Feynman, in "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out":

> The first way in which science is of value is familiar to everyone. It is that scientific knowledge enables us to do all kinds of things and to make all kinds of things. Of course if we make good things, it is not only to the credit of science; it is also to the credit of the moral choice which led us to good work. Scientific knowledge is an enabling power to do either good or bad — but it does not carry instructions on how to use it. Such power has evident value — even though the power may be negated by what one does.

> I learned a way of expressing this common human problem on a trip to Honolulu. In a Buddhist temple there, the man in charge explained a little bit about the Buddhist religion for tourists, and then ended his talk by telling them he had something to say to them that they would never forget — and I have never forgotten it. It was a proverb of the Buddhist religion: “To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven; the same key opens the gates of hell.”

> What, then, is the value of the key to heaven? It is true that if we lack clear instructions that determine which is the gate to heaven and which the gate to hell, the key may be a dangerous object to use, but it obviously has value. How can we enter heaven without it? The instructions, also, would be of no value without the key. So it is evident that, in spite of the fact that science could produce enormous horror in the world, it is of value because it can produce something.

When you compare the energy density of nuclear to chemical materials, it sorta makes sense. It’s almost mind-boggling in its potential. In the early days of atomic energy it’s easy to see why people (or at least sci-fi)l authors) imagined so much promise. We really thought we were entering a new era in humanity. Sadly, it didn’t really work out that way, and the most significant application of this new energy source ended up being weapons. Interestingly, those opposed to nuclear technology only managed to stop its peaceful application.

Why is this surprising? This honestly seems rather unsurprising to me. You have a thing with a high energy density. So you release energy from it. Do you collect that energy or just expend it in a destructive manner?

We can do the same thing with batteries if we really wanted to, but they don't have a high energy density compared to other things (and it would likely be a war crime...). We could easily do the same thing with nitrates (think dynamite) or other bomb ingredients. They all can create heat that we can use to turn turbines and create energy. We just would want to burn them in a controlled manner.