Raise Sheilds - Real life force field for troops
- Thread starter DarthTom
- Start date
Sadly, it is war and warfare that makes for some pretty big advances when repurposed for benign space use.
That is all I have to say. Wanna blast me for it? Go ahead.
That is all I have to say. Wanna blast me for it? Go ahead.
There's no reason to believe that we wouldn't have invented the internet if not for the military. The fact that this is how it happened doesn't mean it couldn't have happened differently, too. Historical contingency and all that jazz.
Certain technologies require a lot of money thrown at them to get working with a lot of infrustructure installed before it becomes viable. Most times that means government level spenting, which generally means that it needs a military purpose to get said funding. Sometimes it can be corperate driven, but would require a means to make a profit or be a significant improvment within their corperate system that causes other parts of the company to profit to make it worth their time and moeny.
Basically, someone had to be able to make a buck off it in order for it manifest, or be considered vital to national security (which usually also means that someone will make a buck off it, but with tax payer's money).
Basically, someone had to be able to make a buck off it in order for it manifest, or be considered vital to national security (which usually also means that someone will make a buck off it, but with tax payer's money).
You do realize that putting less money into military spending would mean more money being available for... funding research?
Over here in Europe a lot of research (especially basic research) is funded by the government or research funding organizations like the DFG without the military being involved. There's no reason to believe military spending couldn't be reduced in favor of research spending.
I'd also like to think that the link between science and military isn't a particularly useful one because it dictates a certain research focus without taking general civilian usefulness into account in the first place. Does it produce tech for civilian use, too? Sure, but why not just put that money into non-military research anyway?
Over here in Europe a lot of research (especially basic research) is funded by the government or research funding organizations like the DFG without the military being involved. There's no reason to believe military spending couldn't be reduced in favor of research spending.
I'd also like to think that the link between science and military isn't a particularly useful one because it dictates a certain research focus without taking general civilian usefulness into account in the first place. Does it produce tech for civilian use, too? Sure, but why not just put that money into non-military research anyway?
It would improve our country to do that, but I think I can answer the question of what some of the challenges are that we'd face to do it.
The idea that military spending produces civilian benefits as spin-off technology doesn't really enter the calculus for military budgets.
In the case of this plasma shield, it won't be marketed to civilians in any workable form (in my opinion), because it would confer too great a tactical advantage. There won't be a dime made from the patent described in the OP in civilian markets. Therefore, there's no way to even calculate what sort of long-term macroeconomic utility might come from the tech, say 20-50 years down the road. Hence, none is expected when the budget is allocated.
The military budget is therefore not made with anything in mind except military utility or potential military utility. That's what's being bought with the money.
And herein lies the point. In order to make the reduction in military spending, one must confront the argument that military potential will be reduced by that. In my opinion, that's why the budget for the military tends to stay latched at high levels, because it's generally political suicide to imply that we should be less militarily prepared. There would be no concept of simply transferring some fixed thing (i.e., research) from one rubric to another. Instead, it would be more like reducing military preparedness, and in exchange having a more vibrant economy in the civilian marketplace.
You probably already know this, but it's worth spelling out in a discussion about it.
Last edited:
Sometimes we wonder if we can go with less military spending. And sometimes we wonder why US military spending is preceived as spending in place of part of the spending that would happen in some of its allied nations (European nations as an example). The money not spent in the allied nations budgets towards their own militaries not being needed as the Americans are "taking care of that" by spending even more for their own military and using it to station troops and equipment in places that defend these allied nations.
Would it stand to reason that if the United States did finally reduce its military spending down to levels like its Europeans allies, would those European allies need to increase their military budgets to balance the loss of protection provided by American forces presently stationed or around Europe as part of NATO? Are said forces even needed any more?
How much saber rattling are the Russians doing these days? Are they considered a viable threat that warrents such spending levels in Europe for either the Europeans or Americans?
Does having this "Plasma shield" technology aid in the defense of Europe should it be viable as deployed to counter Russian forces in an effort to keep them from crossing any NATO defended borders without the implied nuclear threats? Is is money well spent to Europeans if it provides defense of Europe? Is such a defense even necessary anymore?
These are political questions that keep military spending up in the US. Because the concept of lowering the spending tends to equal the thought of losing. The Cold War is over. NATO won. Yet, problems remain. The British Empire is no longer around in numbers doing what it use to do planet wide. The Americans have stepped into that role and found the idea of Empire not to their liking. Yet the idea of policing hot spots and containment of potenal enemies of allies seems to be in place. Is it wrong? Probably. But the alternatives have not been forthcoming.
Would it stand to reason that if the United States did finally reduce its military spending down to levels like its Europeans allies, would those European allies need to increase their military budgets to balance the loss of protection provided by American forces presently stationed or around Europe as part of NATO? Are said forces even needed any more?
How much saber rattling are the Russians doing these days? Are they considered a viable threat that warrents such spending levels in Europe for either the Europeans or Americans?
Does having this "Plasma shield" technology aid in the defense of Europe should it be viable as deployed to counter Russian forces in an effort to keep them from crossing any NATO defended borders without the implied nuclear threats? Is is money well spent to Europeans if it provides defense of Europe? Is such a defense even necessary anymore?
These are political questions that keep military spending up in the US. Because the concept of lowering the spending tends to equal the thought of losing. The Cold War is over. NATO won. Yet, problems remain. The British Empire is no longer around in numbers doing what it use to do planet wide. The Americans have stepped into that role and found the idea of Empire not to their liking. Yet the idea of policing hot spots and containment of potenal enemies of allies seems to be in place. Is it wrong? Probably. But the alternatives have not been forthcoming.
In a perfect world--yes. But we have a bunch here who have no problem with big gov't programs--but only if it is for defense. Anything else--they cut.
So what remains to us is to influence the military for our purposes
Push for this guy to be made Secretary of the Air Force, say?
http://moonandback.com/2012/09/04/coyote-smith-space-based-solar-power-moonandback-interview/
Or maybe Major Brent Ziarnick and Lt. Col. Peter Garretson:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2714/1
THAT's how you do it--from the inside:
http://www.army-technology.com/features/feature125223/
A lot of folks don't like the military and would never join it.
But if they did, you can influence it from the inside.
As for the original post--I think it is nice to find a way to mitigate shock waves. That will save lives.
