|
|
Post by kubocaskett on Aug 22, 2016 22:55:34 GMT
I have a question, is it possible that military technological developments can be deliberately slowed down/handicapped while civilian technology can progress farther than the former (and vice versa)?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,966 
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 23, 2016 2:46:30 GMT
I have a question, is it possible that military technological developments can be deliberately slowed down/handicapped while civilian technology can progress farther than the former (and vice versa)? Are both not most of the time related to each other in one way or another. |
|
|
|
Post by kubocaskett on Aug 23, 2016 4:01:52 GMT
I have a question, is it possible that military technological developments can be deliberately slowed down/handicapped while civilian technology can progress farther than the former (and vice versa)? Are both not most of the time related to each other in one way or another. I thought they weren't but I suppose that makes sense; though I do believe that it's possible that some departments in technology can be schizophrenic in some areas; like some TLs having space exploration earlier or later while having internet development progress just as OTL's. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Aug 23, 2016 12:04:22 GMT
I think there was some separation, say in the 19thC when civilian technology developed very rapidly while conservatism and shortage of funds meant that military lagged behind. However a few defeats and the threat of other powers making advances that would make them much stronger meant that inevitably the more backward states either made the effort to catch up or at best faded into insignificance.
Suppose, with a powerful military dictatorship, its possible it could go the other way. That emphasis is placed on military technology but for some social reason there is a deliberate suppression of advances in the civilian sector. To a degree this occurred in the Soviet empire as resources were concentrated in the military and very little investment allowed for civilian desires, plus a wish to prevent computing and other technologies becoming available to ordinary people. This however played a significant part in the collapse of the empire. Similarly I think there were much smaller steps to restrict civilian access to technology in the west, say with the attempt to provide restricted access to GPS systems and also deny people access to advanced encrypting technology. However frequently this has failed due to the development of commercial facilities for the civilian sector.
All in all I think things can get out of step to a degree one way or the other but provided we don't get a stable system of one or a few great states monopolising power and working to prevent civilian development I can't see it being a lasting situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2016 13:01:04 GMT
I have a question, is it possible that military technological developments can be deliberately slowed down/handicapped while civilian technology can progress farther than the former (and vice versa)? Only artificially, and there is no guarantee civilian technology won't be repurposed as military technology. Nearly all aviation was civil and conducted by private citizens prior to 1914. Just thirty-eight years later, the prototype eight jet engined B-52 flew. |
|
|
|
Post by kubocaskett on Aug 23, 2016 15:22:06 GMT
Well I wonder like maybe after a devastating world war (possibly world war II), a severe handicap on arms development is imposed by the UN upon the world nations so that by the time the 2000's roll in, military vehicles would resemble that of the 60's to the 70's? Of course that might have to require no cold war at all for that to happen (perhaps killing off the Soviet Union would do the trick?).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2016 17:21:06 GMT
by the time the 2000's roll in, military vehicles would resemble that of the 60's to the 70's? Of course that might have to require no cold war at all for that to happen (perhaps killing off the Soviet Union would do the trick?). Military tech in the 1960s is about the same as it is now - the microprocessors, lasers, Charge-coupled devices used to make munitions more accurate all have civilian applications The 1960s was the end of the sigmoid curve for jet aircraft altitude/speed/range/load carrying |
|
|
|
Post by kubocaskett on Aug 25, 2016 15:29:35 GMT
by the time the 2000's roll in, military vehicles would resemble that of the 60's to the 70's? Of course that might have to require no cold war at all for that to happen (perhaps killing off the Soviet Union would do the trick?). Military tech in the 1960s is about the same as it is now - the microprocessors, lasers, Charge-coupled devices used to make munitions more accurate all have civilian applications The 1960s was the end of the sigmoid curve for jet aircraft altitude/speed/range/load carrying It is? I thought for sure that military tech is slowly evolving right now with the increased use of drones, internet usage, and vehicles with stealth. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2016 17:17:58 GMT
The actual military technology hasn't changed very much - how old is the M16/M4 rifle, the B-52?
Only the technology inside them/attached to their rails has changed much.
An A-10 or M1 Abrams of 2016 is more combat capable than its 1986 equivalent, but it's the same machine, same design.
The F-15 is nearly fifty years old!
There are fewer nation state with low-observable 'stealth' ships or aeroplanes than those with nuclear weapons
|
|
|
|
Post by voiddragon on Aug 30, 2016 20:13:35 GMT
The League of Nations isn't an abysmal failure and manage to diplomatically prevent WW2 and any other large conflict. Defense budgets wind down as countries only need the military for colonialism and brush fires.
Defense planners just stick with what they have with very little need for improvement.
On the flipside, no AntiTrust laws are passed. American business is divided into a series of monopolies with no competition. Unusually high tariffs keep out foreign competition. Technical innovation is suppressed.
US enters WW2 and initially gets their ass handed to them against more technologically advanced IJN. Huge resources are poured into a crash R&D program to catch them up.
Eventually we still win, maintaining a larger defense budget and a technophile military but a backwards civilian market.
|
|
