It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do we want a defense contractor controling fusion?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Not the military sector and the government!

Private companies owned by the American public!




posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Many things are in the hands of "contractors." Therefore, the government can claim to know nothing about it. No FOIA. Nothing, ... ever.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
Private companies owned by the American public!


I own Lockheed shares, it is a strong performer.





edit on 17-1-2016 by AugustusMasonicus because: never go in against a Sicilian with death is on the line



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion




Private companies owned by the American public!

www.google.com...



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You'll do well if they get this pup up and running.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
You'll do well if they get this pup up and running.


I hope they do. I have been doing business with Lockheed's Energy Division for some time, they are a solid company.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Q33323
a reply to: onequestion

Many things are in the hands of "contractors." Therefore, the government can claim to know nothing about it. No FOIA. Nothing, ... ever.


I know. When I was stationed in China Lake I learned that the Military does nothing but test new equipment that is developed in labs they don't have access too.

How weird is that?



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Baldryck

Yeah but their a defense contractor they are using government money.

How did you miss that?

I don't want the military industrial complex controling everything!

Sooooo thick!

I feel like I'm talking to children!


I am not certain I deserved being called thick or a child. I was just answering your questions. They are a private sector company.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Baldryck

Yeah but their a defense contractor they are using government money.

How did you miss that?


Nobody is "missing" that. Boeing makes 747s. They also make F-16s. By virtue of the latter they are deemed a "defense contractor" but that doesn't mean a 747 is a secret military weapon.


I don't want the military industrial complex controling everything! Sooooo thick! I feel like I'm talking to children!


Feeling that superior, are you? I see no basis for that. You are not exhibiting any particular erudition in your understanding here. For example, you completely failed in understanding what a "private sector" company even is above. What you are apparently failing to understand is that research in this area can only be done by large companies with sufficient resources to do so. Most any large company is likely to be engaged in some sort of defense contracting as part of its business. There really are no other companies with sufficient capitalization and resources to do so, though nothing is stopping anyone if some odd billionaire wishes to embark upon it. Lockheed has the right to pursue business opportunities and does not need your permission to do so.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Uh oh. SpaceX is now a "defense contractor."
Just got an Air Force development contract.
www.defense.gov...

I guess that mean they will control space flight.


edit on 1/17/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   
When I was in high school.. many years ago. I asked my science teacher why are there no longer any ground breaking inventors. The ones who we all read about in our history books. He told me the one who harnesses fusion safely will be the next one. Years later it is happening and I find it very exciting. I don't mind who does it, I am just happy it is happening.

It will be good for humanity.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Baldryck

How do you know it's going to be good for humanity?

You honestly trust the military industrial complex to remain benevolent forever?

They already start wars, the same wars their technology is bought and used for!
edit on 1/17/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion
Yes. A compact fusion reactor would be used to make war. Powering warships and warplanes.
It would also be used to power cities.

Two edges. Name a ground breaking technology which does not have the same.


edit on 1/17/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

I don't know it will. I *do* know I can't control that aspect of it. I am along for the ride like everyone else. It is clean energy. We already have fusion for dastardly purposes, it has never been used though in that capacity. So, I suppose I will look at the optimistic angle of controlled fusion.

Glass half full.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion

Do we want Lockheed in control?


Hell yes. Better them than Boeing, Boeing can be a pain to work with. I like Lockheed.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Phage

Oh great who cares.

Do we want Lockheed in control?

I don't want a defense contractor as one of the most powerful entities on the planet if they do something crazy wth energy.


You don't seem to understand, the military industrial sector has had the fusion market cornered since the Ivy Mike shot in 1952.

I understand we are talking about using controlled, sustained fusion to power rather than destroy the public infrastructure but still, your indignation is a little naive.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Drunkenparrot

It's not naive it's something the public needs to take into consideration when paying taxes.

Do we want to invest in that against our own best interests?

Hell I wish they'd stop taking my money so I could personally invest into a company that wants to do it.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Whats the difference, Apple is in control of 80% of everything......

Bro wtf has happened to you... your reasoning seems to be by the wayside.....

I've been here 8 years now, and let me tell you, sometimes you need a break from ATS, your time has come my friend, go and do the things you love, and come back when your Mojo returns....

Godspeed!!!! (from an aethiest)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

A company wants to do it. And they are. I am failing to see your disconnect. If someone other than the aforementioned company developed it. Do you not think the government will acquire the technology from them and use it for their purposes as well?



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion




Hell I wish they'd stop taking my money so I could personally invest into a company that wants to do it.

Like who, for instance? A youtube guy?

If you paid no taxes, how much would you invest in that company? How would you feel about it if they couldn't get it to work?

edit on 1/17/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join