The hydrogen is present in steam, which is hard to burn. The power plants survived an accident beyond what they were required to.

The radioactive steam must be vented as part of the cooling process. The primary coolant becomes saturated, therefore its temperature becomes a function of pressure in the system. As steam is generated from boiling water in the core, pressure rises, and the ability to pump water into the reactor plant is degraded and eventually made impossible, also overpressure can eventually cause structural failure of the primary and consequent radioactivity release. The recirculation cooling system would remove the necessity to vent the gas, but was incapacitated due to the beyond design basis tsunami.

I am not anti-nuclear, but this is not factual. Nuclear primary components experience fatigue like all structural metallic components, are exposed to great stresses during thermal cycles, and toughness degrades as D*t increases over core life. They can be operated for great lengths of time, but are not designed to last indefinitely, and can not be expected to.

"There has been some speculation that, if the used fuel pool were completely drained, the zirconium cladding might ignite and a “zirconium fire” might occur. Studies performed by the Department of Energy indicate that is virtually impossible to ignite zirconium tubing."
http://resources.nei.org/documents/japan/Used_Fuel_Pools_Key_Facts.pdf

The energy necessary to vaporize a gram of tissue is still enormous.
A taser and a destructive laser are similar in that they are not guns, but it ends there.
Laser weapons for use against infantry are violations of the laws of war.
The US military has operational advanced laser weapons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Laser
Laser weapons are advertised and marketed in international arms markets, you just don't see the ads in your sunday paper.

Why not just mount the cache directory on the built in ramdisk? Just allocate more space to it when the kernel loads.

Well I owe you a dollar if it is not unilaterally negative and results in greater consternation/condemnation/sanctions than any country has ever experienced in the modern era of international politics.

Well here is Robert McNamara's answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War :
The documentary's lessons-learned concept is McNamara's eleven-lesson list of In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam (1995).
We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.
We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience
We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.
Our misjudgments of friend and foe, alike, reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.
We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces, and doctrine.
We failed, as well, to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement before we initiated the action.
After the action got under way, and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course we did not fully explain what was happening, and why we were doing what we did.
We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums.
We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.
We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.
Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.

I don't think that it is at all unclear what "international opinion" is on the proliferation of tactical nuclear weapons. Tactical nuclear weapons present a much more severe threat to global peace for the very fact that they are less powerful and potentially more likely to be used.
Just because a nuclear weapon is small does not decrease the required technical sophistication of building an unboosted fission weapon. The manufacturing and engineering sophistication of 1950's nuclear weapons designs is still high enough that only nation states are capable of mustering the resources necessary to produce one. SNM smuggling is relatively common but that does not mean that an extra-national group has come close to acquiring such a weapon. There are no deployed micro-nukes in existence anymore and weapons as old as you mention such as the davy crockett and SADM surely have poisoned pits by now if they have not been recycled.
Just because you don't have a launch signature does not mean attribution cannot be made as to the source of the fissile material.
Rocket technology may be relatively widespread but any BM production program requires testing and these missiles have such a spectacular IR signature that satellite reconnaissance picks the event up. (in addition to the spy planes that are already waiting on a tip from the CIA)

Here's the transposition: bombing Qadafi is an act of war against tyrannical egomaniacal murderous Afro-Liberace dictators.
Is it good for the world that Qadafi is in the process of sabotaging Libya's oil export facilities? Economic turmoil is not good for the Libyans or the oil-consuming first world, and sooner or later this murderer's body is getting dragged through the street, whether after being killed by Libyan partisans or a B-2. This guy is having his people machinegunned in the streets, and the Libyan international diplomatic corps has all defected and is seeking international assistance to depose him. The arab world is not going to view Qadafi being killed as the same as the US bombing hospitals.

The true first world war occurred prior to the American War for Independence.
Continental European powers were involved in global wars from the mid-18th to mid-20th century.
The American War for Independence wasn't the root cause of any of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years'_War

Frenchmen served in the continental army and killed Englishmen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_du_Motier,_marquis_de_Lafayette

The United States was successful during the War of Independence with French logistical and financial support. That didn't kill the legitimacy of the new government. Your argument is false.

You choose to avoid all insignificant risks to your health? I have to assume you are trolling.
You are going to miss your flight, be detained, then have pissed off nurses ever so gently probe your anal cavity, and if you resist the police will hold you down and they'll do it regardless of how much you resist? Getting cavity searched is extremely unpleasant, by design. Ever see crack dealers squirm when they know they are about to get cavity searched? It really sucks.
"The Health Physics Society (HPS) reports that a person undergoing a backscatter scan receives approximately 0.05 Sv (or 0.005 mrems) of radiation; American Science and Engineering Inc. reports 0.09 Sv (0.009 mrems). At the high altitudes typical of commercial flights, naturally occurring cosmic radiation is considerably higher than at ground level. The radiation dose for a six hour flight is 20 Sv (2 mrems) — 200 to 400 times larger than a backscatter scan. According to U.S. regulatory agencies, "1 mrem per year is a negligible dose of radiation, and 25 mrem per year from a single source is the upper limit of safe radiation exposure". Of course, this is assuming you flew without your trusty tin-foil hat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray
http://www.epa.gov/radtown/cosmic.html

The individual dose is insignificant. The only traveler receiving significant annual radiation doses are flight crew due to increased cosmic radiation. It is still stupid that pilots get screened, from both a radiation health and practical perspective.