What if the money spent on Iraq war were spent on space exploration?

"William December Starr" wrote
Shouldn't be that difficult a calculation. How much were we
spending per month on maintaing the embargo and the no-fly zone
interdiction?


How much was Saddam spending to subvert and evade the embargo?
Do you think he was just wasting all that money?

Plus how much would we have spent on Libya's A-bomb program once
we found out about it, say, about 2005?

"kT" wrote
Well, let's see ... ~ 2900 soldiers. What's the going rate for some
mother's son, hundred grand or so on the body parts market?

Compared to how many soldiers dead if we didn't go to war --
say, compared to 1994, or 1996?

In article ,
"Jim Oberg" said:

"William December Starr" wrote

Shouldn't be that difficult a calculation. How much were we
spending per month on maintaing the embargo and the no-fly zone
interdiction?

How much was Saddam spending to subvert and evade the embargo? Do
you think he was just wasting all that money?

You asked what the cost of not invading Iraq would have been. I
answered your question.

--
William December Starr

William December Starr schreef:

In article . com,
"tracy" said:

The costs of Operation Iraqi Liberation are now at $322 billion

So if that was all in new $100 bills, how many shuttle launches
would it have taken to put it all into orbit?

(No, I don't know why I'm asking that. It just seemed an
appropriately wonky response.)

--
William December Starr

Exactly as many as there are shuttles, or until they figure out that
the crews take all that money to a nice, warm country where they have
no extradition treaty with the US? ;-)

VGer47 - Sorry, couldn't resist.

"William December Starr" wrote
You asked what the cost of not invading Iraq would have been. I
answered your question.

I don't think you did, because
you did not address the costs of things that
were happening and coming to a head if
Saddam (and the A.Q. Khan A-bomb network)
stayed in free operation.

Jim Oberg schrieb:

How much was Saddam spending to subvert and evade the embargo?
Do you think he was just wasting all that money?

That was a no-risk business. He shipped the oil out, right in sight of
the US Navy.

Karl M. Syring

P.R. Vanfleet wrote:
All the money we wasted and are still wasting on Iraq should have been
invested in the research and application of nano-technology.. The
advent of nano technology will open the way for many new previously
unheard of possibilities including sending colonists to the moon and
mars.. Not to mention eradicating most aliments that plague humanity
today..


First, nanotech, like nuclear power, biotech and other technologies
are two-edge swords. Some pretty nasty weapons and other negative
applications become practical or possible that wern't before. (but also
like those technologies, shouldn't be over-hyped)

Second, there's a phrase; 'You cannot create a baby in one month, by
impregnating nine women.' Perhaps molecular nanotechnology could use
more government funding and will get results somewhat sooner (though
increasing results of existing research will tend to open the VC
floodgates...no one will want to miss that train, once it's clearly
starting), but don't assume that endless blank checks will make it
happen sooner still. Such things only invite waste, and a culture of
research and development without results. There have been aerospace
programs that tend to prove that. (the increasingly warped use of the
very word 'nanotechnology' away from the sort of molecular-scale
assembling machines you probably mean, also shows how the money could be
diluted into intersting, but not the intended directions)

"Those whom the gods would destroy, they first give unlimited resources."
- Twyla Tharp



--

Frank

You know what to remove to reply...

Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm

"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the
human spirit."
- Stephen Hawking

All technologies, and just technology its self is a double edged
sword by nature.. this is granted, and every innovation mankind has
ever developed and put to use is a double edged weapon.. Many Americans
are very suspicious and mistrustful of future technologies, such as
universal assemblers, robots, cybernetic consciousness, AI, space
travel, MMI.. just about any technology that is not familiar can scare
the average individual. Authors of Sci-Fi and films of the like have
not helped Americans get over their apprehension and fear of progress..
Terminator, The Matrix, and the works of the great Sci Fi authors like
to paint a dark, alien, cold, future where technology runs amuck and
destroys the human race..
This is a very successful mechanism because it plays of the fearful
nature of most people when they think about future technology. Mankind
fears what he does not understand..
It would be a travesty to ignore or refuse funding and subsidization to
the development of future technology because its a 'double edged
sword'.
I cant really comment on the irrational way this administration spends
its money. NASA missions are hampered by the fact that most space
missions require a greater level of technology to be very successful at
colonizing space, or just being able to make routine orbital flights
more cost effective and safe.
Molecular assemblers would make all of NASA's endeavor much much
cheaper and much more viable.
Frank Glover wrote:
P.R. Vanfleet wrote:
All the money we wasted and are still wasting on Iraq should have been
invested in the research and application of nano-technology.. The
advent of nano technology will open the way for many new previously
unheard of possibilities including sending colonists to the moon and
mars.. Not to mention eradicating most aliments that plague humanity
today..


First, nanotech, like nuclear power, biotech and other technologies
are two-edge swords. Some pretty nasty weapons and other negative
applications become practical or possible that wern't before. (but also
like those technologies, shouldn't be over-hyped)

Second, there's a phrase; 'You cannot create a baby in one month, by
impregnating nine women.' Perhaps molecular nanotechnology could use
more government funding and will get results somewhat sooner (though
increasing results of existing research will tend to open the VC
floodgates...no one will want to miss that train, once it's clearly
starting), but don't assume that endless blank checks will make it
happen sooner still. Such things only invite waste, and a culture of
research and development without results. There have been aerospace
programs that tend to prove that. (the increasingly warped use of the
very word 'nanotechnology' away from the sort of molecular-scale
assembling machines you probably mean, also shows how the money could be
diluted into intersting, but not the intended directions)

"Those whom the gods would destroy, they first give unlimited resources."
- Twyla Tharp



--

Frank

You know what to remove to reply...

Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm

"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the
human spirit."
- Stephen Hawking

In article ,
"Jim Oberg" said:

You asked what the cost of not invading Iraq would have been. I
answered your question.

I don't think you did, because you did not address the costs of
things that were happening and coming to a head if Saddam (and the
A.Q. Khan A-bomb network) stayed in free operation.

Hmm. Even Bush no longer tries to sell Weapons of Mass Destruction
Related Projects as having been a valid reason for invading Iraq.

As far as I know, no A-bomb project in Iraq was anywhere near
approaching the same time zone as a head, let along coming to one.
(Saddam Hussein may have believed that his people were making great
strides towards that goal, but that's just because of a combination
of him being half-crazy and his people being terrified of giving him
any bad news.)

--
William December Starr

On 3 Dec 2006 00:47:52 -0500, in a place far, far away,
(William December Starr) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
"Jim Oberg" said:

You asked what the cost of not invading Iraq would have been. I
answered your question.

I don't think you did, because you did not address the costs of
things that were happening and coming to a head if Saddam (and the
A.Q. Khan A-bomb network) stayed in free operation.

Hmm. Even Bush no longer tries to sell Weapons of Mass Destruction
Related Projects as having been a valid reason for invading Iraq.

Of course he does, because it was, given the available intelligence at
the time.