If this were true, there would already be nuclear powered aircraft which would be a much more "achievable" goal given the size and weight of even the smallest nuclear power plants.
But there are no nuclear powered aircraft and so no nuclear powered missiles. And many countries have had nuclear _capable_ weaponry for a very long time because nuclear weapons can be small and relatively light.
The cruise missile is technically easier than the airplane because you don't need to shield the pilot or crew, which is the really hard part in the air because radiation shielding is heavy.
I have long maintained that scientific consensus is always political and only rarely based on fact. The noisiest and most politically astute scientists rise in stature and influence and sometimes viciously defend their pet beliefs whether they are correct or not.
Oracle stuff didn't help. It's initial appeal was that it ran everywhere. Now all languages do. So people who just want to code something quickly w/o worries for security, etc. use Js/Node for web stuff and Python for pretty much everything else. For people really concerned about speed and security C/C++ is the 'real' programmer's tool of choice. Java code gets very ugly, very quickly and code reuse, one of the big promises, just never took off. So Java is kind of purposeless. Pick a task and there is something better and easier to use than Java.
Years of fomenting fear of 'climate change' and painting it as a dire crisis has opened up the general public to the predations of snake oil peddlers. With the public demanding immediate action and an immediate fix, they are primed to be ready to accept any and all proposed solutions. In this case the proposal is another instance of geoengineering a body of water that human science is still far from understanding in its role in the planet's climate. We still do not completely understand ocean chemistry nor its effect on the climate and consequently cannot model long term effects. Perhaps it's time to accept that just as it took a long time to create the current problem and it will take a long time to correct it. There is no silver bullet.
First, climate change is a dire crisis. Full stop.
Second, the authors didn’t characterize this idea as a silver bullet or anything like that. Nor did they say we should start implementing it en masse immediately. Their exact words were:
> The U.S. government needs to start testing it now, before the climate system spins off into an even more disastrous state.
People are misconstruing an untamed nature with climate change.
We had devastating Hurricanes, Fires and floods long before the first internal combustion engine
It also seems like climate activists never define the correct climate that they are trying to restore, making them a parody of conservatism where any change is a bad change because it overturns the status quo.
Look at Bjorn Lomborg tracking Climate-related disaster deaths to get a data driven rather than narrative driven understanding
But there are no nuclear powered aircraft and so no nuclear powered missiles. And many countries have had nuclear _capable_ weaponry for a very long time because nuclear weapons can be small and relatively light.
So there is no news except for the very gullible.