Talk-Polywell.org

In the biggest blow, the tokamak at MIT, called the Alcator C-Mod, would shut down.
“I was shocked,” says Miklos Porkolab, director of MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center.

Porkolab? Directing a Congressionally-funded Tokamak?

Well its not like NIF is good for much either... Just another defense project... like so many these days.

You know that the US defense budget % GDP is less than it was during the cold war. And that includes OCO money.
Excess spending in the US Government is not in DOD. Entitlement spending and interest is what is drving the bus. In fact, CBO projects that the interest alone will exceed the DOD budget by 2020 at current rates.

You know that the US defense budget % GDP is less than it was during the cold war.

No it is not, it is higher, actually. And besides, it is not like you are about to go to war with another superpower. So it should be waaaaaay less than the it was during the cold war.
But that is the problem with you conservatives. For you every government spending is wasteful, unless it is for defense, then it cant be wasteful enough.

I am not sure your numbers are right.

Did you study what you are looking at?

http://thenumbersguru.blogspot.com/2008 ... -1940.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... penditures

and

For FY 2010, Department of Defense spending amounts to 4.7% of GDP.[32] Because the U.S. GDP has risen over time, the military budget can rise in absolute terms while shrinking as a percentage of the GDP. For example, the Department of Defense budget is slated to be $664 billion in 2010 (including the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan previously funded through supplementary budget legislation[33][34]), higher than at any other point in American history,

but still 1.1–1.4% lower as a percentage of GDP than the amount spent on defense during the peak of Cold-War military spending in the late 1980s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_b ... ted_States

Which part of GDP didn't you understand?

You know that the US defense budget % GDP is less than it was during the cold war. And that includes OCO money.
Excess spending in the US Government is not in DOD. Entitlement spending and interest is what is drving the bus. In fact, CBO projects that the interest alone will exceed the DOD budget by 2020 at current rates.

People with more money spend more money on stuff. Even if it is imaginary money.
The point you are missing is that the major now and future growth in government spending is not defense, it is entitlement.

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook ... t-spending

Total Government Spending Has More Than Doubled Since 1965

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook ... t-spending

Defense Spending Has Declined While Entitlement Spending Has Increased

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook ... y-spending

Mandatory Spending Has Increased Five Times Faster Than Discretionary Spending

In case you were not aware, Defense is Discretionary.

Who cares about % of the GDP, it is in absolute, inflation adjusted numbers higher than during the cold war. It is also per capita higher than during the cold war with the exception of 1962 (but only if you disregard the debt). And that is all that counts. I think that spending that much is irresponsible and it is just as much government pork as any other government spending. It probably is even more wasteful...
To me the defense spending is in many ways just entitlement spending as well. Entitlement for large defense corporations. Then there are of course also all the hidden defense spendings like the SLS that is nothing but a big pork rocket entitlement for large defense contractors.
The other so called "entitlement spending" at least helps people. The defense spending just helps a few defense companies and of course the (mostly republican) congressmen that they are lobbying to.

Of course we spend more dollars now. We have more dollars to spend.

That is the point.

The other more important point that you miss is the US Constution mandates that the government provide for the common defense. It does not mandate (in any way) entitlement spending.

You can try to misrepresent the fundamentals all day long. But what you can not deny is the fact that government spending, in proportion, is declining in defense, and rising in entitlement.

The US is on a merry path to becoming a full blown crash impending social welfare state that just like all the ones where you are, is OUT OF MONEY.

Once again paraphrasing Margeret Thatcher's well targeted comments on British Socialists who (once again) were desperately trying to destroy the british economy, <sic> "The trouble with socialists, is eventually they run out of other people's money to spend".

Of course we spend more dollars now. We have more dollars to spend.
That is the point.

Why, have your enemies become bigger or something?

The other more important point that you miss is the US Constution mandates that the government provide for the common defense.

It does not mandate the government to spend a certain percentage of your GDP for defense, does it?

The US is on a merry path to becoming a full blown crash impending social welfare state that just like all the ones where you are, is OUT OF MONEY.

As I said, seeing how certain large defense contractors are spoon fed government money without fair market competition but rather via very socialist principles, I think that it is fair to say that republicans are just as good at socialism as the democrats are. They just are less obvious about it. I am not the only one with that opinion btw, several libertarian politicians share my thoughts on this. The whole SLS- pork- desaster made it quite obvious how things are going in Washington, no matter what colors you flag...

Note, I am not saying that things here in Europe are any better...

Well, ahh, yes, the defense challenge aggregate has gotten worse since the cold war. Having a single predictable opponent was much cheaper and easier to manage than the current multiple smaller unpredictable asymetric ones. I would take the Soviets back over the current disaggregate mess.

The Constitution does not mandate any amount large or small, it simply mandates to provide. If you dig into it a bit (federalist papers, etc), the intent and context was to scale the 'common defense' up or down as required. These days dictate a very complex and dangerous environment that is not really predictable. That translates to cost in defense terms.

Things also cost more these days. The technology base behind a lot of US kit is a hidden wonder. What looks like simple gear on the outside it extremely cutting edge on the inside. That is why US military hardware is coveted and performs. It is no paper tiger unlike a lot of non-US military hardware. Especially "bad guy" hardware.

For example, no armor guy in his right mind wants to go against an Abram. No ship guy wants to take on a US ship. No air guy wants to take on US aircraft (or ships). The Soviets (and others) had and have no doubt that US missiles WILL exactly hit aim points and detonate with effect.

Many an Iraqi, Afghan, and transational insurgent died as a result ACOGs and never knew why.

Having a sustained ground combat kill ratio of 15:1 or more is a result of quality kit, training & troops. DOTMLPF costs money.

There is no such thing as 'spoon feeding' funds to defense contractors anymore. It is a highly contested environment.

Again, defense spending is trending down while entitlement spending is trending up in US government outlays. Defense spending remains (and always will) discretionary, while entitlement is law (which is Congress). There is no provision in the constitution for entitlement spending.

You keep pointing to 'SLS'. SLS is not a defense system. It is also not a defense idea or requirement. Defense contractors may be involves in it with technology overlap. But it is not being built for defense. It is irrelevant. That is like arguing that Chrylser is defense pork.

The problem is not DOD. The problem is Congress and Members thereof determined to buy votes to meet priority one, re-election. All else is secondary.

ladajo wrote:Well, ahh, yes, the defense challenge aggregate has gotten worse since the cold war. Having a single predictable opponent was much cheaper and easier to manage than the current multiple smaller unpredictable asymetric ones. I would take the Soviets back over the current disaggregate mess.

You would be an absolute fool to do so.

ladajo wrote:There is no such thing as 'spoon feeding' funds to defense contractors anymore. It is a highly contested environment.

Unless that happened this morning when I wasn't looking, no, bidding for defense contracts hasn't changed one bit except that the number of bidders has hugely diminished in the past thirty years to just a few giant players.

Why, have your enemies become bigger or something?

Well no. We like to defeat them with as few casualties on our side as possible. And on the other side only killing the bad guys. Making a return to "normal life" easier.

Precision costs money.

You would rather we behaved like the Russians and carpet bombed everything we didn't like? I admit it might work better. If the bombed accepted defeat. If not it makes things worse.