Which is more dangerous: a ton of raw Uranium ore, or a gun?

In the U.S. anyway, most people have the right to own a gun, by law. In contrast, virtually no one has the right to own a ton of Uranium ore, again, by law. In fact, no one is allowed to own more than a few pounds of Uranium ore. Now, on the surface anyway, this would suggest that guns are relatively safe things to have around, while a ton of Uranium ore is very dangerous indeed. But, is this really the case? Guns are basically killing machines. A ton of raw Uranium ore isn't much different from a Uranium mine, and, I haven't noticed Uranium mines killing anyone lately, unless it was by the collapse of the mine itself, which doesn't really have much to do with any particular properties of Uranium ore itself, does it? Raw Uranium ore is only moderately radioactive, and moderate exposure to raw Uranium ore is unlikely to have any particular negative effects. This is correct, isn't it? And, I believe that the radioactivity of raw Uranium ore is sufficiently low that it would actually require several tons of this material to achieve critical mass, or a sustained chain reaction. Or, even if a chain reaction was achieved, the power output would be so low as to be insignificant. So, why exactly is it highly illegal to possess a ton of raw Uranium ore? Am I missing something? Perhaps raw Uranium ore is more dangerous than I think it is?

How dangerous was the original "Chicago Pile" atomic reactor, built in 1942?

I was wondering how dangerous the first atomic reactor was, bearing in mind that it was built and operated in the middle of Chicago, with no previous experience of atomic reactors, at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1 The design was simple enough -- tons of Graphite piled on top of tons of Uranium. And the output was just one-half Watt. In more general terms, if the danger was relatively minimal, does this suggest the possibility that research on nuclear reactors might be pursued with less stringent regulation than currently applies, at least in cases in which the design is simple enough, and the power outlet is small enough?

What's the cheapest source of nuclear fuel to obtain critical mass?

And, exactly how expensive would it be? I'm just curious about this in terms of hobby research on nuclear energy. There seem to be a number of elements that can be used for this purpose, and some seem to be much cheaper than others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass Curium looks like a reasonable possibility. Would Curium be cheaper than Uranium or Plutonium as a means of obtaining critical mass for a nuclear chain reaction?

What if the sale and possession of Uranium was unregulated?

Ever since the dawn of the atomic age, the sale and possession of the fundamental fuel for atomic reactors and atomic bombs -- Uranium -- has been very tightly regulated. It is highly illegal to possess more than seven pounds of Uranium in the U.S. How illegal? Firstly, if you possess eight or more pounds of Uranium, you must pay the Government eighty thousand dollars a year. Secondly, you must regularly submit to full physical and mental evaluations by teams of medical doctors and psychiatrists to ensure that you are in perfect physical and mental health at all times. Thirdly, you must regularly pass rigorous written exams containing hundreds of questions dealing with obscure and obsolete issues in nuclear reactor regulation and design -- bear in mind, not surprisingly under these circumstances, nuclear reactor design has scarcely changed since the 1950's. After all, how could the technology possibly progress, given this crushing a level of regulation? There are, of course, many, many other restrictions and regulations. Effectively, it is quite impossible for anyone to possess substantial quantities of Uranium without being specifically selected for this purpose by the government. So, let's just suppose that this wasn't the case. Any backyard inventor could get hold of as much Uranium as they wanted, to play with and build atomic reactors with. They couldn't build atomic bombs, that requires a functional reactor and an extensive process of plutonium enrichment, which governments could monitor and regulate fairly easily. But, there probably would be a problem with "toxic dumps", and possibly a problem with dirty radiation bombs from some crazies. However, on the plus side we'd have a great deal of technical progress from creative inventors, and most of our energy problems would probably be solved in a creative and effective way. Space travel would occur on the lines of the Orion Project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) Who knows? Maybe Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity would be proven wrong, on direct testing, and the Speed of Light is no practical limit, at all. Maybe we could go to the stars. In a reasonable period of time, that is. Because, undoubtedly, the field of Physics has been affected in fundamental ways by the Government's restrictions on the possession of Uranium. How could it not be? The most obvious, practical application of Physics has effectively been made illegal. No one can freely investigate fundamental issues in new energy technologies, in the most obvious, practical way. Instead, they engage in complex, abstruse theoretical speculations, and are awarded major prizes for doing so. They pursue dead end technological investigations in an effort to somehow go around the Government restrictions. The entire field of Physics is hamstrung. Thoughts?

How difficult is it to obtain a license to build a nuclear fission power plant?

Apparently, it isn't overwhelmingly expensive to build a small nuclear fission power plant, that could be used to produce power. Uranium only costs 30 dollars a pound, and a few tons would be sufficient to power such a plant. Of course, shielding and cooling materials would be necessary, as well, but, certainly a small nuclear power plant could be built and maintained for a few million dollars, that would produce power for decades. An attractive prospect to a potential entrepreneur. But, how difficult would it be to obtain permission to build such a plant? In the U.S., it's illegal for any individual, business or institution to possess more than seven pounds of Uranium without federal approval. Now, as any economist could tell you, it's not possible to have much progress in any technology without businesses having some freedom to innovate and develop the technology. How tightly are licenses to build nuclear fission power plants controlled, and, are the controls so rigid as to make any real progress in nuclear technology virtually impossible?

Is it practical to build a hobby nuclear fission reactor?

We all know about the Farnsworth Fusor and the Polywell, and how it's possible to build a hobby nuclear fusion reactor at a fairly modest price. How about hobby nuclear fission reactors? At least nuclear fission reactors do have some practical utility, they produce energy, while nuclear fusion reactors don't, not with any consistency anyway. So, anyone have any thoughts about how to build a practical, home nuclear fission reactor? Could this be done at an affordable price, and would it have any kind of practical utility at all?

What happens when small, modular nuclear reactors make plutonium readily available to the private sector?

It seems very likely indeed that in the not too distant future, because of both improving technology and increased energy needs, we could see small, modular nuclear reactors springing up everywhere, perhaps even in your own neighborhood. An aspect of this development that does not appear to be being discussed very publicly, anyway, is that any nuclear reactor will tend to produce plutonium isotopes suitable for the manufacture of atomic bombs. And, also, that even a small A-bomb can be used as the trigger for an H-bomb of virtually limitless blast yield, when combined with deuterium extracted from ordinary seawater. Now, of course, security and monitoring procedures will be put in place. However, as anyone who has dealt with them well knows, federal safety inspectors are bought and paid for by private sector employers on a rather regular basis. How likely is it that the materials for building nuclear weapons could fall into the "wrong hands" -- whatever those are -- under these circumstances? On a more positive note, the deregulation of nuclear weapons technology might open up a golden age -- the "magic of the marketplace" -- in the development of practical, civilian energy applications of nuclear explosives. Thoughts?

What if the .01 K yield W54 A-bomb had been used regularly in armed conflict?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54 The smallest A-bomb ever developed was the W54, in the late 1950's, with an effective yield as low as 10 tons of TNT in some versions. Hence, there are actually conventional weapons with a larger blast than the smallest versions of the W54 nuclear bomb. As such, it is clear that unlike most nuclear weapons, the .01 K version of the W54 could not possibly be a threat to the survival of human civilization, unlike larger nuclear weapons. Now, there certainly exists a kind of psychological taboo by this stage implicit in the human psyche, that we must never use nuclear weapons again, because the entire human species would be destroyed, or, at the very least, reduced to a paleolithic existence. However, even if thousands of .01 K W54's were deployed and used in armed conflict, it is unclear how they could possibly have this effect. Indeed, it is unclear that such bombs would have significantly affected any of the armed conflicts that occurred since they have been developed. What, exactly would be the reactions of other countries to U.S. using the W54 in a war? Or, for that matter, how would the U.S. react to other countries using such a low yield nuclear weapon in an armed conflict? Surely, this would not unleash Armageddon? Why would it? How would it be more of a threat than a comparably sized conventional weapon? Even the radiation would be almost entirely dissipated after a few days. Now, of course, one could argue that the use of nuclear weapons is a slippery slope. That once a very small nuclear device was employed, we'd soon be throwing Tsar Bombas around. But, surely, this is not inevitable. I would suspect, rather, the main effects would simply be that the development of nuclear weapons would be turned over to the private sector, as with conventional bombs. Now, this could present some security concerns. After all, even a small A-bomb could be used, in combination with Deuterium that can be extracted from seawater, to build H-bombs of unlimited yield. However, bear in mind, the new modular designs for small atomic reactors, if widely used, would have quite similar effects, making plutonium readily available to the private sector. Thoughts?

What if someone like the mad Roman Emperors Caligula or Nero became President of the United States?

Given that three Presidents have been impeached in the U.S. in the last fifty years, this wouldn't seem to be too far a stretch. In fact, I suspect that currently many Democrats would perceive Caligula or Nero as rather enlightened and temperate leaders, in comparison to Donald Trump. There could also be comparisons made to John F. Kennedy, although he didn't live long enough to ever be impeached. A pertinent question is the extent to which Caligula and Nero, in some ways the "gold standard" for insanity, historically speaking, really were "mad". Bear in mind, most of our information about their reigns comes from members of the Senatorial class like Tacitus, who thoroughly detested all the emperors because they were displacing traditional Senatorial powers. For example, Nero was ridiculed for castrating and publicly marrying his favorite slave boy -- in contemporary terms, he would seem to be a great early champion of LGBT rights! Caligula was attacked for claiming Imperial divinity, but the Divine Right of Kings has turned out to be a very fundamental principle in all Monarchial forms of government. Caligula, although often portrayed as being totally insane, never really faced any significant popular dissatisfaction, at all. His brief reign was actually rather successful, in military and social terms. He was murdered by a conspiracy of Nobles and the Military who were unsuccessfully trying to reestablish the Republic, and were dissatisfied with Caligula's demands for increasing Imperial power. Actually, we probably have already had U.S. Presidents like Caligula and Nero.

How was the ancient Roman Emperor Caligula an early champion of LGBT rights?

The ancient Roman Emperor Caligula was an early champion of LGBT rights, because he castrated his favorite slave boy, and married him in a public ceremony. Caligula also made his favorite horse a Roman Senator, and had him seated in the Roman Senate. But, that is another issue, isn't it? Possibly, animal rights? Comment from Reddit antiantijokes: Rishi_Sunak_MP Former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Member of Parliament for Richmond, Yorkshire #Ready4Rishi This comes close to the comic trope that gay marriage is comparable to or will pave the way for ridiculous events like cats marrying dogs or horses being made mayor. It doesn't explicitly equate or link these concepts, but it does juxtapose them. You can easily imagine a conservative comedian making a more explicit joke like "A man marrying a man? What next, a horse senator?" or "They say Emperor Caligula was one of the first gay rights advocates, but the guy also made a horse a Roman Senator so maybe we shouldn't follow his example too closely" (spins bowtie). You could read the joke in other ways, and it's probably not what the author meant, but as a Member of Parliament, and former Rhodes Scholar of Jokeography at the University of Dicky Bow Ties that Squirt Water (Cambridge, MA), I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that the joke can be read that way.