Homepage Forums General Transition Issues Military Effects

Viewing 5 posts - 16 through 20 (of 20 total)
  • Author
  • #2906

    And just because it can and I believe will, be used in weapons systems, does not imply I think it will make war more likely, or more dangerous. Or that FF is “Bad” or should be avoided.

    I agree that reducing the importance of oil and providing cheaper, more abundant energy will GREATLY reduce world tensions. And reductions in poverty that would be a “byproduct” of FF will also make for a more peaceful and less violent world.

    These are all good things.

    But we are a long way from a “Star Trek” utopia and military force is a fact of life. And this is not always just the military force used by legitimate governments. Even tiny groups (Oklahoma City bomber) can use force.


    But the Adminstater did/t said anyrthing about possibility to use FF as strong sourse of neutrons if another gases mix is used. And with it you could create cobalt-60 for radiological attacks.

    AvatarBrian H

    Just a bit of a correction for those who have been depending on the Mass Media for their news: the Iraq adventure is going swimmingly, with the CF and central government having basically hammered AQ and the Shiite militias into the ground. The much maligned “Surge” worked like a charm. Iraq is on track to get filthy rich with oil, which some estimates now put at 260 bn bbl reserves, more than Saudi Arabia. Etc., etc. There’s a reason Iraq has vanished from the headlines.

    Now, as to military uses, the availability of unlimited power sources will have the equipment and armament makers burning the midnight oil. Whether any of that stuff gets used is an open question, but there are huge variables at play. Consider: China’s world-wide push to obtain energy supplies will quickly come to an end. Putin’s oil-fueled nationalist autocracy will go bust. Every ME oil-rich country will desperately be “diversifying” their assets to try to figure how to stay on the (a) gravy train for the foreseeable future.

    That’s just for starters.

    ONE DAY after FF announces p-B11 success, the world changes.


    This is a very interesting topic. I wish I would have included some of these issues in my thesis about energy security. As a C-130 pilot I can tell you that using FF as a aircraft power source would be a long way off. Aircraft are not designed and built overnight. The engineering for the engine alone would pose a significant challenge. Unlimited fuel on the other hand would propose a significant carrot for certain aircraft (but not all by any means). Considering that upgrades for current aircraft can take a decade to complete I wouldn’t expect a untested power plant to be brought into service for a while. The cost of developing this power plant would be significant and may prove cost prohibitive for decades to come. However, just as the military seeks to remove people from cockpits to reduce costs, eliminating fuel costs could promote the engineering enough to provide a break through.

    Some see the military exploitation of the FF reactor and are wise to investigate such risks, but the world already has the ability to end human life on the planet yet refrains from such acts as the will to live seems to over rule such actions. Focusing on how to avoid exploitation is worth wile but I wouldn’t spend as much time on this as the potential benefits.

    As for the idea of stealth satellites, there are barely enough spaces in the useful orbits for what we have now. How is something that is undetectable going to be immune from the owner of the position putting something in said space? You wouldn’t want your 500 billion dollar stealth satellite turned into space junk by another commercial satellite trying to take it’s place.

    There are more questions than answers at this point but they all warrant investigation and discussion.

    AvatarBrian H

    Rematog wrote: An Orion is a US Naval Aviation aircraft, a Lockheed P-3 Orion, used primarily for anti-submarine warfare.

    One resource is of course, land. In any foreseeable near term, land for growing food will be in ever greater demand. As Samuel Clemens said “Invest in Land, they’ve quit making it.” Another is political power.

    One con hope that in the future, we can move past war. It has gotten just too dang dangerous.

    But, that is hope for the future. The reality today is that we need to be able to defend ourselves. If you want peace, prepare for war.

    WAY more than you want to know about the Orion:
    http://www.answers.com/topic/p-3-orion :cheese:

    About food: with cheap power and clean water, vertical farms can grow food in any quantity desired. With clean water, arid land can be made to “bloom” as has been done in Israel, but on a huge scale. Clean water ends world hunger. And no, population will not Mathusianly expand to absorb the extra. All experience and data to date shows the opposite: security and plenty cuts population, even below replacement fertility levels. Humans do not respond like wolves or deer or rabbits.

    War will be over status and power, and the need of some ideologues to plan us all into their utopian visions — over which they will be in charge, of course. Just ask Barry!

    Which reminds me; above, it was commented that the desire to live had restrained humans from blasting themselves with nukes. Which is the reason the Iranian theocracy mustn’t get them. They (claim they) don’t care about survival, as long as they have Prepared The Way for the 12th Imam’s return. In fact, the more preparatory slaughter, the better. If you don’t believe me, just ask A-jad or Rezwan.

Viewing 5 posts - 16 through 20 (of 20 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.