Star Wars (SDI) +20 years

[judasmachine]

Energy Weapons

LOS ALAMOS, New Mexico -- There is a new breed of weaponry fast approaching?and at the speed of light no less. They are labeled "directed-energy weapons" and may well signal a revolution in military hardware?perhaps more so than the atomic bomb.

Directed-energy weapons take the form of lasers, high-powered microwaves, and particle beams. Their adoption for ground, air, sea, and space warfare depends not only on using the electromagnetic spectrum, but also upon favorable political and budgetary wavelengths too.

That?s the outlook of J. Douglas Beason, author of the recently published book: The E-Bomb: How America?s New Directed Energy Weapons Will Change the Way Wars Will Be Fought in the Future (Da Capo Press, October 2005).Beason previously served on the White House staff working for the President?s Science Advisor (Office of Science and Technology Policy) under both the Bush and Clinton Administrations.

Looks like it'll become a reality one way or the other. Read the article, it's pretty interesting and sad.

[edit] poor quoting ability....

 

[Strk]

That book has one long title.

It would be nice to see them produce something for once though. I believe we've cleared a hundred billion trying for a missile defense system with little to show for it.

 

[conjur]

Something's gotta feed the beast. Those defense contractors are taking up 30-40% of our economy. Can't have them go bust, ya know.

 

[Atheus]

By the time this thing is finished all the ICBMs will have rusted away and China will be the world's greatest superpower.

 

[Tangerines]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
Energy Weapons

LOS ALAMOS, New Mexico -- There is a new breed of weaponry fast approaching?and at the speed of light no less. They are labeled "directed-energy weapons" and may well signal a revolution in military hardware?perhaps more so than the atomic bomb.

Directed-energy weapons take the form of lasers, high-powered microwaves, and particle beams. Their adoption for ground, air, sea, and space warfare depends not only on using the electromagnetic spectrum, but also upon favorable political and budgetary wavelengths too.

That?s the outlook of J. Douglas Beason, author of the recently published book: The E-Bomb: How America?s New Directed Energy Weapons Will Change the Way Wars Will Be Fought in the Future (Da Capo Press, October 2005).Beason previously served on the White House staff working for the President?s Science Advisor (Office of Science and Technology Policy) under both the Bush and Clinton Administrations.

Looks like it'll become a reality one way or the other. Read the article, it's pretty interesting and sad.

[edit] poor quoting ability....

That's a mouthful.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: conjur
Something's gotta feed the beast. Those defense contractors are taking up 30-40% of our economy. Can't have them go bust, ya know.

Sad but true.

 

[marincounty]

"A leading expert in directed-energy research for some 26 years, Beason is also Director of Threat Reduction here at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) "

I'm really impressed, after 26 years of research "The good news is that directed-energy exists. Directed-energy is being tested and within a few years directed-energy is going to be deployed upon the battlefield,"

Only a few more billion$ and we'll have it working, honest.
Vaporware, anyone?

 

[Future Shock]

I'd rather we had plowed $250 Billion into these weapons than spent it on invading Iraq however...these have the capacity to change the strategic balance, unlike Iraq.

Future Shock

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: conjur
Something's gotta feed the beast. Those defense contractors are taking up 30-40% of our economy. Can't have them go bust, ya know.

Sad but true.

Actually not even close. Federal taxes take in less than 20% of the economy. Military spending is only about 3% of gdp. Far less than when Eisnerhower warned about the military industrial complex.

But we know conjur as never let the truth get in his way.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur
Something's gotta feed the beast. Those defense contractors are taking up 30-40% of our economy. Can't have them go bust, ya know.

30-40% of our economy....? That's ludicrous, prove that.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur
Something's gotta feed the beast. Those defense contractors are taking up 30-40% of our economy. Can't have them go bust, ya know.

30-40% of our economy....? That's ludicrous, prove that.

He cant. he is just spouting bs.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: conjur
Something's gotta feed the beast. Those defense contractors are taking up 30-40% of our economy. Can't have them go bust, ya know.

Sad but true.

Actually not even close. Federal taxes take in less than 20% of the economy. Military spending is only about 3% of gdp. Far less than when Eisnerhower warned about the military industrial complex.

But we know conjur as never let the truth get in his way.

What I'm saying is it is the beast. Blood for money, w00t

 

[tommywishbone]

When I was 10 years old I laughed at SDI aka Star Wars. It's every bit as funny today. All those cartoons of satellites shooting lasers destroying mutiply missles. The Reagan missle defense cartoons were much better than Bush's chemical weapons truck cartoons. You'd think in 20 years the goverment would get better at selling BS.

 

[marincounty]

"Military spending is continuing to take a big bite out of our taxes, but spending for other programs grew slightly faster in FY04. Overall military-related spending (for past and current wars and military activities) increased 8.2 percent in FY04 over FY03, while total federal funds spending grew by 8.3 percent. An estimated 42 percent of our federal income tax dollars was spent on past and present military activities

Definition of "military spending": FCNL?s analysis includes all of the programs identified in the federal budget as military programs, including the military costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, all other Defense Department programs, Energy Department nuclear weapons programs, and military-related programs in the departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and other independent agencies (e.g. Selective Service). FCNL?s analysis also includes mandatory payments to the military and CIA retirement and health care systems and outlays for foreign military financing, sales, grants, and training. Finally, FCNL?s analysis includes spending for past military activities such as the portion of the interest paid on the national debt which can be attributed to past military spending and veterans services. "

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=1253&issue_id=19

Don't believe the budget numbers put out by the whitehouse, or do you not
remember "surpluses as far as the eye can see".
And comparing spending as a percentage of GDP is bullcrap.

 

[GoPackGo]

I am not opposed to developing a system to take out nukes.

Todays computers, lasers and tracking technologies, its probably possible to do but would not be very cost effective.

Phasers anyone?

 

[Zebo]

Still "at it" but it's worth it.

It's like getting getting stuck in quick sand - dig enough eventually you'll get out. And if you don't you're totally screwed as in nuclear Armageddon!!!

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: marincounty
"Military spending is continuing to take a big bite out of our taxes, but spending for other programs grew slightly faster in FY04. Overall military-related spending (for past and current wars and military activities) increased 8.2 percent in FY04 over FY03, while total federal funds spending grew by 8.3 percent. An estimated 42 percent of our federal income tax dollars was spent on past and present military activities

Definition of "military spending": FCNL?s analysis includes all of the programs identified in the federal budget as military programs, including the military costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, all other Defense Department programs, Energy Department nuclear weapons programs, and military-related programs in the departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and other independent agencies (e.g. Selective Service). FCNL?s analysis also includes mandatory payments to the military and CIA retirement and health care systems and outlays for foreign military financing, sales, grants, and training. Finally, FCNL?s analysis includes spending for past military activities such as the portion of the interest paid on the national debt which can be attributed to past military spending and veterans services. "

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=1253&issue_id=19

Don't believe the budget numbers put out by the whitehouse, or do you not
remember "surpluses as far as the eye can see".
And comparing spending as a percentage of GDP is bullcrap.

What does that prove? Conjur said 30-40% of the ECONOMY, not the BUDGET. Now run away...

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: marincounty
"Military spending is continuing to take a big bite out of our taxes, but spending for other programs grew slightly faster in FY04. Overall military-related spending (for past and current wars and military activities) increased 8.2 percent in FY04 over FY03, while total federal funds spending grew by 8.3 percent. An estimated 42 percent of our federal income tax dollars was spent on past and present military activities

Definition of "military spending": FCNL?s analysis includes all of the programs identified in the federal budget as military programs, including the military costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, all other Defense Department programs, Energy Department nuclear weapons programs, and military-related programs in the departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and other independent agencies (e.g. Selective Service). FCNL?s analysis also includes mandatory payments to the military and CIA retirement and health care systems and outlays for foreign military financing, sales, grants, and training. Finally, FCNL?s analysis includes spending for past military activities such as the portion of the interest paid on the national debt which can be attributed to past military spending and veterans services. "

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=1253&issue_id=19

Don't believe the budget numbers put out by the whitehouse, or do you not
remember "surpluses as far as the eye can see".
And comparing spending as a percentage of GDP is bullcrap.

What does that prove? Conjur said 30-40% of the ECONOMY, not the BUDGET. Now run away...

It proves we're spending way too much on the military, now go back to your Fox news.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: marincounty
"Military spending is continuing to take a big bite out of our taxes, but spending for other programs grew slightly faster in FY04. Overall military-related spending (for past and current wars and military activities) increased 8.2 percent in FY04 over FY03, while total federal funds spending grew by 8.3 percent. An estimated 42 percent of our federal income tax dollars was spent on past and present military activities

Definition of "military spending": FCNL?s analysis includes all of the programs identified in the federal budget as military programs, including the military costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, all other Defense Department programs, Energy Department nuclear weapons programs, and military-related programs in the departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and other independent agencies (e.g. Selective Service). FCNL?s analysis also includes mandatory payments to the military and CIA retirement and health care systems and outlays for foreign military financing, sales, grants, and training. Finally, FCNL?s analysis includes spending for past military activities such as the portion of the interest paid on the national debt which can be attributed to past military spending and veterans services. "

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=1253&issue_id=19

Don't believe the budget numbers put out by the whitehouse, or do you not
remember "surpluses as far as the eye can see".
And comparing spending as a percentage of GDP is bullcrap.

What does that prove? Conjur said 30-40% of the ECONOMY, not the BUDGET. Now run away...

It proves we're spending way too much on the military, now go back to your Fox news.

In your opinion... at what point does defense spending cross the line into the "too much" category?

 

[marincounty]

quote: "The current (2005) United States military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next twenty biggest spenders combined, and six times larger than China's, which places second. The United States and its close allies are responsible for approximately two-thirds of all military spending on Earth (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for two-thirds), and spend 57 times more than the seven so-called "rogue" nations combined (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria). Military spending accounts for more than half of the United States' federal discretionary spending, which is all of the U.S. government's money not spoken for by pre-existing obligations. [1]

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2003 the United States spent approximately 47% of the world's total military spending of US$956,000,000,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_budget

I think defense spending crossed the line into "too much" a long time ago.

 

[marincounty]

At what point does a weapons system have to work? After 20 years and hundreds of billions of dollars? Or is it 30 years and trillions of dollars?
At what point is it a failure to be abandoned?

 

[kylebisme]

As long as it is more than the rest of the world combined, I don't see how anyone can argue that it is anything but too much.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
As long as it is more than the rest of the world combined, I don't see how anyone can argue that it is anything but too much.

At least it's for an actually "defensive" measure unlike about 90% of our military which is simply power projection and offensive in nature - what with troops and bases in half countires on earth and warring every two-three years since end of WWII.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: marincounty
quote: "The current (2005) United States military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next twenty biggest spenders combined, and six times larger than China's, which places second. The United States and its close allies are responsible for approximately two-thirds of all military spending on Earth (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for two-thirds), and spend 57 times more than the seven so-called "rogue" nations combined (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria). Military spending accounts for more than half of the United States' federal discretionary spending, which is all of the U.S. government's money not spoken for by pre-existing obligations. [1]

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2003 the United States spent approximately 47% of the world's total military spending of US$956,000,000,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_budget

I think defense spending crossed the line into "too much" a long time ago.

When compared to gdp spending us military spending is not out of line.

 

[mect]

you people do realize that a lot of university research is paid for through military grants. A lot of this "weapons research" is going into improved communications, photonics, electronics, environmental, and other areas of research.