we develop Mil R&D between wars, but they then get tested in a very very harsh environment sometimes to destructions.

We would probably end up with the same net product but it could take longer as there is not a need for it.

For example - passenger planes don't need to break the sound barrier, as the speed is not such an issue. Concorde was the only one and it was never replaced, but teh military war engine, produces fighters that can fly further and faster

Um, I think it might have been a rare moment of sincerity. Or maybe not, I'm not sure.

As Zardoz alludes to, I don't think most of the slaughtered were the Einsteins of this world.

Very true. Think of all the great innovations of weaponry that were invented by soldiers. Now, imagine if there hadn't been a war and they could have used that creativity for peaceful purposes.

What point am i missing?

Well you are talking only about military technology and completely ignoring what other advances might have been made were it not for the wars. I was just challenging this blanket assumption that I often hear repeated which states basically that due to two world wars and despite the widespread death and destruction that took place we are definitely further ahead with technology than we otherwise would have been. At best I think it's completely unfounded, but still possibly true however I more strongly suspect that it's absolute bollocks.

Oh no, I think it's awesome but I'm only challenging the blanket assumption, not every spurious example that's used to support it.

Oh no, I think it's awesome but I'm only challenging the blanket assumption, not every spurious example that's used to support it.

Apparently the bloodiest warfare in WWI was before the trenches got dug, the fastest slaughters being armies just running at each other in big fields and gunning each other down. The French lost 6,000 dead in a day to that, wearing their bright blue uniforms with jaunty red felt caps.

The Space Race! If the Cold War hadn't existed, would we have been clamouring so hard to reach the moon? Whether you think it's a worthwhile endeavour or not, landing on the moon was a fucking astonishing achievement.

War has led many technologies to bare fruit far quicker than it would during peacetime. Yes.

BUT LIKE MARKG KEEPS SAYING WE WOULD HAVE OTHER ZOMGY TECH IF WE HAD LESS WAR AND MORE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE ALIVE WORKING ON AWESOME STUFF.

Right?

I did get the point, not miss it.

A lot of civilian tech has been increased because there was a need for it in military life.

The www was utilised with military, before it is the thing we know today.
Mobile technology, sat phones, gps all required with military use, which pushed on the civilialn use.
4x4 the humble landrover and jeep all needed for rought terrian and such the military adoped and avanced.
Radar for civilian jets....
the jet engine, the prop engine.

al because the military have a more disposable income than the civilain counter parts

your right of course..... but who would fund it?

I wouldn't want those horrible Amstrads, though.

Who is funding it right now?

You're going to have to explain the inconsistency there. I believe both that war has impeded progress and that we would have achieved more were it not for two world wars that wrought death and destruction on a hugely significant scale.

A massive amount of civilian applications of technology come from initial military investment, that's definitely true (teflon is an oft-quoted example).

Whether we would be more or less advanced right now without the military expenditure of the 20th century? Well, I suspect any answer would be sheer speculation.

Normally government and private, but there is not a need to step up tech yet, as the military do not need it.

Do we know what the military are R&D ing now as i am sure as hell it is secret...

We will just have to see what comes out of the latest sets of wars

No, it's just the fact you've gone from saying that it's complete speculation that wartime accelerates tech, then when we've come up with examples you've come up with your own spurious theories.

It's quite amusing as we're not going to agree on this, and as there's no way of proving it one way or another we should probably give it up.

What? There's not a need to "step up tech"?! What the hell planet are you living on? One that isn't melting under your feet I assume.

My evidence for this is what is going on with technology right now and what was going on before WWI kicked off.

vietnam really pushed the helicopter into the future. Falklands.... penguin repellent?

think about how many are doomed to a life of petty crime, drug abuse, or low wage labour, purely because they don't have the advantage in life to waft into higher education. Shouldn't we be doing more to promote science and engineering in schools, offering more support for children in deprived areas? Making higher education better, and more accessible for everyone?

We're not exactly inundated with global slaughter right now, so why aren't we doing these things?[/color]

Poppy fascism is an incredibly damaging thing as well - listen to this Vine episode from last frinday - 33-34 minutes in - there's two teachers debating whether poppies should be compulsory in schools - the poppy fascist probably just scared a hundred parents off enrolling their kids in his school.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... _07112008/

Seriously, this guy is scary!

Basically the Beeb and the UK film industry need to invest cash and talent into making the ultimate WWI movie / TV series with a big release. With really good actors, script and a long gestation period. Nothing chocolatte box, nothing trite and no obvious ticking of "Ho ho! I'm a patriot and slightly effete officer. GURGLE SQUB!" - "Don't worree sir, I'm cheery working class cocknee, I am, and I'll pull you out of this hole in this 'ere shrapnel blizzard, showing war as the great leveller an' all that. GURGLE SQUB SPLUTCH SPLUTCH MERCY!".

The Bletchley Park stuff went on with the best boffins we had at the time. But the fact that we had them in the first place I don't think was anything to do with the war. Perhaps they were in fact a product of the elitist academic world that we had back then, and don't have now?

My point is that it isn't just the geniuses who are needed in order to make progress. Put it this way I'm sat here typing into this computer because millions and millions of other people were willing to buy such a device. If half of those people had been killed in a war a couple of decades ago things might have been different.

My point is that it isn't just the geniuses who are needed in order to make progress. Put it this way I'm sat here typing into this computer because millions and millions of other people were willing to buy such a device. If half of those people had been killed in a war a couple of decades ago things might have been different.