We have often marveled at the extraordinary discoveries and pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope. However, a panel of the House Appropriations Committee Science has moved to cut the successor to Hubble — the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). It is part of a $1.6 billion cut into NASA — an agency already slashed deeply in prior budgets.
The Webb telescope is designed look deeper into space than the Hubble. Its launch is now delayed. It is 75 percent complete, but could now be scrapped.
House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said “given this time of fiscal crisis, it is also important that Congress make tough decisions to cut programs where necessary to give priority to programs with broad national reach that have the most benefit to the American people.”
I understand that sentiment but why not make the tough decision to cut funding for our three wars? The Obama Administration has just burned over $1 billion on our latest war. We are literally burning away our scientific and educational foundations to pay for these wars.
Source: The Hill
I believe that the decision on the JWST is shortsighted. It is not possible to do a cost-benefit analysis on that project. That is the nature of exploration. And it makes no sense to halt the project this far along.
Gyges
1, July 8, 2011 at 10:16 am
If only history showed what happened to empires that focus on constant military expansion.
That was so good it’s worth repeating.
Getting back to the topic of the blog. It is almost criminal that we are sacrificing the infrastructure of this country–the telescope and other space projects being a part of that–on the altar of militarism. The Chickenhawks are winning.
Actually, once proven wrong, you’ve tried to change your question because you didn’t like the answer.
Which is your typical troll M.O.
Too bad it doesn’t ever work for you.
Military conquest doesn’t lead to an “the empire expanding” as per my question.
Or does the desire for conquest lead to an expanded military? Which then leads to empire trouble? You seem to be suggesting a causality that appears to be backward.
Ours tend to have a mission.
Except apparently in the U.S. And that is because you have taken yourself far afield of the original question, trying to prove a point that no one is trying to make. Which is your typical M.O.
How about you enlighten us about how three wars somehow don’t constitution military conquest because they don’t involve annexation?
Also, great job in defeating yourself once again.
“Name a few empires that have collapsed because 1. their military merely expanded in size and without 2. the empire expanding due to military conquest.
Though 1 often leads to 2 or perhaps the desire for 2 leads to 1.
But I don’t see too many, if any, historical examples of empires collapsing only having 1.”
The reason you don’t see many empires collapsing solely from having an expanding military is found in your fundamental strategic and tactical ignorance, your pitiful distorted understanding of history, and in the fallacy of your second statement: “Though 1 often leads to 2 or perhaps the desire for 2 leads to 1.” The fallacy is in your choice of the word “often”. An expanded military always leads to conquest. The question is whether that conquest is externally directed or internally directed.
You think there are no countries that have fallen because due in part or in whole to the expansion of their military?
Having a military that is larger than your self-defense but stagnant in operation needs leads to ennui in the military class. Let me help you with that word. Ennui means “a feeling of weariness and dissatisfaction : boredom”. This dissatisfaction and boredom comes from the nature of military power and utilization. If you have enough mission to keep your forces busy, you don’t get ennui. If you have an excess of power, those who run the military will desire to use it because that is human nature: if you have power, you will tend to use it. This in turn leads to one of two inevitable outcomes for an expansive military: conquest or junta.
You don’t think having a larger military than you absolutely need has ever brought down a contributed to the downfall of a country or government?
I think Thailand, Burma, Haiti, El Salvador, Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, Mauritania, Peru, Nigeria, Liberia and the Roman Republic would beg to differ. Their military leaders, with no external focus and/or upon seeing a weakness in the civilian governments, turned on their own citizens out of ego and boredom in their military leadership. A junta or coup is nothing more than an internal conquest – an invasion of self. History shows that large standing armies are inherently dangerous absent a specific mission and sometimes even then.
Are there any other topics you’d like to display your blatant ignorance about other than English, political science, science, law or history (including military history)?
Obviously, you’re missing the nuance in context.
Name a few empires that have collapsed because 1. their military merely expanded in size and without 2. the empire expanding due to military conquest.
Though 1 often leads to 2 or perhaps the desire for 2 leads to 1.
But I don’t see too many, if any, historical examples of empires collapsing only having 1.
And as a result I suspect Gyges meant 2, not 1.
But until Gyges weighs in, why don’t you enlighten us.
grow \ˈgrō\, v., v.i.,
1a : to spring up and develop to maturity b : to be able to grow in some place or situation c : to assume some relation through or as if through a process of natural growth
2a : to increase in size by assimilation of material into the living organism or by accretion of material in a nonbiological process (as crystallization) b : increase, expand
3: to develop from a parent source
4a : to pass into a condition : become b : to have an increasing influence c : to become increasingly acceptable or attractive
expand \ik-ˈspand\, v.i.,
1: to grow larger
Emphasis added for the hard of understanding.
synonym \ˈsi-nə-ˌnim\, n.,
1: one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses
I see that you are still having issues with the English language and the meaning of words, aren’t you, kdetroll. Mainly that you don’t know what words mean and/or you make up definitions as you go alone. Have you ever considered writing in your native language? Which is, of course . . .
DownEastLiberator,
“The committee chair is from Kentucky, a state that does not believe in science…. nuff said.”
Whatchootalkinabout?
They have a wonderful science museum there!!! Check it out:
http://creationmuseum.org/
The committee chair is from Kentucky, a state that does not believe in science…. nuff said.
“That defense-related spending in the United States is at its highest inflation-adjusted level since World War II speaks directly to military expansion.”
Actually, it speaks directly to military growth, not expansion.
And as a function of GDP, it isn’t exactly growing.
AY,
“You don’t need no stinkin edumcation….”
Mebbe not–but does that also mean we can’t haz a new space telescope?
That defense-related spending in the United States is at its highest inflation-adjusted level since World War II speaks directly to military expansion. As in expanding the military. To suggest that the only measure of militarism or expansion of military action is the annexation of land shows a childishly narrow and simplistic understanding of both the nature of the military and its uses. But that’s what happens when people make up their own definitions like ol’ kdetroll there so loves to do. They end up looking like someone who garnered their understanding of the military from playing a game of Risk once as a child.
You don’t need no stinkin edumcation….
It’s one thing to say we should not be involved in a bunch of dopey wars; it’s quite another to say that we are constantly expanding by use of the military. have we annexed any place recently/
Back in the good old days, empires conquered lands to blled them dry. We “conquer” lands to bleed us dry.
If only history showed what happened to empires that focus on constant military expansion.
More is spent on air conditioning for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than the entire budget of NASA.
All of this is a tad bit insane wouldn’t you say?
We need to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq. They do not want us there, they are killing our troops with increasingly ingenious IEDs, and our government and military is not learning from history. It is said that Afghanistan is where empires go to die. The previous casualty was the Soviet Union, and we are going to be next if the military industrial complex does not back off.
Old men who did not serve are using these wars as a sick sort of hobby while the infrastructure of the USA is crumbling. I thought I was voting for a modern day FDR, and am disappointed to find I voted for a modern day Neville Chamberlain.
LK:
From my new info source the”radio”,there’s a lot of discussion about Social Security being totally separate since we the citizens contribute to Social Security,and Al Gores “lock box ” statement when he was running for President.
Let’ just take more money from Medicare and Social Security to cover the NASA shortfall since they’re on the table. Sorry, Professor, defense isn’t on the table and neither is anything more than a few egregious corporate loopholes. Maybe next time. Bah, humbug.
The talking head shows on TV were interesting last night, many of the Democrats that were interviewed including Pelosi, seemed to have not recovered from the news that the scope of the reductions had been doubled from 2 to 4 trillion and no real pledge for cooperation on revenue increases was forthcoming from The Republicans. Pelosi was still firm that Social Security would remain intact though.
Maybe if we replaced the private contractors guarding the Embassy in Kabul with Marines we could save 250+ million a year. If we threw in the 7.5 millions in fines these clowns have to pay there’s a good 250/280 million to shift to NASA:
http://civiliancontractors.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/state-department-axes-guard-firm-for-kabul-embassy/