SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

history teaches us that war causes massive advances in science.

in the second world war for example, there were many areas of science that benefitted massively from the huge amounts of government spending into technologies that would help with the war.

after the war, most of these technologies can easily be adapted to piecetime.


for example, the British mathematican Alan Turing built the first computer in WWII to crack german codes, After the war, he simply rewired it and used it to try to solve the Riemann hypothesis, play chess and write love letters (true story)

after the second world war, the same technology used in nuclear weapons was used to build nuclear power stations.

i can think of many more examples, in almost all fields of science.



in war, governments spend 20x their normal budget on scientific research.
Also, in Britain at least, scientists do not get sent to battle, they are far too valuable as researchers.

i dont mean shitty little wars like iraq and afganistan, where there is no danger to the aggressors, and public opinion is against it.
the right kind of war needs to be a threat to the people of both sides, the whole country needs to feel like everyone is "doing their bit". The world wars were exactly like this. The cold war was quite similar.


think of the massive scientific advances such a war would produce.

u saying we should have a war and kill mass people to advance science?

EDIT: over 62m people died in world war two. and the world got a nuclear bomb. is it worth it?

Yeah, I'm glad you brought this up Yakman.
This is one of the few reasons why wars might be beneficial and yeah it's very true what you said it does evolve technology a great deal faster especially when both sides feel threatened and pressured to have more sophisticated technology than the other in order to win it.

I agree. Wars force people to create things to get the edge over their enemy. During and after WWI, medicines were greatly advanced because soldiers were dying of infections and such.
I think if a world war happened, the weapons are so powerful now, that a lot more people would be killed, and that might set scientific research back a little. I also think that espionage would be a big part of it(people would work hard to steal other's ideas). <—- Just saying a possiblity

But the main part of the scienetific advancement has passed now, every country owns nucleur sources, and if don't already have them, are capable or constructing nucleur bombs. It would take only one american/british bomb to rip apart HUGE areas, into literally dust.

Mass-scale is not possible anymore, we have too much power. WW2 had small guns, minor bombs, and minor missiles, infantry-land war, now its huge air striking which would end the war easily in a day.

My point wasn't explained properly, but i hope you get my point.

I think if World War III were to arise, i don't think the human race would survive, both sides would have such powerful weapons they would destroy everything.

From: jakeyboy29
u saying we should have a war and kill mass people to advance science?

i want to make it very clear that im not saying this at all.
im trying to wiegh up the options, to see if its a good idea or not, im asking what SRL thinks.

From: jakeyboy29

EDIT: over 62m people died in world war two. and the world got a nuclear bomb. is it worth it?

to make a nuclear weapon, you need to have massive understanding of the atom.
world war two gave us this, it helped us make nuclear power stations and treat cancer with radiation.
we can also use radiation to sterilize medical equipment and food so it stays fresher for longer.

was it worth it? debatable.

apparently 155,000 people die every day, (in piecetime) source
it wouldnt take very long to get up to 62million or however much died in world war too.

no war does not equal to no death.

From: hrh
But the main part of the scienetific advancement has passed now

you're joking right? you think science is finished?

you're simply wrong, theres much more we dont know, we have barely scratched the surface.

We need a small force of aliens to invade. That way, if we kill them, we get all their technology, AND we would be forced to advance our weapons/space travel in order to fend off the next wave, if and when it came.

From: Brain
We need a small force of aliens to invade. That way, if we kill them, we get all their technology, AND we would be forced to advance our weapons/space travel in order to fend off the next wave, if and when it came.

realistic stuff please.

if aliens can navigate the massive amount of space to get here, im sure they have enough technologies to defeat us in war.
we wouldnt win, dispite what hollywood will have you believe.

From: Yakman
realistic stuff please.

if aliens can navigate the massive amount of space to get here, im sure they have enough technologies to defeat us in war.
we wouldnt win, dispite what hollywood will have you believe.

+1

Maybe we have weapons that you don't know about….?

Sorry, still being far-fetched, I agree with you all the way, wars = advancement


edit: Also, I said small force, like a scouting party or something :p

From: Brain
We need a small force of aliens to invade. That way, if we kill them, we get all their technology, AND we would be forced to advance our weapons/space travel in order to fend off the next wave, if and when it came.

No, we'd use the technology to dispatch our own wave of space warships as soon as possible to obliterate the alien world, like in Ender's Game.

My arguments:

• Stops development of other tree's of the science. Only the ones that a strictly necessary for War are given money.
• Informations is only shared after wars.
• The science in war often goes at a high cost.
• Scientists are forced, killed or tortured in War.

My opinion:
More sciences will be better off without war.
Specific sciences, like the sciences used to make armoury, will benefit. These specific sciences are often the more 'popular' sciences, therefore, there will be a big improvement. (Think of nuclear weapons)

Both war and non war have their downsides. War also has a downside for humanity.

From: tarajunky
No, we'd use the technology to dispatch our own wave of space warships as soon as possible to obliterate the alien world, like in Ender's Game.

And then it will turn out to be all just a mis-understanding :'(

(just read that book by the way)

I would say it is more that science is advanced out of necessity. Many other mathematicians also worked on cracking the enigma machines to help their country as they were needed. In the face of serious events that threaten, all technologies advance and it is only due to science relating to all of these being why it is advanced above all others.
The "Global warming" inflation led many more people to science to look for causes, answers and solutions.
Natural disasters have led to many advances in geographical tools to predict when they may occur.

The only problem is that the biggest threat to man is man himself, so it will always be when wars and conflicts are being fought that science advances since the threat is so much greater.

Disclaimer: If you disagree with any of my points, then I guarantee that either one or both of us are wrong.

[offtopic]

From: Brain
And then it will turn out to be all just a mis-understanding :'(

(just read that book by the way)

you should read the rest of the series… and maybe check out the "Shadow" series… i like those books :) [/offtopic]

I agree with Wizzup… only war-related fields will get the boost from the government. Why would we want to work on curing cancer or something when we "need" to work on not letting soldiers die from lack of better weapons…(not what i would do just saying what i think would happen)

the big problem that i can see with a big worl war type deal at the moment is that with the development of nuclear bombs the war would be quite short and wouldnt really allow enough time for people to develop much of anything useful.

no war is bad.

peace is good.


ATM im just worried about USA economy hopefully Obama will get it back in track.

The Manhattan project (to make the nuclear bomb) wasn't made as a result of WWII. It was going to be made anyway, and Truman wanted justification for the public.

Of course war can further science, but so can international co-operation. Believe me, you learn more when you get the other person to explain stuff to you, not by killing them.

I have to say that if there was another World War breakout, the human race would definitely be more crippled than helped by it.

And the idea about aliens and extraterrestrials isn't a bad idea albeit a little far-out-of-the-possibility.

Just to get caught up…. and …here …I …go:

From: Hugolord
it does evolve technology a great deal faster especially when both sides feel threatened and pressured to have more sophisticated technology than the other in order to win it.

So… you are saying that they have incentive to advance their technology… not bad..

From: mormonman
During and after WWI, medicines were greatly advanced because soldiers were dying of infections and such.

Wait a minute… people were dying…. because of the war… so they created different medicines… new ideas for medicine are showing up all the time… and not just because of war…

From: Yakman
to make a nuclear weapon, you need to have massive understanding of the atom.
world war two gave us this, it helped us make nuclear power stations and treat cancer with radiation.
we can also use radiation to sterilize medical equipment and food so it stays fresher for longer.

Um… cancer was obsolete… unheard of… it actually was not…. the Nuclear and Hydrogen radiation creates cancer…. = not helpful…. you don't need to kill people to find out how to power your house by using the sun….

From: Brain
edit: Also, I said small force, like a scouting party or something :p

Ya… that is a great idea…. destroy the scouting party waving a white flag … then get all our butts beat into oblivion…

From: Wizzup?
My opinion:
More sciences will be better off without war.
Specific sciences, like the sciences used to make armoury, will benefit. These specific sciences are often the more 'popular' sciences, therefore, there will be a big improvement. (Think of nuclear weapons)

Both war and non war have their downsides. War also has a downside for humanity.

Yes… if all humanity could learn to live together and work together to better the world… not one nation or another…. then this would all work beautifully… however… until then, it will be on the brink of humanity (as the creator sees it) that the best inventions will show themselves.. ..

It is at the precipice on the fall of humanity and civilization that ideas are truly brought to life…. this is because humans are generally lazy… if they think that life is good .. then hey "what/why do i want change?"…… I am NOT at all saying that I agree with this… it just happens to be this way… I want change in our world… and to do that I will not user murder as an excuse to advance technology..

To the main topic: Wizzup? said it the best, "Both war and non war have their downsides. War also has a downside for humanity."….

At the aliens possibility, Think, if there were aliens super intelligence to get spaceships across galaxies, why would they come 100's of 1000's of years after the human race was created?

From: anonymity
Wait a minute… people were dying…. because of the war… so they created different medicines… new ideas for medicine are showing up all the time… and not just because of war…

you have to take a quantitiative approach.
in both war and piece, new medicines are developed, but in war, they are developed 10x faster

penicillin was first used in wartime, even though it had been discovered 10 - 20 years earlier source

From: anonymity
Um… cancer was obsolete… unheard of… it actually was not…. the Nuclear and Hydrogen radiation creates cancer…. = not helpful….

you're simply wrong.

if you're white, you can sit in the sun for a long time and get skin cancer,
you can get cancer in countless ways.

true, one of those ways is exposure to nuclear radiation, but the same radiation can also be used to treat it. Ever heard of radiotherapy?

I'm also very intrested to know what this new Hydrogen Radiation is.

From: Wizzup?
My arguments:
Stops development of other tree's of the science. Only the ones that a strictly necessary for War are given money.

From: Wizzup?

More sciences will be better off without war.
Specific sciences, like the sciences used to make armoury, will benefit.

the sciences are incredibly linked, when you research one kind, you're invariably helping it all.
its not simply that only new kinds of guns are made.
computer science started in wartime, how is that linked to war?

the science that you study, Wizzup, benefitted massively from the second world war, but i find it unlikely that you consider yourself a war scientist.

From: Wizzup?

Informations is only shared after wars.

this is not a downside

as i probably should have mentioned, the war has to end someday.
wars that last for 100 years arnt very good, they eventually bankrupt the countries taking part.

the two world wars were only 4 or 5 years long.
and there needs to be a fairly long period of piece afterwards, to give time for the new sciences to be developed for pieceful purposes. (bombs turning into power stations)

i think your problem here was that you didnt have patience.

From: Wizzup?

The science in war often goes at a high cost.

in hope i havent misunderstood you here, but science costs a lot in piecetime too.
The total cost of the LHC project is expected to be 3.2–6.4 billion euros. That isnt cheap.

From: Wizzup?

Both war and non war have their downsides. War also has a downside for humanity.

From: Wizzup?

Scientists are forced, killed or tortured in War.

war has upsides for humanity in the longer term.
how many people would not be alive if antibiotics were never developed?

scientists are nothing special, all people are forced, killed or tortured in War. But i find it very likely that their sacrifice will benefit humanity much more in the long term.

often it happens in nature that a catastrophe causes good if you give it time.

• the extinction of the dinosaurs lead to the rise of humans.
• the holocaust lead to the creation of the state of isreal.
• the french revolution started the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and paved the way for democracy.