Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Phys Org2)   Fusion ... power it up and turn it on   (phys.org) divider line
    More: Cool, Fusion power, Nuclear fusion, nuclear fusion reactor, Nuclear power, Nuclear fission, powerful clean energy source, atomic nuclei, development of nuclear fusion energy  
•       •       •

1572 clicks; posted to STEM » on 05 Dec 2020 at 6:04 PM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



46 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-12-05 1:50:12 PM  
But achieving fusion is both extremely difficult and prohibitively expensive, with the total cost of ITER estimated at $22.5 billion.

Prohibitively expensive. LOL SURE. Like 2% of the US defense budget in a year. Ooooo

If we stopped wasting all those trillions in the military every year, we could put 100 times the money into research worldwide and we would already have colonies on mars and the moon and unlimited energy with no pollution which would solve 99% of countries problems.
 
2020-12-05 3:08:21 PM  
Probably faked the UL certification through sheer force of habit.

I wonder who they stole the plans from.
 
2020-12-05 4:12:16 PM  
The Flaming Lips - Turn It On [Official Music Video]
Youtube WHV2Txq342o
 
2020-12-05 6:28:39 PM  

lolmao500: But achieving fusion is both extremely difficult and prohibitively expensive, with the total cost of ITER estimated at $22.5 billion.

Prohibitively expensive. LOL SURE. Like 2% of the US defense budget in a year. Ooooo

If we stopped wasting all those trillions in the military every year, we could put 100 times the money into research worldwide and we would already have colonies on mars and the moon and unlimited energy with no pollution which would solve 99% of countries problems.


Came in to say this. We should be leading the world on this, but our addiction to bombs and guns is going to destroy us. The rest of the world is moving beyond fossil fuels. Not as fast as they should, but much faster than us. We're rollin' coal, bombing poor folks, and shootin' guns. Yee-haw, America.
 
2020-12-05 6:40:40 PM  
Davinson - Fusion (Official Music Video)
Youtube ucpbW-WIBdo
 
2020-12-05 7:10:28 PM  

lolmao500: But achieving fusion is both extremely difficult and prohibitively expensive, with the total cost of ITER estimated at $22.5 billion.

Prohibitively expensive. LOL SURE. Like 2% of the US defense budget in a year. Ooooo

If we stopped wasting all those trillions in the military every year, we could put 100 times the money into research worldwide and we would already have colonies on mars and the moon and unlimited energy with no pollution which would solve 99% of countries problems.


Yeah but think of the poor oil executives.
 
2020-12-05 7:15:46 PM  

I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: Probably faked the UL certification through sheer force of habit.

I wonder who they stole the plans from.


I think it was some guy with mechanical arms welded to his back.
 
2020-12-05 7:38:39 PM  

lolmao500: But achieving fusion is both extremely difficult and prohibitively expensive, with the total cost of ITER estimated at $22.5 billion.

Prohibitively expensive. LOL SURE. Like 2% of the US defense budget in a year. Ooooo

If we stopped wasting all those trillions in the military every year, we could put 100 times the money into research worldwide and we would already have colonies on mars and the moon and unlimited energy with no pollution which would solve 99% of countries problems.


So the US defense budget (at ~3.6% of GDP) is the only thing keeping us from commercially viable fusion, universal healthcare, UBI, infrastructure maintenance, free college for all, etc., etc.,etc.
/that's an awfully big bogeyman
//$15b a year does go to energy R&D
///three for the 2+million people a year earning a living wage from the DoD (not including contractors )
 
2020-12-05 8:10:59 PM  

johnny_vegas: lolmao500: But achieving fusion is both extremely difficult and prohibitively expensive, with the total cost of ITER estimated at $22.5 billion.

Prohibitively expensive. LOL SURE. Like 2% of the US defense budget in a year. Ooooo

If we stopped wasting all those trillions in the military every year, we could put 100 times the money into research worldwide and we would already have colonies on mars and the moon and unlimited energy with no pollution which would solve 99% of countries problems.

So the US defense budget (at ~3.6% of GDP) is the only thing keeping us from commercially viable fusion, universal healthcare, UBI, infrastructure maintenance, free college for all, etc., etc.,etc.
/that's an awfully big bogeyman
//$15b a year does go to energy R&D
///three for the 2+million people a year earning a living wage from the DoD (not including contractors )


It's only 4% of GDP, but defense and related spending are about a quarter of all government expenses and more than half of discretionary. We spend more than the next 13 countries combined. It is absolutely a boogeyman.
 
2020-12-05 8:18:05 PM  

Likwit: johnny_vegas: lolmao500: But achieving fusion is both extremely difficult and prohibitively expensive, with the total cost of ITER estimated at $22.5 billion.

Prohibitively expensive. LOL SURE. Like 2% of the US defense budget in a year. Ooooo

If we stopped wasting all those trillions in the military every year, we could put 100 times the money into research worldwide and we would already have colonies on mars and the moon and unlimited energy with no pollution which would solve 99% of countries problems.

So the US defense budget (at ~3.6% of GDP) is the only thing keeping us from commercially viable fusion, universal healthcare, UBI, infrastructure maintenance, free college for all, etc., etc.,etc.
/that's an awfully big bogeyman
//$15b a year does go to energy R&D
///three for the 2+million people a year earning a living wage from the DoD (not including contractors )

It's only 4% of GDP, but defense and related spending are about a quarter of all government expenses and more than half of discretionary. We spend more than the next 13 countries combined. It is absolutely a boogeyman.


And 25 % of that budget does to personnel costs. We also spend the most by a large margin on health care and education.  Just because we spend what we do on defense doesn't mean we can't also spend money on social welfare policies or fusion.  If you want to reprioritize do so at the top and reduce the requirements first before screwing over the military and forcing them to continue to do more with less.
 
2020-12-05 8:20:26 PM  

johnny_vegas: Likwit: johnny_vegas: lolmao500: But achieving fusion is both extremely difficult and prohibitively expensive, with the total cost of ITER estimated at $22.5 billion.

Prohibitively expensive. LOL SURE. Like 2% of the US defense budget in a year. Ooooo

If we stopped wasting all those trillions in the military every year, we could put 100 times the money into research worldwide and we would already have colonies on mars and the moon and unlimited energy with no pollution which would solve 99% of countries problems.

So the US defense budget (at ~3.6% of GDP) is the only thing keeping us from commercially viable fusion, universal healthcare, UBI, infrastructure maintenance, free college for all, etc., etc.,etc.
/that's an awfully big bogeyman
//$15b a year does go to energy R&D
///three for the 2+million people a year earning a living wage from the DoD (not including contractors )

It's only 4% of GDP, but defense and related spending are about a quarter of all government expenses and more than half of discretionary. We spend more than the next 13 countries combined. It is absolutely a boogeyman.

And 25 % of that budget does to personnel costs. We also spend the most by a large margin on health care and education.  Just because we spend what we do on defense doesn't mean we can't also spend money on social welfare policies or fusion.  If you want to reprioritize do so at the top and reduce the requirements first before screwing over the military and forcing them to continue to do more with less.


Or... And this is pretty crazy. We could stop waging totally unnecessary wars. Crazy, right?

The military doesn't need to do more with less. It needs to do less with way less.
 
2020-12-05 8:20:55 PM  

Likwit: johnny_vegas: lolmao500: But achieving fusion is both extremely difficult and prohibitively expensive, with the total cost of ITER estimated at $22.5 billion.

Prohibitively expensive. LOL SURE. Like 2% of the US defense budget in a year. Ooooo

If we stopped wasting all those trillions in the military every year, we could put 100 times the money into research worldwide and we would already have colonies on mars and the moon and unlimited energy with no pollution which would solve 99% of countries problems.

So the US defense budget (at ~3.6% of GDP) is the only thing keeping us from commercially viable fusion, universal healthcare, UBI, infrastructure maintenance, free college for all, etc., etc.,etc.
/that's an awfully big bogeyman
//$15b a year does go to energy R&D
///three for the 2+million people a year earning a living wage from the DoD (not including contractors )

It's only 4% of GDP, but defense and related spending are about a quarter of all government expenses and more than half of discretionary. We spend more than the next 13 countries combined. It is absolutely a boogeyman.


Also I think 25% of total budget is overstated but it doesn't really matter per my argument.
 
2020-12-05 8:27:40 PM  

Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: johnny_vegas: lolmao500: But achieving fusion is both extremely difficult and prohibitively expensive, with the total cost of ITER estimated at $22.5 billion.

Prohibitively expensive. LOL SURE. Like 2% of the US defense budget in a year. Ooooo

If we stopped wasting all those trillions in the military every year, we could put 100 times the money into research worldwide and we would already have colonies on mars and the moon and unlimited energy with no pollution which would solve 99% of countries problems.

So the US defense budget (at ~3.6% of GDP) is the only thing keeping us from commercially viable fusion, universal healthcare, UBI, infrastructure maintenance, free college for all, etc., etc.,etc.
/that's an awfully big bogeyman
//$15b a year does go to energy R&D
///three for the 2+million people a year earning a living wage from the DoD (not including contractors )

It's only 4% of GDP, but defense and related spending are about a quarter of all government expenses and more than half of discretionary. We spend more than the next 13 countries combined. It is absolutely a boogeyman.

And 25 % of that budget does to personnel costs. We also spend the most by a large margin on health care and education.  Just because we spend what we do on defense doesn't mean we can't also spend money on social welfare policies or fusion.  If you want to reprioritize do so at the top and reduce the requirements first before screwing over the military and forcing them to continue to do more with less.

Or... And this is pretty crazy. We could stop waging totally unnecessary wars. Crazy, right?

The military doesn't need to do more with less. It needs to do less with way less.


Yes those loony military guys waging war like they was the boss.  There is something about civilian control of the military?  What was it again?
You're kind of moving the goal posts, no?

cdn.americanprogress.orgView Full Size


The light blue section of the bar is the direct costs associated with OCO and GWOT.
 
2020-12-05 8:30:56 PM  

johnny_vegas: Likwit: johnny_vegas: lolmao500: But achieving fusion is both extremely difficult and prohibitively expensive, with the total cost of ITER estimated at $22.5 billion.

Prohibitively expensive. LOL SURE. Like 2% of the US defense budget in a year. Ooooo

If we stopped wasting all those trillions in the military every year, we could put 100 times the money into research worldwide and we would already have colonies on mars and the moon and unlimited energy with no pollution which would solve 99% of countries problems.

So the US defense budget (at ~3.6% of GDP) is the only thing keeping us from commercially viable fusion, universal healthcare, UBI, infrastructure maintenance, free college for all, etc., etc.,etc.
/that's an awfully big bogeyman
//$15b a year does go to energy R&D
///three for the 2+million people a year earning a living wage from the DoD (not including contractors )

It's only 4% of GDP, but defense and related spending are about a quarter of all government expenses and more than half of discretionary. We spend more than the next 13 countries combined. It is absolutely a boogeyman.

Also I think 25% of total budget is overstated but it doesn't really matter per my argument.


Fine, 1/5th. My point still stands. The military claim they need more money, but they could stop waging unnecessary (and illegal) wars instead. We haven't made anyone an safer, we created a refugee crisis in Europe, we killed well over 1m people, and we created an uncountable number of new terrorists that hate us. It's a waste of money. The lives are obviously more important, but somehow our government has tricked us into accepting that as a given. We need to start questioning it. Why do we need more than the next 13 countries combined?
 
2020-12-05 8:33:43 PM  

johnny_vegas: Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: johnny_vegas: lolmao500: But achieving fusion is both extremely difficult and prohibitively expensive, with the total cost of ITER estimated at $22.5 billion.

Prohibitively expensive. LOL SURE. Like 2% of the US defense budget in a year. Ooooo

If we stopped wasting all those trillions in the military every year, we could put 100 times the money into research worldwide and we would already have colonies on mars and the moon and unlimited energy with no pollution which would solve 99% of countries problems.

So the US defense budget (at ~3.6% of GDP) is the only thing keeping us from commercially viable fusion, universal healthcare, UBI, infrastructure maintenance, free college for all, etc., etc.,etc.
/that's an awfully big bogeyman
//$15b a year does go to energy R&D
///three for the 2+million people a year earning a living wage from the DoD (not including contractors )

It's only 4% of GDP, but defense and related spending are about a quarter of all government expenses and more than half of discretionary. We spend more than the next 13 countries combined. It is absolutely a boogeyman.

And 25 % of that budget does to personnel costs. We also spend the most by a large margin on health care and education.  Just because we spend what we do on defense doesn't mean we can't also spend money on social welfare policies or fusion.  If you want to reprioritize do so at the top and reduce the requirements first before screwing over the military and forcing them to continue to do more with less.

Or... And this is pretty crazy. We could stop waging totally unnecessary wars. Crazy, right?

The military doesn't need to do more with less. It needs to do less with way less.

Yes those loony military guys waging war like they was the boss.  There is something about civilian control of the military?  What was it again?
You're kind of moving the goal posts, no?

[cdn.americanprogress.org image 620x532]

The light blue section of the bar is the direct costs associated with OCO and GWOT.


How is that moving the goal posts? We spend too much on the military and then claim we can't afford other stuff like clean energy, healthcare, or infrastructure. $740B is a shiatload of money. Comparing it to GDP is disingenuous.
 
2020-12-05 8:39:45 PM  

Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: johnny_vegas: lolmao500: But achieving fusion is both extremely difficult and prohibitively expensive, with the total cost of ITER estimated at $22.5 billion.

Prohibitively expensive. LOL SURE. Like 2% of the US defense budget in a year. Ooooo

If we stopped wasting all those trillions in the military every year, we could put 100 times the money into research worldwide and we would already have colonies on mars and the moon and unlimited energy with no pollution which would solve 99% of countries problems.

So the US defense budget (at ~3.6% of GDP) is the only thing keeping us from commercially viable fusion, universal healthcare, UBI, infrastructure maintenance, free college for all, etc., etc.,etc.
/that's an awfully big bogeyman
//$15b a year does go to energy R&D
///three for the 2+million people a year earning a living wage from the DoD (not including contractors )

It's only 4% of GDP, but defense and related spending are about a quarter of all government expenses and more than half of discretionary. We spend more than the next 13 countries combined. It is absolutely a boogeyman.

Also I think 25% of total budget is overstated but it doesn't really matter per my argument.

Fine, 1/5th. My point still stands. The military claim they need more money, but they could stop waging unnecessary (and illegal) wars instead. We haven't made anyone an safer, we created a refugee crisis in Europe, we killed well over 1m people, and we created an uncountable number of new terrorists that hate us. It's a waste of money. The lives are obviously more important, but somehow our government has tricked us into accepting that as a given. We need to start questioning it. Why do we need more than the next 13 countries combined?


Again, moving goalposts.  vote for someone who will pull us out of NATO and all mutual defense treaties we have.
.  Vote for someone who will enact a National Security Strategy that doesn't require us to have 10-12 aircraft carriers.   You better be able to have a jobs program for those two million people also (not including the defense contractors). 80 million people just voted for a president who (thankfully) has no intention of doing that.
I question all of your assertions about the military as to their basis and factual accuracy and that tells me this discussion will never meet common ground.
 
2020-12-05 8:45:08 PM  

Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: johnny_vegas: lolmao500: But achieving fusion is both extremely difficult and prohibitively expensive, with the total cost of ITER estimated at $22.5 billion.

Prohibitively expensive. LOL SURE. Like 2% of the US defense budget in a year. Ooooo

If we stopped wasting all those trillions in the military every year, we could put 100 times the money into research worldwide and we would already have colonies on mars and the moon and unlimited energy with no pollution which would solve 99% of countries problems.

So the US defense budget (at ~3.6% of GDP) is the only thing keeping us from commercially viable fusion, universal healthcare, UBI, infrastructure maintenance, free college for all, etc., etc.,etc.
/that's an awfully big bogeyman
//$15b a year does go to energy R&D
///three for the 2+million people a year earning a living wage from the DoD (not including contractors )

It's only 4% of GDP, but defense and related spending are about a quarter of all government expenses and more than half of discretionary. We spend more than the next 13 countries combined. It is absolutely a boogeyman.

And 25 % of that budget does to personnel costs. We also spend the most by a large margin on health care and education.  Just because we spend what we do on defense doesn't mean we can't also spend money on social welfare policies or fusion.  If you want to reprioritize do so at the top and reduce the requirements first before screwing over the military and forcing them to continue to do more with less.

Or... And this is pretty crazy. We could stop waging totally unnecessary wars. Crazy, right?

The military doesn't need to do more with less. It needs to do less with way less.

Yes those loony military guys waging war like they was the boss.  There is something about civilian control of the military?  What was it again?
You're kind of moving the goal posts, no?

[cdn.americanprogress.org image 620x532]

The light blue section of the bar is the direct costs associated with OCO and GWOT.

How is that moving the goal posts? We spend too much on the military and then claim we can't afford other stuff like clean energy, healthcare, or infrastructure. $740B is a shiatload of money. Comparing it to GDP is disingenuous.


So first you support the statement that we should just get rid of the military.  When your pony is refuted Then you say the military should just stop waging unnecessary wars
And %of GDP is an extremely common and accepted method of comparing defense expenditures.  Just because it doesn't fit your narrative you discount it.
We could abolish the military and still have to come up with almost $2T to fully fund universal health care (my personal social welfare primary agenda)
 
2020-12-05 8:56:38 PM  

johnny_vegas: Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: johnny_vegas: lolmao500: But achieving fusion is both extremely difficult and prohibitively expensive, with the total cost of ITER estimated at $22.5 billion.

Prohibitively expensive. LOL SURE. Like 2% of the US defense budget in a year. Ooooo

If we stopped wasting all those trillions in the military every year, we could put 100 times the money into research worldwide and we would already have colonies on mars and the moon and unlimited energy with no pollution which would solve 99% of countries problems.

So the US defense budget (at ~3.6% of GDP) is the only thing keeping us from commercially viable fusion, universal healthcare, UBI, infrastructure maintenance, free college for all, etc., etc.,etc.
/that's an awfully big bogeyman
//$15b a year does go to energy R&D
///three for the 2+million people a year earning a living wage from the DoD (not including contractors )

It's only 4% of GDP, but defense and related spending are about a quarter of all government expenses and more than half of discretionary. We spend more than the next 13 countries combined. It is absolutely a boogeyman.

And 25 % of that budget does to personnel costs. We also spend the most by a large margin on health care and education.  Just because we spend what we do on defense doesn't mean we can't also spend money on social welfare policies or fusion.  If you want to reprioritize do so at the top and reduce the requirements first before screwing over the military and forcing them to continue to do more with less.

Or... And this is pretty crazy. We could stop waging totally unnecessary wars. Crazy, right?

The military doesn't need to do more with less. It needs to do less with way less.

Yes those loony military guys waging war like they was the boss.  There is something about civilian control of the military?  What was it again?
You're kind of moving the goal posts, no?

[cdn.americanprogress.org image 620x532]

The light blue section of the bar is the direct costs associated with OCO and GWOT.

How is that moving the goal posts? We spend too much on the military and then claim we can't afford other stuff like clean energy, healthcare, or infrastructure. $740B is a shiatload of money. Comparing it to GDP is disingenuous.

So first you support the statement that we should just get rid of the military.  When your pony is refuted Then you say the military should just stop waging unnecessary wars
And %of GDP is an extremely common and accepted method of comparing defense expenditures.  Just because it doesn't fit your narrative you discount it.
We could abolish the military and still have to come up with almost $2T to fully fund universal health care (my personal social welfare primary agenda)


No one is saying get rid of it completely, but it could easily be cut by more than half. It's pretty clear we're not going to reach common ground because you seem to think 7 wars and more than $7T in 20 years (and set to double in half the time) is reasonable. That's absolutely insane. We've killed and displaced far more civilians than terrorists, and we have yet to rebuild any of the several governments we toppled. Your contention is that we should keep being the baddies because some soldiers might be put out of work? That's so farking backwards I don't even know how to respond.
 
2020-12-05 9:05:07 PM  

Likwit: Your contention is that we should keep being the baddies because some soldiers might be put out of work?


So first off, the person you agreed with did in fact want to abolish spending on the military. Secondly, you are putting words in my mouth and begging the question while you do it.
What I said was, if you want to reduce the military, reduce the military requirements first then follow with a commensurate reduction in force posture.
 
2020-12-05 9:09:06 PM  

johnny_vegas: Likwit: Your contention is that we should keep being the baddies because some soldiers might be put out of work?

So first off, the person you agreed with did in fact want to abolish spending on the military. Secondly, you are putting words in my mouth and begging the question while you do it.
What I said was, if you want to reduce the military, reduce the military requirements first then follow with a commensurate reduction in force posture.


Begging what question? As far as I'm concerned, the onus is on you to prove why our various engagements and the hundreds of billions of dollars in yearly spending they necessitate are a good thing.
 
2020-12-05 9:23:21 PM  

Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: Your contention is that we should keep being the baddies because some soldiers might be put out of work?

So first off, the person you agreed with did in fact want to abolish spending on the military. Secondly, you are putting words in my mouth and begging the question while you do it.
What I said was, if you want to reduce the military, reduce the military requirements first then follow with a commensurate reduction in force posture.

Begging what question? As far as I'm concerned, the onus is on you to prove why our various engagements and the hundreds of billions of dollars in yearly spending they necessitate are a good thing.


Disregarding the points where you (purposely?) misstated others positions?  Okay.

Here is one example:

So each country enjoys various authorities over other country's vessels depending where that vessel is in relation to waters adjacent to that country.  These are spelled out in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.  A country that makes excessive claims can have a negative effect on economies (forcing cargo ships to divert or subjecting them to inspections, fishing area incursions) and security. The South China Sea is an example but it is worldwide.  If a country has an excessive claim and it goes unchallenged, it could provide a standing under maritime law for the excessive claim.  The US Navy routinely challenges excessive claims worldwide.
 
2020-12-05 9:32:44 PM  

johnny_vegas: Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: Your contention is that we should keep being the baddies because some soldiers might be put out of work?

So first off, the person you agreed with did in fact want to abolish spending on the military. Secondly, you are putting words in my mouth and begging the question while you do it.
What I said was, if you want to reduce the military, reduce the military requirements first then follow with a commensurate reduction in force posture.

Begging what question? As far as I'm concerned, the onus is on you to prove why our various engagements and the hundreds of billions of dollars in yearly spending they necessitate are a good thing.

Disregarding the points where you (purposely?) misstated others positions?  Okay.

Here is one example:

So each country enjoys various authorities over other country's vessels depending where that vessel is in relation to waters adjacent to that country.  These are spelled out in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.  A country that makes excessive claims can have a negative effect on economies (forcing cargo ships to divert or subjecting them to inspections, fishing area incursions) and security. The South China Sea is an example but it is worldwide.  If a country has an excessive claim and it goes unchallenged, it could provide a standing under maritime law for the excessive claim.  The US Navy routinely challenges excessive claims worldwide.


OK. Why does that have to be us?

Also, why did we have to topple Libya? Why did we drop so many bombs on Syria that we ran out? Why did we undermine democracy in Bolivia?
 
2020-12-05 9:36:06 PM  

Likwit: OK. Why does that have to be us?


See this is you moving the goal posts.

How about USAF management of US GPS satellites?
 
2020-12-05 9:38:51 PM  

Likwit: Also, why did we have to topple Libya? Why did we drop so many bombs on Syria that we ran out? Why did we undermine democracy in Bolivia?


Again moving the goalposts.   Without researching your claims, Are you equating poor political decisions with the need for a military?  How much smaller of a military would we have if we didn't "undermine democracy in Bolivia"?
 
2020-12-05 9:49:57 PM  
Sounds like fusion power is only 20 years away!

/ It was 20 years away 10 years ago
// and 20 years ago
/// and 30... and 40...
 
2020-12-05 9:58:23 PM  

johnny_vegas: Likwit: OK. Why does that have to be us?

See this is you moving the goal posts.

How about USAF management of US GPS satellites?


That's not moving the goal posts. It's all part of the point that we're spending too much. It's your contention that it's not enough. I'm asking you to justify some of these expensive and dangerous operations. Why are we still in Afghanistan? Why are we still in Iraq? If the point is to stop terrorism, why did we train, fund, and arm terrorists in Syria?

This is all up to you to justify.
 
2020-12-05 10:04:47 PM  

Likwit: It's your contention that it's not enough.


No it's not, see you keep on putting words in my mouth and telling me to justify them.
 
2020-12-05 10:08:44 PM  

johnny_vegas: Likwit: It's your contention that it's not enough.

No it's not, see you keep on putting words in my mouth and telling me to justify them.


I seem to remember someone with your username saying they were being "forced to do more with less." Then that person said it was "moving the goal posts" when I suggested doing less with less. So what alternative does that leave?

It's too farking much. Especially since we're being told we can't have clean energy (or healthcare or education or anything that doesn't put shiatloads of money in lobbyists' pockets). One of the world's largest and most expensive fusion projects was couch cushion change to our military. And we've done less than dickall to make the world safer with that money.

Justify it.
 
2020-12-05 10:14:52 PM  

Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: It's your contention that it's not enough.

No it's not, see you keep on putting words in my mouth and telling me to justify them.

I seem to remember someone with your username saying they were being "forced to do more with less." Then that person said it was "moving the goal posts" when I suggested doing less with less. So what alternative does that leave?

It's too farking much. Especially since we're being told we can't have clean energy (or healthcare or education or anything that doesn't put shiatloads of money in lobbyists' pockets). One of the world's largest and most expensive fusion projects was couch cushion change to our military. And we've done less than dickall to make the world safer with that money.

Justify it.


This is the quote you are looking for:

If you want to reprioritize do so at the top and reduce the requirements first before screwing over the military and forcing them to continue to do more with less.

Which doesn't say what you are luring about.

From my previous chart OCO funding can go away and leave the base authority of ~$650B.  Is this what you are saying will fix everything?
Here is a chart I know you like:

media.defense.govView Full Size

What this should tell you is you do not need to abolish the military (what you originally agreed to, don't forget) to get the social welfare programs we need, you need to redo the tax code because the mo way is (IMO) clearly available.
 
2020-12-05 10:17:18 PM  

Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: It's your contention that it's not enough.

No it's not, see you keep on putting words in my mouth and telling me to justify them.

I seem to remember someone with your username saying they were being "forced to do more with less." Then that person said it was "moving the goal posts" when I suggested doing less with less. So what alternative does that leave?

It's too farking much. Especially since we're being told we can't have clean energy (or healthcare or education or anything that doesn't put shiatloads of money in lobbyists' pockets). One of the world's largest and most expensive fusion projects was couch cushion change to our military. And we've done less than dickall to make the world safer with that money.

Justify it.


Hey did you ever answer what "undermining democracy in Bolivia" has to do with the military budget?
 
2020-12-05 10:23:24 PM  

johnny_vegas: Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: It's your contention that it's not enough.

No it's not, see you keep on putting words in my mouth and telling me to justify them.

I seem to remember someone with your username saying they were being "forced to do more with less." Then that person said it was "moving the goal posts" when I suggested doing less with less. So what alternative does that leave?

It's too farking much. Especially since we're being told we can't have clean energy (or healthcare or education or anything that doesn't put shiatloads of money in lobbyists' pockets). One of the world's largest and most expensive fusion projects was couch cushion change to our military. And we've done less than dickall to make the world safer with that money.

Justify it.

This is the quote you are looking for:

If you want to reprioritize do so at the top and reduce the requirements first before screwing over the military and forcing them to continue to do more with less.

Which doesn't say what you are luring about.

From my previous chart OCO funding can go away and leave the base authority of ~$650B.  Is this what you are saying will fix everything?
Here is a chart I know you like:

[media.defense.gov image 850x1100]
What this should tell you is you do not need to abolish the military (what you originally agreed to, don't forget) to get the social welfare programs we need, you need to redo the tax code because the mo way is (IMO) clearly available.


No one is saying it's a fix all and no one (even the guy I responded to initially) is saying abolish the military. We're saying we need money elsewhere and we don't need that much money for the military. The point hasn't changed and it won't.

Again, percentage of GDP is disingenuous and gives relatively little information. That's probably why it's the standard (according to you, anyway).

If your concern is keeping those soldiers employed, why not just go full-blown gov't work program and make a US Jobitary. Pay them to do jumping jacks and clean toilets with toothbrushes all day. Who gives a shiat? We'll be safer from terrorism and fewer civilians will be killed by our reckless military adventurism.

You should really question why you had such a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of drastically cutting military spending.
 
2020-12-05 10:31:14 PM  

johnny_vegas: Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: It's your contention that it's not enough.

No it's not, see you keep on putting words in my mouth and telling me to justify them.

I seem to remember someone with your username saying they were being "forced to do more with less." Then that person said it was "moving the goal posts" when I suggested doing less with less. So what alternative does that leave?

It's too farking much. Especially since we're being told we can't have clean energy (or healthcare or education or anything that doesn't put shiatloads of money in lobbyists' pockets). One of the world's largest and most expensive fusion projects was couch cushion change to our military. And we've done less than dickall to make the world safer with that money.

Justify it.

Hey did you ever answer what "undermining democracy in Bolivia" has to do with the military budget?


That operation was totally free? Maybe it was the CIA. Whatever. You got off in a technicality.

We. Spend. Too. Much. On. War.
 
2020-12-05 10:31:49 PM  

Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: It's your contention that it's not enough.

No it's not, see you keep on putting words in my mouth and telling me to justify them.

I seem to remember someone with your username saying they were being "forced to do more with less." Then that person said it was "moving the goal posts" when I suggested doing less with less. So what alternative does that leave?

It's too farking much. Especially since we're being told we can't have clean energy (or healthcare or education or anything that doesn't put shiatloads of money in lobbyists' pockets). One of the world's largest and most expensive fusion projects was couch cushion change to our military. And we've done less than dickall to make the world safer with that money.

Justify it.

This is the quote you are looking for:

If you want to reprioritize do so at the top and reduce the requirements first before screwing over the military and forcing them to continue to do more with less.

Which doesn't say what you are luring about.

From my previous chart OCO funding can go away and leave the base authority of ~$650B.  Is this what you are saying will fix everything?
Here is a chart I know you like:

[media.defense.gov image 850x1100]
What this should tell you is you do not need to abolish the military (what you originally agreed to, don't forget) to get the social welfare programs we need, you need to redo the tax code because the mo way is (IMO) clearly available.

No one is saying it's a fix all and no one (even the guy I responded to initially) is saying abolish the military. We're saying we need money elsewhere and we don't need that much money for the military. The point hasn't changed and it won't.

Again, percentage of GDP is disingenuous and gives relatively little information. That's probably why it's the standard (according to you, anyway).

If your concern is keeping those soldiers employed, why not just go full-blown gov't work program and make a US Jobitary. Pay them to do jumping jacks and clean toilets with toothbrushes all day. Who gives a shiat? We'll be safer from terrorism and fewer civilians will be killed by our reckless military adventurism.

You should really question why you had such a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of drastically cutting military spending.


Here are (partly) some thoughts:

- DoD budget as a % of GDP is dropping
- Tax revenue as a % of GDP is relatively stable
- statutory (and especially effective) corporate tax rates are dropping
- you need to look elsewhere if you want to enact social welfare programs and I am arguing the tax structure is where to start
- if we have agreement anywhere it's the OCO funding (which is the war funding)
- my primary point remains.  Decrease the responsibility and requirements we place on the military before decreasing the force structure.
 
2020-12-05 10:32:20 PM  

Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: It's your contention that it's not enough.

No it's not, see you keep on putting words in my mouth and telling me to justify them.

I seem to remember someone with your username saying they were being "forced to do more with less." Then that person said it was "moving the goal posts" when I suggested doing less with less. So what alternative does that leave?

It's too farking much. Especially since we're being told we can't have clean energy (or healthcare or education or anything that doesn't put shiatloads of money in lobbyists' pockets). One of the world's largest and most expensive fusion projects was couch cushion change to our military. And we've done less than dickall to make the world safer with that money.

Justify it.

Hey did you ever answer what "undermining democracy in Bolivia" has to do with the military budget?

That operation was totally free? Maybe it was the CIA. Whatever. You got off in a technicality.

We. Spend. Too. Much. On. War.


LOL
 
2020-12-05 10:38:23 PM  

johnny_vegas: Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: It's your contention that it's not enough.

No it's not, see you keep on putting words in my mouth and telling me to justify them.

I seem to remember someone with your username saying they were being "forced to do more with less." Then that person said it was "moving the goal posts" when I suggested doing less with less. So what alternative does that leave?

It's too farking much. Especially since we're being told we can't have clean energy (or healthcare or education or anything that doesn't put shiatloads of money in lobbyists' pockets). One of the world's largest and most expensive fusion projects was couch cushion change to our military. And we've done less than dickall to make the world safer with that money.

Justify it.

Hey did you ever answer what "undermining democracy in Bolivia" has to do with the military budget?

That operation was totally free? Maybe it was the CIA. Whatever. You got off in a technicality.

We. Spend. Too. Much. On. War.

LOL


Yeah. Overturning a fair election is super funny. Haha.

What a scumbag.
 
2020-12-05 10:40:11 PM  

Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: It's your contention that it's not enough.

No it's not, see you keep on putting words in my mouth and telling me to justify them.

I seem to remember someone with your username saying they were being "forced to do more with less." Then that person said it was "moving the goal posts" when I suggested doing less with less. So what alternative does that leave?

It's too farking much. Especially since we're being told we can't have clean energy (or healthcare or education or anything that doesn't put shiatloads of money in lobbyists' pockets). One of the world's largest and most expensive fusion projects was couch cushion change to our military. And we've done less than dickall to make the world safer with that money.

Justify it.

Hey did you ever answer what "undermining democracy in Bolivia" has to do with the military budget?

That operation was totally free? Maybe it was the CIA. Whatever. You got off in a technicality.

We. Spend. Too. Much. On. War.

LOL

Yeah. Overturning a fair election is super funny. Haha.

What a scumbag.


Sure buddy whatever floats your boat to feel good about yourself
/oh did I get off on another "technicality" like I did the entire thread???
 
2020-12-05 10:41:10 PM  

Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: johnny_vegas: Likwit: It's your contention that it's not enough.

No it's not, see you keep on putting words in my mouth and telling me to justify them.

I seem to remember someone with your username saying they were being "forced to do more with less." Then that person said it was "moving the goal posts" when I suggested doing less with less. So what alternative does that leave?

It's too farking much. Especially since we're being told we can't have clean energy (or healthcare or education or anything that doesn't put shiatloads of money in lobbyists' pockets). One of the world's largest and most expensive fusion projects was couch cushion change to our military. And we've done less than dickall to make the world safer with that money.

Justify it.

Hey did you ever answer what "undermining democracy in Bolivia" has to do with the military budget?

That operation was totally free? Maybe it was the CIA. Whatever. You got off in a technicality.

We. Spend. Too. Much. On. War.

LOL

Yeah. Overturning a fair election is super funny. Haha.

What a scumbag.


Your username is half right anyway.
 
2020-12-05 11:30:37 PM  
This turned into a politics tab item.

So, is this just another experiment? Or is it set to make steam? Most of the designs I've seen don't seem to be made to pull energy out.
 
2020-12-05 11:31:28 PM  

wildcardjack: This turned into a politics tab item.


Yeah, sorry about that.
 
2020-12-05 11:33:11 PM  
I think that there are a lot of ways to be right about the statement that "maybe the US should examine its priorities in its public spending."

I can present two ideas of diminishing marginal returns and breakthroughs.

Should the US spend more or less on defense? Probably less. I won't argue that it is unnecessary, but that we are not getting 5% more security by spending an extra 5% on a defense budget. Line item by line item, whether we are talking about bases, officer pay, or missile cruisers, the US spends many multiples of what what its nearest rivals spend, and I know that people in Germany, China, Russia, and Singapore do not feel as insecure militarily as the US populace seems to feel.

So, realiizing that the US has a huge defense budget, and realizing that spending a lot more is not going to make people feel more secure, one might conclude that spending AMOUNTS are not the problem. Allocation is the problem. US medical outlays show almost exactly the same problem. Despite huge expenses for medical care in the US, people are not satisfied with it, and other countries seem to get more satisfaction out of spending less. For military and medicine, the US is way way out on the curve in terms of expenditures, and is not getting much satisfaction. Re-evaluation seems way overdue.

And as far as breakthroughs, well, it takes surprisingly little to make a huge huge difference. If you live long enough, you will know what I am talking about. Honda developed very fuel-efficient engines by looking at flame front pressures very carefully. Vehicle weight reduction and hybrid technologies were adopted very slowly during the 90s. Incremental changes have led to a pretty dynamic technology situation today in automotives. But think about LEDs and solar panels and very large wind turbines. They have been game changers really in about five years.

A few billion here and there is going to build a framework for the study of thorium reactors, fusion reactors, storage technologies, ion and electric and magnetic propulsion, and algorithms for increasing efficiency. I am glad China is making a sacrifice to push humanity forward in this area and others. If they get to the finish line first, they will get the spoils. That is how it works.

Which leads me to sum up. Maybe NATIONAL SECURITYis a function of keeping up in areas of technology that are vital to human progress. If the US is spending too much on lobbing bombs and having a base in some unnecessary place, then it should think about cutting back. If other countries make one big breakthrough after another, the US defense position will be eroded anyway. And being able to destroy something is not the same as being able to use it.

/nobody is going to read this because it is too far downthread.
// ha
 
2020-12-05 11:45:35 PM  
There are a slew of technologies that the Chinese and Russians SAY they are making great advances in. Maybe they are.

I am actually kind of envious, to tell the truth, and although I am fascinated to see how different countries are going about tackling problems, I am kind of torn by hope and concern when I look at how things like SARS2 COVID vaccines are being handled by Russia, China, and the West.

There has been a lot of acrimony. Some false claims. I hope everyone is learning from this experience. In one way it is science's finest hour, producing so many useful vaccines so quickly. At the same time, it has become more politicized than any time since.. probably Sputnik.

One hopes that when a breakthrough comes, the political situation will be stable enough that the technology can be shared quickly and developed. That will probably require economic stability too. So we should probably all hope for a good period of economic expansion for the next decade or so to go along with technological development.
 
2020-12-05 11:57:01 PM  

johnny_vegas: wildcardjack: This turned into a politics tab item.

Yeah, sorry about that.


The military does need to be defunded quite a bit to even be considered grossly over-funded, but this is the stem tab.

I just want a frickin' MrFusion already. Back to the Future was like what, 30 years ago? Hurry up, engineering
 
2020-12-06 12:30:22 AM  

2fardownthread: nobody is going to read this because it is too far downthread.
// ha


user name checks out

I've always enjoyed the end of the thread

I don't care for people that much in general
 
2020-12-06 5:08:57 AM  

2fardownthread: There are a slew of technologies that the Chinese and Russians SAY they are making great advances in. Maybe they are.


This is a Tokamak reactor, a technology which has been on the verge of exciting breakthroughs since roughly 1960.
 
2020-12-06 7:06:21 AM  

lolmao500: But achieving fusion is both extremely difficult and prohibitively expensive, with the total cost of ITER estimated at $22.5 billion.

Prohibitively expensive. LOL SURE. Like 2% of the US defense budget in a year. Ooooo

If we stopped wasting all those trillions in the military every year, we could put 100 times the money into research worldwide and we would already have colonies on mars and the moon and unlimited energy with no pollution which would solve 99% of countries problems.


Lets put it this way: if a 23 billion dollar reactor could provide enough power for say, the state of alabama, how many would you need to build for the entire US?

Granted the entire output thing is still a total mystery, because there is no reactor in existence that has even proven to be energy neutral, let alone produce more than it requires to run
 
2020-12-06 7:26:25 PM  
It uses a powerful magnetic field to fuse hot plasma and can reach temperatures of over 150 million degrees Celsius, according to the People's Daily-approximately ten times hotter than the core of the sun.

I realize that my research budget is under $100, but I certain that I am now  way over their 150 million degrees celsius. And it is so simple and cheap to achieve. I am using peperoni hot pockets and cheese hot pockets. Results so far have been encouraging.
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.