should science be used to develop military technology?

Of course it should. Science is a tool used to progress civilisation and further understanding whilst solving problems.

But is the investment in warfare-technology right?

If you can't answer, please feel free to link me to any good sites/sources that may help my understanding.

Science is a very broad area - is it to be any more specific? For example, the use of biology could result in biological warfare, which is much different to a rifle developed through physics research or a robot developed through technology.

Of course it should. Countless developments that have aided society have come through the symbiotic relationship between science and war.

moot point since it always will be anyway

I know exactly what you mean. There is no answer to this question because science (biology/chemistry/physics/maybe even psychiatry) has been used and there are no rules or regulations. The result of war with the advances of modern scientific warfare could be catastrophic. The more we advance technologically, however, the more destructive and harmful war becomes. I suppose this is dancing on the morality of war so i'll stop spraffing. I don't even know what my question is I just know it's wrong.




Of course! Every war has been fought with the tools of the most modern technology available. But in todays day and age, surely there is a lot more scope for destruction and a lot more risk of abuse of the science. Where do we draw the line? It's easy for us to press a button and blow up a nation, we will loose the ability to recognize humanity and approach a more thoughtless, unlimited warfare.

You don't understand what you're talking about, the reason we didn't go to war recently is because of technology. If there weren't nuclear weapons Russia and USA would have probably been at each other throats during the Cold War, but mutually assured destruction kept each side from doing anything drastic.

It got pretty close though.

It should and it shouldn't. Reasons for have already been mentioned here saying that world wars have catalysed progression of civilisation every time one has occurred. What's holding back technology from progressing is more the fact that every company intends to work for a profit - conditions which didn't apply during wartime seeing as they made/released the current technology in trade for, how shall I say, not dying.

As mentioned, it boils down to profit. In a hypothetical, yet realistic, situation companies such as Apple, Sony etc. all have technology which has advanced beyond what is considered state of the art today. However, why bother releasing something new when you're still making money off old technology? There's no reason to.

On top of that there's a pretty interesting video around about productivity and it shows that when it comes to complex actions that require more than simple cognitive processes pay decreases productivity. So what a computing company in Australia (I think) does is that every year (or some long time period) the company allows all of it's employees to do whatever they want provided they showcase their research or work at a fun presentation/party. The company came up with **** loads of new ideas and bug fixes on that day every day of the year.

Of course it should. Science is a tool used to progress civilisation and further understanding whilst solving problems.

But is the investment in warfare-technology right?

If you can't answer, please feel free to link me to any good sites/sources that may help my understanding.

I know exactly what you mean. There is no answer to this question because science (biology/chemistry/physics/maybe even psychiatry) has been used and there are no rules or regulations. The result of war with the advances of modern scientific warfare could be catastrophic. The more we advance technologically, however, the more destructive and harmful war becomes. I suppose this is dancing on the morality of war so i'll stop spraffing. I don't even know what my question is I just know it's wrong.