patrick.net

"Since 2001" is kind of arbitrary, since that includes one war that has since ended.

And, really, the wars are long since over: What exists in Afghanistan is now simply an occupation. It turns out that, with a military as dominant as ours, the cost of war is nothing compared to the cost of occupation.

Oh well, keep making those useless weapons to keep southerners employed.

Dont forget to add back in the invention of the Transistor, the laser, Satnav and GPS, the DC3, the 737, the Microwave.

We use these in consumer devices now - but dont forget what funded them.

Entitlemented says

Dont forget to add back in the invention of the Transistor, the laser, Satnav and GPS, the DC3, the 737, the Microwave.

We use these in consumer devices now - but dont forget what funded them.

If you think that for one moment that warfare spending is the most efficient way to advance technology, you are sadly mistaken. Wasting resources on war has easily held back human progress by ten thousand years if not a hundred thousand. Had resources spent destroying infrastructure and killing wealth producing people had instead been spent on scientific research and technological development for purposes other than murder, our society would have already built a Dyson's ring and colonized the galaxy.

War is waste.

War is waste, but it is sadly the only way ambitious projects get funded.

We never would have gone to the moon if the government didn't think it was a strategic advantage.

Neil degrasse Tyson wrote a whole book of essays on this subject.

Kevin says

War is waste, but it is sadly the only way ambitious projects get funded.

The ancient pyramids were not funded by war. (Granted, slave labor was a big part of it, but that's another issue.)

I do not accept that we are utterly incapable of funding large scale projects without a war behind those projects. But even if we cannot fund large scale projects, China most certainly can. China builds entire cities for shits and giggles. If we're unwilling to fund research, technological advancement, and infrastructure for any reason but war, then we should get use to speaking Chinese.

China also only funds things for war. Their entire national r&d budget is a part of their military.

The Race to the Moon a great example of a non-military program that produced many of the same results that massive military spending generates, without the war.

A Race to Mars program would be a great way of enhancing US prestige, finding employment for our glut of STEM grads, and generating countless useful technologies.

China has built entire cities for purposes other than war. China most certainly invests in R&D to acquire economic advantages. Just look at China's research into energy: China Leading Global Race to Make Clean Energy

China, unlike America, realizes that the wars of the 21st century will be economic wars, not military wars. These wars will be won by dominating technologies and markets. To China, economic security is national security. The American government, in contrast, is still thinking with a Medieval mindset. The last time a country fought a war using the last war's tactics, France was overran by Germany almost immediately.

Yeah China spends trillions in new highways, high speed rail, discounts to their exporters etc.

We spent trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What if we had spent those squandered trillions on our decaying infrastructure?
Fix a bunch of shit, jobs galore. It seems like it would have been an easy concept to sell. What incredible forces are deployed against common sense.

thunderlips11 says

The Race to the Moon a great example of a non-military program that produced many of the same results that massive military spending generates, without the war.

Yeah, but it was still essentially a means of fighting the cold war, so it's not the best example. Eliminating smallpox, creating the electric grid, and the Internet (not Darpanet) are much better examples.

Yeah, people will try to claim that the Internet rose from Arpanet/Darpanet, but that's a muddled view of history. In reality, the Internet as we know it started in the 1990s when restrictions on network development were removed largely due to Al Gore, the WWW (HTTP and HTML) were invented by Tim Berners-Lee, and several networking technologies mostly from Xerox PARC including Ethernet. Yes, we should give credit to the DoD for TCP/IP, but that's just part of the Internet, and actually is a bad defacto standard (ISO OSI Seven Layer system is better).

The Internet as we know it today is really a product of the 1990s with some parts having been developed, but not really assembled together, from the 1980s and 1970s. And, the most essential contribution was from Berners-Lee.

Dan8267 says

China has built entire cities for purposes other than war. China most certainly invests in R&D to acquire economic advantages. Just look at China's research into energy: China Leading Global Race to Make Clean Energy

China, unlike America, realizes that the wars of the 21st century will be economic wars, not military wars. These wars will be won by dominating technologies and markets. To China, economic security is national security. The American government, in contrast, is still thinking with a Medieval mindset. The last time a country fought a war using the last war's tactics, France was overran by Germany almost immediately.

China builds empty cities and unused highways to nowhere in order yo appear as a financial powerhouse. That has nothing to do with r&d.

Ask any Chinese researcher about getting a grant sometime.

Your missing the point. Again,

China has also leapfrogged the West in the last two years to emerge as the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels. And the country is pushing equally hard to build nuclear reactors and the most efficient types of coal power plants.

These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China.

I'm not saying China is doing science for the sake of science. I'm saying China is taking the technological lead because economic power is the political and military power of the 21st century.

thunderlips11 says

A Race to Mars program would be a great way of enhancing US prestige, finding employment for our glut of STEM grads, and generating countless useful technologies.

I'd rather see those STEM grads working on eliminating all STDs and male pattern baldness.

New Renter says

I'd rather see those STEM grads working on eliminating all STDs and male pattern baldness.

And ass hair. For a friend.

Dan8267 says

New Renter says

I'd rather see those STEM grads working on eliminating all STDs and male pattern baldness.

And ass hair. For a friend.

My friend science has already provided temporary solutions for that problem long ago:

And lasers can remove hair permanently.

Let your "friend" know its safe to finally wear those assless chaps he put in the closet back in the early 80's

New Renter says

thunderlips11 says

A Race to Mars program would be a great way of enhancing US prestige, finding employment for our glut of STEM grads, and generating countless useful technologies.

I'd rather see those STEM grads working on eliminating all STDs and male pattern baldness.

Lets add the ability to spend a lifetime sitting on the couch drinking beer, eating pork rinds, watching TV and yet at 65+ have the body of an 18- 24 year old who spends 8 hrs a day working hard at the gym.

Lets apply STEM employees to figure out a way we can ALL live the French dream of working only 3 hrs a day yet still achieve a comfortable modern standard of living.

At a minimum lets figure out how to make telecommuting a reality so all those software engineers don't needlessly waste time in the car nor clog up the roads here for others.

Or how about a paperless office that is in fact paperless?

Lots of things to accomplish here on Earth before squandering blood and resources on a race to Mars.

New Renter says

My friend science has already provided temporary solutions for that problem long ago:

Someone already tried that and wrote about his experience in this classic Craigslist post.

Dan8267 says

New Renter says

My friend science has already provided temporary solutions for that problem long ago:

Someone already tried that and wrote about his experience in this classic Craigslist post.

True, sometimes scientific progress can be messy.

Perhaps if the poster had used a better quality razor or a chemical process (Nair) as well as silk boxers his ass would have been more comfortable.

Do women have comparable problems when getting a Brazilian? Maybe an ass waxing would have worked out better.

Don't worry Dan, your "friend" has lots of options.

New Renter says

Lets apply STEM employees to figure out a way we can ALL live the French dream of working only 3 hrs a day yet still achieve a comfortable modern standard of living.

I think this one is more of a political problem than a technological one.

I think we also should do Mars, simply because we can. The idea that something awesome that is feasible but isn't getting done bothers me.

New Renter says

thunderlips11 says

A Race to Mars program would be a great way of enhancing US prestige, finding employment for our glut of STEM grads, and generating countless useful technologies.

I'd rather see those STEM grads working on eliminating all STDs and male pattern baldness.

We could have done both for less than the cost of the Iraq war. Please don't fall into the too common politicians' trap of pitting one field of useful research against another. The false choice between medical research and physics research is like the false choice between liberty and security. Either way, politicians are trying to get you to trade ashes for trees, hot air for a cool breeze, because what they're selling has a higher markup for their patronage network.

Just as the worst products are advertised on TV - because it's the only way to get you to buy them - so too the worst products have the biggest lobbying budgets, for the same reason.

As Peter P commented earlier, good companies make good products and sell them at a profit; great companies sell crap. How much have you paid for 'designer water' or a chemical-laden beverage with some coloring and addictive sweetener and CO2 bubbles to make you more flatulent? How much did people pay PhRMA for Vioxx ($2/pill plus the cost of strokes, for Hospital Association revenue) compared to equally effective analgesics that cost 10 cents or less? How much will you pay for Obamacare, while people in other countries live longer with less than half as much medical spending?

When you factor in the costs of diabetes etc, we could get to Mars and cure diseases for less than what we spend on junk food, let alone war.