Understood. And I agree that it won't stop and technological advancements will continue to be developed to try and maintain an advantage for war. Technology is advancing very fast with it and without it now, because everybody is investing in it not just a country gearing for war.
Not as fast as if there is a real need for it if people were ready to do things like help people cancer would have been cured by now.
There are a lot of technologies that we stopped just in time as well by the defeat of an enemy. Those techs were game changes or could have been game changers, thankfully were stopped before they could have been used. Things could be quite different now if they weren't.
Unfortunately. The need for tech advancement as I said is so important to the economy it's growing extremely fast on it's own now. In the past before computers, this was far less of an issue. Now it is our future with or without military tech advancement, which is part of not the only reason for the investments.
And what do you think is driving the computer industry not the private sector perhaps the private sector with military contracts I believe.
Not the private sector ? Ever hear of Microsoft ? The drivers for advancing technology is way more diverse now than ever. There is no doubt the militaries of the world are a driver, but there is much more to it than that now. They are not the only one anymore.
You mean Microsoft the company that has one of the biggest Military contracts know to mankind the same Microsoft that outfits pretty much every major military arm in the USA you mean that Microsoft.
Yes and the same one that outfits all of the other computer driven industries. You can claim that the military has it's hands or is part of the circle of all of these developmements, but I think it is ignorant to think there is not this whole other technological world out there separate from the military and not dependent on their advancements.
Yes it is the gamers that need the faster computers to play a better game of Battle Field that is driving the Microsoft industry. And lets not foget Aunt betty who needs a quicker download for the quilting patterns.
LOL. Yes and Aunt Betty of course. The reality is that every industry is now caught in the web. They almost all need dedicated programs etc to run optimal and effecient and keep up with their competition. So I am not disagreeing with you about the military, but it is no longer the sole driver. The difference now more than ever is that the military is both developing it's own and taking other breakthroughs that it can use.
Fair enough but as I said before War is or perhaps was the main driver for advancement and things do advance far more rapidly when the military heads need to solve a problem. And perhaps until the next great war we will see the private sector start to break ahead but right now it has been war and the military that has driven most advancements.
I agree. My only point was that because of the change in what is driving the economy, these other areas are getting a chance. I also agree that when pressed into war, we push for new technologies that we suspect will be needed much harder, thus advancing faster. However, it is important to note and is a connundrum. It is not the type of technology push that we would desire in a perfect, idealistic world and at the same time, would not have happened without war and the technological push that goes along with it. That is a shame but reality.
Wait, biplanes? What? The US had the P-400's (crap) but they were better than biplanes the Japanese had zeroes The British had I suppose the spitfire (Im more of a Pacific war oriented guy) The Germans had fighters too. Biplanes were used for scouting because they could fly at incredibly low speeds and remain airborn. The fact is that for a normal weapons program to go from planning to completion is around 1 year (fast) to 4 years (still a decent speed) look at the German jet, they came out with that at the end of the war. Same with the British tank (the comet?) it was made to counter the panzer, but by the time they came off the line, the war was over.
What makes you think that those would not have been developed in peace time? Dyw, I think you mis understand my point, I dont deny that war sparks technological advancement and puts new tech on steroids. My point is that if there was no war and we all worked together than we could have developed those things faster.
So in a perfect idealistic world there would be no need for Jet powered aircraft there would be no need for 4 wheel drive vehicles there would be no need for preservation of food stuffs.
Missed this bit? Gladiator, Swordfish, Polikarpov I-15, Hs 123, He 51, CR.42 etc etc. In fact the last claimed biplane air-air kill was Frantisek Cyprich, when he shot down a Ju 52 on 2 September 1944. And huge numbers, if not the MAJORITY, of monoplanes in service (Spitfire etc were notably glorious exceptions and touted as such at the time) were still pretty much on a par with WWI technology/ design. Open cockpit, fixed undercarriage... Even at the time of Pearl Harbour the US still had Boeing P-26 aircraft in service - not much of an advance over WWI. Apart from the fact that the original design for Me 262 started in April 1939 as Projekt P.1065. Service in '44. Define "normal" weapons programme. British aircraft were around 4-6 years, at least. Er, panzer is short for panzerkampfwagen (i.e. tank). Which one did you mean? And Comet was in service and saw action. If you mean Centurion it wasn't built to counter any particular German tank, it was natural step in the evolution of British AFV design. Basically a more refined Comet, which was effectively an upgraded Cromwell, which in turn was an advance on Crusader. I disagree, in wartime there's the incentive to have something better than the other guy has, and have it now, because it's life or death. In peace time the pace is slower because the funding isn't as forthcoming simply due to the lack of immediate need. How, and why would stealth have come about if not for warfare? What would be the driver for, say, SR-71 if it wasn't the Cold War? "Hey, we can build an 80kft Mach 3 two seater!" "Er, okay guy. What're we gonna do with it? Why don't you use the money for something useful, like better seats on an airliner?" Regardless, the Allies got them into service first. As reliable engineering (as opposed to the German ones which, if lucky, had an engine life of around 20 hours).
In a perfect world there wouldn't be any need for jet powered aircraft that drop bombs on people. In a perfect world there would be need for land movers and bull dozers but not tanks. You appear to be looking for a fight which is odd because I agree with what you have said about war and it's influence on advancing technologies. Sorry that the world has found new reasons to advance technology without going to war for it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
