I think this concept could still be valuable. For example, we have so many companies investing billions in the wireless network it would be a good benefit if the military got involved like they did in the past with communications.

Also, this is generally not how the government works, but it would make sense if, for example, the military needed 15 transport aircraft but ordered 20 of the same type because the forestry service needed three transport aircraft and the coastguard needed two. Unfortunately the way the government works now those would be seperate orders and seperate contracts and likely be different aircraft so you could not interchange parts either.

        Digital said:

The USA is literally 1/2 the worlds military spending… 1 of every 2 dollars world wide is the US… every other country combined, spends slightly less then we do.

… and this…
Damn this country.

I’ll be the first one to say that the US military is not really used in the manner which I’d tend to agree with much of the time, but lets not forget that it is not always easy being a superpower. There are plenty of nations which mooch most of their national defense off of the US. The other thing is that big military spending is one of the things that bankrupted the Soviet Union by trying to keep up with the US. And had there not been a massive US military to balance the Soviet Union they may very well have been far more aggressive than they were.

That having been said, many saw an end to the need for a big military with the end of the Cold War. Unfortunately it seems that the world is not getting safer in general. The asymmetric threats faced now are going to be a big challenge for the military, there is no doubt about that.

The US military is also the largest national emergency response force. It’s something many forget that the military is the only force with the logistics and manpower to really stabilize and provide relief for a massive natural disaster.

My personal preference would be to see more spending on military items with the midset of them being dual-purpose. For example, military communications satellites that can also be used by civil government agencies for emergency services or purchasing a large contract of transport aircraft as a unit with some going to other agencies for general purpose transportation. This approach to projects with military and civilian use is what lead to the interstate highway system which was both a stratigic assett for the military and an important tool for civilian commerce.

        Digital said:

The USA is literally 1/2 the worlds military spending… 1 of every 2 dollars world wide is the US… every other country combined, spends slightly less then we do.

… and this…
Damn this country.

I am not a U.S. citizen, but I get a little annoyed when Americans and others act as if they ardently believe there is no enormity of which the United States is incapable and regards its entire history as an unbroken legacy of avarice, deceit and injustice, while living under the safety of America’s military might.

I am embarrassed, when Canadians bitch about American military presence in our country, when we spend so little on our armed forces. Meanwhile we sleep in safety because some poor American kid is keeping watch for us. Pax Romana, Pax Britannica and now Pax Americana were not perhaps ideal regimes, executed without error – but they were and are a damned sight better than the alternatives.

… and this…
Damn this country.

        J Carlton said:

Do microcircuits count. A lot of what we are doing on the nano scale involves knowledge of such things as quantum tunneling that came directly from particle physics and accelerators. Accelerators also tell us thing about the internals of atoms and thus about things like superconductivity and other nano effects where knowledge of subatomic particles is important. It is true that much of the discoveries from particle physics have not translated into something practical yet. .

By microcircuits do you mean ICs in general? Or the newer 65 and 45 nm processor and memory cards. I know at one time the chip manufacturing grew from the xray lithography used in chemistry. I would think by now that the chip companies would pay for their own research to improve those technologies. If for no other reason then they know the Chinese(or the next rising nation) will steal what exists now and do it cheaper.

        Burya Rubenstein said:

Generally true. However, Jerry Pournelle seemed to favor something called the Ocean Thermal System – a turbine system which taps the temperature difference between surface ocean water in the tropics and that at the bottom of the sea.

Ocean Thermal Systems are very much like geothermal systems in that they would be the answer to all our energy needs if it weren’t for some unsolved technical issues. At the moment, the technology simply doesn’t exist that will make these work on a large scale, although they do work in a few special cases where conditions are perfect.

The big question with both of these is if can we develop the means to exploit them fast enough to make a difference.

        JParker said:

Maybe I shouldn’t ask this question here but…
Other than the benefit of knowing something new ( an immaterial good )
has engineering been able to take advantage of any of these discoveries in particle physics since nuclear power/weapons? Or are we working on things that decades or centuries will pass before we need to ask. If particle physics is not leading to engineering what is the difference between government funding of Fermi Lab and government funding of theological universities?

Does anyone think we will have antimatter power plants any time soon or that any material good can come from the current research? We had some evidence about nuclear power 50 years before they were able to light those bulbs in Washington. Is there similar evidence of possible technology coming from the labs now? Or is it all Big Bang navel gazing?

Do microcircuits count. A lot of what we are doing on the nano scale involves knowledge of such things as quantum tunneling that came directly from particle physics and accelerators. Accelerators also tell us thing about the internals of atoms and thus about things like superconductivity and other nano effects where knowledge of subatomic particles is important. It is true that much of the discoveries from particle physics have not translated into something practical yet. On the other hand the skills that go into building large particle accelerators have proved useful in the development of vacuum technologies and high energy systems. The technologies for particle accelerators have helped us develop new methods of welding, new lasers, vacuum deposition and the byproducts therefrom. Even if the knowledge from particle accelerators was completely valueless they would still have an impact by the spinoffs and technologies developed because of their requirements.

        Finrod said:

Renewable’ energy sources, so called, are so dilute that deriving enough power to sustain our enormous poulation would mean tapping into so much of the natural energy flow of the ecosystem that it would be a major environmental catastrophe in its own right, even if such sources could generate enough power to manufacture their own replacement units to keep the system running, which they more than likely can’t.

Generally true. However, Jerry Pournelle seemed to favor something called the Ocean Thermal System – a turbine system which taps the temperature difference between surface ocean water in the tropics and that at the bottom of the sea. Quoth Pournelle:

All over the Earth the sun shines onto the seas, warming them. In many places – particularly in the Tropics – the warm water lies above very cold depths. The temperature difference is in the order of 50 degrees F, which corresponds to the rather respectable water-pressure of 90 feet. Most hydro-electric systems do not have a 90 foot pressure head.

and as to total power available:

If you immagine the continental United States being raised 90 feet, forming a sheer cliff from Maine to Washington to California to Florida and back to Maine; then pour Niagara Falls over every foot of that, all along the perimeter forever; you have a mental picture of the energy available in one Tropic… It is more than enough power to run the world for thousands of years.

(_A Step Farther Out_, 1979.)

I suspect, myself, that Pournelle may have neglected to pay Carnot his due. But even so, it’s still a lot of power, and it seems to me that it would take some of the juice out of hurricanes, leaving us with kinder and gentler weather for the most part.