Imagine how much better it would’ve been if not for the military involvement. Imagine how many things developed purely to enhance the efficiency of destroying other humans could have been developed instead to enhance and improve lives instead. So many trillions wasted on imaginary borders and in service of imaginary friends over the last… ever.
How do you explain scientific advancement in less armed nations? Some of the most advanced research in the world happens in states with incredibly small forces.
Perhaps you've confused the economic advantage of a militaristic state with a connection between military science and progress.
For example, the space program basically died when the Cold War ended and it took a long time for it to restart and we still have yet to achieve things in the commercial space that the government could do in the 60s like reach our nearest satellite. Same goes for the cancellation of the SSC which could have achieved what the LHC discovered but 10 years earlier. Saying that other states are making discoveries is ignoring the fact that it takes them longer to achieve those goals than with the military or other emergency situation propelling them forward.
Certainly all of the rapid progress of the 20th century was because of military funding. The Cold War made it quite clear how when you drastically changed priorities how quickly various programs started getting canceled and our achievements started falling away (eg beating Soviets to space killed any desire of either party to continue, the Cold War ending killed the SSC, etc). You have WW2 to thank for nuclear technology, lasers, rapid advancements in aircraft, modern cryptography and directly leading to the space race. Even QM takes on military funding to take it from niche curiosity to applied research and real world impact. It’s all indelibly linked.
I’m not sure why you’re having such a reaction to a pretty mundane observation that military funding on technology gets further and faster than the civilians can. Heck go look at how far military is in the math behind cryptography consistently comparing discoveries civilians make and when we learn the military had that tech once it’s declassified decades later.
> I’m not sure why you’re having such a reaction to a pretty mundane observation that military funding on technology gets further and faster than the civilians can
Because it is just plain wrong. And it glorifies military spending and war. Just because the military complex has so much money that their spare change dwarfs many other sources of research funding doesn't mean it is money that couldn't have been used much more efficiently if it was spent wisely from the start.
And about the plain wrong part:
> You have WW2 to thank for nuclear technology,
The fundamental research was done before the war by the international scientific community, and in particular people from Germany and Italy. The hard part done during the Manhattan project was to develop the industrial processes to produce enough fissile material to make the bombs, but making the bombs from that was fairly trivial.
> lasers
Were first created in 1961.
> the space race.
It has been argued that the reason we stopped going to the moon and beyond is that the rush during the Cold War made it too expensive to continue. A more paced development would have been sustainable and would have gone much further.
> Even QM takes on military funding to take it from niche curiosity to applied research and real world impact.
Why do you think so?
In the end, imagine a world where even a fraction of all the money spent on military was spent on research directly instead.
> Because it is just plain wrong. And it glorifies military spending and war. Just because the military complex has so much money that their spare change dwarfs many other sources of research funding doesn't mean it is money that couldn't have been used much more efficiently if it was spent wisely from the start.
And yet time and time again, funding follows the military. I don't disagree it's an economics problem. I'm just highlighting that historically large groups of people generally aren't fans of "lets spend money on science" but are more OK with it being laundered through the military under the guise of defense. I'm passing no moral judgement nor glorifying. I'm simply representing how people as groups have behaved historically. It's irrelevant where/when the fundamental research was done. Applied science is a critical component in the flywheel for research as it enables new instruments, equipment, and more understanding of the problems with theoretical research when models and reality disagree. Modern fundamental research in astrophysics today would not be possible without the applied research that was carried on the backs of military spending (this includes lasers, various secret algorithms that were eventually declassified, etc).
> Were first created in 1961.
Early research into lasers was primarily academic and civilian, but once demonstrated the military poured a lot of money into them during the Cold War which advanced materials sciences that was required for making better & better lasers.
> the rush during the Cold War made it too expensive to continue
It was always too expensive to continue. The only reason the space program was ever funded was for military purposes. It was completely borne out of V2 rocket research the Nazi's started & the US just kept funding the same Nazi scientists to keep working in the US after the war as a counter to the USSR. And even today's space race was made possible due to privately acquired artifacts piggy backing on the corpse of the civilian run / military funded space program. No military investment and I think you more likely end up with NO space program whatsoever.
> Why do you think so?
The Manhattan project had many of the founders of QM on the payroll and QM was completely essential for the atomic bomb to work. Radar development required R&D into QM. QM magnetometers are being funded by the Navy today & there's all sorts of exotic QM applications the military is funding that we're not privy to I'm sure.
> In the end, imagine a world where even a fraction of all the money spent on military was spent on research directly instead.
You're imagining a counterfactual that has no example of it necessarily existing. Indeed, we see a consistent push to cut everything but the military from one US political party while the other side funds the military and tries to fund other things as well. Prior to the 20th century, scientific research was in academia and some private funding of commercial applications. The pace of innovation though is incomparable. So the question is probably closer to "do you want huge amounts of R&D tied to military spending" or "slower rate of progress". Whatever criticisms and failures you level against the US and its military (and there are many), I'm of the opinion that on net it still yielded a positive change to the world order during the 20th century.
