Should governments be investing in better asteroid detection/diverting measures?

DodgeFB, et al,

First, let me say, I am not anti-Defense. But there is a limit to what we should invest in Defense and our military. I'm retired military; with on the ground experience. And I understand quite well the needs of the DoD.

BUT, we need to rely less on our military and to learn not to engage in decade long entanglements. We should the policies of using the military as a means to expand nation building and the hegemony.

DodgeFB said:

Agreed. And we can't even go to the space station on our own anymore. We did not get beat in the race to space, we quit.

Not sure we have much money to "pour" anywhere right now. We poured to much down ratholes.

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

Yes, you are correct. It will be painful to shift spending from defense and intelligence to education and scientific research and development. But it needs to be done.

Remember,

OSD 2013 Budget Request said:

The FY 2013 Base Budget provides $525.4 billion, a reduction of $5.2 billion from the FY 2012 enacted level ($530.6 billion) and is consistent with Administration-wide efforts to make tough cuts and create savings.

SOURCE: http://comptroller.defense.gov/budget.html

Click to expand...

For instance, on single F-22 Raptor has a sticker price of significantly more than $350M; not include the gas, pilot, pilot training, PLL and special ground serving needs (men & equipment) needed to fly the aircraft off the showroom floor. Between the F-22 and the F-35 (JSF), the US will spend more than $3.6B; we will spend $3B on the Virginia Class Submarine; and $4.6B on the UH-60 and CH-47 programs.

It is a hard set of decisions, but considering that:

DOE FY13 Budget Unveiled – National Security (Nuclear) on Top said:

• $5 billion for basic science research
• $350 million for ARPA-E
• $60 million for energy storage
• $276 million for advanced fossil fuel power systems and CCUS (carbon capture, utilization, and storage) technologies
• $140 million for the existing Energy Innovation Hubs and to establish a new hub that will be focused on grid systems (including the tie between transmission and distribution systems)

SOURCE: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...y13-budget-unveiled-national-security-on-top/

Click to expand...

We need to move away from pouring money into weapons systems that, by Treaty, we are trying to reduce and move towards disarmament, and re-invest that into Science and Education. We need to take a break from weapons systems upgrades in the military and redirect that funding to science and education. And the we need to trim the Department of State (DOS) budget.

Executive Budget Summary said:

For the first time, our FY 2013 request also includes $770 million for a
Middle East and North Africa Incentive Fund to help America support citizens who have demanded change and governments that are working to deliver it.

SOURCE: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/183755.pdf

Click to expand...

We need to alter the foreign policy such that it significantly reduces spending in Regional Interference programs; redirecting that funding to Education, Science and Research programs.

Yes, it will require a change in the way we think and prioritize, but it can be done.

Most Respectfully,
R

RoccoR said:

DodgeFB, et al,

First, let me say, I am not anti-Defense. But there is a limit to what we should invest in Defense and our military. I'm retired military; with on the ground experience. And I understand quite well the needs of the DoD.





We need to move away from pouring money into weapons systems that, by Treaty, we are trying to reduce and move towards disarmament, and re-invest that into Science and Education. We need to take a break from weapons systems upgrades in the military and redirect that funding to science and education. And the we need to trim the Department of State (DOS) budget.



We need to alter the foreign policy such that it significantly reduces spending in Regional Interference programs; redirecting that funding to Education, Science and Research programs.

Yes, it will require a change in the way we think and prioritize, but it can be done.

Most Respectfully,
R

Click to expand...

I was not even thinking about defense when I made the comment. I just see a lot of people arguing about how we should spend money we don't have anyway.

It feels like me and my wife fighting about buying a new truck or building a new house. We both know we are broke on our butt and can't afford either.

So many people seem to not accept that the great USA can be broke and just not have things we may need. I have first hand knowledge of what happens when you treat credit like income. I thought at one time we would lose our home. Great credit, but I was running on money that was costing me interest.

Going to pay as you go has worked for me. I would like to see the country give it a try.

myp said:

Why would they claim it is a weapon against them? It is in their best interest. Besides, they already know we can wipe them (and everyone else) off the face of the planet if we really wanted to.


This is such a huge misconception in the population today. It extends to even politicians. You cannot compare your finances to that of the US federal government because the national government currently does not use capital budgeting! You buy a house but budget it over xx years according to your mortgage. Even if the Federal government bought something to be paid over xx years, the budgeting would not fall over xx years but instead in the first year! Pay as you go does not work unless you change that standard. Also, there is an argument that some deficits could be good, especially when you are in an emergency state or downturn, etc. Remember that the Treasury can still borrow at ~2%, something you or I or any company cannot do, so again the comparison is not a fair one.

Click to expand...

Why does Russia do anything? They just like to bitch about what we are doing every chance they get.



Well the proof of what works will come when the US pays off all debts and has extra for what we need. I will never see it and I doubt you will either. We are seeing several countries get a chance to try that "debt is good" theory. Greece should soon be a financial leader in the world.

DodgeFB, et al,

Yea, I know what you mean.

DodgeFB said:

I was not even thinking about defense when I made the comment. I just see a lot of people arguing about how we should spend money we don't have anyway.

It feels like me and my wife fighting about buying a new truck or building a new house. We both know we are broke on our butt and can't afford either.

So many people seem to not accept that the great USA can be broke and just not have things we may need. I have first hand knowledge of what happens when you treat credit like income. I thought at one time we would lose our home. Great credit, but I was running on money that was costing me interest.

Going to pay as you go has worked for me. I would like to see the country give it a try.

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

We have to look at this realistically.

I don't think that Congress is going to act as if we are broke. They are going to spend the money anyway. I think it is a matter of prioritization. If we are going to spend money we don't have anyway --- let's not spend it overseas, but spend it here in America where it can help the economy and promote economic growth (even if it is just a little).

I don't think a dime should be spent overseas until America is straight first. But I don't think Congress is going to put America first.

Most Respectfully,
R

RoccoR said:

I don't think a dime should be spent overseas until America is straight first. But I don't think Congress is going to put America first.

Most Respectfully,
R

Click to expand...

Thing is, America is an empire. Some of it is overt, colonies and vassals but most of the Empire exist in the form of lopsided (in our favor) alliances, banana republics and gov'ts we've blackmailed and/or bribed. Do we need to send aid to China? No but what of Japan, Africa, Israel, etc? If America wants to stay top dog it's a necessary evil.

David, et al,

Well, we are in a slight disagreement.

David said:

Thing is, America is an empire. Some of it is overt, colonies and vassals but most of the Empire exist in the form of lopsided (in our favor) alliances, banana republics and gov'ts we've blackmailed and/or bribed. Do we need to send aid to China? No but what of Japan, Africa, Israel, etc? If America wants to stay top dog it's a necessary evil.

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

I don't agree that America is an Empire. It has no colonies. But I would agree that America is a military hegemony. Notice I said "military;" and not industrial, scientific or economic.

Unfortunately, to sustain a "military" hegemony, and all the influence that goes with it, you need a very strong economy. No tax dollars means no mighty military.

The US was once a mighty industrial based economy. We made everything that upwardly mobile societies wanted. While today, we still make some of those things, most of the production is outsourced to other nations. So, when you bought something "Made in America," those dollars circulated in the US Economy and made it stronger. Today, when you buy a computer, or TV, a lamp or a Frigidare, only a portion of the money paid actually circulates in the US economy. Hell, my solid wood dining table was made in Vietnam. The portion of the cost paid to workmanship, went there. A portion of the shipping costs went to a Chinese freighter, and a portion of the profit margin went to a foreign importer. Before, that would have all stayed in the US economy and those foreign portions would have been US workers, tradesmen, and carriers.

To stay on top, we don't need to have a "military" hegemony; although a strong military helps. We need a country that is so scientifically savvy, that every new innovation is invented and "Made in America" by American workers. Our science has to be so strong, that we can create new markets at will, where energy is the least of our worries, and our knowledge base is the envy of the entire world; almost able to make something out of nothing.

To be on top, we have to work at being the center of the universe for knowledge, skills, and abilities; the new Athens, with a 21st Century Library of Alexandria, and the innovations of Atlantis.

Most people don't realize that we've gone from putting a man on the moon, to our astronauts having to hitchhike into space. America must become the place where every super-scholar in every discipline can come to do the groundbreaking work that will bring America and the world into a new age of enlightenment. America must become the next nation, like Egypt, to build the monuments that will last 5000 years; and not the country of disposable everything; outsourcing everything, and the where engineers and scientists can't find work. Held hostage to oil (and other fossile fuels) as a primary means of energy, we need to be (must be) the nation that breaks that bond and ushers in a new power under harness.

That is how (one mans opinion) we get to the top and stay on top. And with this control and influence over education, science and technology, we can put an upcoming generation to work, paying taxes, and able to afford grand social programs while keeping our defense capability strong. When that is achieved, then, we might consider foreign aid to other nations. But we are no where near that yet. And for every dime we spend overseas, we are depriving our economy --- that which is essential to our ability to grow, and jeopardizing the future of our nation.

Just My Thought,
Most Respectfully,
R

RoccoR said:

I don't agree that America is an Empire. It has no colonies.

Click to expand...

Puerto Rico? Midway? Guam? American Samoa? Hell, even Liberia in the more classical sense.

Puerto Rico etc are pretty paultry evidence that the US is an empire, though I agree with you that we are. We control much of the world through our economic, political and cultural power. I think it is a good thing. I would rather we did than China or India.


If anyone doubts our cultural hegemony look at some of the flash mobs on YouTube or the percentage of people who speak English.

James said:

Puerto Rico etc are pretty paultry evidence that the US is an empire, though I agree with you that we are. We control much of the world through our economic, political and cultural power. I think it is a good thing. I would rather we did than China or India.


If anyone doubts our cultural hegemony look at some of the flash mobs on YouTube or the percentage of people who speak English.

Click to expand...

We rule, directly, over 1/2 this planet. Indirectly (lopsided alliances, economic domination, outright vassals, etc.) we rule even more. So ya, we're an empire.

I agree, we should be spending money on asteroid detection and deversion. Yellowstone Park will someday blow as it has in the past, and a new disease could wipe most of us out. I assume people are looking at those possiblities too.

James, et al,

I think you are on track. That this (investing in better asteroid detection/diverting measures) is really only a subcomponent to the larger question of scientific education, research and development.

James said:

I agree, we should be spending money on asteroid detection and deversion. Yellowstone Park will someday blow as it has in the past, and a new disease could wipe most of us out. I assume people are looking at those possiblities too.

Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

I'm retired military. I've been to most of the garden spots around the world, and the one thing I've noticed is that we (America) invests way too much of its disposable income (general revenue) on foreign policy and military adventures that have no lasting return on investment. While we need to reduce our involvement in losing propositions around the world, we need to divert those dollars to all manner of scientific education, research and development. We should change the face of America and introduce a new era of enlightenment that ushers in the 21st Century. Not try to change the face of the rest of the world.

Most Respectfully,
R

As David wrote, we rule a considerable part of the world, directly or indirectly. For example, last year Linkin Park sang in Red Square, and the crowd could have been in America. They knew the words to the songs as well as the singers.

I don't think we can suddenly withdraw and create a power vacume but as you write, R, we can't afford to change the world through direct means. Cultural and economic infiltration through private business is a better track in my opinion.

As you wrote, scientific education, research and development would create now unknown products and industries as the space program did.If the worst happened, we might need the new products to save ourselves from a future danger.

-