4 ms·

The Military does add considerable value to society. Look at the technological research born from war, almost our entire base of modern technology was born out

by Aloha 9y ago

The Military does add considerable value to society. Look at the technological research born from war, almost our entire base of modern technology was born out of wartime creations or funded by the defense establishment. Do I think we (as americans) should have less muscular foreign policy and a smaller military, yes - but the military remains important, its one of the many many elements that bonds a nation together as a whole - and adds a whole lot more value (in dollars and intangibles) than pizza and netflix.

whatshisface 9y ago
Not to agree with the OP, but the military didn't develop that technology. Contractors did, and they could have been paid to do it any time. It doesn't make any sense to talk about spin-off war technologies when we could just as easily be getting them from the space program or whatever else we'd want to do.
- Aloha 9y ago
  Innovation does not happen with a drive to make it happen. The vast sums invested in Radar, Nuclear Technologies, Computing, etc - never would have happened without war - while you're correct, they could have been paid to do so at any time - no one would take such grave technological risks without something driving them to do it.
  - ItsMe000001 9y ago
    Then we better find other ways to motivate humans. War is getting more risky with each technological advancement. We have not even seen the really dangerous stuff yet. We are lucky it requires a lot of expertise, equipment and raw materials to build a nuclear device. Chemical attacks, even though it can be done much more cheaply and by moderately educated people, has the disadvantage of any weapon in that it does not scale. If you only have half a ton of chemicals the danger only is local. Now, the real danger is when home-grown biology-tech becomes more and more feasible. Because you can do this in a basement - and, most important, it scales! Because that stuff replicates itself! You only need to create the "starter pack". In such an environment, the more people you piss off/make aggressive, the higher the chance of severe undesirable consequences. Right now it is still kept in check because of the amount of skills and organisation it requires, even the suicide attackers can't achieve all that much. But technology works without looking at who uses it, and biotech in particular, with its unique self-replication feature... Well, I think that making the world more peaceful might become a necessity at some point. If you are right and we as a species require war to achieve great progress we might be walking on a knife's edge because of escalating uncontrollable consequences. Or maybe I'm wrong and it won't be a big problem (on "mankind scale") and we can have our little and big wars so that people remain willing to spend money on R&D. I must say I agree that this seems to be the case - try to get the US to vote for a party that promises to spend a fuck ton of money on civilian R&D, or on the military. Civilian spending seems to be very hard to get accepted, but military spending works every time. So I blame the electorate, the politicians as far as I can see actually truly represent the wishes of the voters in this regard.
- scotty79 9y ago
  I dont think developing tech for government money would be possible without army. Government has no reason to develop tech and many reasons to just use that money to grow beaurocracy. I belive most of US tech advantage is due to army being able to pay for development of whatever tech it wants. That tech eventually trickles down to civilians. Not sure if that's the way it should be but that's the way it is in US.
Karishma1234 9y ago
I am not saying military is unimportant. Without assurance of safety of your country you can not progress. But that technology point is obsolete. Leaving those trillions of dollars in private hands is likely to lead to better outcomes for society than the Pentagon driven research.

by Aloha 9y ago

whatshisface 9y ago

Not to agree with the OP, but the military didn't develop that technology. Contractors did, and they could have been paid to do it any time. It doesn't make any sense to talk about spin-off war technologies when we could just as easily be getting them from the space program or whatever else we'd want to do.

Aloha 9y ago
Innovation does not happen with a drive to make it happen. The vast sums invested in Radar, Nuclear Technologies, Computing, etc - never would have happened without war - while you're correct, they could have been paid to do so at any time - no one would take such grave technological risks without something driving them to do it.
- ItsMe000001 9y ago
  Then we better find other ways to motivate humans. War is getting more risky with each technological advancement. We have not even seen the really dangerous stuff yet. We are lucky it requires a lot of expertise, equipment and raw materials to build a nuclear device. Chemical attacks, even though it can be done much more cheaply and by moderately educated people, has the disadvantage of any weapon in that it does not scale. If you only have half a ton of chemicals the danger only is local. Now, the real danger is when home-grown biology-tech becomes more and more feasible. Because you can do this in a basement - and, most important, it scales! Because that stuff replicates itself! You only need to create the "starter pack". In such an environment, the more people you piss off/make aggressive, the higher the chance of severe undesirable consequences. Right now it is still kept in check because of the amount of skills and organisation it requires, even the suicide attackers can't achieve all that much. But technology works without looking at who uses it, and biotech in particular, with its unique self-replication feature... Well, I think that making the world more peaceful might become a necessity at some point. If you are right and we as a species require war to achieve great progress we might be walking on a knife's edge because of escalating uncontrollable consequences. Or maybe I'm wrong and it won't be a big problem (on "mankind scale") and we can have our little and big wars so that people remain willing to spend money on R&D. I must say I agree that this seems to be the case - try to get the US to vote for a party that promises to spend a fuck ton of money on civilian R&D, or on the military. Civilian spending seems to be very hard to get accepted, but military spending works every time. So I blame the electorate, the politicians as far as I can see actually truly represent the wishes of the voters in this regard.
scotty79 9y ago
I dont think developing tech for government money would be possible without army. Government has no reason to develop tech and many reasons to just use that money to grow beaurocracy. I belive most of US tech advantage is due to army being able to pay for development of whatever tech it wants. That tech eventually trickles down to civilians. Not sure if that's the way it should be but that's the way it is in US.

Karishma1234 9y ago

I am not saying military is unimportant. Without assurance of safety of your country you can not progress. But that technology point is obsolete. Leaving those trillions of dollars in private hands is likely to lead to better outcomes for society than the Pentagon driven research.