Quote:
Originally posted by Scribbler1,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Scribbler1,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Technosoul,
I totally do not agree what human progress was effected by wars. However I would agree that wars might have resulted in some inventions that were later were altered for private useages. |
A few? A conservative estimate of the technological benefits we have which were made possible by war would be about (at least) 50%. Computers were originally used to calculate artillery trajectories. Your microwave oven is a direct offshoot of RADAR. You already KNOW where atomic energy began. Blood plasma for your next operation? The modern method of transfusion and the aforementioned plasma were developed for field hospitals in war zones.
How about everything we got from the space program and NASA? There wouldn't even BE a NASA without rockets, which were used as weapons for centuries, and the modern rocket was a spinoff of the German V2 missile. Without the military necessity of rockets, development would have been slowed to the point where we might be launching the Project Mercury rockets today! Remember, Alan Sheperd, the first American in Space rode atop a Redstone Rocket, an ICBM.
Just a small sample. You should watch James Burke's "Connections" program if it comes back on Cable.
Maybe, but that's just a guess, whereas what we have now because of wars is factual.
Quote:
You cannot speculate however how human progress or culture would have progressed without such wars, for all you know Rome might have landed on the moon is a spaceship during the 1800s had not the Christian crusade destroyed their science culture with the dark ages.
Technosoul. |
Bad example. For all *I* know, it would have been impossible to do that. The Dark Ages did indeed put the brakes on scientific development, but there are materials and processes used in Space exploration (among other things) today which could not have existed back then. An educated guess would be much of what has been developed might have come about maybe 50 years earlier, but that's about it.
Also keep in mind the military is a unique customer and much of what they wanted was impractical for any other use at the time. It was only AFTER these things were developed for war that people found other uses for them and not the other way around. In other words, the military wanted BIG rockets to throw BIG bombs at people and it was only AFTER the big rockets were there that someone had the idea to use them to take people into space. If these same people had started from scratch and asked the government for billions of dollars over time to develop a missile that had ONLY one use, to take people into space, do you think our (or any) government would have funded it?[/b][/quote]
Sribbler,
Not sure if Albert came up with his ideas because he wanted to help out the war effort with nuclear bombs or not, but to save time I will not question your data by demanding proof.
I already agreed that some war technology was also later used for peaceful purposes. This I see happening to the greatest degree within the past 75 years and not as evident in the whole scope of human history. In fact it might be that because America has not had many wars within our borders for so long that we could develope our progress to it's present level. If your theory is correct then all countries that have had on-going wars should likewise have advanced techologies and progress simular to ours and I could perhaps note that this is not self-evident world wide.
It is somewhat evident that the computer is an evolution of the typewriter, the TV set, and chips in those transister radios we got from Japan a while back. Although the CIA had gaint computers with large reel to reel tapes the smaller desk models were likewise influenced by "light shows" for greatfull dead concerts, used to simulate LSD effects on our mind.
You mentioned radar, check out this webpage.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_90666...nceanddiscovery
People being interested in observing nature and learning from nature was hardly the result of war. History books should give thanks to the environmentalists and naturalists for that.
And so I have grave doubts about just how important the missuse of technology for war could be framed as being important for the gadget industry, after all, Japan managed to advance in that field in short order without a big military.
You speculated that the Greek-Roman science culture might have put us on the moon only 50 years sooner to debunk my speculation it might have happened in the 1800s, lets see, 1899 plus 50 years brings us to 1949 (nuclear age), so our speculatons in time are less then perhaps about 15 years apart. Drop in the bucket time wise, I would think.
So that is my come-back rebuttle, whatcha think?
Technosoul.