A Dilemma to think about

Robthebob · Post by **Robthebob** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 1:51 pm

-Right now the primary research in polywell IEC fusion is funded by one of the branch of the US arm forces.

-US arm forces usually worry about what's best for them, this may or may not be best for the country or the world.

-Thus the polywell research being done may not flow very freely to other scientists, who wish to contribute, may those scientists belong to a university, a private company, or whatever, due to the US arm forces' attitude of reluctancy due to the fear of enemies benefitting from the release of knowledge.

-Due to the fundings coming from a branch of the US arm forces, the first versions of the finish product may be designed to benefit the US arm forces, instead of the country or the world, which is reasonable.

-Research and development of large scale power plants thus become the responsiblity of scientists that belong to universities, private companies, etc.

-However, it's hard for those scientists to obtain informations regarding what the primary group of polywell research due to the controlled flow of information.

-The relatively small funding is also not helpping the situation, as if the sponsors have a correlating amount of faith in the approach of fusion.

How did we arrive at this point? What can we do to?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:30 pm

Think of fission energy. Once people knew it was possible it did not stay bottled up.

And you know the military is full of strategic thinkers. Do you really think they are unaware of the implications of very low cost energy?

Further, Dr. Nebel is committed to the wide distribution of this technology under EMC2 licensing of course.

Helius · Post by **Helius** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:50 pm

MSimon wrote:Think of fission energy. Once people knew it was possible it did not stay bottled up.

And you know the military is full of strategic thinkers. Do you really think they are unaware of the implications of very low cost energy?

Further, Dr. Nebel is committed to the wide distribution of this technology under EMC2 licensing of course.

The first Commercial reactor in the US was, the Shippingport reactor;
Encouraged by O'l Rickover himself. Navy had no qualms about exporting this Technology to the Private sector; they'd do the same for Polywell, the MSR or whatever...... er.... almost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shippingpo ... er_Station

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:07 pm

You'd be surprised how open the U.S. military is. They're not the Soviets or Chinese.

When nuclear weapons were first developed, there were extensive efforts to partner with the private sector for applications like mining and excavating a new Panama Canal.

D Tibbets · Post by **D Tibbets** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:59 am

Also, while there are probably alot of small and large details that have to be understood and resolved, the cat is already out of the bag. To investigate the technology to determine if and how it could work (at least from a physics standpoint) would require very modest investments and at most a few years to get up to speed.

Dan Tibbets

choff · Post by **choff** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:50 am

Speaking of implications, the navy is working on a particle beam weapon for its ships, other countries will certainly want theirs. In the good old days of the cold war we always had about 30 minutes to decide to launch a counter strike. With two sides armed with particle beam weapons staring each other down, there is no chance for a retaliatory strike. Not unless we can learn to respond at faster than light speed. Something to think about as weapons keep improving.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:04 am

choff wrote:Speaking of implications, the navy is working on a particle beam weapon for its ships, other countries will certainly want theirs. In the good old days of the cold war we always had about 30 minutes to decide to launch a counter strike. With two sides armed with particle beam weapons staring each other down, there is no chance for a retaliatory strike. Not unless we can learn to respond at faster than light speed. Something to think about as weapons keep improving.

So far they are point weapons. If they become area weapons - then I'd worry.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:28 pm

MSimon wrote:
choff wrote:Speaking of implications, the navy is working on a particle beam weapon for its ships, other countries will certainly want theirs. In the good old days of the cold war we always had about 30 minutes to decide to launch a counter strike. With two sides armed with particle beam weapons staring each other down, there is no chance for a retaliatory strike. Not unless we can learn to respond at faster than light speed. Something to think about as weapons keep improving.
So far they are point weapons. If they become area weapons - then I'd worry.

Defensively, though, usually a point is enough, if you can get your point precisely where you want it. So this is probably good news.

For the first time since Hiroshima, the shield may be moving ahead of the sword again.

It's possible the next 20 years will see the end of ICBMS and cruise missiles as viable delivery vectors against major military powers. This is especially good news for America, because we already have overwhelming conventional superiority.

choff · Post by **choff** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:32 pm

Enemy particle beams could be reflected half way round the globe off enemy satellites and take out the good guys particle beam guns, or people, or missles before they launch, etc. I know this is all in the future, but once you start down the path with defensive weapons eventually they become powerful enough to become offensive weapons. At the end of the path you either shoot first or die. This is great for war profiteering, since the threat of deployment starts a new arms race/cold war, but it's also brings human warfare to an ultimate conclusion. It might be preferable to pursue improved international relations.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:22 pm

choff wrote:Enemy particle beams could be reflected half way round the globe off enemy satellites and take out the good guys particle beam guns, or people, or missles before they launch, etc. I know this is all in the future, but once you start down the path with defensive weapons eventually they become powerful enough to become offensive weapons. At the end of the path you either shoot first or die. This is great for war profiteering, since the threat of deployment starts a new arms race/cold war, but it's also brings human warfare to an ultimate conclusion. It might be preferable to pursue improved international relations.

Nuclear weapons have been the impetus for improved human relations.

In the end it all depends on everyone having a reasonable government and enough to eat. And energy.

Go Polywell. Hell go ITER if they can make it economical.

Soylent · Post by **Soylent** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:13 am

MSimon wrote:Nuclear weapons have been the impetus for improved human relations.

I agree.

ICBMs with thermonuclear warheads don't make war, they make annihilation of everyone involved. For the first time in human history the old farts who send young men to fight and die are right in the crosshairs along with everyone and everything they know and love. There is no first strike advantage, retaliation is reliable and deadly; the only way to win is to not play.

It's a beautiful thing, even a petty despot like Stalin with a complete disregard for human life and suffering could not bring himself to push the button.

ravingdave · Post by **ravingdave** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:28 pm

Soylent wrote:
MSimon wrote:Nuclear weapons have been the impetus for improved human relations.
I agree.

ICBMs with thermonuclear warheads don't make war, they make annihilation of everyone involved. For the first time in human history the old farts who send young men to fight and die are right in the crosshairs along with everyone and everything they know and love. There is no first strike advantage, retaliation is reliable and deadly; the only way to win is to not play.

It's a beautiful thing, even a petty despot like Stalin with a complete disregard for human life and suffering could not bring himself to push the button.

How does this concept work with religious nut jobs who believe that it is their duty to kill as many non believers as possible, while they and all of their people will go to heaven if they die ?

David

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:20 pm

ravingdave wrote:
Soylent wrote:
MSimon wrote:Nuclear weapons have been the impetus for improved human relations.
I agree.

ICBMs with thermonuclear warheads don't make war, they make annihilation of everyone involved. For the first time in human history the old farts who send young men to fight and die are right in the crosshairs along with everyone and everything they know and love. There is no first strike advantage, retaliation is reliable and deadly; the only way to win is to not play.

It's a beautiful thing, even a petty despot like Stalin with a complete disregard for human life and suffering could not bring himself to push the button.
How does this concept work with religious nut jobs who believe that it is their duty to kill as many non believers as possible, while they and all of their people will go to heaven if they die ?

David

It remains to be seen if those in power are serious. The evidence is that they love the high life and rewarding their cronies. Odds are they will stick to pin pricks and proxy wars. Just like the Soviets. There is no guarantee though.

ravingdave · Post by **ravingdave** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:28 pm

MSimon wrote:
ravingdave wrote:
Soylent wrote: I agree.

ICBMs with thermonuclear warheads don't make war, they make annihilation of everyone involved. For the first time in human history the old farts who send young men to fight and die are right in the crosshairs along with everyone and everything they know and love. There is no first strike advantage, retaliation is reliable and deadly; the only way to win is to not play.

It's a beautiful thing, even a petty despot like Stalin with a complete disregard for human life and suffering could not bring himself to push the button.
How does this concept work with religious nut jobs who believe that it is their duty to kill as many non believers as possible, while they and all of their people will go to heaven if they die ?

David
It remains to be seen if those in power are serious. The evidence is that they love the high life and rewarding their cronies. Odds are they will stick to pin pricks and proxy wars. Just like the Soviets. There is no guarantee though.

Oddly enough for someone with my previously stated positions, I'd rather trust an athiest in a MAD scenario as opposed to a religious nut job.

David

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:14 pm

ravingdave wrote:
MSimon wrote:
ravingdave wrote: How does this concept work with religious nut jobs who believe that it is their duty to kill as many non believers as possible, while they and all of their people will go to heaven if they die ?

David
It remains to be seen if those in power are serious. The evidence is that they love the high life and rewarding their cronies. Odds are they will stick to pin pricks and proxy wars. Just like the Soviets. There is no guarantee though.
Oddly enough for someone with my previously stated positions, I'd rather trust an athiest in a MAD scenario as opposed to a religious nut job. :)

David

To be sure.