9 ms·

Do you have any evidence that shows that, given similar funds only the military could have provided these innovations? EDIT: Ok, weapons sure, but most of the

Do you have any evidence that shows that, given similar funds only the military could have provided these innovations? EDIT: Ok, weapons sure, but most of the entries in that list aren't weapons.

loewenskind 16y ago
Uh, this is a serious question. The parent seems to make the argument that military is not a bad investment because it brings lots of innovation. I don't think that follows. The US invests vastly more in military than anything else. Of course it's going to have lots of innovation.
- run4yourlives 16y ago
  I think the point is that the military is the easiest sell - sadly - for such levels of massive investment. Ensuring the survival of the American nation is something that Americans seem very willing to spend lots of money on. If earth was for certain doomed in a short term astronomical sense, I'd wager that NASA would see all the funding and then some that the military complex sees. The inventions listed are all beneficial spin offs of ones that were designed to further the military's main goal: killing. It is unlikely that something such as RADAR is invented when it is if one does not need to shoot down aircraft carrying thousands of pounds of bombs. There are simpler and easier ways to accomplish everything else we use RADAR for.
anamax 16y ago
> Do you have any evidence that shows that, given similar funds only the military could have provided these innovations? It doesn't much matter if something else "could". What matters is whether something else "will". Past performance is no guarantee of future results, but it is a constructive argument. I'd love to see other sources of innovation. (And there is one, but it's often military-associated.) However, it's dumb to rely on them until after they've produced.
nostrademons 16y ago
The other commenters basically have it right. Given similar funds, no, there are lots of other organizations that could have provided these innovations more effectively. And really, I'd love to see the government double down on peaceful basic scientific research. The problem is that these organizations will never be given similar funds. People respond to fear; they don't respond to the Higgs Boson. The only way to get billions invested basic science is to say that without it, we're at risk of nuclear annihilation from the Russians/Iraqis/Afghans/Chinese.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  > People respond to fear; they don't respond to the Higgs Boson. Is there no hope that we can educate people to be more rational? To look past the short term? And to stop seeing boogy men everywhere?
  - c1sc0 16y ago
    You got the answer right there in your sentence: educate people. And then make sure the center of power lies with educated people. Only trouble is, that's not how this things called democracy is supposed to work

Do you have any evidence that shows that, given similar funds only the military could have provided these innovations? EDIT: Ok, weapons sure, but most of the entries in that list aren't weapons.

loewenskind 16y ago

Uh, this is a serious question. The parent seems to make the argument that military is not a bad investment because it brings lots of innovation. I don't think that follows. The US invests vastly more in military than anything else. Of course it's going to have lots of innovation.

run4yourlives 16y ago
I think the point is that the military is the easiest sell - sadly - for such levels of massive investment. Ensuring the survival of the American nation is something that Americans seem very willing to spend lots of money on. If earth was for certain doomed in a short term astronomical sense, I'd wager that NASA would see all the funding and then some that the military complex sees. The inventions listed are all beneficial spin offs of ones that were designed to further the military's main goal: killing. It is unlikely that something such as RADAR is invented when it is if one does not need to shoot down aircraft carrying thousands of pounds of bombs. There are simpler and easier ways to accomplish everything else we use RADAR for.

anamax 16y ago

> Do you have any evidence that shows that, given similar funds only the military could have provided these innovations? It doesn't much matter if something else "could". What matters is whether something else "will". Past performance is no guarantee of future results, but it is a constructive argument. I'd love to see other sources of innovation. (And there is one, but it's often military-associated.) However, it's dumb to rely on them until after they've produced.

nostrademons 16y ago

The other commenters basically have it right. Given similar funds, no, there are lots of other organizations that could have provided these innovations more effectively. And really, I'd love to see the government double down on peaceful basic scientific research. The problem is that these organizations will never be given similar funds. People respond to fear; they don't respond to the Higgs Boson. The only way to get billions invested basic science is to say that without it, we're at risk of nuclear annihilation from the Russians/Iraqis/Afghans/Chinese.

loewenskind 16y ago
> People respond to fear; they don't respond to the Higgs Boson. Is there no hope that we can educate people to be more rational? To look past the short term? And to stop seeing boogy men everywhere?
- c1sc0 16y ago
  You got the answer right there in your sentence: educate people. And then make sure the center of power lies with educated people. Only trouble is, that's not how this things called democracy is supposed to work