Paris attacks - ongoing

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Atomkilla, Nov 13, 2015.

  1. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 27, 2003
    Actually, it could be argued that continual war in europe was what allowed these folks to pioneer gun/cannon technology.

    War also highlighted the importance of having a strong navy/industry. In a world pre-flight/birth of flight, troop and weapons deployment was most efficiently handled through ships or rail. With the rise of standing armies/infantry and less dependency on a dedicated caste of warriors, the mass production of weapons and armor became as important as having competent commanders/trained knights of old.

    As often is the case, war has its expensive costs, yet offers often unforseen benefits down the road. Crmi, your the one that says never argue for absolutes.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2015
  2. Ilosar

    Ilosar Vault Fossil

    Apr 20, 2010
    While I always take that kind of website with a grain of salt, they raise a fair point. Yes, Daesh and its like use terrorists and suicide bombers that ignore, or even encourage collateral damage, which is of course terrible. But are drone strikes that kill hundreds of civilians any different, really?

    Like, the bit where they more or less assume any guy with any age to pick up a gun is an enemy unless proven otherwise. How's that different from some terrorist loonie declaring that anyone who doesn't support the Jihad is an enemy and thus OK to kill?

    This is why I hate patriotism, or at least this application of it. The moral myopia required to justify the things you do ''for your country'' is astounding.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  3. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 27, 2003
    I think its more about a double standard.

    Not all american troops are 'Killem all and let god sort them out' guys.

    Same as the claims that the U.S. specifically CREATED terrorists to permanently de-stabilize the ME.

    Then you have folks who treat terrorists like victimized arabs.

    An american missile strike that killed ones family would justify the hate towards americans. But how in the fuck would that justify the deaths of muslims who had nothing to do with us?
     
  4. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    The question is, would those benefits be found without the war as well?

    Many of the technologies used in WW2 for example, have been either already in use or researched before WW2. Most of the research, true research, actually happens in peace time. Because this is the only time when a scientist or engineer has actually enough room to do it. No ones going to research theoretical fields, when there is no emidiate application for it. Or even worse, the army would have simply drafted him, and sending him to the front, as how it happend with countless people which might have invented something, if they didn't die on the front. Someone like Marconi would have probly worked on something else instead of telegrapy, simply because at that time, other technologies would have been more important for a war. Particularly improving on already existing technologies, instead of working on some that could be only used in following years - it's a waste of resources in war time.

    http://blog.gardeviance.org/2014/02/is-war-mother-of-invention.html
    Not war is the mother invention.

    Necessity is.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2015
  5. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 27, 2003
    Its true necessity is the mother of invention.

    Crni, one of the things you tend to argue is that the west achieved a lot through imperialism.

    That imperialism you speak of stems primarily from shrewd political maneuvering, financed by economic might, enforced through advanced weaponry. Would the U.S. today be as strong had we remained stagnant in weapons technology in the past?

    As you brought up the topic of nuclear weapons, you have said that has contributed much to maintaining peace, atleast, in regards to limiting war to low intensity, proxy conflicts.

    This same 'peace', then allows your argument above to ring true as well. Technological development continues to have a sort of duality, spurred on by peace and war.

    In the end however, there is no conclusive winner as we are in a chicken and the egg scenario.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2015
  6. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Depending on which philosphy you follow, war is either the ultima ratio or (...) simply the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means - Clausewitz. In most cases though, war is for the most part an outcome, an effect, and not usually a desired state, with very very few exceptions - Spartan/warrior society. Particuliarly the concept of total war, where every part of a society and every area of life is dedicated to war, which is not a permanent state. There is no state that can exist in war for eternity. But warrior cultures, have almost no bearing to a modern form of society, as we saw them emerge in the last 200+ years, with republics and centralized governments. In that sense, innventions during war fall under the same circumstances as any other extreme situation, like improvements and findings made during a famine or epidemics.

    But war as condition is usually not really more desirable than a plague. No one can denny the inventions made during a war or the improvements to existing technologies. However, most research gives the impression, that as far as inovation and research in general goes, war, totall war, is for the most part rather negative. That's maybe one of the reasons why most braketroughs in science and research happend in pretty much the last 200 years and during times of relative piece and safety.

    So, in short, I don't share your opinion of chicken/egg. But, there is no real way to prove it - we have only this one world, and so any concept where war doesn't happen is simply hypothetical.

    Maybe a world, that has never even seen one single war, might be already a civilisation that has colonised it's whole solar system decades ago? Who knows. But since we have only one world as reference here, namely our own, we will never know it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2015
  7. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 27, 2003
    Hmm who knows.

    BTW, I am not saying war is desirable either.

    When something bad happens, there is a NEED to remedy that negative situation.

    So, peacetime allows many innovations. But adversity is no less powerful a motivator for innovation as well.
     
  8. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Like I said, I don't think so. I doubt Einstein would have invented his theory of Realtivity or Maxwell his principles for classical electrodynamics if they had to deal with a famine for most of their life, like as we see in some parts of the world. You don't see anyone really doing a lot of inventions or beeing very innovative in areas where people barely survive. So you have to be a lot more specific as far as adversity goes really.
     
  9. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 27, 2003
    You have to be innovative in discovering a cure when trying to elimnate polio or any number of diseases. People are,dying, I would consider that an adverse condition.

    What about the need to research natural disasters to better predict when, where and how they happen? These kill people as well, hence the need for research to keep people safe.

    Nuclear power provides an abundance of energy yet it really made the greatest advances during wartime.

    Medical technology didn't come out of thin air. Countless slaves, POWs, and other unfortunate folks died screaming under the knife when thinking about the earliest advances in medicine.

    Again, there is research done in peacetime. Most of it is un-restricted and often in very diverse subjects.

    Yet in wartime and other dark situations, research continues but its fairly restrcted to applications to better prosecute and quickly end the war/fix the negative situation. This however does not mean that wartime research/advances cannot be adapted for peace. Merely, certain studies are given 'priority' over others, a stark contrast to the previous example.

    So I would agree that times of adversity is not the IDEAL time for research, especially if we talk about the limited scope.

    But I disagree that adversity does nothing to advance science as any NEGATIVE situation, NEEDS a remedy.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2015
  10. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    I think we are not on the same page here ... and that's a problem, as we will move in circles unless we agree on what we're actually talking about.

    For example, when I am talking about wars, as like in WW2, plagues, famines etc. in general life threatening catastropes, than you don't have much room for innovation here. People are runing and fighting for their very survival. While this can get you some very creative results, they are usually far away from what a scientist or engineer is doing in his laboratory with the correct equipment. Soldiers figuring out on the field how to deal with tanks by trial and error, or learning how to better survive situations are not in the same ball park as the Manhattan project where thousands of scientists worked on achieving one single goal

    Could you imagine nuclear science or serious research taking place in a zone like this?







    Because those are the cases I am talking about. And there is not much room for innovation and research here. Not the kind of one we are talking about - nuclear science, building atom bombs, creating new tank designs, radios, curing plagues etc.

    I know that humans can achieve extraordinary feats, even under very harsh conditions. But those usually don't involve inventing a lot of new fancy things. And there is no way, where I could picture scientist starving to death working on a nuclear device or a drowning doctor trying to find a cure for some plague. - I am exaggerating here to make a point.

    Not when the people who are doing the research are runing for their lifes or fighting. Which is the point I am trying to make here. All of what you mentioned, happens in situations where you have a relative stability. When people have actually time to collect data, evaluating them and making decisions, comparing their findings maybe with other similar research etc. Even in medicine. You're not doing extensive research in critical areas while you're spending 12 hours a day choping legs off or fixing guns, or fighting plagues, or burning corpses, or looking for food etc.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2015
  11. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 27, 2003
    Yeah, I get what are saying.

    The bad time example is going on OUTSIDE, but the scientists are working in a lab, safe somewhere else, INSIDE.

    But yea, research can still happen in bad times, but the priorities are different.

    As mentioned, the A-Bomb was happening during wartime, just the fighting and destruction was far away.

    As horrendous as it was, Mengele and Unit 731 were doing a lot of medical research during wartime.

    The Germans were working on numerous wunderwaffen such as the ME 262, Zielgerat 1229/Vampir scope, wire guided rockets, Horten Ho intercontinental bomber, etc.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2015
  12. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Which probably would not have happend if the roles would have been reversed. Scientists can only work, if they are far away from the frontline, working in relative safety, with enough resources to do their research, which is my point ...

    By the way, before 1936 one of the concepts behind nuclear research was to provide energy, or at least many scientists saw the application here for it. And a lot of the research was sponsored and done for civilian projects, before half of the egg-heads in the US have been send on a remote location to concentrate their effort on a bomb. But let us not get to much in to hypotheticall stuff.

    Of which most was useless data, not done under correct scientific conditions without a realistc way to check and varify anything they did and it could not be applied after the war - for obvious reasons, for one moral reasons and the second, most of the research and data simply vanished, guess why. But even in war time what they did had literaly zero practical use. For the mentioned reasons above, just doing some testing and stuff, doesn't have to get you anywhere. Only very little, if any, of the tests they did in the concentration camps has actually really shown anything usefull for the Germans. Those tests have been hardly done in controlled environments or what you could call empirical studies.

    (...)
    Leaving aside the question of medical ethics, did any useful science ever come out of Nazi experiments on unwilling subjects?

    Very little. Concentration camp doctors conducted research on vaccines, antibiotics, fertility, transplantation, and eugenics. The majority of those experiments were either useless, scientifically unsound, or duplicative. More interesting was a series of studies on the limits of human endurance: At the Dachau concentration camp in 1942, Nazi doctor Sigmund Rascher submerged approximately 300 naked victims in ice water for two to five hours and monitored their heart rate, muscle control, and core temperature, and he noted when the subjects lost consciousness. (His stated goal was to see how long a downed pilot could survive in the North Sea.) More than 80 of the prisoners died during the experiments; nevertheless, some argue that Rascher's data are valuable and irreproducible. Dozens of medical journal articles have cited the research, which has played a minor role in the development of survival suits for cold-water fishing boats and warming techniques for hypothermia patients. (...)

    Do you even know how serious and profound scientific research is even done? The modern kind, with the scientific method?

    Of which many saw research BEFORE the war, like jet engines - in both Germany and Britain, same for rockets and even infrared lights. And would have seen, without a doubt, a civilian use without WW2.

    (...)
    In 1936, AEG was ordered to start the development of infrared night-vision devices and in 1939, first successful prototype unit for use with 37mm Pak 35/36 L/45 anti-tank gun was constructed. In autumn of 1942, unit for use (infrared headlamp with viewer ZG 1221) with 75mm PaK 40 L/46 anti-tank gun was constucted and was also mounted on Marder II (Sd.kfz.131) (...)

    None of the theoretical knowledge that led to those technologies and their applications was researched and deployed during wartime nor really meant to be solely technologies for war. Why? Because wartime doesn't allow much room to do theoretical research. Most of the technology has usualy a dual purpose, for the civilian and the military use. Even all rifles if you want so - Mauser up to this day, is making excellent hunting rifles. Only very few weapon systems like artillery, have solely a military use. Infrared light was a technology where AEG started to develope and research already during the early 1930s, for the simple reason, that it can be used in many different ways. Heating, Physics and Chemistry (Infrared spectroscopy), electronics and even in medical applications.

    But, the main focus was on war-time applications, as requested by the Nazis. No surprise there that it lead to nothing else but a night vision in 1944/45.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2015
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  13. RedRockRun

    RedRockRun First time out of the vault

    24
    Dec 7, 2015
    This is news to me. I've been told since I was young about how such a significant amount of medical science was learned by Nazi scientists using human subjects. Bayer comes to mind along with studies on the brain. What's the point of circulating a lie if the subject matter is already sobering enough to encourage revisionist history in the other direction e.g. "Nazi scientists accomplished nothing and only experimented on people for their own sick satisfaction."
     
  14. Ilosar

    Ilosar Vault Fossil

    Apr 20, 2010
    Nazi science in general was very iffy. They made good (if often overengineered) weapons systems, but other than that they certainly didn't have a huge leg up over their foes, quite the contrary towards the end of the war. Hell, even their technological breakthroughs, such as the rocket engine, were grossly misused; the V-2 rocket killed more German slave labor than British civilians. Meanwhile the US used Van Braun's expertise to create ICBM and eventually reach the moon. The various medical experiments were very often tainted by ideology and/or medically unsound and Mengele really did only do things for his own sick pleasure with no scientific concerns whatsoever. Their nuclear program was a complete and total mess, because Hitler refused to centralise it and they didn't want to use ''jewish science'', again because of ideology, when said ''jewish science'' of course included such clearly irrelevant fluff as Einstein's discoveries.

    Some people like to say that Nazi Germany was an harsh but efficient state (in contrast of course to lenient but ''inefficient'' democracies that vastly outlived and outproduced it, but I digress), when it really its ''efficience'' was mostly due to inflated war budget that would eventually tank their economy, pillaging of ressources, and use of slave labor on an unprecedented scale. Nazi bureacracy in particular was choke full of red tape and internal troubles because Hitler liked nothing more than to put his underlings against each other based on, again, his ideology.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  15. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Heh, efficient. Yeah. Looking at the history and details of the War between 1939 and 1943, I sometimes wonder how Germany actually managed to get so far during that time, well they had some extremly good tacticians on their side I guess, like Guderian, Manhstein and a few more, while the other side like France and Britain have been stuck for the most part in WW1 tactics when the war broke out. Britain at least, got a chance to learn from it and adapt, albeit with some support by the US though 1941 was a crucial year for Britain. But as far as the economy goes, the concept of total war, really didn't kicked in before 1942/43 in Germany which is when the German industry actually rached it's peak in weapon production with a steady decline from 1944. As far as the war goes, the German industry was anything else, but efficient when they started to roll over Poland and France. Their luck that their enemies made a few very crucial mistakes. If the war would have gone for a couple of more months in 1940, the reality of loosing the war was very real for Germany, for example if I remember correctly their military had just enough supplies in ammunition to keep the warmachine runing for 3 or 4 more months, before they had to restock. Or if the British and French troops even lunched their own attacks while Germany was occupied in Poland. Which was always the motivation behind the Blitzkrieg strategy in the first place, to avoid such a situations, since everyone in the High Command knew, Germany had no chance of winning a war of attrition. And with the failure at Moscow and the US geting in the war, many in the High Command pretty much knew, that the war was lost from here.

    One has really to think about it, if Britain adopted Fullers tactics and ideas already in 1938/39 and the Soviets their concept of the deep Battle, they would have both at some point steamrolled over Germany right after the first shoot in Poland. THe British together with the French in 1939 or the Soviets in 1941. And WW2 in Europe would have pretty much stoped before it really started.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2015
  16. RedRockRun

    RedRockRun First time out of the vault

    24
    Dec 7, 2015
    Von Braun, what an asshole. Speaking of his rocket factories, my grandmother only very nearly avoided being sent to one. If you were deemed unfit for manual labor, you'd get sent to work with hazardous chemical as a quickly disposable worker. My grandmother and a number of other women would rub their cheeks with iron oxide to make their faces look less pale and sallow and thus avoid being labelled as sickly.