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