Why choose war over science?

[Martin]

Consider the following:

[*] The Iraq war has cost 300-320B so far, and is estimated to end up costing 600-700 (with some estimates going into the trillions range). (link and link)
[*] The Manhattan project cost $2B in 1940s dollars. (link)
[*] Between 42 and 06, prices have increased 12 fold, meaning the manhattan project cost ~$24B in today's money. (link)
[*] the largest scientific research projects today seem to be the Large Hadron Collider and ITER costing a grand total of ~20B (12B for ITER, 8B for LHC).

So my question is (obviously aimed at war promoters), why do you prefer spending this immense amount of money on war as opposed to science/research? Given that the cost of the grandest science research projects currently going on, don't you think that such things give a much better return than war? And do you really believe that drawing the greatest minds in the world together and funding grand research projects (say, fusion relearch, solar power relearch, theoretical physics research,m cure for cancer - there isn't any shortage of suitable candidates...) and the general promotion of science is really that much worse than what's going on in Iraq right now?

 

[RichardE]

Massive war usually creates advancement

Not this war, but WW3 should..if we live through it of course.

 

[CycloWizard]

An impressive false dichotemy. I could make the argument that we go to war to protect our ability to pursue scientific interests, among other things. That, and I wouldn't be surprised if the US DoD spends more on research than every other organization in the world combined. They've come up with some impressive toys for both the military and civilians (see: carbon composite golf clubs with titanium alloy heads - all parts developed by the USAF, just for one example).

 

[maluckey]

additionally, doctors who have treated war victims filter into civilian hospitals to teach and train about extreme trauma and ER triage. After all, who has more experience?

The cutting edge technology used to defeat opponents also filters down. Night vision, ballistic materials, improved alloys and virtually all the cutting edge electronics in the field of communications is military driven.

 

[techs]

A little known fact is the development and building of the B-29 cost more than the Manhattan Project.

 

[imported_Infidel]

I'm currently reading "Science Goes to War", it's amazing how much science is driven by the needs of war. I believe it's considerably less in this day and age but it all goes to maintaining a superpower status vis a vis military might. Which is why it's so mindboggling that this admin and conservatives/republicans in general are so anti-science. The reason we kick ass in the middle east is because we embraced science and free exchange of info while they remained isolated in theocratic monarchies. This admin would have us emulate the very societies we are at war with. Crazy.

 

[Lazy8s]

^^ I second all of the above plus the better weapons we build (like the nuke) the more costly war gets. Are you saying we should find a way to obliterate the rest of the world with a single bomb/bullet/rocket and it would solve our war problems?

 

[Modular]

Exactly as CycloWizard said:

We go to war to protect our ability to support such things as the advancement of science. If we funneled all war costs/military costs into some cure for cancer fund, we would all be praying to Mecca in less than a week.

 

[Braznor]

Science gives men arrogance to seek war on their own terms.

War in turn pushes science forward.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
An impressive false dichotemy. I could make the argument that we go to war to protect our ability to pursue scientific interests, among other things. That, and I wouldn't be surprised if the US DoD spends more on research than every other organization in the world combined. They've come up with some impressive toys for both the military and civilians (see: carbon composite golf clubs with titanium alloy heads - all parts developed by the USAF, just for one example).

(Instead of replying 7 times, I'll just choose yours, since everyone is saying basically the same thing as you)

Yes, you could make that argument since it has happened before (like the manhattan project in my post, or advances in computing also during WWII), but the problem is, I wasn't speaking in broad generalities/trends in my post - I was refering to the Iraq war and current scientific research.
So, if you want to actually convince me otherwise, show me how Saddam threatened the US to such a significant extent that he endangered your ability to pursue research. Or show me that the Iraq war has produced (or even spurred) some groundbreaking new scientific advances which are orders of magnitude bettre than what ITER or LHC could potentially offer.

 

[straightalker]

War concentrates power and wealth into the money lender's hands and enables them to slaughter national elites who might interfere with their plan for world dictatorship.

This includes scientists who often also have strong political viewpoints that go against the current regime in power. A good example is Einstein. Who survived WWII by leaving Germany.

In Russia's past, scientists were often slaughtered. As well as many generals and politicians.

Mankind as is has no future. Science won't save the human race. The choice is not war or science or both.

 

[Modular]

Originally posted by: Martin
I was refering to the Iraq war and current scientific research.
So, if you want to actually convince me otherwise, show me how Saddam threatened the US to such a significant extent that he endangered your ability to pursue research.

Since your OP says that the $ should have been spent on scientific research to better the human race and save lives, then it is my duty to point out that the Iraq war has rid the world of a dictator who was hell-bent on the genocide of certain races and the brutal dictatorship of a nation.

I would say that ridding the world of tyrrany is a good place to start. Arguably the future Iraq can now use the money Saddam spent on golden toilets to fund research for cancer.

 

[maluckey]

Martin,

Showing you the cutting edge stuff would be impossible, as it is likely classified. Ballistic material HAS improved, as has communications tracking (cell phones etc). The research associated with war is driven not by the specific threat at hand, but the flaws that are uncovered in your own technology.

Vietnam found many flaws in the M16 and CAR-15, as well as tactics. That conflictwas also the cause for the emergence of a new part of the Cavalry as Air-Cav. The VC were NOT advanced enough to be called a threat in that respect, but that didn't stop numerous advances of science from emerging.

 

[dullard]

I personally wouldn't choose a costly war like Iraq over science. But I'd rather not discuss that issue with you. I'd rather discuss the collider for $20B. The Economist recently ran an issue on this subject and I just sat there shaking my head as I read it. The Economist's point was that since other countries are bilding large multibillion dollar colliders, then so should America (instead of abandoning our current build).

I personally think someone has to put a stop to rediculous scientific spending like that. Sure, one or two bits of physics may be learned from spending $20B. But at what other science cost? A typical Phase I grant for a small business is $100k, Phase II is $750k and the goal by the end is to have a product ready for the market and/or an outside company willing to invest Phase III money to make it ready for market (you have to convince business men who review your grant that there are commercialization possibilities in order to get the Phase II grant). Or a typical combined R21/R33 grant for a university professor will be $1.5M and lasts 5 years. For $20B, you could fund ~2000 of these other projects. You are saying NO to funding 2000 scientifically and commercially valuable projects to find one tiny piece of physics data? Especially when other countries are spending the money and building the colliders!

I say your priorities are in the wrong place. Of course, though, I am biased. I write grants for a small business and for a university as part of my job.

 

[straightalker]

I suspect most of the opponents of Isreal in the Middle East will at some time this century be annihilated by Isreal. The choice? War.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: dullard
I personally wouldn't choose a costly war like Iraq over science. But I'd rather not discuss that issue with you. I'd rather discuss the collider for $20B. The Economist recently ran an issue on this subject and I just sat there shaking my head as I read it. The Economist's point was that since other countries are bilding large multibillion dollar colliders, then so should America (instead of abandoning our current build).

I personally think someone has to put a stop to rediculous scientific spending like that. Sure, one or two bits of physics may be learned from spending $20B. But at what other science cost? A typical Phase I grant for a small business is $100k, Phase II is $750k and the goal by the end is to have a product ready for the market and/or an outside company willing to invest Phase III money to make it ready for market (you have to convince business men who review your grant that there are commercialization possibilities in order to get the Phase II grant). Or a typical combined R21/R33 grant for a university professor will be $1.5M and lasts 5 years. For $20B, you could fund ~2000 of these other projects. You are saying NO to funding 2000 scientifically and commercially valuable projects to find one tiny piece of physics data? Especially when other countries are spending the money and building the colliders!

I say your priorities are in the wrong place. Of course, though, I am biased. I write grants for a small business and for a university as part of my job.

Although my post may have given that appearance (since I used large research projects as easy examples), I didn't really talk about large vs small funding. That decision is best left to people who know more about this (though I'd imagine there is need for both large and small funding).

My main point is, given that this huge expenditure of money occurred, why do people prefer war over something like scientific funding.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Martin
(Instead of replying 7 times, I'll just choose yours, since everyone is saying basically the same thing as you)

Yes, you could make that argument since it has happened before (like the manhattan project in my post, or advances in computing also during WWII), but the problem is, I wasn't speaking in broad generalities/trends in my post - I was refering to the Iraq war and current scientific research.
So, if you want to actually convince me otherwise, show me how Saddam threatened the US to such a significant extent that he endangered your ability to pursue research. Or show me that the Iraq war has produced (or even spurred) some groundbreaking new scientific advances which are orders of magnitude bettre than what ITER or LHC could potentially offer.

Ah, so really this thread has nothing to do with why we would choose science over war. It's YAPJIFMT (Yet Another 'Please Justify Iraq For Me' Thread). Since you couldn't be honest enough to just come out and say this, I'm not going to give you my time required to formulate an answer.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Martin
Although my post may have given that appearance (since I used large research projects as easy examples), I didn't really talk about large vs small funding. That decision is best left to people who know more about this (though I'd imagine there is need for both large and small funding).

My main point is, given that this huge expenditure of money occurred, why do people prefer war over something like scientific funding.

This is yet another strawman. No one (with very few possible exceptions) desires war. The theories of war, how it starts, how it is/should be waged, and what just causes for war exist are abundant. Many philosophers would argue that sometimes war is not only an acceptable solution, it is a necessary solution. Peace at all cost is not true peace, as it does not solve the underlying conflict. If I give in to my girlfriend's every whim simply to allow the relationship to continue, then resentment festers and eventually the relationship will suffer and be doomed as a result. The same can be said in international relationships. One must address the real cause of the issues at hand rather than simply trying to put a band-aid on cancer.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Many philosophers would argue that sometimes war is not only an acceptable solution, it is a necessary solution. Peace at all cost is not true peace, as it does not solve the underlying conflict. If I give in to my girlfriend's every whim simply to allow the relationship to continue, then resentment festers and eventually the relationship will suffer and be doomed as a result. The same can be said in international relationships. One must address the real cause of the issues at hand rather than simply trying to put a band-aid on cancer.

While that is true that some wars are necessary, you must keep that idea in check. I've seen many posters online and spoken to many people in person who will pretty much say "the only way to have peace is to be at war all the time". No, being constantly at war is NOT the only way to peace. In fact, being constantly at war is the only possible way to guarantee there is NEVER peace.

If war is the necessary solution, then use it. But I don't think with the Iraq war that the question "is it necessary" was ever seriously debated.

 

[Genx87]

Dullard imagine if we were the first with an anti-matter bomb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Dullard imagine if we were the first with an anti-matter bomb!

We need to know a few questions.
1) Will the collider actually get us that bomb?
2) What size bomb and what kind of destruction are you looking for?
3) If the bomb is big enough to do real damage, we'd never use it so it is 100% useless. So would it just be an empty threat?
4) It'll just get into the wrong hands that will use it. Is there any possibility that it could ever get in the wrong hands?

Einstein regretted helping invent the nuclear bomb.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Genx87
Dullard imagine if we were the first with an anti-matter bomb!

We need to know a few questions.
1) Will the collider actually get us that bomb?
2) What size bomb and what kind of destruction are you looking for?
3) If the bomb is big enough to do real damage, we'd never use it so it is 100% useless. So would it just be an empty threat?
4) It'll just get into the wrong hands that will use it. Is there any possibility that it could ever get in the wrong hands?

Einstein regretted helping invent the nuclear bomb.

It was sarcasm, sorry. Should have used my tag.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Genx87
It was sarcasm, sorry. Should have used my tag.

In Off Topic, I usually assume comments like that are sarcasm. In P&N I usually assume stupidity. Assumptions aren't always correct, and I'll trust you that it was sarcasm.