Does invention increase more during wartime or peacetime?

[Qwerty 42]

On a small forum of my friends, some of the denizens there are discussing whether or not invention increases more during wartime or during peacetime. The advocates of peacetime (Essentially one of the local moderators for that subforum) are pointing to Unified Jin China, the advocates of wartime (the two global moderators) are saying, and I quote:

Defensive wise they made tons of inventions.

One was the floors in palaces. at night when it was silent if anybody stepped a guard could hear it because they rigged the floors.

Fire Arrows-need i say more, if the arrow doesn't kill your enemy the fire will

Architecture also skyrocketed. my proof-THE GREAT WALL OF CHINA.

there were also many steps forward in Astrology[sic], as well many other sciences around wartime.

My pool of knowledge doesn't extend as far back as they're saying, anyone care to provide help so I can break up the dual Black Knight syndrome they have going?

[Captain tycho]

Look at WWII; everything from radar to jet aircraft to the atomic bomb came into being in a rather short period of time. Sure, if not for the war, they would have been invented, just not put into use so quickly. But then again you had the great computer boom of the 90s, so, it really quite depends on the circumstances.

[Patrick Degan]

It is not at all a given that war accelerates technological development, and the World War II example doesn't really obtain given how the groundwork researches for radar, computers, jet aircraft, rocketry, and the atomic bomb had all been well underway for at least a decade prior to 1941. Take all that away beforehand, and nobody is going to magick-up any of these innovations simply because the pressures of war are being applied.

[Darth Wong]

Look at WWII; everything from radar to jet aircraft to the atomic bomb came into being in a rather short period of time. Sure, if not for the war, they would have been invented, just not put into use so quickly. But then again you had the great computer boom of the 90s, so, it really quite depends on the circumstances.

WW2 was arguably an accident of history. Did the effects of wartime reach back through time and cause powered flight and the discovery of atomic physics and electromagnetic radiation to happen in the previous decades?

It can be said that wartime accelerates the refinement of weapon systems, most obviously by thoroughly testing them and forcing their improvement. But that doesn't necessarily translate to accelerated development of general technology, or to science. Centuries of European medieval warfare produced precious little advancement, and the barbarian wars against Rome weren't too productive either.

[Solauren]

And those refinements to military systems will spin off into commerical applications.

For example, Jet Engines, they were developed (or at least in development, however early) during WW2. Post WW2, they get turned to commerical use.


Also, another problem with WW2 is those technologies had already been worked on prior to the war. There was in effect a silent armes race going on. The race to the atomic bomb was not the only one going on.

In fact, I believe (and please, correct me if I am wrong), Hitler had started the war hoping these technologies that were in development in years prior would be finished by the Nazi war machine during the war to give the Axis the final advantage it needed.

[Darth Wong]

And those refinements to military systems will spin off into commerical applications.

For example, Jet Engines, they were developed (or at least in development, however early) during WW2. Post WW2, they get turned to commerical use.

But was the jet engine invented because of WW2? Or would it have been invented around that time anyway? Did WW2 reach back in time and force the development of the technologies necessary for jet aircraft?

Also, another problem with WW2 is those technologies had already been worked on prior to the war. There was in effect a silent armes race going on. The race to the atomic bomb was not the only one going on.

Don't change the subject. Wartime is wartime, ie- people shooting at each other. Defiing peacetime competition as a form of warfare for the purpose of this discussion is pure sophistry. By that logic, all time is wartime.

[Solauren]

My apologises on what appeared to be a subject change. I was trying to highlight with the 'in development prior' to show WW2 might not be the best for 'war accelerates invention'.

In the end, it's demand that causes invention

[Chmee]

Wartime can act as a catalyst to bring together people from different fields who might never have met in their civilian careers, but you can't 'schedule' innovation. If you watch James Burke's shows like 'The Day the Universe Changed' or 'Connections' you're just blown away by the seemingly improbable events that led to inventions that were fundamental to our civilization, but war is only one of those catalysts.

[Mr Bean]

Neccesity is the mother of all invention, and War makes quite a few things urgantly needed.

Also it speeds up acceptance.

How quickly would unproven jets engines have been accepted were it not for the demands of Hilter? How much longer would it have taken to devolp a working model?

Rockets are another good example, would America and Russia have see how potent a weapon a weapon these where if not for the V-2s?

War forces invention to speed up, not to happen, mearly the distance from theoretical to physical is alot shorter during wartime.

[Erik von Nein]

For example, Jet Engines, they were developed (or at least in development, however early) during WW2. Post WW2, they get turned to commerical use.

Actually, jet engines were in development before WW2 by two partners who were then conscripted into serving the German air force by applying their invention to their craft to give them an edge.

[tharkûn]

Wartime has several key advantages:

1. It loosens the pursestrings. The Manhattan project did greatly advance science but could only be done so quickly because money was not an object. Likewise mathematics and computation received tremendous assistance with Engima and Magic which were staffed and funded at levels peacetime efforts would never have been able to sustain.

2. Manhours come out of the woodwork. In addition to the funding issue, people are more willing to devote the TIME to science to work through problems fasters. The pace at which the Los Alamos or Bletchly Park scientists were working was far greater than academic norms. Doing your part for the war effort seems to be a damn good motivational tool (and excuse to obliterate overtime concepts).

3. Compotency becomes more important. It is far easier to bump the elderly, if less compotent, scientist off of the senior slot in a vital wartime project than to do so in peace. In peacetime people care about politics, status, due process, etc. far more than during war.

The downside of war:
1. Brilliant minds get wasted on the field. An uncountable number of promising young boys had their brains blown out before they could really show off to the world. Shwartzchild is the textbook example. Likewise people who could be off pushing the frontiers of science get tapped to run spy rings, be high level managers, or be tactitians; even if all this happens to be is time lost, that is time not spent advancing science.

2. Limited resources. Famously the Manhattan project had to resort to using silver because copper was in short supply. For slightly less important projects, they simply did without. It becomes awfully hard to do science and invention when the things you need to do it are all being turned into war goods.

3. Disruption of communications. Most advanced inventions have scientific legacies that span multiple cotinents. When war comes the inability of collaboration with the enemy results in superflous duplication of efforts as well as imposing secrecy burdens.

It can be said that wartime accelerates the refinement of weapon systems, most obviously by thoroughly testing them and forcing their improvement. But that doesn't necessarily translate to accelerated development of general technology, or to science. Centuries of European medieval warfare produced precious little advancement, and the barbarian wars against Rome weren't too productive either.

Those centuries of warfare lead to improved metallurgy and vastly improved metal working. Without the technical knowledge requisite to making the hideously expensive armor and armaments of knights, it would be extremely hard to have the scientific or industrial revolutions. Metallurgy and metal working really caught on and dispersed as a means of equiping better soldiers, only after this was it adapted to agriculture and even later industry. The field of egineering continiously improved better seige machines and better fortifications arms raced through the centuries. The Crusades were among the biggest boons to European science; ever.

The barbarian wars were quite productive, for the barbarians. Roman technology ended up dispersing throughout Europe well beyond the bounds of the Empire. While the wars were dragging Rome downward, the barbarians were being pulled up.

[FSTargetDrone]

For example, Jet Engines, they were developed (or at least in development, however early) during WW2. Post WW2, they get turned to commerical use.

Actually, jet engines were in development before WW2 by two partners who were then conscripted into serving the German air force by applying their invention to their craft to give them an edge.

Quite a bit before, and it wasn't just the Germans. Frank Whittle developed a turbo jet engine in 1930. The first jet engine flew in 1937 (which also saw the first flight of the German design).

In any case, jet fighter technology was clearly accelerated by WW2. However, it wasn't until the Korean War before there was regular combat between fighter jet aircraft.

[Antares]

I guess you first need a certain inftrastructure and development level to make huge leaps in technology in war times.

That's why ancient wars didnt have the effect on technology like WWII (or even perhaps WWI). Just look at the USA nowadays how much they invest in their holy war against terrorism. New technologies to fight it are reported every month. And those are not necessarily weapons.

Even a special way of social engineering can be called a technology.

I would say, that wars comprising several well developed countries from WWII on will have huge impacts on technological development, rather than wars in general.

[Zornhau]

Centuries of European medieval warfare produced precious little advancement, and the barbarian wars against Rome weren't too productive either.

Actually, they saw almost continual change, with the rapid adoption and dissemination of new technologies, including plate armour, gunpowder, fortification, crossbows, longbows and all that underpinned them.

However, I think the innovation was more to do with the ability of individuals to equip themselves and their men with the latest non-standard kit, than with the pressure of war. 18th-century Europe was pretty war-torn, but saw much less innovation than 14th-century Europe.

[Ghost Rider]

Centuries of European medieval warfare produced precious little advancement, and the barbarian wars against Rome weren't too productive either.

Actually, they saw almost continual change, with the rapid adoption and dissemination of new technologies, including plate armour, gunpowder, fortification, crossbows, longbows and all that underpinned them.

However, I think the innovation was more to do with the ability of individuals to equip themselves and their men with the latest non-standard kit, than with the pressure of war. 18th-century Europe was pretty war-torn, but saw much less innovation than 14th-century Europe.

Which was his point he made with the snippage you did

It can be said that wartime accelerates the refinement of weapon systems, most obviously by thoroughly testing them and forcing their improvement. But that doesn't necessarily translate to accelerated development of general technology, or to science.

Just because one area is accelerate does not make it good.

[tharkûn]

It can be said that wartime accelerates the refinement of weapon systems, most obviously by thoroughly testing them and forcing their improvement. But that doesn't necessarily translate to accelerated development of general technology, or to science.


Just because one area is accelerate does not make it good.

In that time period the knowledge base for making war was the driving force, however it did end up translating into general technology. The skills needed to build defensible fortifications were eventually employed building cathedrals, schools, homes, bridges, etc. The technology that made superior armor allowed for the crafting of superior plows, for example. The primitive egineering needed to make a working trebuchet could be employed in building windmills and waterwheels eventually.

Most weapons systems refinements end up impacting the general technology base.

[Junghalli]

I would say war tends to produce a lot of innovation. Man is naturally lazy, and the more pressure is put on him the more stuff he will tend to do. Nothing gets people off their fat asses and working better than knowing that if they don't they're going to be conquered.

[Lord Woodlouse]

I don't think science advances much during war. It's not like the jet engine was invented on request for that war. It was a concept that had been held before, it's just there's more money in engineering experimentation during war. War is just a place where theories can be tested out more readily, at least with modern wars (where complicated engineering principles play a greater part).

But it's the science of necesity. The Industrial Revolution began with the agricultural revolution in the UK, rising populations and new innovative methods for farming required to meet demand (the age of steam. Even though steam engines had been figured out and intellectually invented during the classical era).

Plenty of space age tech came out as an aside thanks to rigorous engineering experimentation and implimentation for things like the Apollo Projects.

War is just one factor that can spur inventions from drawing board to reality. There are others. Not least of which, in the modern world, economic demand.

[Qwerty 42]

Ok, thanks, I'll send some of these over to the forum.

[Patrick Degan]

Centuries of European medieval warfare produced precious little advancement, and the barbarian wars against Rome weren't too productive either.

Actually, they saw almost continual change, with the rapid adoption and dissemination of new technologies, including plate armour, gunpowder, fortification, crossbows, longbows and all that underpinned them.

Plate armour was not a new technology to the medieval period; neither were longbows, crossbows, or fortifications. All had their roots in the Roman military and earlier civilisations. Gunpowder was relatively new depending upon who you credit for its invention, but it would have been discovered eventually one way or the other. The ancient world had an effective incindieary weapon in the form of Greek Fire, the formula for which was lost and never quite rediscovered until modern researches stumbled on it by trial-and-error.