4 ms·

Surprised to see that long a text about the demand side of innovation without any mention of war as the mother of all invention. Seems to me almost like an elep

by usrusr 2y ago

Surprised to see that long a text about the demand side of innovation without any mention of war as the mother of all invention. Seems to me almost like an elephant in the room nodding in puzzled agreement. Puzzled that strong demand side influence isn't taken as a given.

michaelt 2y ago
Back when we mostly had WW2 to look at, and Vietnam seemed an outlier we could ignore, wars seemed to spur loads of inventiveness. After 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, though? The "war as the mother of all invention" hypothesis seems a lot weaker. It might have spurred some advances in the science of treating IED injuries, but I've never heard any serious scholars attribute Facebook, Youtube or the iPhone to the US presence in Iraq.
- lazide 2y ago
  Wars you can lose are the mother of invention. It’s literally existential threat as a motivator writ large. The US could never win, and never ‘lose’ (as in, cease to exist as a county) either of those wars.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  Huh? The last 25 years completely turned the conduct of war on its head. The arrival of the drone and ubiquitous communications made everything obsolete. As witnessed in Ukraine, tanks are toast, fighter planes are of relatively limited utility in contested airspace, and surface navy is a dinosaur. As witnessed in a variety of places, communications rules. If your leadership is hamfisted in how it acts and communicates, public opinion will flip on you, and then you’re done. History should educate us eventually about how influence operations affected western democratic processes. Warfare is back to insurgency and infantry/artillery shootouts. Except now chaos and effective surveillance and improving drone technology limit power projection. How many C-17s need to be blown up on the ground by little drones before landing a rapid reaction force isn’t feasible? How many major warships sunk by semi-submersible drones will be acceptable to operate in an area of the sea?
  - bluGill 2y ago
    > As witnessed in Ukraine, tanks are toast, fighter planes are of relatively limited utility in contested airspace, and surface navy is a dinosaur None of those are witnessed in Ukraine. Tanks are only useless if you use them in roles most armchair strategists wouldn't be stupid enough to use them for, much less a proper military strategist. Ukraine is using tanks to great effect today - as are the few competent commanders Russia has. (though with drones tanks are not as useful as in the past they are still useful). Ukraine is asking for more fighters for a reason - they believe that if they had greater numbers they could contest airspace and win. Fighters are useless in small numbers is a good lesson to draw, but that doesn't say anything about larger numbers. Surface navy hasn't been fighting in Ukraine at all. We cannot draw any lessons from this conflict. Sure they are vulnerable to drones - but there are also protections that could be applied. You should perhaps look to the red sea where the US navy is fighting and shooting down drones with reasonable success. Ukraine/Russia is one war. While there are a lot of lessons to learn there, do not draw the wrong ones. Militaries around the world constantly make the mistake of preparing for the last war. The next war (whatever it is!) will be different, and taking a lesson out context will lose the war for your side.
  - michaelt 2y ago
    > Huh? The last 25 years completely turned the conduct of war on its head. When people say "war is the mother of all invention" they don't just mean military invention, they mean all invention. WW2 coincided with major advances in control theory, cryptography, penicillin, plastics, synthetic fuels, computing, rocketry, radionavigation, jet engines and so on - advances with major non-military relevance to this day. In comparison, what's the equivalent technology to come out of Iraq? The 2005 Darpa Grand Challenge that might lead to self-driving cars any decade now, and that never saw any use in Iraq? Drone tech that's 95% developed in China, who weren't even involved in the war?

by usrusr 2y ago

michaelt 2y ago

Back when we mostly had WW2 to look at, and Vietnam seemed an outlier we could ignore, wars seemed to spur loads of inventiveness. After 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, though? The "war as the mother of all invention" hypothesis seems a lot weaker. It might have spurred some advances in the science of treating IED injuries, but I've never heard any serious scholars attribute Facebook, Youtube or the iPhone to the US presence in Iraq.

lazide 2y ago
Wars you can lose are the mother of invention. It’s literally existential threat as a motivator writ large. The US could never win, and never ‘lose’ (as in, cease to exist as a county) either of those wars.
Spooky23 2y ago
Huh? The last 25 years completely turned the conduct of war on its head. The arrival of the drone and ubiquitous communications made everything obsolete. As witnessed in Ukraine, tanks are toast, fighter planes are of relatively limited utility in contested airspace, and surface navy is a dinosaur. As witnessed in a variety of places, communications rules. If your leadership is hamfisted in how it acts and communicates, public opinion will flip on you, and then you’re done. History should educate us eventually about how influence operations affected western democratic processes. Warfare is back to insurgency and infantry/artillery shootouts. Except now chaos and effective surveillance and improving drone technology limit power projection. How many C-17s need to be blown up on the ground by little drones before landing a rapid reaction force isn’t feasible? How many major warships sunk by semi-submersible drones will be acceptable to operate in an area of the sea?
- bluGill 2y ago
  > As witnessed in Ukraine, tanks are toast, fighter planes are of relatively limited utility in contested airspace, and surface navy is a dinosaur None of those are witnessed in Ukraine. Tanks are only useless if you use them in roles most armchair strategists wouldn't be stupid enough to use them for, much less a proper military strategist. Ukraine is using tanks to great effect today - as are the few competent commanders Russia has. (though with drones tanks are not as useful as in the past they are still useful). Ukraine is asking for more fighters for a reason - they believe that if they had greater numbers they could contest airspace and win. Fighters are useless in small numbers is a good lesson to draw, but that doesn't say anything about larger numbers. Surface navy hasn't been fighting in Ukraine at all. We cannot draw any lessons from this conflict. Sure they are vulnerable to drones - but there are also protections that could be applied. You should perhaps look to the red sea where the US navy is fighting and shooting down drones with reasonable success. Ukraine/Russia is one war. While there are a lot of lessons to learn there, do not draw the wrong ones. Militaries around the world constantly make the mistake of preparing for the last war. The next war (whatever it is!) will be different, and taking a lesson out context will lose the war for your side.
- michaelt 2y ago
  > Huh? The last 25 years completely turned the conduct of war on its head. When people say "war is the mother of all invention" they don't just mean military invention, they mean all invention. WW2 coincided with major advances in control theory, cryptography, penicillin, plastics, synthetic fuels, computing, rocketry, radionavigation, jet engines and so on - advances with major non-military relevance to this day. In comparison, what's the equivalent technology to come out of Iraq? The 2005 Darpa Grand Challenge that might lead to self-driving cars any decade now, and that never saw any use in Iraq? Drone tech that's 95% developed in China, who weren't even involved in the war?