
White House earmarks over $1B for quantum technology research - rbanffy
https://thenextweb.com/politics/2018/07/09/white-house-earmarks-over-1b-for-quantum-technology-research/
======
blhack
To put that in perspective, it's about 5% of NASA's yearly budget.

I know I lose a lot of "cool kids points" for saying this, but I am seriously
excited about both this, and the idea of a "space force". IT seems like we're
spending real money on giant engineering projects! Love it!

~~~
hospes
What is a "space force"? And why we need any kind of weapons in space? There
are already enough weapons to destroy every living thing on Earth multiple
times, what makes you excited about new military spending?

~~~
brandonmenc
> What is a "space force"?

We already have a "space force" \- the Air Force - which was spun out of the
Army. It's not odd to spin out the Space Force from the Air Force, if
necessary.

> And why we need any kind of weapons in space?

Because other nations want to or are in the process of weaponizing space.

The first time someone knocks out one of our GPS satellites, you'll be asking,
"why don't we have a Space Force to protect against this sort of thing?"

Everyone's favorite rational pop scientist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, thinks it's
"not a weird idea." [0]

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NEcxhPh7js](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NEcxhPh7js)

~~~
hospes
>>The first time someone knocks out one of our GPS satellites, you'll be
asking, "why don't we have a Space Force to protect against this sort of
thing?"

It is extremely unlikely that someone will start knocking down US satellites,
that would be an equivalent of attacking US, that never happened after
invention of nuclear weapons. To spend billions to prepare for extremely
unlikely event does not seem to be very rational thing to do. Meanwhile there
are serious problems facing country and humanity in general global worming,
automation takes away millions of jobs, opioid crisis, millions of people
without health insurance, school system that has major issues.

>> Everyone's favorite rational pop scientist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, thinks
it's "not a weird idea."

Yes, Neil gets exited when space gets any attention.

~~~
blhack
>that never happened after invention of nuclear weapons

>To spend billions to prepare for extremely unlikely event does not seem to be
very rational thing to do.

Nuclear weapons were not free to develop.

~~~
hospes
They are already developed. Money is already spent.

~~~
blhack
Couldn't the same argument have been made for the first person to develop gun
powder? Boats? Domesticated horses? Tipped spears, etc.?

~~~
pfranz
Weapons can be an endless pit of development and the US is not a conquering
nation. Let's say we could sustain an economy and develop the first nuclear
weapons while everyone else is using spears; what was the opportunity cost?
What's the value if it's only used for defense?

Outside of defense I know a large military and weapons help in having
influence, but so does having a stable and large economy--the later moreso.

Nuclear weapons were developed out of a competition for survival. The people
involved knew even in the hands of the Allied forces it was extremely
dangerous. You're arguing we should invest in a Space Force because someone
else might do it in the future.

------
mkolodny
From this article: [https://thehackernews.com/2017/08/quantum-satellite-
data.htm...](https://thehackernews.com/2017/08/quantum-satellite-data.html)

> From past two decades, Quantum technology has been a top strategic focus in
> China's 5-year economic development plan. While the U.S. invested about $200
> Million a year in quantum research, China spent $101 Billion in quantum
> physics in 2015.

If you'd like to learn more about quantum technology, this article gives a
good summary: [https://thenextweb.com/insider/2017/06/19/quantum-
entangleme...](https://thenextweb.com/insider/2017/06/19/quantum-entanglement-
will-change-how-we-network-even-if-we-cant-understand-it/)

~~~
hangonhn
That number sounds really, really outlandish. China, officially at least,
spent about $130 billion on their defense in that same year. I highly doubt
they would spend that much on some research project which will bear fruit in
the distant future. Even if they are willing to spend that much money, where
would they even spend that much money?

~~~
Veedrac
It probably comes, directly or indirectly, from WSJ, who now have

> Corrections & Amplifications:

> Funding for basic research in China, including quantum research, was $10.1
> billion in 2015. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said it was
> $101 billion. (8/20)

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-latest-leap-forward-
isnt...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-latest-leap-forward-isnt-just-
greatits-quantum-1471269555)

------
throwawayjava
Here's the text of the house bill: [https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-
congress/house-bill/6227...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-
congress/house-bill/6227/text?format=txt&r=9)

Summary:

* It's a 10-year plan

* NIST gets $400M for quantum research

* NSF gets $250M for quantum research and a mandate to establish 5 centers and to establish graduate traineeships in quantum fields. _These traineeships are earmarked for US citizens_.

* DOE gets $625M and a mandate to create up to 5 research centers, which go up for review after 5 years.

------
athenot
I wonder if this is in reaction to Europe investing €1B a few years ago.

[https://www.nature.com/news/europe-s-billion-euro-quantum-
pr...](https://www.nature.com/news/europe-s-billion-euro-quantum-project-
takes-shape-1.21925)

------
coding123
That seems like a waste of taxpayer dollars.

~~~
archgoon
Why? It's a perfectly legitimate avenue of research; and there is much
fundamental work still to be done (which is typically the type of research the
government funds).

