As long as nuclear is required to be 1000x safer (not even hyperbole) than fossil fuels it will be expensive to run and the cost of nuclear for running home electricity is more than the average person wants to spend. So it wasn’t really going to replace a lot of other uses of oil anyway

They did claim that Stonehenge was an alien creation even though it was built by white folk

It doesn’t need to be racism, the reason for claiming aliens was because it was so complex they didn’t see how ANYONE could do it even with 1900s technology. Like I never heard a person claim it had anything to do with the color of their skin

Didn’t they just use high energy X rays and were able to map out most of them?

Yep, in world war 2 without precision bombing we fire bombed entire cities to the ground and one of them was so bad it caused a fire tornado that literally suck people into it! World war 2 had such a problem with imprecise bombing that they are still finding bombs today

The argument the person was saying is that we already have big bombs that do catastrophic damage, the R&D is how do you make those bombs more targeted so they have less collateral damage.

Now whether that will actually lead to less deaths or will just cause the bombs to be used in places they otherwise wouldn’t be used with the same amount of collateral damage is unknown.

But it brings up a bit of a utilitarian dilemma of “is it ethical to work on weapons if it leads to an overall reduction of collateral damage to civilians”

It doesn’t have a necessarily correct answer