No World War II or Cold War - how does this impact technology?

Simply put, if World War II and the subsequent Cold War were butterflied away by any kind of POD, what would be the impact on technology and development? And how advanced would we be now in 2012?
 
the World would be more Diesel-punk

Not big Rocket or manned space flights

today Computers would big clumsy things in size of a house or a skyscraper, if they use radio valve instead transistors.
with those sluggish computers, you don't have a internet or do high end simulation for science or industry like in aerodynamics

Aircraft have to be tested as model in wind tunnel or build prototype were pilot risk there life to fly it.
i have my doubt that the Jet-engine is accept by Aerospace companies, even yes it will take decades for that.

but i have my doubt, on a world history without World War II and the subsequent Cold War.
there enough potential for alternate world war 2 scenarios:
China-japanese War that end in a USA-japanese War, even in world war were the united British, french, netherlands and USA fight against Japan.
or the Soviet union start to expand direction west with invasion. maybe as join venture with Japanese.
here we have second big war in history and technological progress like computers and Jet-engine
and in the aftermath of second big war a subsequent Cold War, with more technological progress
 
Sure if you want a tech-screw, but things like computers and jets are not certain to be held back, and indeed IMO the former would more likely be moved forward without the devastation and distraction of the war.
 
Sure if you want a tech-screw, but things like computers and jets are not certain to be held back, and indeed IMO the former would more likely be moved forward without the devastation and distraction of the war.

the best example is the Jet-Engine

In 1928, Frank Whittle formally submitted his ideas for a turbo-jet to his superiors in RAF College Cranwell.
his superiors ignore this "Science Fiction Idea"
then 1930 with a first patent. It take him two years of battle, until they granted it.
Whittle manage to build a working prototype in 1935, but british Government still ignore this "Science Fiction Idea"
he proposed his engine to several British aircraft Manufacturer, who refused except Gloster Aircraft Company.
Even with world War II the program run slow with Gloster E.28/39, the first british Jet Engine aircraft.
Until RAF encounter the First German Jet-fighter in 1942, then british Government needed Jet-fighters very FAST.

a similar problem had Kelly Johnson of Lockheed
he proposed in 1938, a Jet-fighter "L-133" with L-1000 turbojet engine and it's advance axial-flow compressor.
but at USAAF, the bureaucrats consider this proposal as "to far from realism"
until they meet the First German Jet-fighter in 1942, then the USAAF needed Jet-fighters very FAST.

It's show perfect how bureaucrats can slow down technological progress,
with out World War II, it's doubtful if Frank Whittle had succeed with his idea in the British Empire.
 

Jason222

Banned
the World would be more Diesel-punk

Not big Rocket or manned space flights

today Computers would big clumsy things in size of a house or a skyscraper, if they use radio valve instead transistors.
with those sluggish computers, you don't have a internet or do high end simulation for science or industry like in aerodynamics

Aircraft have to be tested as model in wind tunnel or build prototype were pilot risk there life to fly it.
i have my doubt that the Jet-engine is accept by Aerospace companies, even yes it will take decades for that.

but i have my doubt, on a world history without World War II and the subsequent Cold War.
there enough potential for alternate world war 2 scenarios:
China-japanese War that end in a USA-japanese War, even in world war were the united British, french, netherlands and USA fight against Japan.
or the Soviet union start to expand direction west with invasion. maybe as join venture with Japanese.
here we have second big war in history and technological progress like computers and Jet-engine
and in the aftermath of second big war a subsequent Cold War, with more technological progress
It to complex just to many different ways could happen.
mmison
 
the World would be more Diesel-punk

Not big Rocket or manned space flights

This is a 50/50 in my opinion. Prestige considerations still carry weight in a multipolar world, and the development of nuclear weaponry will surely spur the development of ballistic missiles from the larger more or less "amateur" efforts (like Goddard's), which will provide enough capability for orbital launch, as demonstrated by the large number of IRBM and SRBM-based launch vehicles (eg., the Delta, Jupiter-C, Kosmos...) Moreover, by the 1970s and 1980s, space launch (albeit not of a particularly useful payload) should be in the funding range of rather small groups, using collections of existing probably military-derived engines, to produce vehicles similar to the Scout or Lambda.

The obvious economic and military applications of space would then take over once launch itself was demonstrated to spur further development, although space would likely be significantly behind OTL. What would particularly suffer would be scientific spaceflight; before World War II, most scientific research was funded by private individuals, foundations, and corporations, which are not likely to fund the expensive pure science missions we've seen OTL like the Vikings, Hubble, Curiosity, and so forth. I'd be impressed if anything more than Earth and Sun-focused missions existed ITTL. Certainly I wouldn't expect high-energy astronomy to be much ahead of where it was in the 1960s OTL by 2012 ITTL, and equally I suspect there won't be much luck for infrared and microwave space observatories.

today Computers would big clumsy things in size of a house or a skyscraper, if they use radio valve instead transistors.
with those sluggish computers, you don't have a internet or do high end simulation for science or industry like in aerodynamics

This is extremely unlikely. AT&T--a completely private firm--always, before the breakup of the Bell System, invested very heavily in computer technology, not terribly surprising given the complexity of the systems it was controlling. It's no accident that the first practical transistors, a number of important processes for manufacturing semiconductor components, the first photovoltaic cells (a technology related to semiconductor devices like the transistor), the first charge-coupled devices, C, UNIX, and C++ were all invented at Murray Hill. If anything, without the permanent intrusion of government into scientific research (previously dominated in the United States by private donors, like the Rockefellers, and private firms, like AT&T) caused by World War II and the Cold War, and the corresponding diversion of scientific talent towards military and pure research, the development of modern computers might be advanced relative to OTL (that is, the first computer might come later than Colossus or ENIAC, but it will likely start with transistors, rather than tubes).

Where not having WWII or the Cold War will make a big difference is the development of computer internetworking. Networking will surely be developed, since it is an obvious, powerful method of improving the performance of multiple computers, but it is likely to originate in corporate internal networking and telecommunications firm developments rather than in a government research project. This means a likely significantly different underlying architecture (perhaps based on virtual circuits and other telephone-like architectures rather than packets) and a considerably more divided and "walled garden" "Internet" (if, indeed, the Internet exists at all; although it does seem probable that some sort of home computer networking system will be developed, it may be more like Minitel than the Internet...)

Aircraft have to be tested as model in wind tunnel or build prototype were pilot risk there life to fly it.
i have my doubt that the Jet-engine is accept by Aerospace companies, even yes it will take decades for that.

Nothing like that long. Jet engines were rejected in the 1930s because they represented a large technological leap for a doubtful advantage (how useful was the Meteor relative to the Spitfire, for instance?). I mean, piston-engine aircraft didn't become totally obsolete for military applications until the early-mid 1950s, some twenty years later. Even ITTL, upgrades demanded by commercial firms and the general march of technology would mean that piston engines would be pushing reasonable limits on their output by the late 1940s and early 1950s, while jets would have become much more practical. I have been told that turbochargers were actually producing much of the thrust of later piston-engine designs, and they are certainly similar in many respects to jet engines; if so, then there would be obvious technological transfers from one to the other.

The biggest change to science and technology would come from drastically reducing the investment provided by government to scientific research, particularly in the United States (obviously, the Soviet Union for instance would still have significant governmental R&D efforts). Prior to World War II, as I mentioned above, most scientific research was still funded by private organizations and persons, who of course have generally more limited funding than governments and more practical goals, with some notable exceptions like Bell Labs. While I don’t expect government to stay out of research forever, I expect that where it does enter it will be pretty strictly focused on “practical” areas, like medical or military research. Where this is particularly important is when it comes to expensive research with few practical applications, like astronomy, planetary science, or high-energy physics, which IOTL have depended heavily on governmental funding since at least the 1960s for continuing development. I find it doubtful that missions like Hubble, IRAS, COBE, Voyager, etc. would have flown without significant government investment, and equally doubtful that accelerators much past the GeV scale would have been built without US, Soviet, and European investment in the technology.

What this means is that a number of fields, such as cosmology and high-energy physics, are likely to be far, far behind their counterparts IOTL. For example, quantum field theory, at least at the QCD level and even in significant parts of the electroweak level is likely to be regarded much as string theory today--largely a mathematical curiosity which has no realistic prospect of experimental testing. People will be trying to do indirect tests at the so-called "intensity" and "cosmological" frontiers, but those will themselves have issues.
 
I suspect automotive technology will be ahead with no major conflict to get in the way of progress. Boeing may not be as big as it is, while other aircraft companies may not merge.
 
From A possible declining trend for woldwide innovation, Jonathan Huebner:

Fig. 1 also indicates a general trend of decreased rates during times of war and increased rates of innovation during times of peace. The rate of innovation declined during World War I and II, and the highest peak at 1845 occured during a decade with no major wars.
huebner.jpg


The "wars increase technology" argument does not seem to match up with the actual evidence, and appears to be a factoid.
 
However, it must be noted that war is very good at bringing technology into use quickly, after all how fast would the jet have developed without the war?
 
Top