[fluff]

Here's a thought,

Weapons development is often accelerated by war, for example would we have nuclear weapons now if the second world war had not taken place?

Has the war in Iraq, whilst solving the problem of Saddam for the US created a few more in the long term?

Also in the past when I have decried the amount of money spent on the military in times of peace it has been pointed out to me how much civilian life has been enhanced by technology specifically developed for military use. My thought is, how much more could have been achieved for civilian life if the money had actually been spent directly developing things for the people, might we have a cure for cancer, or AIDS?

 

[slein]

the entire subject of WAR is so broad that any discussion obfuscates the topic....

every war is fought with the last war's tactics, normally despite technological gains that have been made in the interim. although true that the amount spent on the military could be diverted to make human life better, we are sadly left only to fight with each other because of our nature. so, the money could have been used for that, but something like that will never happen.

besides, i'll wager that the war machine is more effective at doing its job than the medicine machine. people love guns more than they love drugs. otherwise, MJ would be legal, cuz it eases cancer pain and causes you to watch more tube.

 

[androshandrew]

dont start with the MJ if if wanna talk about that go to the post all about it dont start a new one

 

[fluff]

Yeah let's stick to the point(s)...

The proliferation of nuclear weapons is a problem resultant from the creation of them. Would they be here if war wasn't seen as a viable option so easily?

 

[Tenchiro]

There was never a good war or a bad peace.
-- Benjamin Franklin

 

[laura]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
There was never a good war or a bad peace.
-- Benjamin Franklin

that sums up my thoughts in one sentence.

 

[Serial Midget]

Without heavy gov'ment subsidies many techno innovations would never have been developed. Without the initial military application the cost to benefit ratio simply isn’t there.

I hate to sound crass but curing cancer or aids is not going to do much for mankind as a whole. True - lot's of people die due to disease but the overwhelming majority of people born today will live to a ripe old age free of any serious medical concerns. Only since the rapid industrialization of the 19th century has the western world been able to afford the idea of health and health care on a broad scale. Today’s expectation of rapid cures is a luxury unknown to previous generations and is largely the result of the economic power derived from the stability our huge industrial complex affords us. I am not just talking about the US – all of the Western nations have seen similar and dramatic benefits post WW2.

Huge amounts of money have been and continue to be spent on aids and cancer research – spending more isn’t magically going solve the problem. Remember that it is human nature to demand more – the resources we enjoy as individuals, communities and nations is never enough. It is human nature to be dissatisfied with what we have – it is what moves us forward as species.

Originally posted by fluff
Here's a thought,

Weapons development is often accelerated by war, for example would we have nuclear weapons now if the second world war had not taken place?

Has the war in Iraq, whilst solving the problem of Saddam for the US created a few more in the long term?

Also in the past when I have decried the amount of money spent on the military in times of peace it has been pointed out to me how much civilian life has been enhanced by technology specifically developed for military use. My thought is, how much more could have been achieved for civilian life if the money had actually been spent directly developing things for the people, might we have a cure for cancer, or AIDS?

 

[Serial Midget]

Oh... forgot this one FLUFF... many of today's cancer therapies are the direct result of research derived from the development of nuclear technologies… you know – the dreaded A-bomb and it's offspring.

 

[LoboDelFuego]

In very very few cases, wars have actually solved problems. The reason is that in order to create lasting peace after war, you have to win a true victory. There will always be some scrap of something left behind that will come back to hit you when you're not looking. Since most people have never read or heard of Tactica Imperiorum written by the man Cn. P himself (with additions written by Caesar and Scipio), I will provide a definiton:

What is victory? Is it to defeat your enemy on the field of battle? Is it to simply repulse his armies and slay his misguided warriors? No, this is only the very beginning!

True victory is to crush your foes utterly, to shatter his armoured legions and run dwown his fleeing troops as they scatter. Pursue them to their lairs and burn them out. Burst into his unholy temples, smash down his icons and topple his foul idols. Burn his hertical works and leave no stone upon stone. Slaughter his followers, their families and their livestock, lest any of their taint reamin. And when that is done, put the ruins to the torch.

Any that have deal with them or given them succour must be obliterated, for memory is insidious and though you have crushed their will and their bodies they may yet return. Send warrior scribes to excise the records of their name, expunge their deeds from the annals of history and remove even the memory of your foe's existence. Only then have you truly won.

This is the meaning of Victory.

hehe, pretty brutal huh? Well that's why war causes more problems than it solves. Because few have ever achieved true victory. BTW, in the chapter immediately following this, Julius Caesar says "no no pompey's just kidding, this is just stuff you're supposed to say to inspire your men." but when you see how Pompey fought, its hard to think he didnt really believe this stuff.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Serial Midget

Without heavy gov'ment subsidies many techno innovations would never have been developed. Without the initial military application the cost to benefit ratio simply isn’t there.

I hate to sound crass but curing cancer or aids is not going to do much for mankind as a whole. True - lot's of people die due to disease but the overwhelming majority of people born today will live to a ripe old age free of any serious medical concerns.

Only since the rapid industrialization of the 19th century has the western world been able to afford the idea of health and health care on a broad scale.

Today’s expectation of rapid cures is a luxury unknown to previous generations and is largely the result of the economic power derived from the stability our huge industrial complex affords us. I am not just talking about the US – all of the Western nations have seen similar and dramatic benefits post WW2.

Huge amounts of money have been and continue to be spent on aids and cancer research – spending more isn’t magically going solve the problem. Remember that it is human nature to demand more – the resources we enjoy as individuals, communities and nations is never enough. It is human nature to be dissatisfied with what we have – it is what moves us forward as species.

Been to Africa recently?

You do sound crass I'm afraid.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
Oh... forgot this one FLUFF... many of today's cancer therapies are the direct result of research derived from the development of nuclear technologies… you know – the dreaded A-bomb and it's offspring.

Did you miss the point of the question completely?

If the money and resources spent on research for the atom bomb were spent on research into particle physics for health purposes do you not think we might have discovered more?

Or do you think that people can only be motivated by creating something that kills rather than something that heals?

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by fluff
Did you miss the point of the question completely?

If the money and resources spent on research for the atom bomb were spent on research into particle physics for health purposes do you not think we might have discovered more?

Or do you think that people can only be motivated by creating something that kills rather than something that heals?

People, for the most part, are motivated by fame, fortune and glory... and sometimes land and greed.

My point is the greater good - far fewer die as result of cancer or aids than die of war. The nations of the world apparently feel better served when they spend their resources on defense. Health care and medical research are a secondary luxury.

Finding the cure to AIDS or cancer is not going to have a huge impact on the course of the human race or the planet we inhabit.

 

[manimal]

i think war is a great form of population control. now that we've irradicated most of the mass casualty viruses (black plague...) that killed off a large part of the earths population in generations past, we're overpopulating very rapidly. seems like war is a great way to accomodate that dilema


---semi-sarcastic post disclaimer----

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by manimal
i think war is a great form of population control. now that we've irradicated most of the mass casualty viruses (black plague...) that killed off a large part of the earths population in generations past, we're overpopulating very rapidly. seems like war is a great way to accomodate that dilema


---semi-sarcastic post disclaimer----

Perhaps we should bring back carpet bombing? It's a tad less expensive and, on the whole, just as destructive.

 

[LordOpie]

I doubt we'd have gone into space without the air force. i doubt we'd have the air force without it's primary need.

I'll echo SM's commentary... war and the technological developments that come from it are necessary for the evolution of man. Tho I think I might be taking it even further than SM was

Would man be better off without ever having had wars? In short, yes. But the real question is, would man have survived the last 35,000 years without the desires and agressive nature?

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by LordOpie
Would man be better off without ever having had wars? In short, yes. But the real question is, would man have survived the last 35,000 years without the desires and agressive nature?

No. If our ancestors had not been really good at clobbering stuff, the world would be owned by otters and oysters would be in short supply.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
far fewer die as result of cancer or aids than die of war

I think you better check your figures. In years of mass genocide (hutus and tutsis) it might have come close... but right now MILLIONS are dying each year of cancer and aids. Wars don't even come close.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by ohio
I think you better check your figures. In years of mass genocide (hutus and tutsis) it might have come close... but right now MILLIONS are dying each year of cancer and aids. Wars don't even come close.

Ack... that is true. I was going on the 20th century as a whole... just like medical research, military spending and policy is not the sole result of recent history. It's a cummulative deal...

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
I think you better check your figures. In years of mass genocide (hutus and tutsis) it might have come close... but right now MILLIONS are dying each year of cancer and aids. Wars don't even come close.

Well Christ,


People have to die of something, and they will die eventually whether its because of war or aids. I think midget is correct in saying that advances in military technology have done far more for the human race as a whole...ie, technology, communication, transportation, than would have been accomplished without the need for a military...or wars.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
advances in military technology have done far more for the human race as a whole...ie, technology, communication, transportation, than would have been accomplished without the need for a military...or wars.

Necessity is the mother of invention, and war HAS necessitated an awful lot of invention. As one who makes a living of putting those inventions to "good" use, I can hardly criticize the advances.

However, human curiosity very often creates its own necessities even in peacetime. Look to the space program and the enormous technological leaps made because of it. One could certainly argue that the program is an offshoot of the Cold War, but the point still stands that when we have the resources we fund government R&D, to the benefit of everyone, and we don't NEED a war to do it.

War has at times greatly increased the urgency, but also possibly at times drained resources from potentially fruitful projects. I don't think anyone here has the expertise or potentially divine wisdom it would take to say whether or not we would have reached this point if not for war.

----

and Burly, you aren't REALLY going to use the "well, people are going to die anyway" argument are you? You're smarter than that.