by frog
World military expenditure is now higher than it was during the Cold War.
I’m going to let the pictures do the talking
Published in Society & Culture by frog on Sat, October 17th, 2009
War, what is it good for?
Published: October 17, 2009
Comment via Facebook
52 Comments
Hide comments with a score of
or less
Hide comments with a score of or less
Leave a Reply
Please use 
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Frog; These days I keep thinking of Prez Ike’s departing comments about the ‘military/industrial complex’ and the power that it wields in the US.
He seems to be saying that it is (was,then in 1960 when he said it) somewhat out of control – even for the President.
His successor set about cancelling Military Adventurism (though the facts are oft redacted)- poor old jfk.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/speeches/ike_chance_for_peace.html
… but that chance failed of its hope.
His words some 8 years later, at the end of his career describe the situation.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
…and of course his successor was assassinated and replaced by a tool more apt to the bankers and militarists.
The degree to which this arrangement suits the suits is a very large part of the problem overall. They keep the proles in line with their war scares. They maintain the ability to spend and drive the debt ever upward… it is unconscionable, insane, and the only way humans seem to know how to coexist.
When considering groups of more than 200-300 people peace is the aberration. Conflict is our natural condition. One might hope that we’d someday evolve cooperation but it is a social skill that is learned, not natural to us. Not in large groups at any rate.
So we build weapons of mass destruction and neglect the destruction that Gaia herself is preparing for us. To ward off that one would require cooperation and most people would rather die than cooperate… at least they think so until they recognize the Damoclean blades poised above our collective heads. That Oh Sh!t! moment tends to focus us… but cannot act collectively without it and it is an individual event, and for too many it comes far too late.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
9 
1 (+8)
Its off to bankruptcy and hyperinflation for the US, but then any student of history would know that. All empires end up hyperinflating their currency to pay for wars in far away lands.
I also can’t stand Obama who goes on TV here in the US and says look at all those western countries they have public health care we should
too. What the dishonest democrat never tells the people is those same countries don’t spend 40% of their Taxes on “WAR” so they can AFFORD their public health care.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Turnip
“dishonest democrat”
Why are you repeating yourself?
Not that the Republicans are any better at honest.
They are but two heads of the “wealth” party, the banker’s party… they have slight distinctions but no real differences. Obama is a change from Bush… he actually speaks English and he wants us out of the wars… but Bush had 8 years of getting the US deep into them, and Obama can’t just yank the US out. I am sure he personally wishes he COULD do that now and again, but it isn’t damned likely.
Personally I think Cheney should have been tried for treason… and that the evidence still exists of the lies he promulgated to get the US into Iraq.
Still, the economy would have been even worse if they hadn’t gone to war… so much MORE money needs to be created all the time to keep the banks afloat.
Maybe Bush and Bin-Laden are secret lovers, doing each other favors, and we’ll never know the truth.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Poignant, and of vast importance, definitive value – great post Frog – and thanx to bj for the links.
Should be required reading for our schoolchildren.
Where’s that History Curriculum?
Writs have been taken out in the World Court – senior members of the last US administration (including the Prez) wouldn’t wanna be touring Europe anytime soon.
Someone might actually point out Right from Wrong!
So in a way – the US Military is costing US Citizens their Health, and by extension, their lives.
Irony seldom cuts so sharp a meaning.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
It is a noble goal to end war, but unfortunately every human philosophy that has attempted to do so has only ultimately resulted in more warfare.
When you look back on history many leaders that were anti war ended up making an inevitable conflict many times worse.
We are flawed creatures, if there is no reason to fight we will invent one.
Like or Dislike:
4 
5 (-1)
I’ve heard a rumour that the original version of Ike’s speach said military/industrial/congressional complex, but he thought it wasn’t right for one branch of government to criticise another.
Believing the rumour, the spending is because national (~= military) pride and pork-barrelling are the things that can be elected in that model of ~democracy~.
Ohio considered proportional representation of delegates to the electoral college but didn’t do it, because it would make promising things to them at election time less worth-while.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
“War, what is it good for?”
Well, resisting nihilistic Islamic aggression for one.
It’s very good for that.
In fact, it’s the only thing that works.
And you link to a Youtube video that says “It doesn’t matter whether we win or lose.”
Well, actually it does.
Do you have any other completely self-indulgent pathetic wank you wish to post?
Like or Dislike:
6 
10 (-4)
The two great wars WW1 and WW2 in which my father and grandfathers fought in was for a cause.
That cause was democracy.
In WW2 NZ and Aust.came very close to losing that.
To demean our forefathers bravery is plain ignorance and immoral.
Feel ashamed.
Like or Dislike:
4 
7 (-3)
pentwig
Posted October 17, 2009 at 9:39 PM
“The two great wars WW1 and WW2 in which my father and grandfathers fought in was for a cause.”
“That cause was democracy.”
World War 1 was about democracy? really?
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
kahikatea
Yes
This thread is absolutely offensive.
How the hell can denigrate what your ancestors put their life on line for to protect you and your freedom – their decendants.
Once again feel very ashamed.
Like or Dislike:
3 
7 (-4)
Like or Dislike:
7 
4 (+3)
Do you understand Islam Valis? basically the Islamic definition of peace is everybody converting to Islam and to hell with those that don’t.
Are you really removing individual responsibility from people like Bin laden and putting the likes of him down to a creation of the west?
The West is an affront to Islam regardless of the stirring in the middle east.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6 (-4)
There is no observation here about the uselessness of this practice of humans that doesn’t contain a knowledge of its reality.
There weren’t a lot of muslim extremists in Iraq before the US invaded.
Nor was WWII unrelated to to the economic collapse of the Weimar era, precipitated by the West and by Capitalism at its worst.
Nor was there a GOOD reason for the war of secession in the USA, or the Spanish-American war.
Pointing out that specific wars become necessary because some specific people are being unreasonable or belligerent avoids the question of WHY those people have become so difficult to reason with. You EXEMPLIFY in this very human failure of reason that is part of our nature and leads to war. The failure to acknowledge that there are two sides to any conflict and BOTH have to be considered.
It is good to see you serving the purpose of being negative examples so well.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
10 
3 (+7)
Funny you should mention that – I’ve just finished watching this. Educate yourself – unless you’ve already been terified into silence.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Do you understand Islam Valis? basically the Islamic definition of peace is everybody converting to Islam and to hell with those that don’t.
There are malcontents and worse all over the world. If they threaten you directly, its one thing. If you invade their country or support others in doing so it is even more idiotic to think there will be no response. And arming them to the teeth for your own short-term gains is the most idiotic of all, except to think afterward that you had nothing to do with it.
Are you really removing individual responsibility from people like Bin laden
I said nothing of the sort. He’s a monster.
and putting the likes of him down to a creation of the west?
Its just a fact that he and his rabble were trained by the USA to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.
The West is an affront to Islam regardless of the stirring in the middle east.
Your myopia is astounding. “Stirring” is just my euphemism for lot’s of killing. Just what are you claiming, that 9/11 would have happened anyway so it doesn’t matter what the US does to them?
Like or Dislike:
7 
4 (+3)
An excellent little piece, relating the economic systems to the perpetual wars of the USA.
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2009/10/here-is-essay-that-explores-historical.html
One notes the reference to Eisenhower’s speech.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
BJ
If you believe that philosophical tripe you rant at 12:32am then indeed you are very silly.
It is absolutely natural to protect ones family and oneself when threatened. Every animal specie does it in one form or another.
If we did not have that natural instinct to react then what is the point of survival?
Like or Dislike:
3 
6 (-3)
bj hasn’t at all denied such an instinct, just applied it to to all rather than deny the humanity of the people we happen not to like.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
The Crash Course chapter 10 addresses this issue quite poignantly
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-10-inflation
War, what is it good for? Inflation!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
I feel pretty vindicated that no where in the history of humanity has left wing social thinking ever resulted in anything but death and the creation of new wars.
You guys preach as though the US has the greater responsibility for humanity and then bemoan the fact that they actually attempt to do it.
You are totally ignorant of human behaviour if you think it is possible for there not to be a global “policeman”. If it wasn’t the US it would be somebody else. Who would you prefer? The french? the Russians? It is so easy to sit back in our cushy western lifestyles and pontificate about what the US should and shouldn’t be doing.
Until the next war comes along.
Like or Dislike:
4 
8 (-4)
“War, what is it good for? Inflation! ”
Another good thing for inflation is a welfare state.
Kill people it ends in inflation, help people it ends in inflation.
Like or Dislike:
3 
8 (-5)
War, or the threat of war, is good for pushing the boundaries of science and technology, including aviation, engineering, medicine, communications, computing, surveillance, etc. We are holding this discussion over the internet using networked computers. Computers were developed for code breaking. Networking was developed to provide communication after a nuclear war, by way of including sufficient redundancy and autonomy in the communications systems.
Unfortunately it is hard to justify that the benefit outweighs the cost
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
“the world has become a lot wealthier since the Cold War”
It has?
How?
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
Simonthetall wrote: “the world has become a lot wealthier since the Cold War”
Samian asked: “It has? How?”
in terms of manufactured goods. The world population as a whole owns more cars, more computers, more washing machines, more guns, more disposable polystyrene containers… more of almost everything that is made in factories.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
While I disagree with it, Shunda, a “realpolitik” approach such as you describe at least has a logical basis. But do you understand what it is? For instance that ethical issues are rarely if ever considered in decision-making. You’d have to apply it consistently you know, but your original post argues a very different line, so which is it going to be?
But even if there is always to be a policeman, it behooves us to ensure the policeman feels it should act with enough restraint so as to not make situations even worse than they would be otherwise. E.g. Bush’s escapades in Iraq played into bin Laden’s hands while making few if any safer. BLiP’s link points to a reason why. It is simply not good enough to just throw up your hands helplessly no matter what happens.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Trevor has a good point, though it is likely that we would do better as a species if it weren’t so true. War does force the pace of technology. Which does make us “wealthier” in a way. I don’t regard Simon’s point as quite so valid… the world has borrowed a lot from its future citizens in the name of this process, actual long-term well-being is not IMHO, improved at all. In fact, I believe it has cost us heaps and sustained the inequalities that the Fed engendered.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Here’s a table of USA GDP for the last 50 odd years:
http://www.data360.org/dataset.aspx?Data_Set_Id=354
Basically it shows that USA Gdp has gone from roughly $7 trillion to $13 trillion since 1988, meaning it has almost doubled and hence military spending would now form a much smaller proportion of USA GDP. So although military spending has increased, the USA has also increased spending on assets like health, education etc, and at a faster rate.
Note; the time series graph above is for world military spending, so my guess is that much of it could be accounted for by the increasing wealth of India and China over the last decade, although having said that I imagine since the collapse of the USSR (1989) that area of the world would be spending less money on munitions.
As to why GDP keeps increasing, to my mind two of the main reasons are improvements in technology and increasing global trade. The internet revolution has caused huge improvements in productivity and efficiency, many economists believe this is mainly what is accountable for the robust growth under the Clinton administration. Many econommists were scared it was a bubble, not realising until afterward that the growth was caused by real efficiency improvements.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Pentwig – Put up or shut up time. Tell me how I am wrong.
I think I was VERY clear. It takes two sides to have a war.
At least ONE of those sides has taken to the idea that the other isn’t comprised of humans with rights equal to its own.
The real cause of the war may well be in the distant past, but there is always perceived and real injustice between the two sides.
All you have to do is look.
…and as long as you call THAT philosophical tripe you make yourself a perfect example. Humans are not possessed of a built in sense of social justice with respect to people they don’t know.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
But Simon, you have to look at Debt as well as GDP (or should that be GNP?) , has wealth increased? Things go faster, we all work harder. Maybe ‘wealth’ (whatever that is) has decreased.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
“I don’t regard Simon’s point as quite so valid… the world has borrowed a lot from its future citizens in the name of this process, actual long-term well-being is not IMHO, improved at all.”
was Simon actually saying that war had made us richer and was therefore a good thing? I thought he was just saying that the USA’s military spending as a proportion of all spending was not higher now than during the cold war.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I wrote: “[the world has become wealthier] in terms of manufactured goods. The world population as a whole owns more cars, more computers, more washing machines, more guns, more disposable polystyrene containers… more of almost everything that is made in factories.”
I want to make it clear that when I said this, I wasn’t trying to claim that this was inherently a good thing or the best measure of wealth, I was just trying to describe what standard measures of wealth are correlated to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But Swamp Pine even the most conservative measures of wealth factor on income & expenditure, assets & liabilities. GDP is not a measure of wealth, it’s a measure of activity (and a lousy one at that).
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Don’t get too distracted by the GDP thing. $1.2 trillion of weapons is $1.2 trillion of weapons, either way (instead of schools, food, etc). The graph is adjusted into today’s dollars
Not to mention that it was wrong to spend that much on weapons then, and it’s wrong to spend this much on weapons now
Maybe the degree of wrong-ness has changed a few percent, if you want to split hairs…
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Simon
- is missing the point that the borrowing to build weapons.. which started back when LBJ took over the White House… adds to the debt load of the nation. That the USA is as a nation, as close to bankrupt as no difference according to accepted accounting standards and has trillions of dollars tied up in military hardware that is completely unproductive.
Using GDP as measure of wealth is EXTREMELY wrong, as we well know in this party. Simon should consider that the destruction of the city of New Orleans added to the GDP of the USA. That someone breaking windows and someone else replacing them adds to the GDP. Nor is the death of any individual counted as a positive or negative entry in the GDP… the human condition is ignored.
Simon… I suggest that you examine some OTHER measurement of overall wealth and well-being than GDP or GNP. I think you’ll find that if the country you’re talking about is one of those where the war was actually fought, the picture is really quite negative. Go visit Russia. Visit their war memorials. This nation is lucky to have avoided the worst.
Why is it so hard to get people to understand the limitations of economics?
BJ
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
The problems with GDP were covered here
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/09/17/stiglitz-questions-gdp-as-a-measure-of-progress/
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
BJ wrote
“I think I was VERY clear. It takes two sides to have a war.
At least ONE of those sides has taken to the idea that the other isn’t comprised of humans with rights equal to its own.
The real cause of the war may well be in the distant past, but there is always perceived and real injustice between the two sides.”
Exactly BJ.
So what is a country to do if being set upon by another – sit back and say hit me harder?
If diplomacy does not work what is the alterative war? Submission?
If you believe that is so then it is phisosophical tripe.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
I suspect military expenditure is in part higher now compared to the Cold War due to the rise of a host of economies that have spent a lot updating their military, such as China and India.
War is the second worst thing that a government can engage its people in, the worst is to turn on its own people. Many wars fought by the Western world have been against governments that do just that.
The mantra of this post could be implied to say that Britain should not have declared war on Germany in 1939. We all have wisdom of hindsight now, but if those who advocate this post were considering then, how many would have chosen appeasement and let Poland be taken over, because it “isn’t our country being attacked”, much like Japan was let to ravage east Asia for many years.
The only way militarism can be confronted is for countries to be free, open and for people to travel, trade and move freely among each other. That is the great wonder of Europe since 1945 and 1989, war is inconceivable between EU Member States. For example, war between ASEAN states looks increasingly unlikely, (notwithstanding Burma).
THAT is the way forward. Disarmament in the face of those who would destroy you or seek to force tyranny upon you is madness. The most obvious examples would be if the US withdrew from South Korea, or Israel withdrew from all occupied lands, abolished weapons of mass destruction and crossed its fingers.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Pentwig
“So what is a country to do if being set upon by another – sit back and say hit me harder?
If diplomacy does not work what is the alterative war? Submission?
If you believe that is so then it is phisosophical tripe. ”
IF I had said that it would have been foolish. I did not. That’s an opinion YOU ascribed to me in error. This is perhaps understandable since there are a lot of lies about the Green party out there and someone may have lied to you about us.
We aren’t “pacifists”. We look for non-violent solutions FIRST, but you might consider actually looking at our defense policy… or asking… rather than jumping to conclusions. The clue was very clear in my initial post…
“Unable to distinguish between the philosophical observation of and lament for its uselessness and the real necessity we humans continual create for engaging in it.” (*durn it, continually, not continual)
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
LibertyScott
You might consider looking at the policy too. Also at US defense spending which is more than everyone else’s put together and has been since I was a boy.
You mistake the post’s intention. That mistake is shaped by propaganda from OTHER parties, media misrepresentation and religious nutcases.
Favoring non-violent resolutions is NOT the same as rolling over and playing dead when someone else chooses violence. If does mean looking seriously at social-justice issues before someone else is driven to choose violence.
Your reply contains an implication that is false. I suspect you know that but are simply angling for the denial. If so, here it is.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
BJ
Knowing that Islamic terrorists have declared war on USA, Britian & Aust.
Knowing that no diplomacy and talks can/have work.
How would you and the green movement address the conflict with Islamic terrorists? Practicably not idealistically.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Diplomacy and talks haven’t worked because the underlying issues haven’t been addressed. The Islamic terrorists recruit from disadvantaged groups, who see no hope while America and their allies steal their resources and restrict their choices… Give them real hope (and a good education) and those potential recruits won’t join the extremists. (Note that it isn’t the Islamic moderates that have declared war on the USA, etc.) WW2 occurred in part because the WW1 victors punished Germany and the Germans sought leaders who would rebel against this oppression.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Trevor29
That does not answer the question. Education takes time and is very idealistic. Nor is it likely to work, in fact it may have the opposite effect.
What would you do now? As the problem is now!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
Also much depends on how far back you want to go…
However, for myself…
When the World Trade Center went down I would have:
First: Rather than going to war with the Taleban as a first option I would have more strongly made the case that the people responsible were criminals and needed to be handed over to the international community.
Second: Not invaded Iraq, The diversion of effort to do that might well have cost us the resources needed to catch Osama. Note: As part of this I would not have been replacing the CIA professional’s evaluation of their WMD efforts with that of politically motivated amateurs from the VP’s offices.
BEFORE they attacked the WTC I would have:
First: Made a greater effort to wean the USA off the Saudi oil teat. Taking leverage out of the hands of extremists and as a by-product reduced the US CO2 footprint.
Second: Made a greater effort to bring peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The peace process was going well until the Shrub took over.
Third: Given Iran credit for the progress it had been making towards Democratic processes over Theocratic government. This and item 2 might well have forestalled the election of Ahmadinejad.
Anticipated results?
A more friendly regime in Iran. Iraq still in the hands of a lunatic but with no “terrorist” presence. A greater acceptance of the US as an “honest broker” with respect to peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Possibly the attack might have been averted, however I reckon that avoiding that might have been difficult unless one went back still further and actually moved us off oil sooner (Carter might have done it but we got Reagan instead).
Most people will see where I am going with this.
The point of your question however might better be considered in terms of “What do we do now that the neo-cons have fncked things up so thoroughly?” As I previewed I just noted that you made this request – fortunately I anticipated it
1. The US could offer to withdraw support for its puppet in Afghanistan in return for a handover of the terrorists (including Bin-Laden). One notes that it was not the Taleban or Afghans, who engaged in the attack.
This is a bad option, the alternative however, is at least equally bad… and that is to redouble efforts to defeat the Taleban and capture Osama Bin Forgotten. IF it were to succeed to the extent of capturing Bin Laden, would still leave us with the requirement of propping up a corrupt puppet for a long time, as defeating the Taleban is not likely. Might work, might not. Long term result depends on somehow spinning it as “justice”. I don’t think that spin can be obtained while war with the Taleban continues.
2. Anyone wanting to leave Afghanistan ahead of what would likely be a Taleban takeover (in the case we simply made the deal), is allowed to migrate (where to? Good question). Somehow we have to cope with these people fairly. We messed things up, it IS our problem.
3. The US arranges a trial of Bin-Laden and his minions, and incarceration for his crimes. NOT as a military prisoner, no death penalty applies.
4. End the rhetoric of the “war” on terror. Terrorists are criminals. Treated as such their cause is not advanced in the minds of ordinary people, no matter what their religious views.
5. Press the Israelis to make peace with the Palestinians. This can be had only if they pull the settlers out of the settlements, and only if the borders are guaranteed. Possibly paying for and supporting neutral third party troops to baby-sit strips of land between the two. US troops would be targets at present. Stupid to have created that situation but it is what it is.
6. Wean the USA off the Saudi oil teat. Damning that this continues to come up after 35 years of knowing it had to be done and after Carter made it CLEAR that it had to be done.
This leaves us with Iran… Whether we can avert problems with Iran at this point is questionable. However, the problems we have cannot be made BETTER by the path we have been taking. I might concern myself with actually supplying something other than Uranium Fission power plants (Thorium being a better bet and not easily turned to weapons production).
+++++++
The Neo-Con philosophy of “war” on everything (war on terror, war on drugs, war on pornography…) is astoundingly bad in practice. The results show us nothing that looks like progress in ANY area this has been applied.
Which simply amplifies the question in the original post. “What is it Good For?”
BJ
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
BJ
Thanks for very considered and comprehensive reply.
I certainly have something to ponder over.
Am out of the country for 6 weeks later this arvo so catch you when I get back.
Regards
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
I’m not sure that war still forces the pace of technology – probably it used to, but I recall an article from New Scientist a few years ago that pointed out that military technology developments no longer provides the same benefits for civilian technology because: (1) military technology has become too specialised (not many civilian uses for radiation shielded electronics or armour penetrating warheads) and is increasingly secretive and (2) military development and procurement is slower than civilian research and military technology is often ten years behind the civilian equivalent.
Software is one example – military software is behind the times – by the time you get your package together and link it with whatever hardware you are developing and get it working, manufactured and in the field it is well out of date. That was why patriot missiles kept missing scuds in the first Gulf War – the software was primitive and made rounding errors.
Fifty years ago army gear was sought after by trampers and hunters. Now the army is basing its gear on civilian designs which are superior. A few years ago there was a letter in Army News addressing the proposal for an Army standard bivvy bag. NZ soldiers were buying and using civilian equipment because it was better. The letter implored the army to stick to civilian designs and not stuff it up by trying to design a militarised version.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Joe – I’d put it that the hardware that the SW runs on is behind the times… the milspec processors were always at least 2 generations back from where the non-mil stuff was, but you could overheat it and smack it with hammers and it still worked. A rounding error isn’t primitive software, it is simply a mistake if the processor has the bits to make the more accurate computation. I’ve done enough of this stuff myself to be pretty sure that the folks who did the SW were TOLD what precision was enough, and that was all they provided, opting for speed rather than accuracy. The mistake was that the Scud wasn’t included in the threat matrix.
Not really relevant… the real question is whether you are correct about the military not providing impetus for civilian development. I think that’s a mixed bag myself. Consider DARPA, as it pushes autonomous vehicles (the bus driver’s union and cabbies are gonna hate this one), and the ongoing effort to push bandwidth limits outward.
http://www.darpa.mil/off_programs.html
There’s a lot of civilian applications pulled into this.
However, its a good argument. I reckon the military is funding about half the basic research in the USA though. One way or another.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah, I guess the US military research budget is so big there have to be spin-offs. My field is brown algae – I recall that in the 1970s there was a lot of work on Macrocystis seaweed that was, someone told me, funded by the US military when they realised that Macrocystis forests could hide a submarine from satellites.
I think it would be hard to argue that military research funding is a cost-effective way of advancing technology though, given what small, innovative research groups can do with a little funding.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The US did just that – in fact, they could have had Osama Bin Laden but chose instead to bomb Afghanistan. All the Taleban wanted in return for Osama was that (a) evidence of his involvement in 911 to be presented or, (b) the go-ahead to hand him over to a neutral Islamic state for holding until such evidence was presented.
Face it, the last thing the US wants is for Osama to be killed or captured because he is of far more use in creating a climate of fear than he is in custody.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
BLiP
I think that was what I said.
You’re agreeing with me and telling me to “face it” ???
Think about it.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
DOH!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)