We can all agree that WWII was a trajedy for mankind.

However, due to WWII we have such things as computers, plastics, cell phones, satalites, jet planes, nuclear medicine, GPS, etc...etc..

War has historicly provided new technologies that turn into civilian products. Maybe this is a moral/pholisophical issue.

If you want to do some back flips you can trace anything modern back through WWII either good or bad. If there was no WWII maybe there would have been no cold war, instead it would have been a direct conflict between the US and the soviets, with no pussyfooting because of fear of MAD. Maybe there would have been no Al Queda because America would never have trained them to try to rout the Soviets out of the Middle East. Maybe we wouldn't have such problems with Iraq because we didn't topple its government in favor of Saddam Hussein. Maybe we would all be Japanese Shinto instead of Christian fundamentalists. Maybe a lot of things. *Stairs into his navel*

Sorry if I sound a little hostile, its a valid topic, though maybe it does fit better into history or free thoughts.

...you can trace anything modern back through WWII...
And since WWII was just a rehash of WWI, you can blame the entire modern world on the assassination of an austrian arch duke or whatever it was. It's all the bosnians' fault. :p

Yes, pick any event with heavy US involvement and you can trace anything modern in the US back through it. I loved that show on the discovery (or was it TLC) called connections.

Worthy leadership can motivate a nation to great achievements without war. Presently, the USA is too belligerent a country to be interested in such leadership. Here's one of example an alternative philosophy of common effort that Americans are continuing to ignore, as they respond instead to belligerence:

Apollo Alliance (http://www.apolloalliance.org/)

Quick Thoughts.

Sure war accelerates tech development. Thats understandable but you can't suggest that the tech would not be developed at all.
Money itself is motivation enough for most things.

Dee Cee

Let's not forget the chaos of the 20th century caused a huge brain drain. Millions of brilliant minds were permanently silenced by the fascists in Italy, Germany, Imperial Japan. Intellectuals who questioned authority were the first to go. And we can't forget Stalin's Soviet Union and its massive purges of educated dissidents.

Who knows what sort of progress might have been achieved if so many hadn't been killed?

The fascists intolerance worked against them. Many of the physicists who brought us the bomb were war refugee emigres from Europe, having gotten out in time because they could see what was coming, and they had the credentials to insure there would be a host country in the west that would take them in.

I would have said that most of these things would haev developed anyway. WW2 just speeded them up by a few, like 2 to 10 years. Frank WHittle for example, was working away for years without any real notice being taken of him. And Fermi in Chicago, and plastics was getting up to speed with Bakelite etc. Really, theres nothing youve listed there that you can make a blanket statement:
"However, due to WWII we have such things as"

I think that wars have indeed brought us greater material wealth, but look at the industrial revolution. That would have been impossible to achieve without a long period of peace under the auspices of Pax Brittania. Wars simply speeded up the inevitable, which is human progress. Arguably are nuclear weapons to be considered a good thing out of WWII? No. To justify wars by their tech advances is a ethical stretch; one could argue that the holocaust was quite a learning experience in terms of science. But was it worth it? No way.

Greater material wealth? At the cost also of miring us in debts and the sinking of several hundred tonnes a month of Atlantic shipping. Thats scores of ships, carrying all sorts of goods, crewmen, food supplies etc. War stimulates the economy precisely because it permits vast expenditure upon material goods. The same thing can be done by modern deficit spending by gvts.
As for the human progress argument, forget it. That statement assume a goal and purpose. ON the other hand I'd agree about the ethical stuff.

Greater material wealth?

Admittedly this is a arguable point and one of major contention. But look at the US post WWII. From an economy that was mired in depression when war started, to an economic and consumer power post war. For the "30 Golden Years" yes the post-war world improved all of our lives.

As for the human progress argument, forget it.

Why? I was saying that human progress can exist without wars; it merely takes a longer time.

UUmm, but that was precisely because of increaased Gvt debt based spending. A variety of Keynesianism. It could have been done without a war. The war just made it more respectable.

Human progress argument, I answered that. But yes, what we would consider progress, with hindsight, also happens without wars.

So we could best sum it up as: Wars cause massive increases in R+D funding which enables technology to ripen at a quicker pace.

Roughly speaking, yes.
But see also my quibble above about the badly worded first post in this thread.

It could have been done without a war. The war just made it more respectable.


The New Deal you mean? The New Deal helped the US survive the depression with some respect. But the New Deal alone would not have helped to increase demand for goods and it would put the US gov't in extraordinary amounts of debt. Imagine if WWII did not occur:

US GDP (millions):

1929-843,334
1933-602,751
1936-798,322
1939-862,995
1941-1,098,921

The country was barely out of the depression by 1941, and a large part of the GDP increase btwn 1939-41 was the arms shipments to the UK, etc. By 1945 US GDP had exploded to 1,644,761,000. Market forces in the US were weak in the pre-war era; it would have taken a very long time to reach our levels of development today. It was inevitable, but to say that the west did not benefit from WWII is a stretch as well.

guthie,

all my posts are badly worded ;)

Yes, as Hitler would say, war is good for economy; more weapons, more security, plus developing technologies to be precise and efficient.

Crazy15Drinker:


War has historicly provided new technologies that turn into civilian products. Maybe this is a moral/pholisophical issue
And you can also thank her for the fattest, laziest, stupidest soldiers in the world- he is the 'modern' one whose sole function is pushing buttons and zapping laser beams.

War used to be a fearless mistress and men would use her to cut babies out from the womb and then feed them with poison breastmilk, as the ogress Putana that marvelous bitch. Now war is a fat cow with asthma and Type II diabetes with a sweet tooth for foreign oil, prestige, and Operation Freedoms.

FUCK YOU!! BUSH!!

To wit- is it not fascinating how the American soldier does his foe's job for him? Given 10 casualties, 8 of them ( if they are American or American-like as in either European or "Canadian")......8 of them will be on account of friendly fire. An american soldier is more likely to get killed by the stupidity of his fellow soldiers than he is by the mujahadeen dying to rip him apart.

Takes all the fun out, huh?

Stupid, lazy, fat pieces of shit that have the nerve to come on campus in their 'off' time and refer to us, to me of all things as mere 'civilians'.

Guthrie:

Wars simply speeded up the inevitable,

Pause.

That's sped. I can't believe you're a writer.

bugger, Gendy. your right. Thats what comes of being tired. But do you know the regulations as to the use of ' in words?

Undecided, where did the money come from that was used to increase the GDP during the war?

Undecided, where did the money come from that was used to increase the GDP during the war?

Loans I would imagine, but it did create a economic boom that made the US pay back those loans. Debt is not bad if you are able to repay that debt, third world nations screwed themselves because they borrowed and did not use the money wisely, and they did not grow enough to pay back those loans. The US grew more then enough… War is war, the US was attacked, and it was Nazi Germany who declared war on the US. Did they really have an option? The fact remains that the economic boom post-war showed that WWII was the boost in the arm to American capitalism.

Hey, thats pretty much what has been said. But your missing the point about debt being created with the money. The USA national debt has been increasing like anything since WW2. Odd that. Actually, one reason Hitler managed to get Germany back on its feet in the 30's was that he borrowed lots of money. Of course, going to war meant he didnt have to repay any of it.....

But all capitalist economies are built on accumulated debt, I agree it's a major problem. But that debt is necessary for the capitalist economy to work. When the Brits had a mixed economy, or a neo-liberal one debt increased regardless. At the very least with capitalism you are able to repay that debt, if the debt was invested wisely. I do agree that US debt has been increasing since the great depression not WWII. Even the Soviet Union amassed a large amount of debt, as did all the former Socialist states. Debt is common among all states, it's a necessary evil. You cannot create goods without capital, in some instances you cannot import without debt, etc.