Turn on thread page Beta

should science be used to develop military technology? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    moot point since it always will be anyway
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pooo)
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Of course it should. Countless developments that have aided society have come through the symbiotic relationship between science and war.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Someone has to keep the American government in check!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarkWhite)
    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.
    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 :dontknow: I just know it's wrong. :emo:


    (Original post by concubine)
    Of course it should. Countless developments that have aided society have come through the symbiotic relationship between science and war.
    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.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reflexive)
    moot point since it always will be anyway
    ^^ This

    Also some of our best advances have come from wartime. Funny how the governments are suddenly more interested in funding science when theres a world war eh? :rolleyes:

    We may be 50 years behind had it not been for the world wars, pretty sure you wouldn't be typing on a laptop or computer even for example.

    Imagine the progress if we had that funding and interest all the time.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pooo)
    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 :dontknow: I just know it's wrong. :emo:




    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by insoms)
    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.
    hmmm, i always thought harbouring these weapons = escalating tension. I didn't realise it was preventing war. Cool.

    Yeah I was saying IF the weapons were unleashed and we was all bombed/gased/injected etc. Didn't think of the consequences of mere possession. Thanks bro!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Irrelevance)
    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.
    Also, they don't have the money to. It would take too much money to develop what they could theoretically do, and no-one would buy the end product because it would be too expensive. Look at bluray players or 3d tvs. Bluray players have been around ages but how many people do you know that have one not counting PS3s. 3D teles are also possible and have actually been built and being sold, but they're just too expensive to buy. Companies could go more advanced than that but even less people would buy it. Why buy whatevers going to come after 3d teles if theres no 3d channels yet and by the time there are they'll have come down in price anyway.

    Companies could do more than that but can't. Wheras during war the government chucks money at them and says we NEED this do whatever it takes and we'll pay you for it. At that point they can employ as many research teams as possible and won;t lose out. Then they have a guaranteed return as the government says we'll buy 1,000 of them or 100,000 if you can do this.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by pooo)
    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.
    Its not a choice of doing it or not. If we don't eventually someone WILL kill us. Humans have always fought wars and they always will.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pooo)
    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 :dontknow: I just know it's wrong. :emo:
    There are rules and regulations.

    Biological has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biologi...ons_Convention for example. For a list, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of...he_laws_of_war
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It has done in the past, why shouldn't it continue to do so?
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.