• commentary
  • SATURDAY MARCH 8 2008 10:58 AM

Sci-Fi Techs Versus The Iraq War

Whether you are an advocate of the Iraq War or not, you have to admit that it is extremely costly to be involved in. The cost at the present moment is just under $493 trillion dollars. That's right trillion dollars.

Wired.com recently wrote an article about 10 Sci-Fi Techs We could have if they weren't so expensive. I've put a little spin on it, so the reader can actually get an idea of how much money is being spent on the Iraq War.

These are a few Geek things we could have built for less than what we have spent to date.

A Gundam Meca:

A what? If you're an Anime fan, you know exactly what this is. A Gundam Meca, in non-Anime lingo is basically a giant killer robot.

Someone went ahead and did it: calculate the cost of constructing a military-grade giant robot. The result, when you throw in flexible aluminum alloys, seven engines, thirty helicopter motors and a computer fast-thinking enough to keep it upright.



If you are having trouble imagining it, this should help:



The pictures still doesn't do it justice. The robot is described to be 60 feet (18 meters) in height, and it weighs and estimated 43.4 metric tons.

Cost: $750 Million (non-armed)

We could build an army of them for what we have spent to date on the Iraq War. Granted, they wouldn't be built out of Gundanium, but it would still be pretty cool.

An Orbital Hotel:

A hotel that orbits the earth and can sustain human life.

Leave it to the Brits. After decades of disengagement from human space exploration, it recently reversed its position—to propose a lounge for the station.





Now that would be a cool vacation. Of course a week long vacation orbiting the planet Earth would cost the traveler a cool $10 Million dollars, but having the option would be nice!

Cost: $1.2 Billion

We could have a chain of hotels in space for what we have spent on the Iraq War.

Supersonic Travel and a Maglev NY/LA Express

The Concorde fleet has been decommissioned by British Airways because of the high cost of jet fuel and maintaining the fleet.

With the retirement of Concorde, the only supersonic commuter airliner, 2-hour trips over the Atlantic are a thing of the past. It's perhaps the first tech to go from sci-fi to reality and right back again, all in the space of a generation: no zombie apocalypse required.



The Maglev is basically, a train. A ridiculously fast train:

Maglev carriages, forced along by magnetic fields instead of traditional propulsion systems.....In everyday use, modern Maglev systems manage about 260MPH....



Travel would become quick, no more 9 hour flights, or 24 hour train rides, we could travel the U.S. and abroad in a minimal amount of time. As long as security doesn't hold us up, telling us water is bad.

Cost: $7.6 Billion, if you were to revive and repair 20 Concorde Supersonic Jets and build a Meglev rail from New York to Los Angeles.

We could revive and maintain a fleet of supersonic jets, fuel them and build a super speed train for a fraction of the cost of what we have spent on the Iraq War.

Last, but one I personally would like to see built the most.

A TransAtlantic Tunnel:

What better way to travel from the United States to Europe than a tunnel? No flight delays, no airport, and I would only have to take my shoes off if I wanted to. That and I could finally drive to that SGLondon Event to meet all the girls overseas! (or underseas?)

a sleeper express between London and New York, right? An immersed tube under the Altantic could cost half a billion dollars a mile, about three times the cost of a modern bridge.

We're already looking at about $1.6 trillion dollars, at that burn rate—and this doesn't account for the precipitous drops at the continental shelves, or, indeed, the engineering problem of deep-ocean tunnel immersion.



Isn't it scary that we could build a tunnel at a half a billion dollars a mile, and still not put a dent in what we have spent on the Iraq War?

Even if they were to build it under the sea floor, the traditional way a tunnel is built:

If you're thinking of cutting a tunnel the traditional way, under the sea bed, it gets even crazier. Extrapolating the cost of the Channel Tunnel, built in this fashion, and the price lands somewhere in the $10tn region.



It's $10 Trillion. For what we have spent on the Iraq War, we could build 49 tunnels from New York to London, and still have some change left over.

Cost: $11.6 Trillion if both were constructed (I like options, so we have the above sea floor scenic route, and the underground tunnel route)

Chances are, due to cost, I will probably never see these things implemented in my life time. The goal of this article was to get people to realize how much money we are spending on war, when we could be spending money on things that really matter.

Granted most of the things I have mentioned in this article don't
really matter. Money used on the Iraq War could be put towards better and more helpful things for the human race.

I am by no means an advocate of the Iraq War. I do realize that some of that money spent on a daily basis goes towards our soldiers that were wounded, or unfortunately killed while serving. No amount of money can replace a leg, an arm or psychological damage done.

Money can't replace a lost loved one, and I am sorry that money is all we can offer the family, or the soldier that has served our country. I firmly support every soldier that serves our country, and want to say Thank You.

If you are reading this, and you are not registered to vote, quit wasting time and go register. Please remember, when you are at the polls this year, that things need to change in order for us to stop wasting money and lives. Your vote does count, your vote does matter, you can make a difference.

DevilsReject is looking forward to a new U.S. Administration. He won't tell you who to vote for, but he will say: Yes We Can!

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

Comments
sick

sick

Minneapolis, MN
June 2003

OCT 10, 2008 05:05 PM

scylis said:

Sick said:

scylis said:
you forgot flying cars. it's 2008! past the New Millennium! we were supposed to have flying cars! where where WHERE are the flying cars!?

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
Gundanium! hah! MAD FUCKING PROBS BAD ASS REPORT! mad mad



Fuckers promised me a flying car over 20 years ago.

Since then, I've decided it would be a traffic nightmare, but that's still no reason for them to renege on their promise.

Yes, I considered that. But I don't hold with no know-it-all, thinkin' cars.
Though you can pre-order a Moller Skycar if you like. Ah...never mind; they're no longer taking orders.



actually, they're really heavily working on computer systems built into the autopilot that has pre-programmed flight path corridors, which would make it vastly easier to deal with airborne traffic. look at how Coruscant is portrayed in the last three Star Wars movies. that's actually what they kinda based their idea on. multi-leveled lanes of air traffic regulated and coordinated by computer and autopilot assistance. sure, you don't HAVE to stick to them, but you also don't HAVE to stay on the road... if you don't want to get into trouble, that is.



petepolly

petepolly

Antarctica
August 2008

OCT 10, 2008 06:56 PM

DevilsReject said:

r00kers said:
No matter who is elected, we have not yet finished spending on Iraq. In removing the only local effective counterbalance to Iran, we have committed ourselves to being there for a long long time. This was such an ill conceived, poorly executed piece of military adventurism that the people of this country should ensure that anyone remotely tainted by this nonsense should be turned from office for good. The waste of human life and treasure on Iraq is criminal.



Unfortunately you're right. With the amount we have spent on this war to date, even if we were to do the old "Ron Paul, pull all the troops out of Iraq" move, we'd still be paying for injured/dead soldiers, replacement equipment for National Guard Units (Like Arnold wants in Cali) and equipment in general that would be lost during the removal of troops.

It would cost billions to pull out harshly. It's going to cost billions to remove ourselves from Iraq. This war is going to continuously cost us monetarily for a long, long time.



We 100% agree, but is staying a moment longer than needed to safely withdraw our people actually in the national interest? I think not.

sick

sick

Minneapolis, MN
June 2003

OCT 10, 2008 07:02 PM

Sick said:

scylis said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Sick said:

scylis said:
you forgot flying cars. it's 2008! past the New Millennium! we were supposed to have flying cars! where where WHERE are the flying cars!?

Gundanium! hah! MAD FUCKING PROBS BAD ASS REPORT! mad mad



Fuckers promised me a flying car over 20 years ago.

Since then, I've decided it would be a traffic nightmare, but that's still no reason for them to renege on their promise.

Though you can pre-order a Moller Skycar if you like. Ah...never mind; they're no longer taking orders.



actually, they're really heavily working on computer systems built into the autopilot that has pre-programmed flight path corridors, which would make it vastly easier to deal with airborne traffic. look at how Coruscant is portrayed in the last three Star Wars movies. that's actually what they kinda based their idea on. multi-leveled lanes of air traffic regulated and coordinated by computer and autopilot assistance. sure, you don't HAVE to stick to them, but you also don't HAVE to stay on the road... if you don't want to get into trouble, that is.



Yes, I considered that. But I don't hold with no know-it-all, thinkin' cars.



Fixed. I hate it when I somehow insert my comment into the middle of quoted material.

Varuka_Salt

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost
October 2006

OCT 10, 2008 07:06 PM

petepolly said:

DevilsReject said:

r00kers said:
No matter who is elected, we have not yet finished spending on Iraq. In removing the only local effective counterbalance to Iran, we have committed ourselves to being there for a long long time. This was such an ill conceived, poorly executed piece of military adventurism that the people of this country should ensure that anyone remotely tainted by this nonsense should be turned from office for good. The waste of human life and treasure on Iraq is criminal.



Unfortunately you're right. With the amount we have spent on this war to date, even if we were to do the old "Ron Paul, pull all the troops out of Iraq" move, we'd still be paying for injured/dead soldiers, replacement equipment for National Guard Units (Like Arnold wants in Cali) and equipment in general that would be lost during the removal of troops.

It would cost billions to pull out harshly. It's going to cost billions to remove ourselves from Iraq. This war is going to continuously cost us monetarily for a long, long time.



We 100% agree, but is staying a moment longer than needed to safely withdraw our people actually in the national interest? I think not.



Sheesh, I hate saying this, but correct.. However, we can't just up and leave tomorrow, even if ordered. There's just too much stuff too many people to all move at once. What we need is an exit strategy. Well, that's what it used to be called, now it's called a "time table".

petepolly

petepolly

Antarctica
August 2008

OCT 10, 2008 07:19 PM

Rusty_metal_ass said:

petepolly said:

DevilsReject said:

r00kers said:
No matter who is elected, we have not yet finished spending on Iraq. In removing the only local effective counterbalance to Iran, we have committed ourselves to being there for a long long time. This was such an ill conceived, poorly executed piece of military adventurism that the people of this country should ensure that anyone remotely tainted by this nonsense should be turned from office for good. The waste of human life and treasure on Iraq is criminal.



Unfortunately you're right. With the amount we have spent on this war to date, even if we were to do the old "Ron Paul, pull all the troops out of Iraq" move, we'd still be paying for injured/dead soldiers, replacement equipment for National Guard Units (Like Arnold wants in Cali) and equipment in general that would be lost during the removal of troops.

It would cost billions to pull out harshly. It's going to cost billions to remove ourselves from Iraq. This war is going to continuously cost us monetarily for a long, long time.



We 100% agree, but is staying a moment longer than needed to safely withdraw our people actually in the national interest? I think not.



Sheesh, I hate saying this, but correct.. However, we can't just up and leave tomorrow, even if ordered. There's just too much stuff too many people to all move at once. What we need is an exit strategy. Well, that's what it used to be called, now it's called a "time table".



Like I said, out ASAP getting as few of our folks killed as possible.

My take is to help the nation to split into three to have some semblance of a chance of future peace and leave more weapons and ammo to the Kurds probably (they are the least numerous) but promise no one anything about future military support.

petepolly

petepolly

Antarctica
August 2008

OCT 10, 2008 09:44 PM

scylis said:
you forgot flying cars. it's 2008! past the New Millennium! we were supposed to have flying cars! where where WHERE are the flying cars!?

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
Gundanium! hah! MAD FUCKING PROBS BAD ASS REPORT! mad mad



Flying cars are physically possible. The real issue with them is liability. As a professor of aeronautical engineering I once knew said, the problem with aircraft compared with automobiles is that if you crash, the slowest possible speed you will be going is the stall speed of the aircraft. Which even for fairly light planes is like 50mph, and that crash will be with the ground.

The issue with liability drove a lot of aircraft manufacturers out of business in the '50s and '60, and the rest had to raise prices a lot and get pricey insurance. The cost of manufacture of the plane is not that big of a deal, it is that liability of any accident totaling the plane and a better than even chance of killing someone, and the widows and orphans never accept that it is almost always pilot error.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next