[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 86 KB, 780x520, 1418649741131.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6955388 No.6955388 [Reply] [Original]

What would happen if the US government cut military funding in half and split it between all major science foundations here with NASA getting 50%? What would we expect to see with 20 years of this budget plan ?

>> No.6955470

Nerds fucking each other with dragon dildos.

>> No.6955472

a gigantic war that kills us all

>> No.6955473

Revolt from the army

>> No.6955489

>>6955472
Do you really think other nations would take advantage of us and not follow?

Maybe we can form alliances with other countries to protect us while we advance rapidly?

>> No.6955502

>>6955472
>>6955489
It would probably increase global security, but US would surrender a lot of gunpoint influence abroad.
With such a massive budget cut you probably even would have to give up your habit of averaging one major war every 10 years.

>> No.6955508

The economy would collapse as the military-industrial complex plays too central a role.

>> No.6955517

>>6955508
True but a perhaps a new science-centric economy could form after the initial blow? That'd be pretty bad ass.

>> No.6955526

>>6955517

That would need a long process of transition. If you cut the military overnight I wouldn't be surprised if you'd just get couped out of office.

>> No.6955559

>>6955502
Which is not a bad thing. Just think about everything that we could accomplish in a drastically short(er) amount of time.

More money going to scientist not only means more money for space (and other science related) missions, it also means more people will become scientist. More scientist in general mean a smarter society. Massive school reforms could take place. Complete 180 in the hive mind of society. Pop sci would turn from buzzwords to actual science and people would love it.

>> No.6955765

>>6955388

The US military is bigger the next 12-25 nations combined. (I've heard different numbers.) We wouldn't suffer the slightest risk from cutting military spending in half.

To prevent the coup, keep the military industrial complex doing the science. Essentially the same money to the same people, but with different goals.

>> No.6955774

If you have a 500 BILLION BUDGET and you don't spend it all on fusion you're a moron.

>> No.6955781

That's not how sciences funding works.
Science departments go: I want X amount of funding
Executive: Here you go.
If the sciences want more funding all they have to do is ask and be focused in how they want it. It's not a competition between Military OR Science.
Additionally there was a surge in sciences funding during TARP that REALLY fucked over funding because, yes there was more money, but they had to spend it in a limited amount of time. Which isn't how science works.

>> No.6956008

I might not regret my major

>> No.6956033

>>6955774
Lockheed-Martin is claims they'll have a 100MW fusion reactor that can sit on the back of a truck within 10 years. Yes they're primarily a military contractor.

>> No.6956038
File: 655 KB, 300x168, scientifically proven.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6956038

>>6955388
Has no one taken into consideration the fact that war has churned out some of the greatest leaps in technological advancement?

why?

>> No.6956132
File: 45 KB, 360x243, 12-May-general-fusion-reactor-360[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6956132

>>6956033
In the business of fusion, exaggeration is a virtue.

If you are an investor, go ahead and believe them. Fusion research needs more funding.

But as a person of science, do not believe a single word they say. It's all bullshit.
>pic related

>> No.6956189

>>6956038
Because people paid with their lives and there's nothing to conquer in space.

>> No.6956281
File: 17 KB, 461x403, ANCIENT_ALIENS.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6956281

>>6956189
Oh isn't there?

>> No.6956387

>>6956132
>If you are an investor, go ahead and believe them.
The ROI of a D-Boron fusion reactor is so high it can literally justify trillions in R&D.
The problems is that the risk and capitals are too high for "the free market to fix it".

>> No.6956399

>>6956387
I agree with you, and I seriously hope governments consider investing in PB (I just realized you said D-B, why did you say that?) fusion R&D.

My point was that we shouldn't fool ourselves. Fusion power is not "20 years away". 50 at best.

>> No.6956446

>>6955559
>realistic posci

BONERRRRRRRR

>> No.6956538

>>6956399
I meant proton-boron but i'm too tired.

>> No.6957681

>>6956038
yup, hate to say this but war spurs technology. If there's one thing we humans are good at it's killing each other for our own selfish goals.

>> No.6957711

>>6955502
It wouldn't actually change much.

A lot of the budget is wasted into producing obsolete shit. It would just be a matter of redirecting funds.
http://rt.com/usa/congress-army-defense-million-505/

>> No.6957752

>>6956038
>that war has churned out some of the greatest leaps in technological advancement?
That's a misconception. There are some short-term benefits to war with the economy experiencing a boom, but the costs are astronomical (lost infrastructure, manpower, resources). It only appears like we're advancing so quick in war because of the bigger impact that more advanced weaponry has on people.

We have capitalism (and patents). We don't need armed conflict to drive technology forward nowadays. There are many more amazing leaps in technology that wasn't the result of war, one of my favorites would probably be with plastics since its beginnings in the late 1800s.