6 ms·

The US spends more than $850B every single year on the military. If a tiny fraction of that was spent in gaining complete energy independence, it would pay for

The US spends more than $850B every single year on the military. If a tiny fraction of that was spent in gaining complete energy independence, it would pay for itself in that we wouldn't need as big of a military.

reubenswartz 8y ago
A wonderful thought, but the size of the military budget is a feature, not a bug, for those who allocate it.
- jacobush 8y ago
  Maybe we can get the military industrial complex into the nuclear industrial complex instead? Though one must be careful what one is wishing for I guess.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    From the "Schlock Mercenary" web comic: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a really big gun." Yes, be careful what you wish for.
  - reubenswartz 8y ago
    For the trillions we have flushed down the drain in the Middle East, we could have weaned ourselves off foreign oil with renewables, without even getting into nuclear. Sadly, it goes back to the “feature, not a big” thing. :(
_iyig 8y ago
It may surprise you to hear that the U.S. is on track for energy independence by 2022, based on increased American oil and gas production (third-biggest oil producing country in the world) and flat domestic demand. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/07/united-states-will-be-a-net-energy-exporter.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/07/united-states-will-be-a-net-...
- gameswithgo 8y ago
  Yes, but that won't last very long.
  - pitaj 8y ago
    What do you mean?
    - api 8y ago
      Oil and gas are non-renewable.
    - jhallenworld 8y ago
      He probably means this: https://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/energy/environmental-costs-benefits-fracking https://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/energy/e... Initial production after fracking is high, but drops off fast.
    - Coincoin 8y ago
      “The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”
    - gameswithgo 8y ago
      There is a fixed amount of oil in the earth. The next barrel of oil is always harder to get at than the last. The USA had a major technical revolution in getting fracking to work, and the price of oil got high enough for it to be profitable, and we did something amazing and are pumping a ton more oil than we were previously. Eventually that frackable oil will run low again too. The price of oil will go up, making perhaps new reserves proftable, maybe those won't be int he USA, or maybe solar/wind will be more attractive than oil at that point. it is unknown! but we certainly shouldn't make long term 10-20-50 year plans on the assumption that the USA will be energy independent due to oil.
maxxxxx 8y ago
Pumping a few billion into fusion research would also be a great jobs program to train highly qualified people.
eloff 8y ago
Not to get too far off track, but I always thought in a magical alternate universe in which I could make US policy, I'd modernize the nuclear Arsenal and ditch spending on everything else in the military. Couldn't play global policeman anymore, but nobody seems grateful to the US for that anyway. And let's face it, if it really came to a confrontation with another world power, it will end in nuclear war even if it doesn't start out like that. It seems to me that everyone is still fighting the last war. Why do you need conventional forces in a nuclear world?
- ant6n 8y ago
  Influence is gained and lost in proxy wars
- Misdicorl 8y ago
  Global police isn't the goal it's the method. The goal is influence and access to global resources.
- pdonis 8y ago
  > Why do you need conventional forces in a nuclear world? Because you don't want your only options for dealing with other countries to be "do nothing" and "start a nuclear war".
  - eloff 8y ago
    What's wrong with do nothing? What business is of the US what happens in the rest of the world? I mean as much as people criticize the role they played, I think the world is better off for it. But it's a thankless job. Turning inward and leaving the world to go as it will is a valid strategy. Perhaps even the best one for the US. Nukes are good enough for self defense.
    - hulahoof 8y ago
      Would you fire the nukes if a non-mainland territory like Guam or Puerto Rico was invaded? What if the invaders are non-nuclear armed? There is a wide range of responses between nothing and total nuclear annihilation, even without world police status.
lifeformed 8y ago
One thing I think about is how boring and unambitious our institutions are. Apple has a quarter trillion in cash just sitting around. They could develop fusion or build some space stations. Bezos has 150B. We are spending a trillion on some shitty planes. The big money holders only think about incrementing some integers in their bank account. Yeah, yeah, I know why. It's just so... lame. Build a moon colony! Cure cancer! Create free energy! Make experimental cities! Push the limits of human civilization! No, let's instead dump the fruits of society into optimizing ads and making our phones 20 microns thinner and bombing some poor people.
- DennisP 8y ago
  Bezos is spending a billion a year on colonizing space.

reubenswartz 8y ago

A wonderful thought, but the size of the military budget is a feature, not a bug, for those who allocate it.

jacobush 8y ago
Maybe we can get the military industrial complex into the nuclear industrial complex instead? Though one must be careful what one is wishing for I guess.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  From the "Schlock Mercenary" web comic: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a really big gun." Yes, be careful what you wish for.
- reubenswartz 8y ago
  For the trillions we have flushed down the drain in the Middle East, we could have weaned ourselves off foreign oil with renewables, without even getting into nuclear. Sadly, it goes back to the “feature, not a big” thing. :(

_iyig 8y ago

It may surprise you to hear that the U.S. is on track for energy independence by 2022, based on increased American oil and gas production (third-biggest oil producing country in the world) and flat domestic demand. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/07/united-states-will-be-a-net-energy-exporter.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/07/united-states-will-be-a-net-...

gameswithgo 8y ago
Yes, but that won't last very long.
- pitaj 8y ago
  What do you mean?
  - api 8y ago
    Oil and gas are non-renewable.
  - jhallenworld 8y ago
    He probably means this: https://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/energy/environmental-costs-benefits-fracking https://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/energy/e... Initial production after fracking is high, but drops off fast.
  - Coincoin 8y ago
    “The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”
  - gameswithgo 8y ago
    There is a fixed amount of oil in the earth. The next barrel of oil is always harder to get at than the last. The USA had a major technical revolution in getting fracking to work, and the price of oil got high enough for it to be profitable, and we did something amazing and are pumping a ton more oil than we were previously. Eventually that frackable oil will run low again too. The price of oil will go up, making perhaps new reserves proftable, maybe those won't be int he USA, or maybe solar/wind will be more attractive than oil at that point. it is unknown! but we certainly shouldn't make long term 10-20-50 year plans on the assumption that the USA will be energy independent due to oil.

maxxxxx 8y ago

Pumping a few billion into fusion research would also be a great jobs program to train highly qualified people.

eloff 8y ago

Not to get too far off track, but I always thought in a magical alternate universe in which I could make US policy, I'd modernize the nuclear Arsenal and ditch spending on everything else in the military. Couldn't play global policeman anymore, but nobody seems grateful to the US for that anyway. And let's face it, if it really came to a confrontation with another world power, it will end in nuclear war even if it doesn't start out like that. It seems to me that everyone is still fighting the last war. Why do you need conventional forces in a nuclear world?

ant6n 8y ago
Influence is gained and lost in proxy wars
Misdicorl 8y ago
Global police isn't the goal it's the method. The goal is influence and access to global resources.
pdonis 8y ago
> Why do you need conventional forces in a nuclear world? Because you don't want your only options for dealing with other countries to be "do nothing" and "start a nuclear war".
- eloff 8y ago
  What's wrong with do nothing? What business is of the US what happens in the rest of the world? I mean as much as people criticize the role they played, I think the world is better off for it. But it's a thankless job. Turning inward and leaving the world to go as it will is a valid strategy. Perhaps even the best one for the US. Nukes are good enough for self defense.
  - hulahoof 8y ago
    Would you fire the nukes if a non-mainland territory like Guam or Puerto Rico was invaded? What if the invaders are non-nuclear armed? There is a wide range of responses between nothing and total nuclear annihilation, even without world police status.

lifeformed 8y ago

One thing I think about is how boring and unambitious our institutions are. Apple has a quarter trillion in cash just sitting around. They could develop fusion or build some space stations. Bezos has 150B. We are spending a trillion on some shitty planes. The big money holders only think about incrementing some integers in their bank account. Yeah, yeah, I know why. It's just so... lame. Build a moon colony! Cure cancer! Create free energy! Make experimental cities! Push the limits of human civilization! No, let's instead dump the fruits of society into optimizing ads and making our phones 20 microns thinner and bombing some poor people.

DennisP 8y ago
Bezos is spending a billion a year on colonizing space.