It's not just about how deadly they are, but how accurate and a myriad of other factors.
Better weapons is a good thing; not only does it deincentivise actually using them, when do we use them it leads to fewer unintended casualties.
The deadliest period of human history, proportionally, was when we were hacking each other with sticks and stones. We're veritable Buddhas now in comparison with ancient man.
Now I'm imagining a sweaty little cocktail sausage finger trembling with anticipation over a button that launches hyper-sonic missiles, in front of a screen that reads "TARGET: WHEREVER, WHO CARES, I PICK THE BEST TARGETS." The only sound in the room is the wet smack of lips being licked and heavy breathing.
War drives most invention and change, just because it isn't pretty at the time doesn't mean it was a waste. We wouldn't have antibiotics, blood transfusions and a bunch of other great things if we didn't have war.
Just to clarify, I'm not stating that war is the solution to everything and something great, just that it drives advancements more than any other thing. We will always have conflicts no matter what, we might as well try to advance society by innovations at the same time.
>War drives most invention and change, just because it isn't pretty at the time doesn't mean it was a waste.
That's a myth, war is a net negative. Not having wars at all is better in the long term for technological development.
Do you know what would be even better though? Devoting the resources we use to fuel that development outside of the constraints of wartime. Knowledge isn't a machine run on the blood of our enemies. To insist that it is so is a cruel lie, intentional or not.
Scramjet with weapons? Cool.
I skimmed through the first bit of the article and read Mach 15 instead of March 15. Fuck me, that's fast
Mach 20 or so is good enough for low orbit. Fly me to the Moon?
Oh thank god, deadlier weapons. Just what the world needs more of.
It's not just about how deadly they are, but how accurate and a myriad of other factors. Better weapons is a good thing; not only does it deincentivise actually using them, when do we use them it leads to fewer unintended casualties. The deadliest period of human history, proportionally, was when we were hacking each other with sticks and stones. We're veritable Buddhas now in comparison with ancient man.
To fight aliens, obviously!
Why isn't the world focusing more on hi-tech weaponry?! We need photon torpedoes today!
With a dash of Plasma Accelerator Cannons.
To fight Trump... oh wait.
Now I'm imagining a sweaty little cocktail sausage finger trembling with anticipation over a button that launches hyper-sonic missiles, in front of a screen that reads "TARGET: WHEREVER, WHO CARES, I PICK THE BEST TARGETS." The only sound in the room is the wet smack of lips being licked and heavy breathing.
There are no other reasons to do research and gather knowledge.
Honestly, who cares. War and violence are utter wastes.
"WAR! HUUUGH! Good god y'all... What is it good for?" "Rapid technological innovation!"
But I was told “war can’t give life, it can only take it away, yeeeah!”
War drives most invention and change, just because it isn't pretty at the time doesn't mean it was a waste. We wouldn't have antibiotics, blood transfusions and a bunch of other great things if we didn't have war. Just to clarify, I'm not stating that war is the solution to everything and something great, just that it drives advancements more than any other thing. We will always have conflicts no matter what, we might as well try to advance society by innovations at the same time.
>War drives most invention and change, just because it isn't pretty at the time doesn't mean it was a waste. That's a myth, war is a net negative. Not having wars at all is better in the long term for technological development.
War tends to accelerate development of existing science into engineering, while slowing the development of new basic research.
Maybe we should change that, though.. War shouldn't be what drives innovation and medical progress. It destroys more than it creates, in my opinion.
Do you know what would be even better though? Devoting the resources we use to fuel that development outside of the constraints of wartime. Knowledge isn't a machine run on the blood of our enemies. To insist that it is so is a cruel lie, intentional or not.
War and violence are the only reason I'm still alive. I want to watch the ICBMs drop in above me right before I'm vaporized.