StarCraft® II

The military

Posts: 1,736
Is it me or is the military one of the greatest things that ever happened to humanity? Other than the negatives like killing if it werent for the military would we be anywhere near as technologically advanced as we are today? Many of the greatest technologies known today happened in the military before becoming available in the civilian world. And the military is always coming up with "next-gen" material.

Just food for thought I guess since i see billboards everywhere going against the idea of wars and such. Although I agree I think even if it was only in the past the military had to be "there" in order for humanity to reach the next technological tier.

It may not be needed today since we already reached the point where we can innovate without the military but I'm not so sure about that. I guess someone else can inform me on such things.
Reply Quote
Posts: 616
I can't say for sure if one is faster than the other, but there have certainly been peaceful times of great enlightenment. However, even then you probably do need some military, for as you become richer, someone is going to want to take those riches away by conquering you.
Reply Quote
Posts: 12,350
01/21/2014 03:11 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
Other than the negatives like killing if it werent for the military would we be anywhere near as technologically advanced as we are today?


This is something which would at best be only speculation.

Certainly we've had technological advancements from military-funded research, but this research is not "the military," and can demonstrably occur outside a military environment.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,411
01/22/2014 07:18 PMPosted by Hylozoist
Certainly we've had technological advancements from military-funded research, but this research is not "the military," and can demonstrably occur outside a military environment.


Military research = the source of most(at least many) major technological innovations = civilian research that is funded by the military for military purposes
(In the US and abroad military research is development with specifications which is contracted out to private companies.)

Military research /=/ (does not equal) the military

Having a military /=/ (does not equal) wars

Although,
A war HELPS justify funding of a larger military
A larger military HELPS justify funding of military research programs
Military research programs HELP provide innovators with the resources and motivation to innovate

In modern times does the military majorly contribute to the most advanced engineering development?
Well,
Since I was a little boy, I've planned on improving technology in order to push humans into the technological future because generally lives improve as technology does. I am now trying (I also planned this part from when I was young) to become a mechanical engineer that works on projects for the military.
Does that answer your question?
Edited by Engineer on 1/23/2014 6:37 AM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,736
01/22/2014 07:18 PMPosted by Hylozoist
01/21/2014 03:11 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
Other than the negatives like killing if it werent for the military would we be anywhere near as technologically advanced as we are today?


This is something which would at best be only speculation.

Certainly we've had technological advancements from military-funded research, but this research is not "the military," and can demonstrably occur outside a military environment.


Since the def of speculation in a nutshell means educated guess sure I am speculating. All I know is that despite all the !@#$ we've gone through due to us being belligerent and causing wars, the military has been able to push humanity ahead and continues to do so today.

You've grown to hate me probably for many reasons I can name but to say I'm speculating at best just seems like a completely non-analytical/pure emotional statement with no backup at all. You're always trying so hard to never concede a point as if you have some personal record. Anyway...

Engineer, now that we've reached the age of the Internet do you think we should still rely on the military to fund/produce certain future technologies? Can we innovate just as well, if not better if we didn't have a military (this is purely hypothetical and relies on the world being "nice")?
Edited by Luftwaffe on 1/27/2014 7:29 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 12,350
01/27/2014 07:25 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
the military has been able to push humanity ahead and continues to do so today.


Again, it's not the military which does this. It's funding for scientists which does this. The fact that a lot of funding has been routed through the military doesn't make it automagically the military which caused advancement.

01/27/2014 07:25 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
You've grown to hate me probably for many reasons I can name


What ridiculous passive aggressive whining. I don't hate you. The fact that I disagree with you in no way entails 'hate,' and the fact that you'd try to equivocate this is ridiculous.

01/27/2014 07:25 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
I'm speculating at best just seems like a completely non-analytical/pure emotional statement with no backup at all.


Except for the part where I justified my statement with an explanation.

01/27/2014 07:25 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
Engineer, now that we've reached the age of the Internet do you think we should still rely on the military to fund/produce certain future technologies? Can we innovate just as well, if not better if we didn't have a military (this is purely hypothetical and relies on the world being "nice")?


Military budget, especially in the US, is hyperinflated. If you add up the total military budgets of the second through tenth largest military in the world, it would almost, but not quite, equal the military budget of the US.

This level of bloat needs to be addressed, and funding needs to be routed in more productive ways.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,411
01/27/2014 07:25 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
Engineer, now that we've reached the age of the Internet do you think we should still rely on the military to fund/produce certain future technologies? Can we innovate just as well, if not better if we didn't have a military (this is purely hypothetical and relies on the world being "nice")?

I don't see what the internet has to do with this.
The military indirectly puts prioritization on technological development. On the macro scale, it is not militaries that create the resources for this development, but instead they simply redirect the resources from other non-technological-development uses.
So, without the military, we'd have to replace that piece of motivation with other motivation to continue putting the same amount of resources towards technological development. This new motivation could take various forms, but
yes, ideally, everyone would magically be nice and also want, without external reason, to sacrifice some of their living standards in order to fund research into engineering technologies for the future.

Edit: Internet helps homogenize the world, which MAY help everyone be nice (it'd still be tough). The internet as we know it today hardly helps at all with convincing people to give up their money for research.
Edited by Engineer on 1/28/2014 11:21 AM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,411
01/27/2014 07:44 PMPosted by Hylozoist
Military budget, especially in the US, is hyperinflated. If you add up the total military budgets of the second through tenth largest military in the world, it would almost, but not quite, equal the military budget of the US.

Only a very small fraction of the military budget goes to technological development, such as what DARPA directs, but even then its a large amount of money compared to most things we think about. We do spent way too much money in foreign conflicts and maintaining a huge standing military. We could theoretically spend 50% of our military budget on technological development, while being safe thanks to our country's advantage defensive position of being across the ocean from nearly all of our enemies. We could theoretically be decades ahead of even our most advanced adversaries, while not being ready to do anything overseas. But instead, the American government believes it has the responsibility to be the policeman of the world, it tries to get directly involved in any governmental change at every opportunity, as long as that region holds some sort of strategic relevance.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,736
01/28/2014 11:09 AMPosted by Engineer
01/27/2014 07:44 PMPosted by Hylozoist
Military budget, especially in the US, is hyperinflated. If you add up the total military budgets of the second through tenth largest military in the world, it would almost, but not quite, equal the military budget of the US.

Only a very small fraction of the military budget goes to technological development, such as what DARPA directs, but even then its a large amount of money compared to most things we think about. We do spent way too much money in foreign conflicts and maintaining a huge standing military. We could theoretically spend 50% of our military budget on technological development, while being safe thanks to our country's advantage defensive position of being across the ocean from nearly all of our enemies. We could theoretically be decades ahead of even our most advanced adversaries, while not being ready to do anything overseas. But instead, the American government believes it has the responsibility to be the policeman of the world, it tries to get directly involved in any governmental change at every opportunity, as long as that region holds some sort of strategic relevance.


Sorry to hylozoist for acting rash and rather emotional in this thread. Everyone reaches their breaking point and my fuse is rather short (not that im proud of that). Anyways...

Another big problem I feel is that we never go into war with a clear cut objective.

Take Iraq for example, we went in the war supposedly for WMDs. Then it turned into killing Hussein (who we put in power in the first !@#$ing place). Then it turned into counter insurgency. Then it turned into establishing a democratic government. And then we leave and in less than a month insurgency just springs up again like we were never there in the first place.

We need to go into war with an objective, a plan. Money and lives would probably be saved if we started doing that.
Reply Quote
Posts: 12,350
01/28/2014 05:27 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
Another big problem I feel is that we never go into war with a clear cut objective.


Or at least, never with a clear objective which is presented to the public. The true objective is often hidden behind propaganda and emotional appeals.

01/28/2014 05:27 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
We need to go into war with an objective, a plan. Money and lives would probably be saved if we started doing that.


Also could stand to stop using war as a tool of convenience, but rather one of last resort.

I'm of the opinion that the last truly justified war was the World War 2.

01/28/2014 05:27 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
Sorry to hylozoist for acting rash and rather emotional in this thread. Everyone reaches their breaking point and my fuse is rather short (not that im proud of that). Anyways...


Eh, doesn't bother me. I tend to give as good as I get without taking offense.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,411
01/28/2014 07:40 PMPosted by Hylozoist
Also could stand to stop using war as a tool of convenience, but rather one of last resort.

I'm of the opinion that the last truly justified war was the World War 2.

I agree. I sort of feel that the U.S. government let power go to their head starting during/after WWII. Massive damage suffered by nearly all major powers during WWII while the US was protected strategically (mostly due to location) left the U.S. in a very dominate position, especially compared to before the war. This, combined with the fact that the U.S. entered a war just in time to do some major !@# kicking and topped it all off with being the first country ever to build and use a nuclear weapon, I feel left the government very cocky and they've been the same since. We do everything because we can. We print money like a daily newspaper because we don't have to worry (historically, at least) that the currency won't be accepted globally. We get involved in every conflict because we can because we spend way too much on military because we got addicted to kicking $%^ overseas during WWII.

Side note: It's silly when you look at the fact that America never got heavily involved in Cuba, it's own backyard practically, yet it's had full scale military forces in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. Sure, the CIA had messed around in Cuba a lot, and we sent some paramilitaries to a beach, but we never sent a military invasion. I mean, sure we've done some things about Cuba, and sure we had the right to do at least something in the other places, but the scale of action in the other places and Cuba doesn't even compare. I may not be extremely knowledgeable about Cuba, but when you look at the situation there, all the bull-*!@ about going other places to free people from oppressive governments becomes 100% obviously bull#$%^.
Edited by Engineer on 1/28/2014 9:47 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,736
01/28/2014 09:40 PMPosted by Engineer
01/28/2014 07:40 PMPosted by Hylozoist
Also could stand to stop using war as a tool of convenience, but rather one of last resort.

I'm of the opinion that the last truly justified war was the World War 2.

I agree. I sort of feel that the U.S. government let power go to their head starting during/after WWII. Massive damage suffered by nearly all major powers during WWII while the US was protected strategically (mostly due to location) left the U.S. in a very dominate position, especially compared to before the war. This, combined with the fact that the U.S. entered a war just in time to do some major !@# kicking and topped it all off with being the first country ever to build and use a nuclear weapon, I feel left the government very cocky and they've been the same since. We do everything because we can. We print money like a daily newspaper because we don't have to worry (historically, at least) that the currency won't be accepted globally. We get involved in every conflict because we can because we spend way too much on military because we got addicted to kicking $%^ overseas during WWII.

Side note: It's silly when you look at the fact that America never got heavily involved in Cuba, it's own backyard practically, yet it's had full scale military forces in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. Sure, the CIA had messed around in Cuba a lot, and we sent some paramilitaries to a beach, but we never sent a military invasion. I mean, sure we've done some things about Cuba, and sure we had the right to do at least something in the other places, but the scale of action in the other places and Cuba doesn't even compare. I may not be extremely knowledgeable about Cuba, but when you look at the situation there, all the bull-*!@ about going other places to free people from oppressive governments becomes 100% obviously bull#$%^.


ahaha the bay of pigs, as the strongest fighting superpower of the past and today we should be ashamed that we ever made such a half assed attempt like that. Downright absolutely ashamed.

EDIT

the funny thing is all the tyrants we're fighting today were the tyrants we put in power a few decades ago...
Edited by Luftwaffe on 1/29/2014 11:22 AM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 12,350
01/29/2014 11:21 AMPosted by Luftwaffe
the funny thing is all the tyrants we're fighting today were the tyrants we put in power a few decades ago...


Funny in a furiously frustrating manner.

Imperialism is just such a terrible idea, it never ceases to be face-palmingly cringe inducing that there are parts of US politics which continue to endorse it.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,736
01/29/2014 02:40 PMPosted by Hylozoist
01/29/2014 11:21 AMPosted by Luftwaffe
the funny thing is all the tyrants we're fighting today were the tyrants we put in power a few decades ago...


Funny in a furiously frustrating manner.

Imperialism is just such a terrible idea, it never ceases to be face-palmingly cringe inducing that there are parts of US politics which continue to endorse it.


What made me cringe almost as much was the republican response to the president's state of the union last night.

I dont give a flying !@#$ about that lady's three children and im tired, so damn tired, of the republicans bashing and bashing the president. Its okay to disagree but do you really have to put the man down in the ground and not even tell him something he did right?

I don't think ive ever seen the republican party in more disarray than it is now. Especially since those bastards over at the tea party are trying to %^-* america up.

If i were the "other" republicans I would immediately set up a barrier between us and the tea party, completely dissasociate from them and do not include them as part of the republican party. They do nothing but stomp on everything the republicans like ronald reagan and Abe lincoln stood for.
Reply Quote
Posts: 12,350
01/29/2014 04:50 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
They do nothing but stomp on everything the republicans like ronald reagan and Abe lincoln stood for.


Well, with regards to Lincoln, the modern Republican party is nothing like the Republicans of his day.

There's been a polar shift between Democrats and Republicans.

Lincoln-era Democrats were more like modern Republicans, and Lincoln-era Republicans were more like modern Democrats.

It doesn't map exactly, but they're a lot closer to the ideology.

01/29/2014 04:50 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
I dont give a flying !@#$ about that lady's three children and im tired, so damn tired, of the republicans bashing and bashing the president. Its okay to disagree but do you really have to put the man down in the ground and not even tell him something he did right?


Republicans have lost the plot entirely in recent years. They're so disconnected from reality and what's necessary for effective governing of a modern society, and so enamoured with outdated and outmoded ideas, that they have no way to effectively push their agenda apart from engaging in massive smear campaigns and stonewalling.

It's biting them on the !@# really quite hard, but they're going to kick and scream the whole way.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,736
01/29/2014 07:38 PMPosted by Hylozoist
01/29/2014 04:50 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
They do nothing but stomp on everything the republicans like ronald reagan and Abe lincoln stood for.


Well, with regards to Lincoln, the modern Republican party is nothing like the Republicans of his day.

There's been a polar shift between Democrats and Republicans.

Lincoln-era Democrats were more like modern Republicans, and Lincoln-era Republicans were more like modern Democrats.

It doesn't map exactly, but they're a lot closer to the ideology.

01/29/2014 04:50 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
I dont give a flying !@#$ about that lady's three children and im tired, so damn tired, of the republicans bashing and bashing the president. Its okay to disagree but do you really have to put the man down in the ground and not even tell him something he did right?


Republicans have lost the plot entirely in recent years. They're so disconnected from reality and what's necessary for effective governing of a modern society, and so enamoured with outdated and outmoded ideas, that they have no way to effectively push their agenda apart from engaging in massive smear campaigns and stonewalling.

It's biting them on the !@# really quite hard, but they're going to kick and scream the whole way.


There once was a time when the politicians would present their ideas to help a,erica and then either the better idea wins or they both find an even better compromise. I not trying to say democrats are always right but with how badly in disarray the republican party is in right now withhe tea party biting its !@# its looking like im going to be voting democrat for a decade.

Im all for fiscal conservative ideas but when they start going out and bashing gays, mexicans, etc. things like that that are so unecessary just makes them alienate everyone but the backtown rednecks and some of the super wealthy. They need to stop focusing on the social aspects of america and start focusing onwhat really matters, our education system, economy, housing, and the military budget (as for military budget spend more on research rather than just pure manpower, its unecessary).

EDIT

at the sme time though they need to change, i feel like if they die out then until theres a replacement we'll have a democratic "dictatorship" so to speak, like a monopoly on politics, which i dont think would turn out well either. Politics is just... Disheartening, because we're considered the "smartest" species on earth.
Edited by Luftwaffe on 1/30/2014 6:24 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 12,350
01/30/2014 06:21 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
Im all for fiscal conservative ideas but when they start going out and bashing gays


The trouble is that the republicans' idea of 'fiscally conservative' simply doesn't work.

Firstly, they demonstrate that's not what they care about when they propose and vote for programs which simply give money to rich people, and against programs which would reduce the cost and waste in public institutions.

Add to that the fact that austerity demonstrably does not work, and only serves to heighten recessions. What breaks recessions is deficit spending.

It's pretty basic economic theory that you save in times of plenty and spend in times of famine.

Austerity just deepens recessions and slows recovery.

Not to mention the 'trickle down' economics championed by republicans is demonstrated to simply not work.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,411
I don't enjoy moderating, but this thread is off topic.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,736
02/01/2014 04:41 PMPosted by Engineer
I don't enjoy moderating, but this thread is off topic.


I always love my daily conversations with hylozoist, and besides, blizz doesnt mod tech and science forum because as much as i hate to admit it every sc2 player doesnt care about topics that will expand their knowledge and understanding of the world around them and the world in starcraft.

Really this is a thread cut off from the "idiots" of the sc2 community, or the lazy who simply dont wanna converse and just play.

EDIT

At the same time hylozoist I don't agree with the amount of welfare the democrats are pushing, we shouldnt abolish it but it is rather abused nowadays. Abuse can be something like selling food stamps, living off welfare, etc.
Edited by Luftwaffe on 2/1/2014 8:05 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 12,350
02/01/2014 08:04 PMPosted by Luftwaffe
At the same time hylozoist I don't agree with the amount of welfare the democrats are pushing, we shouldnt abolish it but it is rather abused nowadays. Abuse can be something like selling food stamps, living off welfare, etc.


This is a lie which has been pushed by certain subsets of the republicans.

Abuse of welfare is vanishingly small; less than 2% of welfare funds spent are attributed to fraudulent cases. In 2012, only around 2.5% of cases had any instance of fraud, most of which was minor.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]