I was responding to.
There are significant technological barriers to pure fusion weapons and fission implosion triggers would always probably be the cheaper option. Laser-initiated fusion is known to be unworkable; experiments have indicated that at least 10 MJ of laser energy - and probably 2 or 3 times that - is required for reliable fusion ignition; this is far beyond the capabilities of current laser technology to produce in a compact way (the NIF is a huge installation and only produces 1.8 MJ of laser