Antillian wrote on 02/09/10 at 19:40:44:


Yes by all means, let's have more wars and really make progress.  But I think the argument fails in any case.

Frankly you could make a contrary argument very well.  If a given technology is suited only to war making, what do you have?  Nothing of economic importance.  So for this argument to work, wars must produce not only technical innovation, but innovation useful for farming, producing widgets and the like.

You really could make the argument, and now that I think about it I am sure I have seen it made, that military R&D saps resources from productive R&D.  For two or three decades the Great Powers devoted vast resources to producing bigger and better dreadnoughts; armor, artillery, engines, command and control, the works.  And you wonder what it produced besides large fleets of extremely destructive dreadnoughts.  How useful it is to know the optimal allocation of deck armor on a 14,000 ton battle cruiser!  But probably not of much help once the one great dreadnought battle, Jutland, was over.

BPaulsen wrote on 02/08/10 at 01:36:43:


You cannot maintain a strong correlation between warfare and technological development if millennia of wars on the American contintent before Columbus resulted in the Indians being far behind. Plus between 1815 and 1914 there was only one major war fought out in Western Europe; still technological development was faster than in any age before.
There must be other important factors.

@Willempie, quite independently of Washington politics in 1938, my point is only that the economic stimulus provided by U.S. entry into World War II could have been provided by other means and had just the same effect.  Actually, probably less stimulus would have been required since a big concern during the war was how to keep consumer spending low.

I disagree entirely with your equation of trade and piracy.  It's true that when trade is primitive, traders in one port will be pirates in another, and pirates may be among your first traders; but to get highly organized trade you have to stamp out piracy.  That's why the Romans devoted vast resources to squashing piracy in the Mediterrean.  My understanding is that it was the domestication of the Northmen and the relief that gave to northern European sea transport, not the Viking depredations, that benefited markets.  On land, in my view, it was the rise of strong regional authorities and eventually nation-states that made trade, wide markets and economic development possible.  You could not have efficient land trade as long as you had to worry about brigands or "taxation" by this or that local Duke.  Expansive markets and state power have always gone hand in hand, the way I see it.

For one thing, European markets fell apart when Rome fell, so that is a fairly dramatic illustration of the point.

It's true that technical innovation comes about in war; it's also true that it comes about in peace.  I don't think anyone would seriously suggest, however, that the net economic effect of an event such as the conquest and occupation of Iraq, let alone mega-wars like 1914-1918 and 1939-1945, is anything but negative.  On the one hand you have vast, direct destruction of plant and equipment, not to mention people being killed and maimed.  On the other you have resources like oil and labor being used for purposes that do not result in an increase in the net social capital.  If these resources remained at home and were devoted to production, that much more economic growth would occur.

Someone mentioned that WW-II provided the U.S. economy with the fiscal stimulus that it needed to pull out of the Great Depression.  That's true, but only because the policy-makers of the day didn't understand how much stimulus was needed.  (Modern policy-makers in Washington today likewise have applied too little stimulus to the economy, and the result is that our recession will be longer and more painful than necessary, with a greater net negative impact on long-term growth, but that's another topic.)

I think it's facile to attribute the profound technical advantages that the Europeans enjoyed over the Americans in A.D. 1500 to Europeans having engaged in that many more wars.  For one thing, there was a terrific amount of war going on in America before Columbus.  

But even in the depths of the Dark Ages, European technology excelled that of the Americans in 1500 (they had steel; the arch; sea-faring), and of European technical advances after that, the only one that I can think of having much to do with war is the invention of artillery; and gunpowder, something not originally invented for war-making, was borrowed from the Chinese.  Wind and water mills; techniques of wool production, dyeing and weaving; glass production; canals; sea transport; these major European technical advances came about due to the expansion of markets and trade, not due to war.

The carracks that the Europeans sailed around the world in were originally designed for north-south European trade, I understand.  Artillery + ocean-going ships = world conquest, it turns out, but it was trade, not world conquest, that was on the minds of the orginal European explorers and adventurers.

If you build a lathe or a die-press, a tractor or an airliner, you have something that increases your ability to produce goods and services; if you build a 500-bomb, a supersonic fighter-jet or an aircraft carrier, you have, along the same dimension, precisely nothing.

Koji wrote on 02/06/10 at 23:22:57:


How old are you, about 16?  That would at least excuse your ignorance or history and your puerile ideas about war.  Go read some history books.  Read about Verdun, for example.  Read about the siege of Leningrad.

If you're any older than 16, you should be ashamed.

In either case, I'm not wasting any more words on you.

BPaulsen wrote on 02/07/10 at 04:36:58:


I have read that before, but I question it. When it comes to Europe, until 1945 there hardly has been any longer period that the important countries were not involved in some war or another. So it is hardly possible to draw a conclusion. Perhaps the 19th Century, but you can't say that the technological development was slowed down. At the other hand, on the American continent eternal warfare did not help the Indian empires to develop a technology that could compete with the European.

Antillian wrote on 02/07/10 at 11:30:35:

I live in an area that has suffered from civil war for 7 years or so (just google on Bouterse and/or Brunswijk). Sure, it was kindergarted compared to Afghanistan, Iraq or Somalia; no planes, no tanks. Moreover I have only seen the latter weeks. When it was over in early 1990 I visited Albina, infamous of the Christmas riots lately. The village was almost completely destroyed and deserted. All in all it was more than enough.

Men enjoy competition, war isn't the only outlet to achieve such an end. This forum is focused on a game where when we sit down and play it we want to prove we're better than the opponent. It's a microcosm of the idea of competition in anything. War is just one way to go about it...

As far as technology and economic growth - wars spur on the former better than any other singular incentive, and it's not like significant economic opportunities don't come about via war. Those aren't really arguments for war, because those are amoral issues, for the most part.

Mankind will likely never be entirely divorced of the desire to demonstrate superiority over their fellow man, for better or worse.

There is something far stronger at work than national defence, oil companies or industries. It is human nature, male nature in particular, and the examples are abundant in history and in culture, even today.

Man's calling is for battle, not the jobs you describe. It's not even a matter of class and other options in life, as has been evidenced by numerous men, past and present, who chose to fight although they could have afforded a comfortable life otherwise.