3 ms·

Do not want to argue with the main thrust of your argument (because I agree with it), but at least part of the reason why people had an issue with the NIF as en

Do not want to argue with the main thrust of your argument (because I agree with it), but at least part of the reason why people had an issue with the NIF as energy research, but less so as a nuclear test simulator is because the NIF as a device is pretty clearly designed to simulate nuclear detonations. If the problem is "you're wasting taxpayer money", the issue isn't the dollar amount spent, its the return on the money. As a science experiment, the return of the NIF is probably pretty crappy. As a nuclear arms tester, its almost invaluable (infinite return!!!) if you accept the dual propositions that America should obey its nuclear test treaties obligations, and that America gains significant benefits from maintaining their nuclear arsenal. The NIF was clearly built to maintain America's nuclear arms capabilities, both in providing employment to nuclear physicists, as well as maintaining the viability of the current stockpile. It was practically transparent from the beginning.

twelvechairs 13y ago
there's two ways you can take 'return on investment' - the wholistic qualitative way (if x has a tiny chance of improving the whole world then its worth it) or the narrow quantitative way (once we research it, we'l probably have to give x away basically for free and its is likely not to work out anyway and will take years so its practically valueless to our organisation on this years financial model). unfortunately the latter is used almost exclusively. even in public organisations who should be able to take the broader of public good.
- chc 13y ago
  "Return on investment" generally means what you get back for what you put in. Both quality and quantity matter and I think this is often recognized, but if you're getting essentially nothing, it doesn't matter what quality of nothing you get.
  - twelvechairs 13y ago
    yeah - perhaps to better word what I said 'return on investment' for a public body should include a broad definition of 'what you get back' as in 'what the public gets back' not just 'what the agency gets back'. the latter is generally easier to quantify and easy to quantify things are easy to consider and contrast.
DennisP 13y ago
It's not quite that clearcut. Since the 1970s a lot of fusion scientists have been keenly interested in laser fusion for power production. It's just that they had to give the program a military justification in order to get funding. Source: Search for the Ultimate Energy Source: A History of the U.S. Fusion Energy Program, by Stephen O. Dean, who was a major figure in the U.S. fusion program.

twelvechairs 13y ago

there's two ways you can take 'return on investment' - the wholistic qualitative way (if x has a tiny chance of improving the whole world then its worth it) or the narrow quantitative way (once we research it, we'l probably have to give x away basically for free and its is likely not to work out anyway and will take years so its practically valueless to our organisation on this years financial model). unfortunately the latter is used almost exclusively. even in public organisations who should be able to take the broader of public good.

chc 13y ago
"Return on investment" generally means what you get back for what you put in. Both quality and quantity matter and I think this is often recognized, but if you're getting essentially nothing, it doesn't matter what quality of nothing you get.
- twelvechairs 13y ago
  yeah - perhaps to better word what I said 'return on investment' for a public body should include a broad definition of 'what you get back' as in 'what the public gets back' not just 'what the agency gets back'. the latter is generally easier to quantify and easy to quantify things are easy to consider and contrast.

DennisP 13y ago

It's not quite that clearcut. Since the 1970s a lot of fusion scientists have been keenly interested in laser fusion for power production. It's just that they had to give the program a military justification in order to get funding. Source: Search for the Ultimate Energy Source: A History of the U.S. Fusion Energy Program, by Stephen O. Dean, who was a major figure in the U.S. fusion program.