Election results

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Skipjack
Posts: 6051
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Add: "You can not afford to fight a war like a publicity stunt" to the list. You might look good to the public that way and some might even feel good about the war because of it, but you will never win the war.

Chuck Connors
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:23 pm

Post by Chuck Connors »

No war talk…this revolves around policy changes that are likely to come. Yes- There will be more money for other efforts, the big question is what are those efforts? Obama’s main push will be social policies that expand government- There is only so much money to go around. It’s a matter of robbing Peter (defense spending) to pay Paul (social programs).

Does one cost less than the other? That certainly remains to be seen, and certainly Congress will have a large impact as well.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1225932 ... 08_mostpop

Defense spending has brought about a great many good and terrible things, but keep in mind that without it…Nuclear Power might still be considered ‘theoretical’ instead of the viable energy source it is today.

Skipjack
Posts: 6051
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

True, but there are different kinds of defence spendings. I can spend money on weapons and defense systems research or I can spend money on building a (civil-) defense- infrastructure in a country that is mostly not thanking it to you anway. Personally I think that is not money well spent. However I do see problems with just leaving like that too.
That will be a big mess for Obama and Biden to deal with. I heard Bidens ideas on how to deal with this in the primaries and I really thought that he had the best ideas about how to get out of this mess without harm done.

hanelyp
Posts: 2255
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Post by hanelyp »

Jeff Peachman wrote:And its not with taxes, its with regulations which require polluting parties to purchase the rights to pollute.
In my book, government requiring someone to spend money on something is the moral and practical equivalent of taxes.

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

Post by Roger »

Increase the size of the Army by 4 divisions. 2 Marine divisions. Accelerate the purchase of newer vehicles such as the Stryker and M-113. New ship designs.

I bet that really pisses Dennis Kucinich off.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

classicpenny wrote:


No matter one's position on the this war - justified or not,
Not matter one's feelings about "cut and run" - pro or con,
At this point it is painfully obvious that we cannot afford to wage war in this manner:
We cannot afford to initiate an invasion without an exit plan,
We cannot afford to "liberate" a populace that clearly has no wish to be liberated
We cannot afford to pay civilians princely sums to do the jobs of soldiers,
We cannot afford to circumvent the bidding process and award multi-billion dollar contracts to contractors such as Halliburton and "Blackwater,"
And we cannot -ever again- afford to have a President and Vice President who will permit such things to occur.

Your first two sentences imply a call to objectivity, but all your remaining sentences indicate biased assumptions. It seems like a dichotomy to me.

I guess you're serious, though nowadays I find it extremely difficult to tell.

Needless to say, as I think some of your premises are flawed, I can't have a lot of faith in the accuracy of your conclusions.

I dare say that now that the shoe is on the other foot, it won't suprise me at all if we tolerate exactly this sort of behaviour from our new leader.



David

Chuck Connors
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:23 pm

Post by Chuck Connors »

I dare say from my own biased assumptions that it will be a lacking of some necessary or required behaviour for someone who holds such an office. But I digress...

Considering this forum is for Polywell, I can only hope that our new leadership has the ability to remain open minded about alt energy sources. I would also hope that instead of only looking outward for new ideas they may look inward (to the Navy for example) for options that are already being pursued...before they disappear due to budget cuts.

I hate to say it but McCain was clearly for Nuclear power as well as a strong supporter of the Navy and armed services. Clearly the same cannot be said of the President elect or his supporters.

Skipjack
Posts: 6051
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

First nuclear != nuclear. Nuclear Fusion and nuclear fission are two very different things in about every aspect. Someone who is somewhat well saddled in even the most basic phyiscs should easily be able to unerstand he differences and make decisions accordingly and that even if the person has never even heard of fusion or Polywell fusion in particular. Now Obama does not strike me as uneducated (McCain made me in about every speech and discussion whenever he was talking about science topics).
Obama seemed a lot more open and more educated in his statements.
From his statements and answers Obama is clearly for supporting science of all kinds. This would include science on alternative energy and nuclear fusion.
The republicans in general I would consider very anti science. Sure they might be for nuclear energy, but if you ask me, only as far as the nuclear energy lobbyists allow them to think (which is fission). Thats at least the way the situation presents itself to someone from Europe.
Now Obama is like many left wing people more reserved towards energy from nuclear fission due to the alleged environmental issues (which I personally consider non- issues, or small issues). Nevertheless I have seen him mention nuclear power multiple times as an important solution to the energy crisis in several of his speeches. So one can not say that he is strictly against it. Also being sceptical or even critical to existing powerplant technologies, should make him more open towards new alternatives like fusion power. This is the way I see it from here. Now the situation might be very different.
I also can not remember that Obama ever said anything against the military or the navy in particular (if so I might have missed it). He did speak against the war in Iraq, but that has very little do do with research funded by he navy. If anything, there should be more money for research once the war is over, not less. This war is draining money out of the US and feeding it to Iraq, with no return whatsoever. Not sure how that can even potentially good for any research project on US soil....

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

The new administration will have to increase the military budget.

The war in Afghanistan is based on opium. Until we deal with that question it is unwinable. Surprisingly it is the one war Obama promised to win.

Also the Drug War as a shooting war has arrived at our Southern border. He is going to have to deal with that.

And if the Middle East goes up in flames (authoritarian regimes often start wars when their economics go south - think Iran) he is going to have to deal with that.

The Bush years will seem like an era of peace and quiet in 3 1/2 years.

How ironic.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

i think to the top of your list ought to be inserted::

- dealing with high and rising unemployment
- helping to restructure/mend the world economy, banking systems and trade agreements.
- assuring a long term energy strategy
- assuring national security
- repairing an rebuilding American foreign and diplomatic policy.

i believe in Obama's eyes, these, and others, are all (rightly) interrelated. his job is to sell the whole package to the American people: He is utterly dependent on the 'expert' advise and council he receives during formulation of technical policy, totally dependent on existing national infrastructure for execution of policy, and dependent on the will, character and abilities of The People for its successful realization.

I have to agree, of all the times in history to become president, he couldn't have chosen a worse one - but, 'exceptional times...', etc.

speaking for myself, and as a non-American citizen, I am sure I reflect the views of many when I say 'Welcome back America! Your time in the wilderness is at an end. Now the world is once more all in the shit together. From the nation who brings us Star Trek and the Simpons - we expect great things from you. :)

it seems, however unlikely, that popular 'reason' has for once prevailed; 'praise to Allah'.

i think the rest of the world is fairly unanimous in believing that the American people have just made a very wise choice and would congratulate them.

As for all other matters, a common recognition of the worlds problems and an international 'mood' for cooperation and detente can only help. Increased expenditure on combative military deployment is not an option; we can only hope that public (including military) expenditure on 'energy' R&D is yet amongst the survivors and winners in the new scheme of things.

drmike
Posts: 825
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:54 pm
Contact:

Post by drmike »

The simplest way to eliminate shooting wars over plants is to change the laws. Once plants that have been in existence longer than humans are no longer "illegal", the money going to farmers vanishes and the desire to protect those farmers vanishes too. The "war on some drugs" was fabricated to help a few people keep power, and power has always come from real weapons.

Let people die from their stupidity. The whole concept of the "War on Drugs" is idiotic to begin with, and the chain of power and destruction that goes along with it is a million times bigger than the problem it professes to solve.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

i think the rest of the world is fairly unanimous in believing that the American people have just made a very wise choice and would congratulate them.


In 3 years you will be pining for Bush and wishing McCain had got elected.

We now have a President who has avoided making political decisions during his whole career. He will have to make 50 or 100 a day.

He has so over promised that no matter what he does he is going to anger a lot of supporters.

The economic recovery will be delayed or not happen on his watch because he doesn't understand economics.

He has no military experience and yet he will be presiding over a world war.

So yeah. We have our first black President. And that is wonderful.

General Honore would have been a better choice, but he was not running alas.

And yes for the sake of the world I hope the American economy gets back on track. Because we are the engine of world prosperity.

Which reminds me. I forgot to mention Chinese instability due to American economic trouble.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

drmike wrote:The simplest way to eliminate shooting wars over plants is to change the laws. Once plants that have been in existence longer than humans are no longer "illegal", the money going to farmers vanishes and the desire to protect those farmers vanishes too. The "war on some drugs" was fabricated to help a few people keep power, and power has always come from real weapons.

Let people die from their stupidity. The whole concept of the "War on Drugs" is idiotic to begin with, and the chain of power and destruction that goes along with it is a million times bigger than the problem it professes to solve.
i second that DrMike.

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

New Cabinet Post

Post by Helius »

Interesting new Cabinet Post: Chief Technology Officer, but it looks like they're stuck on IT for this as if the next decade is not more about energy than IT. All the front runners are IT/communications, no Energy folk.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/ ... Obama-Win/

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

drmike wrote:The simplest way to eliminate shooting wars over plants is to change the laws. Once plants that have been in existence longer than humans are no longer "illegal", the money going to farmers vanishes and the desire to protect those farmers vanishes too. The "war on some drugs" was fabricated to help a few people keep power, and power has always come from real weapons.

Let people die from their stupidity. The whole concept of the "War on Drugs" is idiotic to begin with, and the chain of power and destruction that goes along with it is a million times bigger than the problem it professes to solve.
Unfortunately Obama is beholden to the Black Church. And their hatred for plants far exceeds that of almost any other sector of America. They might live with hemp. The will not tolerate the opium poppy.

Besides, they get a lot of money from the government for mandatory drug rehab. They know which side their bread is buttered on. And where their power comes from.

Well I'm in a pessimistic mood. We will see in a couple of years if my fears are overblown.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Post Reply