Jet engines, computers, nuclear energy, radar are just a couple of things that came about due to WW2 The internet is an example of stuff that came out of the Cold War. Point is at the time these things were invented few could see a civilian use for them now these are all technologies we take for granted. I don't know what will come from this if anything but that doesn't mean we should stop developing technology.
the technology behind the rail gun, could help develop transport systems. remember the magnetic monorail.... no imagin the london undergun as one big railgun, those old cabins traveling around at mach 7! lol!
I see, so your point here would be that the development of various weapons systems is motivated by them at times having been adapted for civilian use, correct? The war speeded up the development since those fighting needed more effective weapons systems to kill each other with. Jet engines, computers, nuclear energy and radar would all eventually have been developed, albeit not as fast. The point here is that nothing suggest that you first need to go military than go civilian, you could easily start with developing systems for civilian use without needing the military ingredient. It’s a misconception to believe that they need to go hand in hand as is it a moot argument for the continuation of developing these systems when saying that "look, they eventually benefit mankind anyways so I see no problem". Who said we should stop developing technology? do not put words in my mouth please. What I am *saying*, is that you need not the military sector in order to progress technologically. cheers.
I think the biggest thing you are missing here is the cost of 100 tomahawks and the cost of one rail gun and 100 pieces of ammunition.
The area that now makes up the Eurozone + UK has been at war for thousands of years in one way or an other, if it wasn't for those (constant) wars we'd thousands of years behind where we are now developmentally wise. War what is it good for... well advancing technology, from more efficient sticks to bronze armor to steel swords to cut through bronze armor you see where i'm going with this.
Following your logics here would suggest that you’re actually saying that more arms development and wars are needed in order for us to technologically progress, correct?
It's nowhere near that simple. For starters, the initial cost of the railgun is going to be extremely high while the cost of vertical missile launchers is fairly low. Ammunition costs will of course be a lot cheaper for a rail gun (metal slugs, however well machined, aren't going to cost $600,000 each). However, repair and maintanence costs are probably going to be far higher for any rail gun than they are for a missile launcher bed. Lastly, and most importantly, you can stick various configurations of vert-launchers on ships varying in size from relatively small frigattes all the way up to massive aircraft carriers, with relative ease and missile launch capabilities need not be the main purpose of any of the ships it's placed on. Now, the railguns mentioned in this thread use around 11MJ of energy, although more recently the US have been toying with one in the region of 35MJ. Even focussing on the less energy hungry of those two though, there are issues. That ammount of energy is around 1/3-1/4th of the total energy a modern destroyer can produce. This means that even to have and use one, the destroyer would need to be built around the idea of being a slug launcher. So we're going to have to build new ships at least of a destroyer class (So that's 1Bn each, for the ships, before you count the railguns), which have the capability to produce a high ammount of power (or are nuclear, in the case of larger rail guns), and all this in order to be able to bombard targets at 10 times lesser range than we already can? Like I say, many years in the future these things might be worth it. But for now, they seem nothing more than interesting technology to experiment with. Competition makes us work harder, war is the ultimate form of competition, so when we're at war we progress the most.
Seems that way doesn't it, name a major technological advance which isn't related to war. Look at more peaceful cultures, Australian Aborigines, they were stone age peoples (till Britain arrived and messed them up). I'm not saying there is any thing wrong with being a stone age people but none of us would like to revert to that. I'm saying is that war moves tech on always has done, during peace time people are content and we all know necessity is the mother of invention.
I see, well, lets wait and see what progress will have been made (if any) after current wars and events are over shall we. Secondly, you thinking that war is the ultimate form of competition is something which all we humans have been conditioned into believing. Its all about mindset and attitude, that’s it. That said; you do have the upper hand here since those previously mentioned events seems to enforce your point and disapprove mine, although I would say, yet again; that it has to do with mindset. What makes you think that to stop developing weapons systems and waging wars would force us to revert to stone age times?, I would argue the very opposite on this one. Secondly... I have not contested that technology wouldn’t have advanced rapidly during times of war, that would be false, what I have said is that we need not weapons systems development and wars in order to progress further from the position we’re currently are standing at, and, furthermore; that many of those technologies developed during war would eventually had been developed, albeit not as fast. Many advancements would of course had been of different nature since they would have been focused towards the civilian sector. How they would have looked like is up for speculation, but to bluntly state that war and weapons systems development are needed in order for us to progress is flawed. It’s true that people are happy and content during peace time, view it as human nature, and to be honest (and this is a cheap shot, but take it with a blink in the eye) I have yet to meet a fellow human being whom was not pleased by living in peace and therefore wanted war as to obtain gadgets faster, after all, he might just not survive to enjoy them. Cheers.
So basicly, I'm wrong despite all the evidence pointing to me being right? Don't think so dude. If you want to post some evidence of that belief then I'll happily read it, but I doubt there really is any (without going into crazy NWO stuff that doesn't count as evidence...). Show me a time when humans as a species have been more competative than in the major wars and the cold war of the 20th century if you can. To which wars do you refer? Since there are no major wars taking place right now, I very much doubt that a great deal of progress will be made. Although certainly materials research is increasing because armour has needed to come along a lot thanks to middle-easterners blowing themselves and others up. Bad for the individual, good for the species (given the progress we make). Consider war the ultimate form of communism, if it pleases you.
Please reread my post… I was referring to mindset, not about being right or wrong, and I do not view warfare as the ultimate contest, I have as such a different mindset and a different view, I don’t view it as a darn sporting event. Or are you trying to tell me that because you and those in legion view it as such it would make you right and me wrong? That would be as daft as to state that news ratings defines the quality of the news for crying out loud. And secondly; how did you manage to include the “NWO stuff” into this equation? Edit: Am I missing something linguistic here or what the heck just happened.
What I'm saying, is that your mindset (or train of thought, however you want to characterise what is essentially an argument or proposition) appears to me to be wrong, given the fact that in the last 100 years the greatest ammounts of progress have taken place or come out of developments made in major wars (I include the cold war in that, since it had everything war has which makes us progress, without the billions of casualities). My point was that you're making a bold claim, saying that war isn't the ultimate contest and that that sort of attitude is a mere mindset (show me one where the stakes are higher) and that I can't think of any possible way you could back up such a claim other than by referring to NWO type stuff that claims we've all been brainwashed to work for the corporate war-machine or similar. I don't state that I'm right here because a few other people in this thread agree, I state it because of the 20th century. If we're not talking quite along the same train tracks here please do say
Had to take a cup of coffee consulting the Oxford in order to sort this one out, competition and contest thru me off a bit. I got the impression that you viewed warfare as a sporting event not as a competition regarding resources, hence my reaction touching the mindset part mate, if you don’t view warfare as a sporting event there’s no ground for dispute and we’re on the same track as far as that’s concerned. Alright, thanks for clearing out the NOW statment speco..., you actually came across somewhat incoherent with that part (no offence) which thru me off even more. Should point out that when I’m tired I can barely master my own native tongue less English. (*not* to be viewed as an excuse thou )
I meant competition in the sense that there is a winner and a loser, and both sides try very hard not to be that loser (so both sides compete as hard as they can). That was all. Sorry if my use of language is confusing, I've never been the best at making my points easily understood (I kick ass at archaic use of language though!)
Got it speco, no problem and I equally apologize for not having been more awake lingustic wise. Time for some rest over here, cheers.
Welcome to the world of government spending. Nothing is ever $10-20. A simple metal bar may be $10-20, but you also need to include the costs of the government contractor involved. That metal bar will have to be machined to military standards, and that won't come cheap. Then there is the support structure. The standards have to be maintained, so now you're talking about configuration management which adds a whole new level of bureaucracy: configuration managers, document quality assurance, databases, database managers, etc. Of course, only the finest metal should be used in this military-grade slug, so any metal will have to be tested. Labs, technicians, various other scientists; we'll need some of these guys. When the slugs are fabricated, I can only imagine they'll have to be certified for military use. Speaking from experience, the certification process adds at least $100,000 on top of any other costs. It will most likely be more than that. When you read about a governments buying million-dollar toilets hammers, now you know why. -monkey
