New defense Dept. lunacy

TillEulenspiegel · 12th June 2004, 01:33 PM

The new budget proposals for defense spending includes 1 trillion dollars for R&D of and deployment new weapons systems. Including a weapon based on hafnium-178m2, the excited, isomeric form of hafnium-178
with a yield at 10,000 x more per gram then TNT and a ratio of 60:1 for energy production VS expenditure.

Ya I see it now... that close to nuke , but not a nuke will kill those pesky terrorists in groups of one or more.

Gotta have an enemy to justify that kind of spending..........hmmm maybe test it on the Eiffel Tower?

The 50's are alive and well and living at 1600 Pennsylvania ave. Idiots.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994049 background
http://tampatrib.com/News/MGBNGE79DVD.html article.

demon · 13th June 2004, 04:28 AM

Great!

Now we will have instead of the suicide car bomb the suicide wristwatch bomb.

Thankyou Pentagon!

More info
http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/news/arti...ay-weapons.htm

Rob Lister · 13th June 2004, 04:40 AM

If true, I'm impressed. Do you have any more reliable sources. New Scientist is not exactly known for accurate reporting. They're given a bit to making stories more spectacular than they really are.

I think it would be a really cool tool not only for warfare but other civil applications as well.

Rob Lister · 13th June 2004, 04:42 AM

edit goof

a_unique_person · 13th June 2004, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Nuclear isomers were originally seen as a means of storing energy, but the possibility that the decay could be accelerated fired the interest of the Department of Defense, which is also investigating several other candidate materials such as thorium and niobium.

They can't keep their grubby hands off anything, can they.

Quote:

The Department of Defense notes that there are serious technical issues to be overcome and that useful applications may be decades away. But its Militarily Critical Technologies List also says: "We should remember that less than six years intervened between the first scientific publication characterising the phenomenon of fission and the first use of a nuclear weapon in 1945."

One trillion dollars should go some way to solving that problem. Of course, that could also buy a few schools, teachers and hospitals, but we wouldn't want to waste money on welfare, would we.

Sometimes I can be half pursuaded that welfare is an inefficient way to care for people, then I see that it is just wasted on causes far less noble, and far more destructive. Waste it on people, I say. They'll get far more enjoyment from getting the dollars directly than living in a world where they just get blown up by it.

Rob Lister · 13th June 2004, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person

They can't keep their grubby hands off anything, can they.

No, thank god, they can't.

This is, of course, assuming the article bears any relationship to reality.

Rob Lister · 13th June 2004, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rob Lister

No, thank god, they can't.

This is, of course, assuming the article bears any relationship to reality.

On a lighter note, the one trillion dollars that is being proposed is for the next ten years. That's only one-hundred billion a year. That's less than one-percent of the GDP. For R&D, that's unacceptable. It should be twice that.

Kerberos · 13th June 2004, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rob Lister

On a lighter note, the one trillion dollars that is being proposed is for the next ten years. That's only one-hundred billion a year. That's less than one-percent of the GDP. For R&D, that's unacceptable. It should be twice that.

I totally agree, but I don't think all the R&D money should be spent on developing weapons.

a_unique_person · 13th June 2004, 06:01 AM

it's far more money than anyone else is spending. You are talking about 1%, but that is for the worlds richest economy.

It is also not needed. What threat is it going to defend against. The advanced strike fighter, for example, is only going to be sold to allies, and no other fighter of any such capability is being developed anywhere else in the world. What is the point?

All this is going to do is introduce a tremdously powerful weapon into a world that just doesn't need it. We have more than enough weapons already, the world spends more than enough on arms, it will not make the US any safer.

I can just see the ads now, for the new Remington 'home defense' weapon. Protect your loved ones.

TillEulenspiegel · 13th June 2004, 09:32 AM

AUP: To paraphrase Senator Everett Dirksen a friend of my father's "a billion here a billion there, pretty soon your talking about real money".

Rob , the first link is a popular science magazine the second a Tampa Tribune article from the Washington Post from a reporter considered one of the most knowledgeable in his field, which is based on a published budget proposal . The budget proposals are harder to find then feathered dinosaurs but many good sources have their own reports . Ex. : http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5190590/

President Bush has said that funding for departments will depend on their“effectiveness and accountability,” but in June 2001, Republican Senator Fred Thompson (TN) and the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee issued an extensive audit stating that the Pentagon “wastes billions of dollars each year,
and cannot account for much of what it spends.” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called one $2.7 trillion accounting disaster “terrifying.” The General Accounting Office of Congress found that 58% of the Pentagon inventory consists
of items it does not need.

How do YOU spell Osprey?

Bjorn · 13th June 2004, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
it's far more money than anyone else is spending. You are talking about 1%, but that is for the worlds richest economy.

No. That would be the EU.

Jocko · 13th June 2004, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bjorn
No. That would be the EU.

Oh, there you go cheating again. With NAFTA, can't we include Mexico and Canada in ours too? Well.... maybe just Canada?

Bjorn · 13th June 2004, 10:40 AM

The EU compares to the USA. Include Canada and Mexico, and you'd have to include the countries that are not members of the EU but have trade agreements with it.

And a Swedish guy is reportedly richer than Bill Gates. So, there!

fishbob · 13th June 2004, 10:46 AM

From the Tampa Tribune article:

Quote:

As Congress moves ahead with a huge new defense bill, lawmakers are making only modest changes in the Pentagon's plans to spend well over $1 trillion in the next decade on an arsenal of futuristic planes, ships and weapons with little direct connection to the Iraq war or the global war on terrorism.

House and Senate versions of the 2005 defense authorization measure contain a record $68 billion for research and development, 20 percent above the peak levels of President Reagan's historic defense buildup. Tens of billions more out of a proposed $76 billion hardware account will go for big-ticket weapons systems to combat some as-yet-unknown adversary comparable to the Soviet Union.

I can see going into debt for stuff we need. This can be managed with careful planning and a little discipline. I would prefer spending within our means, but that is not always possible.

What word or phrase would best describe the idea of spending money we don't have for weapons we don't need? Financially irresponsible? Crazy? Election losing?

Rob Lister · 13th June 2004, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
it's far more money than anyone else is spending. You are talking about 1%, but that is for the worlds richest economy.

It is also not needed. What threat is it going to defend against. The advanced strike fighter, for example, is only going to be sold to allies, and no other fighter of any such capability is being developed anywhere else in the world. What is the point?

All this is going to do is introduce a tremdously powerful weapon into a world that just doesn't need it. We have more than enough weapons already, the world spends more than enough on arms, it will not make the US any safer.

I can just see the ads now, for the new Remington 'home defense' weapon. Protect your loved ones.

I would love to at least test the new Remington 'home defense' weapon. When does it go up for sale?

Your opinion that we do not need any new weapons is noted. Mine differs. Especially as it pertains to R&D. If it was just R without the D, I might be less inclined. New weapons presumably equates to more efficient warfare; less frendly lives lost, more enemy lives lost...along with equipment, etc.

It's a never ending process. It ain't pretty on the surface but it's beautiful underneith. Just my opinion.

AUP, you are dismissed.

TillEulenspiegel, front and center!

I've got no real gripe with either of the links posted. They were fine. I was very interested in the science article but the science source is not really a very good one for accurate details.

The newspaper column link only made very brief mention. I wasn't disputing anything in that article but I guess I could point out a few misleading statements if forced, such as

Quote:

On the Pentagon's wish list are revolutionary weapons such as a fighter plane that can land on an aircraft carrier or descend vertically to the ground;

Probably not incorrect, just misleading. We've already got such jets in our inventory. Better ones would be nice though.

All in all, I like most of it. Especially the bomb thing.

Skeptic · 13th June 2004, 12:13 PM

it's far more money than anyone else is spending.

Awwwwwww...... how unfair.

It is also not needed.

Well, that settles it, then.

Not that you knew such a weapon even existed, or was planned, thirty seconds ago, but you already "know" it isn't needed.

Your psychic powers continue to amaze me.

Rob Lister · 13th June 2004, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic
it's far more money than anyone else is spending.

Awwwwwww...... how unfair.

It is also not needed.

Well, that settles it, then.

Not that you knew such a weapon even existed, or was planned, thirty seconds ago, but you already "know" it isn't needed.

Your psychic powers continue to amaze me.

One application might be a better bunker buster. Right now, the only possibilities for some situations is to use nuclear-tipped warheads. If this technology is valid, it would elimanate that requirement. The 'fallout' for such a weapon would be non-existent in terms of health. The blast would vaporize any unexpended material such that you would have to be well within the kill-zone of the blast to get even a hint of a rumor of a tad of a dangerous dose. Outside the kill-zone, the dose would be something on the order of a homeopathic remedy.

Let's build lots.

Rob Lister · 13th June 2004, 01:14 PM

Oh well, so sad.

It turns out, New Scientist is once again shooting off their reporting before putting their researchers in gear. That's why I don't have much respect for them. Their better than the New York Times, but not much better.

Bomb Prospects debunked here:

http://www.llnl.gov/llnl/06news/News...-01-08-05.html

Of course, people can always claim its just a cover-up.

TillEulenspiegel · 13th June 2004, 01:27 PM

Hmm...
So the paper You quote is dated 2001, the info I quoted was 2003-4 , correct?

Then what we have is a research project that relies on false science and spends ungodly amounts of money or another boondoggle that will produce more weapons that are not needed and research that will assure itself a constant flow of dollars.................

OK which is it ?

Edit to add:
Besides I quoted the new scientist as BACKGROUND not the source of the budgetary process as was my main focus. Debunk the Post,Times, Tribune , etc ad nausium , if You will.

Rob Lister · 13th June 2004, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Hmm...
So the paper You quote is dated 2001, the info I quoted was 2003-4 , correct?

Yes, that's correct. r.l.

Then what we have is a research project that relies on false science and spends ungodly amounts of money or another boondoggle that will produce more weapons that are not needed and research that will assure itself a constant flow of dollars.................

OK which is it ?

No. What we have is a report of a Military Budget R&D budget bill that includes research pertaining to this. Since it's been debunked by LLNL, I doubt it is included in the bill, but it might be. If it is, I doubt it is for the proposed research goal, but it might be. If it is, someone should inform the proposers of the bill that something is askew.

Proposers? Well, all kinds of budget bills get proposed.

Many are called, few are chosen. That's the way it is with bills. Any congressman can submit one.

Oh, ungodly amounts of money? How much money was dedicated to this research? I don't remember reading that in either article. That's probably because the writers of both don't like doing research, eh?

Edit to respond to your edit: It appears it's been debunked already. What more do you want me to debunk?

Rob Lister · 13th June 2004, 02:08 PM

Sorry, just one other thing to correct what I'm sure was an honest bluper on your part. To witt:

Quote:

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
The budget proposals are harder to find then feathered dinosaurs...

No, they are not. Any reporter can easily go to

http://thomas.loc.gov/

And get the full skinny on any non-classified bill.

When I say Full Skinny, that's what I mean. Detail to the dollar.

See what you can find on hafnium. You have to be a little more clever than using that as a search term. I recommend starting with the term budget.

Let's investigate this together (really, just you) and leak our story to the NYT.

Blue Monk · 13th June 2004, 02:19 PM

I’m always a bit leery of assuming what will be needed or more importantly what won’t be needed. History has shown that can be very difficult to judge in advance.

Of course the more cynical might note that these buildups are not intended for responses to threats but rather intended for future plans to be implemented.

Of course one can hardly help but notice that current advanced weapons systems such as the Apache attack helicopter, which no doubt would have reeked havoc on Soviet tanks advancing across the plains of Europe, are being brought down by a terrorist with an RPG hiding in a mud hut.

I think a large portion of that money should not go to Defense but to Madison Avenue. Yeah that’s right, let’s do what Americans do best. Advertise.

They could buy up media outlets worldwide and sell America. Simply devise a slick ad campaign with an adorable mascot and snappy jingle and let the world know that they need America to be popular, get the girl and keep their whites sparkling white.

If they can convince Americans that McDonald’s is good food then it should be a snap to convince the rest of the world that they can live longer, run faster and jump higher if they’d only choose New and Improved America (now with more iron) than ol’ Brand X.

Rob Lister · 13th June 2004, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Blue Monk
I think a large portion of that money should not go to Defense but to Madison Avenue. Yeah that’s right, let’s do what Americans do best. Advertise.

That might not be the best idea I've heard in my life, but it's way the heck up there. I'd like to think I've always thought that, deep down, but if I have it's never been put in words so plainly.

Give Madison Avenue ten years and we wouldn't need an army.

More toothpaste maybe. Surely more soap in France. But we could recycle our tanks and ships into lady-leg-razors.

The Hummers we could sell as is...at a neat profit maybe.

TillEulenspiegel · 13th June 2004, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Rob Lister

No. What we have is a report of a Military Budget R&D budget bill that includes research pertaining to this. Since it's been debunked by LLNL, I doubt it is included in the bill, but it might be. If it is, I doubt it is for the proposed research goal, but it might be. If it is, someone should inform the proposers of the bill that something is askew.

Well your mistaken , it is included. The quote in the news ( fairly consistent from many different sources ) :

House and Senate versions of the 2005 defense authorization measure contain a record $68 billion for research and development, 20 percent above the peak levels of President Reagan's historic defense buildup. Tens of billions more out of a proposed $76 billion hardware account will go for big-ticket weapons systems to combat some as-yet-unknown adversary comparable to the Soviet Union. As for the efficacy of the program , you evidently missed my satirical comment about the Osprey project .

Proposers? Well, all kinds of budget bills get proposed.

Many are called, few are chosen. That's the way it is with bills. Any congressman can submit one.

It appearers to be a hi priority item with a positive outlook by both houses of the legislative branches of the US government. You comment is less then silly.

Oh, ungodly amounts of money? How much money was dedicated to this research? I don't remember reading that in either article. That's probably because the writers of both don't like doing research, eh?

Well gee, I dunno when they start to publish your "to the dollar" expenditures for black budget items , I suppose we will know.

Edit to respond to your edit: It appears it's been debunked already. What more do you want me to debunk?

Umm........... no You sited one four year old article about the feasibility of making this weapon, that has only a peripheral attachment to the whole point of my post ( and actually makes the case ) which is the irresponsibility of defense dept. spending and the insatiable appetite of hawks.

So even tho You avoided it in your rebuttals, answer my question. ....money spent on the newest emperors clothes or a drive to develop a weapon with no discernible use at this time.

Blue Monk · 13th June 2004, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rob Lister
[b]Surely more soap in France.

Hey, let's not get carried away, hehe.

Even Madison Avenue has it's limitations.

Rob Lister · 13th June 2004, 04:29 PM

TillEulenspiegel, I really don't get where you are coming from.

Might I suggest you cool your hot-jets. Have a beer, or a joint, or whatever makes you chill.

Chilled yet? Good. Now, just find the bill in question at the website I posted. If the expenditure for that project and goal is still therein, you've got something to bitch about. Otherwise, pick another, any other, expenditure and you'll likely have just as much to bitch about.

Oh, the stories I could tell about where research money actually goes. But I digress.

TillEulenspiegel · 13th June 2004, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rob Lister
TillEulenspiegel, I really don't get where you are coming from.

Might I suggest you cool your hot-jets. Have a beer, or a joint, or whatever makes you chill.

Chilled yet? Good. Now, just find the bill in question at the website I posted. If the expenditure for that project and goal is still therein, you've got something to bitch about. Otherwise, pick another, any other, expenditure and you'll likely have just as much to bitch about.

Oh, the stories I could tell about where research money actually goes. But I digress.

My jets aren't even alight, I take no personal affront or hit to my self image by snappy banter regardless of demeanor or content from an anonymous forum.

Your attempt to be condescending and adopting a chiding tone was great tho! I laughed better then I have done for a few days. But hey..............bact to the question I have asked you three times.
Bad expenditure or bad expenditure? Ahh I forgot You entertain the third option "it ain't real till they rifle through your wallet".

Oh and by the way my intoxicants of choice are single malts and plebeian beer.........in case You want to remember my birthday which is fast approching.......I can PM you my address.

Rob Lister · 13th June 2004, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel

My jets aren't even alight, I take no personal affront or hit to my self image by snappy banter regardless of demeanor or content from an anonymous forum.

Your attempt to be condescending and adopting a chiding tone was great tho! I laughed better then I have done for a few days. But hey..............bact to the question I have asked you three times.
Bad expenditure or bad expenditure? Ahh I forgot You entertain the third option "it ain't real till they rifle through your wallet".

Oh and by the way my intoxicants of choice are single malts and plebeian beer.........in case You want to remember my birthday which is fast approching.......I can PM you my address.

That's better. But dude, based on the sources YOU provided, I don't know if its a bad expenditure or even if it IS an expenditure. Clearly New Scientist doesn't do research or they'd never have published the article. The reporter in your other link doesn't do research or he'd have found what I found after a single web query. If he did find that, don't you think he'd have reported it. My god man --- THAT's THE STORY! Do yourself a favor and stop regarding news articles as gospel. They are often no more than rumor they heard from other articles.

Like I said:

Quote:

Since it's been debunked by LLNL, I doubt it is included in the bill, but it might be. If it is, I doubt it is for the proposed research goal, but it might be. If it is, someone should inform the proposers of the bill that something is askew.

That's reasonable.

Edit to add: my favorite is Milwaukee's Best - $4.95 a twelve-pack. This I sometimes enjoy with a single bowl of nature's greenest weed (don't tell the wife.) Additionally, I'll remember your birthday if you'll remember mine.

TillEulenspiegel · 13th June 2004, 05:38 PM

Man , Your certainly intelligent , but you don't get....... The point of the thread was not about the failure or success of a single weapon but the tendency of the government Republican OR Democratic to throw money down a black hole AKA the defense dept.

Are you old enough to remember $600 toilet seats? This is the meat of the thread. Re-read some of the links with an editorial eye disposed to critical expenditures . Were getting fleeced. The question is not weather we should spend dollars on defense , rather that we should spend exorbitant amounts of money on weapons based on disputed science to use against an as yet unarmed enemy.

Edit to add:
Please don't be patronizing , it serves no purpose and does not elevate your position relative to mine. It does not antagonize me and demonstrates a lack of surety in argument rather then the intended effect to all.

Rob Lister · 13th June 2004, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Man , Your certainly intelligent , but you don't get....... The point of the thread was not about the failure or success of a single weapon but the tendency of the government Republican OR Democratic to throw money down a black hole AKA the defense dept.

Are you old enough to remember $600 toilet seats? This is the meat of the thread. Re-read some of the links with an editorial eye disposed to critical expenditures . Were getting fleeced. The question is not weather we should spend dollars on defense , rather that we should spend exorbitant amounts of money on weapons based on disputed science to use against an as yet unarmed enemy.

Edit to add:
Please don't be patronizing , it serves no purpose and does not elevate your position relative to mine. It does not antagonize me and demonstrates a lack of surety in argument rather then the intended effect to all.

Don't take my responses as patronizing. Well, take them that way sometimes but only when you feel its deserved. Your post may have been about government waste but you did not make that clear in your original post with the reference to the 50's. Lot's of stuff (R&D) happened in the 50's. Some of it was of such import that you are using the great-grand-children of that research even now when reading this post and writing your rebuttal -- should you choose to do so.

In short, you should not have included the New Scientist if your goal was to show government waste. At least, not without comment that it was bunk.

My whole point in responding to this thread in the first place was my excitment in reading that the natural nuclear decay barrier had been, at least on one level, breached by artificial processes. That's BIG stuff. It's NEVER been accomplished by any means, so far as I know. The source you provided made my skeptic meter almost peg so I thought I'd respond.

12th June 2004, 01:33 PM	#1
TillEulenspiegel Master Poster Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,310	New defense Dept. lunacy The new budget proposals for defense spending includes 1 trillion dollars for R&D of and deployment new weapons systems. Including a weapon based on hafnium-178m2, the excited, isomeric form of hafnium-178 with a yield at 10,000 x more per gram then TNT and a ratio of 60:1 for energy production VS expenditure. Ya I see it now... that close to nuke , but not a nuke will kill those pesky terrorists in groups of one or more. Gotta have an enemy to justify that kind of spending..........hmmm maybe test it on the Eiffel Tower? The 50's are alive and well and living at 1600 Pennsylvania ave. Idiots. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994049 background http://tampatrib.com/News/MGBNGE79DVD.html article.
	__________________ "God does not play dice with the universe." Albert Einstein "Who is Einstein to tell God what to do?" Niels Bohr Remember, %97.3 of all accidents occur %100 of the time.

13th June 2004, 04:28 AM	#2
demon Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 2,744	Great! Now we will have instead of the suicide car bomb the suicide wristwatch bomb. Thankyou Pentagon! More info http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/news/arti...ay-weapons.htm
demon Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 2,744

13th June 2004, 04:40 AM	#3
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Re: New defense Dept. lunacy If true, I'm impressed. Do you have any more reliable sources. New Scientist is not exactly known for accurate reporting. They're given a bit to making stories more spectacular than they really are. I think it would be a really cool tool not only for warfare but other civil applications as well.

13th June 2004, 04:42 AM	#4
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Re: Re: New defense Dept. lunacy edit goof

13th June 2004, 05:04 AM	#5
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,337	Quote: Nuclear isomers were originally seen as a means of storing energy, but the possibility that the decay could be accelerated fired the interest of the Department of Defense, which is also investigating several other candidate materials such as thorium and niobium. They can't keep their grubby hands off anything, can they. Quote: The Department of Defense notes that there are serious technical issues to be overcome and that useful applications may be decades away. But its Militarily Critical Technologies List also says: "We should remember that less than six years intervened between the first scientific publication characterising the phenomenon of fission and the first use of a nuclear weapon in 1945." One trillion dollars should go some way to solving that problem. Of course, that could also buy a few schools, teachers and hospitals, but we wouldn't want to waste money on welfare, would we. Sometimes I can be half pursuaded that welfare is an inefficient way to care for people, then I see that it is just wasted on causes far less noble, and far more destructive. Waste it on people, I say. They'll get far more enjoyment from getting the dollars directly than living in a world where they just get blown up by it.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

13th June 2004, 05:31 AM	#6
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Quote: Originally posted by a_unique_person They can't keep their grubby hands off anything, can they. No, thank god, they can't. This is, of course, assuming the article bears any relationship to reality.

13th June 2004, 05:41 AM	#7
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Quote: Originally posted by Rob Lister No, thank god, they can't. This is, of course, assuming the article bears any relationship to reality. On a lighter note, the one trillion dollars that is being proposed is for the next ten years. That's only one-hundred billion a year. That's less than one-percent of the GDP. For R&D, that's unacceptable. It should be twice that.

13th June 2004, 05:49 AM	#8
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Quote: Originally posted by Rob Lister On a lighter note, the one trillion dollars that is being proposed is for the next ten years. That's only one-hundred billion a year. That's less than one-percent of the GDP. For R&D, that's unacceptable. It should be twice that. I totally agree, but I don't think all the R&D money should be spent on developing weapons.
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim

13th June 2004, 06:01 AM	#9
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,337	it's far more money than anyone else is spending. You are talking about 1%, but that is for the worlds richest economy. It is also not needed. What threat is it going to defend against. The advanced strike fighter, for example, is only going to be sold to allies, and no other fighter of any such capability is being developed anywhere else in the world. What is the point? All this is going to do is introduce a tremdously powerful weapon into a world that just doesn't need it. We have more than enough weapons already, the world spends more than enough on arms, it will not make the US any safer. I can just see the ads now, for the new Remington 'home defense' weapon. Protect your loved ones.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

13th June 2004, 09:32 AM	#10
TillEulenspiegel Master Poster Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,310	AUP: To paraphrase Senator Everett Dirksen a friend of my father's "a billion here a billion there, pretty soon your talking about real money". Rob , the first link is a popular science magazine the second a Tampa Tribune article from the Washington Post from a reporter considered one of the most knowledgeable in his field, which is based on a published budget proposal . The budget proposals are harder to find then feathered dinosaurs but many good sources have their own reports . Ex. : http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5190590/ President Bush has said that funding for departments will depend on their“effectiveness and accountability,” but in June 2001, Republican Senator Fred Thompson (TN) and the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee issued an extensive audit stating that the Pentagon “wastes billions of dollars each year, and cannot account for much of what it spends.” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called one $2.7 trillion accounting disaster “terrifying.” The General Accounting Office of Congress found that 58% of the Pentagon inventory consists of items it does not need. How do YOU spell Osprey?
	__________________ "God does not play dice with the universe." Albert Einstein "Who is Einstein to tell God what to do?" Niels Bohr Remember, %97.3 of all accidents occur %100 of the time.

13th June 2004, 09:43 AM	#11
Bjorn Off Topic Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 2,974	Quote: Originally posted by a_unique_person it's far more money than anyone else is spending. You are talking about 1%, but that is for the worlds richest economy. No. That would be the EU.
	__________________ Little did I know, that all those days that came and went, were my life ....

13th June 2004, 09:49 AM	#12
Jocko Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, Chicago... it's a toddling town. Posts: 5,463	Quote: Originally posted by Bjorn No. That would be the EU. Oh, there you go cheating again. With NAFTA, can't we include Mexico and Canada in ours too? Well.... maybe just Canada?
	__________________ You claimed that a turd is a turd. I clearly demonstrated that some turds are gold. You're wrong, Jocko. KOA proving me "wrong."

13th June 2004, 10:40 AM	#13
Bjorn Off Topic Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 2,974	The EU compares to the USA. Include Canada and Mexico, and you'd have to include the countries that are not members of the EU but have trade agreements with it. And a Swedish guy is reportedly richer than Bill Gates. So, there!
	__________________ Little did I know, that all those days that came and went, were my life ....

13th June 2004, 10:46 AM	#14
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 5,667	From the Tampa Tribune article: Quote: As Congress moves ahead with a huge new defense bill, lawmakers are making only modest changes in the Pentagon's plans to spend well over $1 trillion in the next decade on an arsenal of futuristic planes, ships and weapons with little direct connection to the Iraq war or the global war on terrorism. House and Senate versions of the 2005 defense authorization measure contain a record $68 billion for research and development, 20 percent above the peak levels of President Reagan's historic defense buildup. Tens of billions more out of a proposed $76 billion hardware account will go for big-ticket weapons systems to combat some as-yet-unknown adversary comparable to the Soviet Union. I can see going into debt for stuff we need. This can be managed with careful planning and a little discipline. I would prefer spending within our means, but that is not always possible. What word or phrase would best describe the idea of spending money we don't have for weapons we don't need? Financially irresponsible? Crazy? Election losing?
	__________________ When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder "Stupidity - a callow indifference to facts or data" - Stuart Firestein -neuroscientist. I hate bigots.

13th June 2004, 11:02 AM	#15
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Quote: Originally posted by a_unique_person it's far more money than anyone else is spending. You are talking about 1%, but that is for the worlds richest economy. It is also not needed. What threat is it going to defend against. The advanced strike fighter, for example, is only going to be sold to allies, and no other fighter of any such capability is being developed anywhere else in the world. What is the point? All this is going to do is introduce a tremdously powerful weapon into a world that just doesn't need it. We have more than enough weapons already, the world spends more than enough on arms, it will not make the US any safer. I can just see the ads now, for the new Remington 'home defense' weapon. Protect your loved ones. I would love to at least test the new Remington 'home defense' weapon. When does it go up for sale? Your opinion that we do not need any new weapons is noted. Mine differs. Especially as it pertains to R&D. If it was just R without the D, I might be less inclined. New weapons presumably equates to more efficient warfare; less frendly lives lost, more enemy lives lost...along with equipment, etc. It's a never ending process. It ain't pretty on the surface but it's beautiful underneith. Just my opinion. AUP, you are dismissed. TillEulenspiegel, front and center! I've got no real gripe with either of the links posted. They were fine. I was very interested in the science article but the science source is not really a very good one for accurate details. The newspaper column link only made very brief mention. I wasn't disputing anything in that article but I guess I could point out a few misleading statements if forced, such as Quote: On the Pentagon's wish list are revolutionary weapons such as a fighter plane that can land on an aircraft carrier or descend vertically to the ground; Probably not incorrect, just misleading. We've already got such jets in our inventory. Better ones would be nice though. All in all, I like most of it. Especially the bomb thing.

13th June 2004, 12:13 PM	#16
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	it's far more money than anyone else is spending. Awwwwwww...... how unfair. It is also not needed. Well, that settles it, then. Not that you knew such a weapon even existed, or was planned, thirty seconds ago, but you already "know" it isn't needed. Your psychic powers continue to amaze me.

13th June 2004, 12:26 PM	#17
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Quote: Originally posted by Skeptic it's far more money than anyone else is spending. Awwwwwww...... how unfair. It is also not needed. Well, that settles it, then. Not that you knew such a weapon even existed, or was planned, thirty seconds ago, but you already "know" it isn't needed. Your psychic powers continue to amaze me. One application might be a better bunker buster. Right now, the only possibilities for some situations is to use nuclear-tipped warheads. If this technology is valid, it would elimanate that requirement. The 'fallout' for such a weapon would be non-existent in terms of health. The blast would vaporize any unexpended material such that you would have to be well within the kill-zone of the blast to get even a hint of a rumor of a tad of a dangerous dose. Outside the kill-zone, the dose would be something on the order of a homeopathic remedy. Let's build lots.

13th June 2004, 01:14 PM	#18
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Oh well, so sad. It turns out, New Scientist is once again shooting off their reporting before putting their researchers in gear. That's why I don't have much respect for them. Their better than the New York Times, but not much better. Bomb Prospects debunked here: http://www.llnl.gov/llnl/06news/News...-01-08-05.html Of course, people can always claim its just a cover-up.

13th June 2004, 01:27 PM	#19
TillEulenspiegel Master Poster Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,310	Hmm... So the paper You quote is dated 2001, the info I quoted was 2003-4 , correct? Then what we have is a research project that relies on false science and spends ungodly amounts of money or another boondoggle that will produce more weapons that are not needed and research that will assure itself a constant flow of dollars................. OK which is it ? Edit to add: Besides I quoted the new scientist as BACKGROUND not the source of the budgetary process as was my main focus. Debunk the Post,Times, Tribune , etc ad nausium , if You will.
	__________________ "God does not play dice with the universe." Albert Einstein "Who is Einstein to tell God what to do?" Niels Bohr Remember, %97.3 of all accidents occur %100 of the time.

13th June 2004, 01:38 PM	#20
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Quote: Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel Hmm... So the paper You quote is dated 2001, the info I quoted was 2003-4 , correct? Yes, that's correct. r.l. Then what we have is a research project that relies on false science and spends ungodly amounts of money or another boondoggle that will produce more weapons that are not needed and research that will assure itself a constant flow of dollars................. OK which is it ? No. What we have is a report of a Military Budget R&D budget bill that includes research pertaining to this. Since it's been debunked by LLNL, I doubt it is included in the bill, but it might be. If it is, I doubt it is for the proposed research goal, but it might be. If it is, someone should inform the proposers of the bill that something is askew. Proposers? Well, all kinds of budget bills get proposed. Many are called, few are chosen. That's the way it is with bills. Any congressman can submit one. Oh, ungodly amounts of money? How much money was dedicated to this research? I don't remember reading that in either article. That's probably because the writers of both don't like doing research, eh? Edit to respond to your edit: It appears it's been debunked already. What more do you want me to debunk?

13th June 2004, 02:08 PM	#21
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Sorry, just one other thing to correct what I'm sure was an honest bluper on your part. To witt: Quote: Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel The budget proposals are harder to find then feathered dinosaurs... No, they are not. Any reporter can easily go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ And get the full skinny on any non-classified bill. When I say Full Skinny, that's what I mean. Detail to the dollar. See what you can find on hafnium. You have to be a little more clever than using that as a search term. I recommend starting with the term budget. Let's investigate this together (really, just you) and leak our story to the NYT.

13th June 2004, 02:19 PM	#22
Blue Monk Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 1,772	I’m always a bit leery of assuming what will be needed or more importantly what won’t be needed. History has shown that can be very difficult to judge in advance. Of course the more cynical might note that these buildups are not intended for responses to threats but rather intended for future plans to be implemented. Of course one can hardly help but notice that current advanced weapons systems such as the Apache attack helicopter, which no doubt would have reeked havoc on Soviet tanks advancing across the plains of Europe, are being brought down by a terrorist with an RPG hiding in a mud hut. I think a large portion of that money should not go to Defense but to Madison Avenue. Yeah that’s right, let’s do what Americans do best. Advertise. They could buy up media outlets worldwide and sell America. Simply devise a slick ad campaign with an adorable mascot and snappy jingle and let the world know that they need America to be popular, get the girl and keep their whites sparkling white. If they can convince Americans that McDonald’s is good food then it should be a snap to convince the rest of the world that they can live longer, run faster and jump higher if they’d only choose New and Improved America (now with more iron) than ol’ Brand X.
	__________________ Veni, Vidi, Velcro I came, I saw, I stuck around

13th June 2004, 02:26 PM	#23
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Quote: Originally posted by Blue Monk I think a large portion of that money should not go to Defense but to Madison Avenue. Yeah that’s right, let’s do what Americans do best. Advertise. That might not be the best idea I've heard in my life, but it's way the heck up there. I'd like to think I've always thought that, deep down, but if I have it's never been put in words so plainly. Give Madison Avenue ten years and we wouldn't need an army. More toothpaste maybe. Surely more soap in France. But we could recycle our tanks and ships into lady-leg-razors. The Hummers we could sell as is...at a neat profit maybe.

13th June 2004, 04:22 PM	#24
TillEulenspiegel Master Poster Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,310	Originally posted by Rob Lister No. What we have is a report of a Military Budget R&D budget bill that includes research pertaining to this. Since it's been debunked by LLNL, I doubt it is included in the bill, but it might be. If it is, I doubt it is for the proposed research goal, but it might be. If it is, someone should inform the proposers of the bill that something is askew. Well your mistaken , it is included. The quote in the news ( fairly consistent from many different sources ) : House and Senate versions of the 2005 defense authorization measure contain a record $68 billion for research and development, 20 percent above the peak levels of President Reagan's historic defense buildup. Tens of billions more out of a proposed $76 billion hardware account will go for big-ticket weapons systems to combat some as-yet-unknown adversary comparable to the Soviet Union. As for the efficacy of the program , you evidently missed my satirical comment about the Osprey project . Proposers? Well, all kinds of budget bills get proposed. Many are called, few are chosen. That's the way it is with bills. Any congressman can submit one. It appearers to be a hi priority item with a positive outlook by both houses of the legislative branches of the US government. You comment is less then silly. Oh, ungodly amounts of money? How much money was dedicated to this research? I don't remember reading that in either article. That's probably because the writers of both don't like doing research, eh? Well gee, I dunno when they start to publish your "to the dollar" expenditures for black budget items , I suppose we will know. Edit to respond to your edit: It appears it's been debunked already. What more do you want me to debunk? Umm........... no You sited one four year old article about the feasibility of making this weapon, that has only a peripheral attachment to the whole point of my post ( and actually makes the case ) which is the irresponsibility of defense dept. spending and the insatiable appetite of hawks. So even tho You avoided it in your rebuttals, answer my question. ....money spent on the newest emperors clothes or a drive to develop a weapon with no discernible use at this time.
	__________________ "God does not play dice with the universe." Albert Einstein "Who is Einstein to tell God what to do?" Niels Bohr Remember, %97.3 of all accidents occur %100 of the time.

13th June 2004, 04:25 PM	#25
Blue Monk Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 1,772	Quote: Originally posted by Rob Lister [b]Surely more soap in France. Hey, let's not get carried away, hehe. Even Madison Avenue has it's limitations.
	__________________ Veni, Vidi, Velcro I came, I saw, I stuck around

13th June 2004, 04:29 PM	#26
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	TillEulenspiegel, I really don't get where you are coming from. Might I suggest you cool your hot-jets. Have a beer, or a joint, or whatever makes you chill. Chilled yet? Good. Now, just find the bill in question at the website I posted. If the expenditure for that project and goal is still therein, you've got something to bitch about. Otherwise, pick another, any other, expenditure and you'll likely have just as much to bitch about. Oh, the stories I could tell about where research money actually goes. But I digress.

13th June 2004, 05:05 PM	#27
TillEulenspiegel Master Poster Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,310	Quote: Originally posted by Rob Lister TillEulenspiegel, I really don't get where you are coming from. Might I suggest you cool your hot-jets. Have a beer, or a joint, or whatever makes you chill. Chilled yet? Good. Now, just find the bill in question at the website I posted. If the expenditure for that project and goal is still therein, you've got something to bitch about. Otherwise, pick another, any other, expenditure and you'll likely have just as much to bitch about. Oh, the stories I could tell about where research money actually goes. But I digress. My jets aren't even alight, I take no personal affront or hit to my self image by snappy banter regardless of demeanor or content from an anonymous forum. Your attempt to be condescending and adopting a chiding tone was great tho! I laughed better then I have done for a few days. But hey..............bact to the question I have asked you three times. Bad expenditure or bad expenditure? Ahh I forgot You entertain the third option "it ain't real till they rifle through your wallet". Oh and by the way my intoxicants of choice are single malts and plebeian beer.........in case You want to remember my birthday which is fast approching.......I can PM you my address.
	__________________ "God does not play dice with the universe." Albert Einstein "Who is Einstein to tell God what to do?" Niels Bohr Remember, %97.3 of all accidents occur %100 of the time.

13th June 2004, 05:14 PM	#28
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Quote: Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel My jets aren't even alight, I take no personal affront or hit to my self image by snappy banter regardless of demeanor or content from an anonymous forum. Your attempt to be condescending and adopting a chiding tone was great tho! I laughed better then I have done for a few days. But hey..............bact to the question I have asked you three times. Bad expenditure or bad expenditure? Ahh I forgot You entertain the third option "it ain't real till they rifle through your wallet". Oh and by the way my intoxicants of choice are single malts and plebeian beer.........in case You want to remember my birthday which is fast approching.......I can PM you my address. That's better. But dude, based on the sources YOU provided, I don't know if its a bad expenditure or even if it IS an expenditure. Clearly New Scientist doesn't do research or they'd never have published the article. The reporter in your other link doesn't do research or he'd have found what I found after a single web query. If he did find that, don't you think he'd have reported it. My god man --- THAT's THE STORY! Do yourself a favor and stop regarding news articles as gospel. They are often no more than rumor they heard from other articles. Like I said: Quote: Since it's been debunked by LLNL, I doubt it is included in the bill, but it might be. If it is, I doubt it is for the proposed research goal, but it might be. If it is, someone should inform the proposers of the bill that something is askew. That's reasonable. Edit to add: my favorite is Milwaukee's Best - $4.95 a twelve-pack. This I sometimes enjoy with a single bowl of nature's greenest weed (don't tell the wife.) Additionally, I'll remember your birthday if you'll remember mine.

13th June 2004, 05:38 PM	#29
TillEulenspiegel Master Poster Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,310	Man , Your certainly intelligent , but you don't get....... The point of the thread was not about the failure or success of a single weapon but the tendency of the government Republican OR Democratic to throw money down a black hole AKA the defense dept. Are you old enough to remember $600 toilet seats? This is the meat of the thread. Re-read some of the links with an editorial eye disposed to critical expenditures . Were getting fleeced. The question is not weather we should spend dollars on defense , rather that we should spend exorbitant amounts of money on weapons based on disputed science to use against an as yet unarmed enemy. Edit to add: Please don't be patronizing , it serves no purpose and does not elevate your position relative to mine. It does not antagonize me and demonstrates a lack of surety in argument rather then the intended effect to all.
	__________________ "God does not play dice with the universe." Albert Einstein "Who is Einstein to tell God what to do?" Niels Bohr Remember, %97.3 of all accidents occur %100 of the time.

13th June 2004, 06:12 PM	#30
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Quote: Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel Man , Your certainly intelligent , but you don't get....... The point of the thread was not about the failure or success of a single weapon but the tendency of the government Republican OR Democratic to throw money down a black hole AKA the defense dept. Are you old enough to remember $600 toilet seats? This is the meat of the thread. Re-read some of the links with an editorial eye disposed to critical expenditures . Were getting fleeced. The question is not weather we should spend dollars on defense , rather that we should spend exorbitant amounts of money on weapons based on disputed science to use against an as yet unarmed enemy. Edit to add: Please don't be patronizing , it serves no purpose and does not elevate your position relative to mine. It does not antagonize me and demonstrates a lack of surety in argument rather then the intended effect to all. Don't take my responses as patronizing. Well, take them that way sometimes but only when you feel its deserved. Your post may have been about government waste but you did not make that clear in your original post with the reference to the 50's. Lot's of stuff (R&D) happened in the 50's. Some of it was of such import that you are using the great-grand-children of that research even now when reading this post and writing your rebuttal -- should you choose to do so. In short, you should not have included the New Scientist if your goal was to show government waste. At least, not without comment that it was bunk. My whole point in responding to this thread in the first place was my excitment in reading that the natural nuclear decay barrier had been, at least on one level, breached by artificial processes. That's BIG stuff. It's NEVER been accomplished by any means, so far as I know. The source you provided made my skeptic meter almost peg so I thought I'd respond.