I'm not sure whether nuclear weaponry and other similar  technology  
would qualify as technology "never intended to be used." One might  
compare nuclear weapons to safety equipment or insurance--few desire  
to be put in a situation where such products or services must be  
actually put to use, but then again part of their uses lie in hedging  
against changes in conditions in the unknown future. Of course,  
whether nuclear weapons hedged against a statistically significant  
risk during the Cold War cannot be known--the data is limited by the  
fact that there were effectively only two participants in the war, and  
that neither participant actually launched any missiles at the other.  
That either side would have used such weapons against its opponent if  
its opponent did not have the power to retaliate is doubtful, but  
nevertheless uncertain. The real value of the weapons, therefore, is  
also uncertain, except, perhaps, insofar as they gave citizens a sense  
of security. Would anyone more familiar with the economics of  
insurance be able to better analyzie this situation?  
  
Justin Stepek