War is necessary for technological progress

>timetoast.com/timelines/inventions-of-ww-ii
>Teflon is used on non-stick cooking pans because of its slipery, non-absorbant qualities. The substance PTFE that Teflon is made of was discovered by Dr. Roy Plunkett at the DuPont research laboratories in New Jersey. It was discovered when observing frozen gasses to use for refrigerants and its properties were later put to use.
How is this related to WW2?

>The internet and the smartphone as they are now were possible because of war.
How exactly are smartphones related to war?

GPS is another fine example of >hey this shit would probably be kinda useful in war
>hey you know, we could sell this/this would be practical for civilian use

Not really. Imagine if all the military spending in the world were devoted to science instead.

>How is this related to WW2?

How did i say teflon is related to WW2? Those are inventions from the WW2 period, some of then are military related some are not.

>How exactly are smartphones related to war?

Pic.

meant for

Not really relevant. We are not talking about what if scenarios here, we are talking about history that has happened.

And the fact is: War has brought and brings innovation.

Things we wouldn't have if not for war

Jet Planes
Internet
Microwaves

Imagine if pigs can fly

So which war is exactly responsible for invention of those things? World War 2?
Are you saying, if Hitler didn't come to power, we wouldn't have Smart Phones and Microwaves today?

>So which war is exactly responsible for invention of those things? World War 2?

World War 2, Cold War and the conflicts in which the United State military fights currently fought in after the Cold war.

>Are you saying, if Hitler didn't come to power, we wouldn't have Smart Phones and Microwaves today?

Broadly, yes. A lot of other things would be different too if Hitler had not come to power.

>Are you saying, if Hitler didn't come to power, we wouldn't have Smart Phones and Microwaves today?
Possibly. Such technology was part of the tech race between the soviets and americans. I can't say how different the world would be but there would be thing we have now that we wouldn't, and maybe we'd have things now that we dont

What an interesting claim
Then how comes smartphones only appeard after cold war ended and long after WW2?
Was maybe Iraq War responisble for their invention?

Because military funding and research keeps happening even when there's no shooting. The military is not only interested in fighting current conflicts but also hypothetical future conflicts as well and must be prepared. Ever heard of the Red Queen's Race from Alice in Wonderland? You have to keep adapting and innovating even when you're staying in one place.

>What an interesting claim

It must have been, because i made no claims in that post.

also this

>And the fact is: War has brought and brings innovation.

And the fact is, you didn't need a war for that to happen.

Depends on how you define a war, because it "war" can happen without shooting. The Cold War never went "hot" between the US and USSR but a lot of research and funding went into fighting that hypothetical World War III.

the point is that it won't be unless the military needs that science

War is necessary for spiritual well being

Because the brutal, urgent necessity of war and gaining an advantage over your opponents has a sense of immediacy and scale to it that peacetime scientific research doesn't.

It's the same reason why the other major source of funding for scientific research and development comes from the business sector.

The need to kill your enemy and the need to make more cash-money is simply more natural to us than some abstract desire for "pure" science-for-science's-sake that seems to be what your getting at. The government didn't fork over hundreds of billions of dollars to NASA out of some desire to benevolently explore the galaxy or any of that Neil deGrasse Tyson/Carl Sagan bullshit.

then how does CERN manage to make all those scientific contributions, without the need to kill your enemy or make big business?

>technological progress is necessary to win wars

>And the fact is, you didn't need a war for that to happen.

This is a thread about history. Not about alternate history. And also, i'm not arguing you NEED war. I'm defending statement.

War does speed up and bring forth technological progress.

/thread desu

NO ONE IS SAYING THAT WAR IS THE ONLY WAY TO ADVANCE IN TECHNOLOGY. THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION SPARKED FROM

>The internet [was] possible because of war.

Memes and hearsay. ARPANET was ARPA funded, but the concept that it was a doomsday survival network is apocryphal. Like the other early packet switching networks (and there were a good handful of others in the 60s-70s), it was for sharing research data. ARPANET was also fully phased out by the time the World Wide Web began.

Apart from packet-switching computer networks, there were other televisual terminal networks like Teletext, Prestel and Minitel that developed purely commercially. None of these were able to compete with the computer networks in the long run, but there was clearly plenty of non-military research going into Internet-like systems.

Humans are violent monkeys we need savagery to speed up our progress. I mean user the first walking apes didnt invent the stone axes because they wanted to not its because they loved it idea of blugeoning other walking apes to death.

Correction, war creates unforeseen possibilities.

How would you prove that technological development with war happens faster than without?

Without an objective no one does anything. Without war the only reason to research is to save 0.1% more of the population and getting paid.

>Without an objective no one does anything
>only reason to research
>getting paid

>objective
>only
>paid