So far, the US bill for Iraq is going to be at least $150bil.
To put this in perspective, a manned mission to Mars has been estimated to run in the $40bil range.
If this very large sum of money had been instead devoted to pormulgating research into developing fuel sources, of whatever sort that were viable alternatives to fossil fuels how far could we have gone toward both relieving US, (and the world’s) dependence on petro products and in being the new OPEC, (in that we’d have the main source of whatever technology allowed for the replacement of fossil fuels).
$ 150 000 000 000
means that our top 1000 universities/research institutions could’ve had grants etc of $150 000 000. (Plus, most likely, fewer lives lost)
Could this sort of a massive program’ve been able to get some signifigant results?
If so, would these result with the corresponding consequences and market possibilities be more beneficial to the US national interests than the consequences of the invasion of Iraq?
To my under-educated eye, it seems that the answer would yes and yes.
We’d be removed from the necessity of monkeying around in ME politics, (which’s been a viper pit my entire life). This would make many in the world relived. We’d be set as the new source of energy for th world in th ecoming decades, if not century. This is always handy. We’d be greater than a hyper-power.