Science magazine article

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Betruger
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

Skipjack wrote:
I do not think that Germany is on good terms with a number of countries.
LOL, I think the world would end before Germany declares war on another country. There is absolutely NO political will here to start a war with anyone. I think Germany is way more popular than the US is right now.
Come on.. Popularity is irrelevant. Doing the right thing is all that matters.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Skipjack wrote: With an average of two weeks of vacation and 5 sickdays a year, when are people doing that? My dad is on a so called "Kur" for two weeks every year after his first heart event (which actually was minor). He gets a full exercise programme as well as a whole set of checkups all in a very relaxing spa- environment.
This seems to explain part of the difference between Austria's $28,269 and the US's $40,560 average annual disposable incomes. Personally, Id rather be able to choose what to do with that $12,300. I bet I could get a WHOLE lot more relaxation at a spa with that $12,300 than your dad got.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

bk78 wrote:
ladajo wrote: My fundamental point is two fold, and I have stuck to it for a number of years: One must prepare for defense against the other with nothing better to do.
There is NO ONE you have to defend against in a war now and in foreseeable time.
In case you hadn't noticed, the US does a LOT of defending of our allies; friends who probably WOULD be attacked if we weren't there. And in the doing, we subsidize their standard of living at our expense. Makes their forays into socialism seem not so bad.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

Ladajo, I hope I'm not going off the deep end here....How about a flying wing Boeing 797 style of transport? One that could fit Abrahms tanks-etc. and could be built as a tanker for aerial refueling?

Just finished reading Death Trap, 3rd heavy Armored div WW2 story, by Belton Cooper. Being able to air lift a powerfull armor force into northern Iraq 10 years ago would have been useful. Hopefully we wont need to do that sort of crap anymore....

Interesting that MR Cooper saw a M-26 Super Pershing attached to his Div. Only 2 built w/90mm hi velocity. They pulled up a broken down Mark 5 Panther, round went thru the mark 5 and into the earth in back....

Copper blames Patton for not concentrating on the M-26 production, Patton wanted the M-4, narrow tracks, Lo velocity 75mm, and slim armor instead.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

Your answer Skipjack. The clear justifications for federal defense spending are in bold. The dubious two word 'justification' for federal entitlements and national healthcare is underlined.
United States Constitution

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Bill of Rights

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Despite what you think and say, this is actually where a lot of us Conservatives are coming from.

A lot of us Conservatives argue that we should spend money to defend ourselves because that's what our Constitution clearly says we can and should do. We argue against entitlements and other federal programs because our Constitution clearly says that these powers are reserved for the States! It is clearly stated.

It is really a lot simpler and less barbaric than you suspect.

Regards
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Betruger wrote:Come on.. Popularity is irrelevant. Doing the right thing is all that matters.
I was simply replying to ladajo who seems to think that Germany has a lot of enemies that they are going to wage wars with. I dared to correct him on that. I never said that popularity was more important than doing the right thing. Though what the right thing is, is not always that clear.
KitemanSA wrote:This seems to explain part of the difference between Austria's $28,269 and the US's $40,560 average annual disposable incomes. Personally, Id rather be able to choose what to do with that $12,300. I bet I could get a WHOLE lot more relaxation at a spa with that $12,300 than your dad got.
Interesting that you mention that. Just today I saw something really surprising posted by a friend of mine:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17543356

If you are skeptical of these numbers I would fully understand. I am quite surprised by them too...
KitemanSA wrote:In case you hadn't noticed, the US does a LOT of defending of our allies; friends who probably WOULD be attacked if we weren't there. And in the doing, we subsidize their standard of living at our expense. Makes their forays into socialism seem not so bad.
Well in the past 30 years the number of countries needing your protection has been shrinking quite a bit...
A lot of us Conservatives argue that we should spend money to defend ourselves because that's what our Constitution clearly says we can and should do.
And where does it say how much you should be spending on defense? Where does it say that you have spend a certain amount of your GDP on defense? Nowhere!
The US is spending twice as much on defense than everybody else does. Why is hat necessary, especially in a time where the country suffers from a depression with people not having enough money to spend on consumer goods, which is slowing the economy. You need to get your people to spend money again so that investors will invest money. It is a viscious cycle. If you take away to much money from them, they dont have any to spend and like it or not, but the vast majority of your inhabitants currently has no extra money to spare to drive the enconomy up again. Why? Because they are being drained of money for a defense that you dont need. You currently have 10 aircraft carriers. How many does the next biggest navy have? And the navy after that? All combined?

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Skipjack wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:In case you hadn't noticed, the US does a LOT of defending of our allies; friends who probably WOULD be attacked if we weren't there. And in the doing, we subsidize their standard of living at our expense. Makes their forays into socialism seem not so bad.
Well in the past 30 years the number of countries needing your protection has been shrinking quite a bit...
Really? Hadn't noticed. We tend to make one area secure and then help others. Kind of a "traveling road show" of helpfulness! ;)

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Really? Hadn't noticed. We tend to make one area secure and then help others. Kind of a "traveling road show" of helpfulness!
Well it has been pretty much confined to the middle east... With a small deterrent function in southeast asia, but both these threats seem to be going away as China and Taiwan feel brotherly love and Kim Long Ill.. is well beyond ill now ;)...
In contrast during the cold war, the US was literally protecting half the world. So I think that one could say that you do have a little less work on your hands lately, dont you think?

Betruger
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

Skipjack wrote:
Betruger wrote:Come on.. Popularity is irrelevant. Doing the right thing is all that matters.
I was simply replying to ladajo who seems to think that Germany has a lot of enemies that they are going to wage wars with. I dared to correct him on that. I never said that popularity was more important than doing the right thing. Though what the right thing is, is not always that clear.
Fair enough.. Only meant to point out that that tangent doesn't lead anywhere very salient.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Betruger wrote:Fair enough.. Only meant to point out that that tangent doesn't lead anywhere very salient.
Hey, I didnt want to go down that tangent either.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Skipjack wrote:
Really? Hadn't noticed. We tend to make one area secure and then help others. Kind of a "traveling road show" of helpfulness!
Well it has been pretty much confined to the middle east... With a small deterrent function in southeast asia, but both these threats seem to be going away as China and Taiwan feel brotherly love and Kim Long Ill.. is well beyond ill now ;)...
C, T, brotherly love???
NK, not crazy after all these years? What have you been smoking?
ME and SEA... and the Horn of Africa and (wastefully in this case) drug interdiction, and... But all this is why even though we have two wars going right now, we are STILL spending less per unit GNP than during the cold war.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Post by seedload »

Skipjack wrote:
A lot of us Conservatives argue that we should spend money to defend ourselves because that's what our Constitution clearly says we can and should do.
And where does it say how much you should be spending on defense? Where does it say that you have spend a certain amount of your GDP on defense? Nowhere!
It doesn't. But it definitely says that the Federal Government should spend NO MONEY on entitlements.
You wrote: But that is the problem with you conservatives. For you every government spending is wasteful, unless it is for defense, then it cant be wasteful enough.
You miss the point. You are arguing that we should spend the money we spend on defense on other things, such as entitlements and health care. But where does the Constitution say we can do that. Nowhere! Your argument is that we should take money that is constitutionally spent on defense and uncontitutionally spend it on health care. We Conservatives know that this is against the Constitution. We believe in the Constitution. You don't even understand what our 'problem' is.
Skipjack wrote:The US is spending twice as much on defense than everybody else does. Why is hat necessary, especially in a time where the country suffers from a depression with people not having enough money to spend on consumer goods, which is slowing the economy. You need to get your people to spend money again so that investors will invest money. It is a viscious cycle. If you take away to much money from them, they dont have any to spend
This is a change in your argument. You are now suggesting that rather than taking defense money away and spending it on other stuff (entitlements), that we simply take less money away and leave it in the hands of the people. This makes more sense. A conservative argument if you will.

But is entirely inconsistent with your earlier thoughts of spending defense dollars on massive federally run entitlement programs.
Skipjack wrote:and like it or not, but the vast majority of your inhabitants currently has no extra money to spare to drive the enconomy up again.
That is ridiculous.
Skipjack wrote:Why? Because they are being drained of money for a defense that you dont need. You currently have 10 aircraft carriers. How many does the next biggest navy have? And the navy after that? All combined?
We spend half a billion in regular funding for defense. Cut it in half and you still have a trillion dollar deficit. Get real. You may support lower defense spending but defense spending isn't "Why?".

Finally, as a general rule, listening to a foreign national about how much WE should spend on OUR OWN defense would be really stupid. Don't sweat it. We will figure it out for ourselves. Move along now. Nothing to see here.

Regards
Stick the thing in a tub of water! Sheesh!

krenshala
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Post by krenshala »

I don't have any issue with the small amount of our GNP that gets spent on defense. What I have a problem with is the fact that I loose an extra 20% (or more) of my paycheck due to increased entitlement expenses when compared to a decade ago.

My health insurance costs have more than doubled in the last three years specifically due to the federalized "requirements" for "better" coverage. I currently pay less for rent each month, and I'd move to someplace with lower rent if I could afford the required start-up fees. My health coverage hasn't changed in over a decade, just how much I'm forced to pay for it. Up until just a few years ago the payments increased roughly in line with inflation, and from my perspective stayed at a relatively constant percentage of my income. For the last three years, however the price hikes directly matched when Government started talking about what must to be provided/covered by the insurers. To quote the interwebs: DO NOT WANT!

Oh, and as for defense spending being bad for the economy, I was Googling for how various countries compare in GNP toward defense (I'm curious to see numbers on how the US's 4.8% rates compared to other countries) and the first article I check is shows that defense spending grows the economy.
The author of the paper wrote:Contrary to my expectations, countries with a heavy defense burden generally had the most rapid rate of growth, and those with the lowest defense burdens tended to show the lowest growth rates. (Incidentally, I mainly used civilian growth--the rate of increase in nondefense output--as the growth index, in order to avoid counting as growht that which was merely an increase in defense expenditures.)
[edit] Ah, found a graphic that shows what I was looking for. Interesting how the Saudis spend more than double the % of GNP the US does on defense.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Roger wrote:Ladajo, I hope I'm not going off the deep end here....How about a flying wing Boeing 797 style of transport? One that could fit Abrahms tanks-etc. and could be built as a tanker for aerial refueling?

Just finished reading Death Trap, 3rd heavy Armored div WW2 story, by Belton Cooper. Being able to air lift a powerfull armor force into northern Iraq 10 years ago would have been useful. Hopefully we wont need to do that sort of crap anymore....

Interesting that MR Cooper saw a M-26 Super Pershing attached to his Div. Only 2 built w/90mm hi velocity. They pulled up a broken down Mark 5 Panther, round went thru the mark 5 and into the earth in back....

Copper blames Patton for not concentrating on the M-26 production, Patton wanted the M-4, narrow tracks, Lo velocity 75mm, and slim armor instead.
Haven't read that one. I will have to see if it is in the library. Sounds interesting.

The C-5 was built to airlift Abrams. It is even capable of air dropping them. They did a bunch of testing on this back in the 80s.

The problem is that there are not enough heavy lift birds to add that sort of thing to the TPFDD for any O-Plan. You either go with pre-deployed, pre-positioned, or slow roll surface lift. But even surface lift can get it there in 6 to 8 weeks. So not too bad if you have some time.

I think as we move forward we need to give some more serious thought to our lift LOCs. We need to be faster and have mroe density. We also need to make them more survivable.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

skipjack wrote:I was simply replying to ladajo who seems to think that Germany has a lot of enemies that they are going to wage wars with. I dared to correct him on that.
Never said you were going to war with anyone.
I said that there are a number of countries you are not on good terms with.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Post Reply