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.
I see what you are talking about now. Flux-compression driven fusion is most likely not going to work (which explains why there has been no serious effort to pursue it). It's useful to compare it to the Sandia capacitor-powered Z-machine. To achieve fusion you need (a) a lot of energy, delivered in (b) a short amount of time (preferably nanoseconds as the fuel will tear itself apart at timescales much longer than that), in (c) a very small space. The best EPFCG so far has achieved about 100 MJ and 256 MA, but the killer is the time scale, which is on the excruciatingly slow millisecond level. By contrast, the Sandia machine can deliver about 10 MJ and 27 MA on a nanosecond timescale, and is still far from achieving fusion ignition (currently at least two orders of magnitude away). A planned tripling of energy output via a future upgrade is not expected to produce any fusion ignition either. All of this is evidence against the feasibility of EPFCG fusion. To me, it's damning evidence. A quote in that same page you linked says, "the U.S. Is not known to have and is not developing a pure fusion weapon and no credible design for a pure fusion weapon resulted from the DOE investment".
It's not true that ICBMs do not have U-238 blankets. Virtually all modern warhead designs use a U-238 pusher/tamper and some also use a U-238 hohlraum (some omit this in favor of other metals, but the U-238 tamper is still there). I see what you are saying about a 'blackmail weapon' but I don't see how this is any different from the existing MAD doctrine (via nuclear ICBMs, which are more dangerous and more cost-effective).