Would a world war in the 50's or 60's have jump-started tech?

With the first and second world war you saw developments in technology that would have taken years longer to develop if not for the rapid pace of development caused by large scale war.

If there were a 3rd world war a decade or 2 later would we have seen an accelerated pace of development in technology to OTL?

The caveat would be of course this war would not devolve into total nuclear armagedon which would probably set things back a bit.
 
With the first and second world war you saw developments in technology that would have taken years longer to develop if not for the rapid pace of development caused by large scale war.

If there were a 3rd world war a decade or 2 later would we have seen an accelerated pace of development in technology to OTL?

The caveat would be of course this war would not devolve into total nuclear armagedon which would probably set things back a bit.

I'm pretty skeptical. With few exceptions, the war didn't actually accelerate the pace of technological development. It accelerated the distribution of technology which had developed. Pretty much every significant technological innovation had been developed prior to the war - even the major theoretical work which lead to the atomic bomb. What it did was took all these things which were on the shelf, and put them into massive production and investment.
 
I'm pretty skeptical. With few exceptions, the war didn't actually accelerate the pace of technological development. It accelerated the distribution of technology which had developed. Pretty much every significant technological innovation had been developed prior to the war - even the major theoretical work which lead to the atomic bomb. What it did was took all these things which were on the shelf, and put them into massive production and investment.

I was about to write much the same thing. It sometimes seems that the war "accelerates the pace of development" is the broken window fallacy of innovation. Sure, it will seem like there are new technologies deployed / new windows in the shop, but is this really leaving society at large better off? Still, one could phrase this as a question: which serious theorists propose that war stimulates the pace of technology development?

Or to go the OP-question: which technology were in the 50s/60s on the concept stage and would (assuming we are talking about a half a decade long conventional conflict)see large scale deployment? Maybe airborn-cavalry (Vietnam style) or special forces play a larger role earlier?
 
I was about to write much the same thing. It sometimes seems that the war "accelerates the pace of development" is the broken window fallacy of innovation. Sure, it will seem like there are new technologies deployed / new windows in the shop, but is this really leaving society at large better off? Still, one could phrase this as a question: which serious theorists propose that war stimulates the pace of technology development?

Or to go the OP-question: which technology were in the 50s/60s on the concept stage and would (assuming we are talking about a half a decade long conventional conflict)see large scale deployment? Maybe airborn-cavalry (Vietnam style) or special forces play a larger role earlier?

Perhaps earlier integration of computer processing into military technology? An earlier ARPANET perhaps jump-starting the information age by a decade or so.
 
Or to go the OP-question: which technology were in the 50s/60s on the concept stage and would (assuming we are talking about a half a decade long conventional conflict)see large scale deployment? Maybe airborn-cavalry (Vietnam style) or special forces play a larger role earlier?

Satellites and ICBMs, which for the sake of the OP we'll say are being used to deliver a conventional payload. The development and proliferation of satellites will occur since the military would love having some communications satellites, spy satellites, weather satellites, etc. Likewise, each side will be doing whatever they can to shoot down and disable satellites, and each side will thus frequently be needing to replace satellites. So you could see a lot of space launches being done, and I'd assume a rocket with much higher carrying capacity than even the Saturn V might be developed and used for replacing satellites, since you'll want to be launching in bulk. In the end this may lead to the Kessler effect which will deny everyone the use of space.

Of course, that assumes that one or both sides feel that course of R&D is worth it.
 
Perhaps earlier integration of computer processing into military technology? An earlier ARPANET perhaps jump-starting the information age by a decade or so.

I'm not sure. Vaccuum tube technology was still in play into the 1960's. Transistors were a thing, with the key developments between 1947 and 1952. But by 1954, transistors were starting to be used for portable radios and car radios. You might have seen earlier, faster, wider adoption of transistors. My impression is that ARPANET came along as early as it possibly could have. A more military focused ARPANET might have delayed the information age by wrapping it in veils of military restrictions.
 
No ! why ?
WW1 and WW2 let to new technology, simply they were long enough to do D&R, what Cold War even accelerated.

But WW3 with Nuke is another situation: here the main War is fought in hours, no years !
there is no time for to do D&R, the survivors have others things in mind
in Senario were is Nuclear War in early 1960s, the USA would survive as only Superpower on Earth
West Europe, East Block and China largely devastated, the USSR totally destroyed

Here there is no Enemies left to attack the USA who concentrate on rebuild there Nation after Wars
What need Money, so why wasted it on R&D on Weapons systems no one need anymore ?
Why need the YF-12 Mach 3 interceptor or XB-70 mach 3 Bomber if there no USSR anymore ?
it would led to slower technology progress even stagnation !
But that could change drastic it other Nations catch up during next 20 years and build nukes ICBM and Mach 2 Bomber.
and India, Brasil, Southafrica become new Powers in this world, suddenly 1980s USA need R&D on new Weapons systems...


But in conventional WW3 that take years, thing are complete different
here D&R can be done to developing new technology like Mach 3 Aircraft to air superiority
or better Communication system like Internet or mobile phone for battle front use
 
Since I'm on the topic of space development, I think rods from god might be a plausible option if we're assuming no nukes. I'm not sure of the cost, but you could get a suitable substitute for an ICBM/IRBM for long-distance city bombing by using one of your fancy ultra-high capacity rockets to launch a couple of weapons satellites capable of launching these. And remember, if we have a satellite war going on as well as an ICBM war, then I'm sure we have some mechanism to intercept long-range missiles. Rods from god are far less interceptable than those missiles. If the satellite is disguised as space junk or a satellite which isn't as important to immediately destroy (i.e. a weather satellite versus a spy satellite), then it could get to drop its payload without being destroyed. I'd also suggest that for primitive designs with 60s-era tech, the satellite itself becomes a weapon (unless you have a good way to "reload" the satellite at a cost effective price), where it would be put on an orbit which drops its payload on the target(s) in question and then deorbits itself into another target, with the satellite remaining intact enough to cause some level of damage/casualties on the ground.

Asteroid mining being developed is also an interesting potential, but unless we have a totally different 20th century (which I guess we would to avoid nuclear warfare), then neither the US nor the Soviet Union (who will be the two main belligerants) have any need of those resources whereas perhaps WWII Germany might have liked to have such a technology.

We need to be wary of the broken windows fallacy when discussing this, especially since that in this war, even without nukes, there won't be a spot on Earth not open for missile bombardment from day one. But missiles, rocketry, computers (better guidance etc.), satellites, and other high-tech fields will benefit immensely from this conflict. Once the dust settles (probably through a couple ICBMs with nuclear warheads destroying a few cities), then humanity will be in a totally different place than OTL. We'll need to figure out what to do with all these fancy computers, these huge rockets, and all this technology which has had at least the military capacity thoroughly demonstrated. If we can get some forward thinking people, then yes, we could probably get some asteroid mining to lower the cost of precious metals and other high-valued elements before too long. All of course assuming we don't have the Kessler effect from all those satellites being shot down rendering us incapable of using space, but in that case, you can bet we'll be putting our best minds to work finding ways to get around it.

And considering that millions have died from bombardments from space either from ICBMs or even rods from god and the public has a healthy appreciation of those ideas, we'd be in a totally different mindset than we ever were before. For instance, maybe we'd try and "solve" global warming by putting millions of mirrors in space to cool down the planet? That would give us time to focus on many other issues global warming is related to (ocean acidification) and would seem very attractive. I'm focusing mainly on space and rocketry, but in that field, I think it's undeniable that a world war would've forced a lot of innovation on those fields, and hopefully once the dust settled, left enough money (and people) around to innovate and build on their peacetime use. The same clearly goes with many other fields.
 
Operation Dropshot was a U.S. plan, began in the late forties, to defeat the Soviet Union by breaking its chain of command. It became obsolete with the ICBM. Suppose Stalin commits his last great act of defiance and deploys a nuke. The U.S. retaliates and the war is over in weeks. This "Dropshot" war does isolated damage and basically collapses the Soviet Union. The supply of nukes is such that it does not cause global destruction. In fact, it probably would not earn the status of a world war. The United States would be the sole global superpower. Khrushchev would not be in control to authorize Sputnik and ignite a competitive space race. Rocket technology moves slowly into weather satellites. Without the space race, the need for the ICBM is much less, and we might think the IC technology that shrunk transistors to silicon chips might lag. This was the technology that launched the personal computer revolution in the eighties that evolved into today's smartphones, world wide web and Internet.

The destruction in eastern Europe would scare other countries from developing nukes or ICBMs. Technology would concentrate on decontaminating areas with fallout. The American president would have had no need to set the moon as a goal, as did Kennedy. Technology would freeze in the seventies for some time.

Now, if we set a nuclear exchange in the sixties, the destruction is far worse and the future is very different.

What about the social implications? Well, the Baby Boom is much shorter, but the first eight or nine years of it is already born. Television still blankets the country from 1953-55. Audio recording is still revolutionized with recording tape. Many aspects of the sixties would evolve as in OTL, just a few years later and with different issues.

The impetus to IC technology might come from other countries. The U.S. responds and computers move forward on a belated time line.
 
Mitchell Hundred wrote:
With the first and second world war you saw developments in technology that would have taken years longer to develop if not for the rapid pace of development caused by large scale war.

If there were a 3rd world war a decade or 2 later would we have seen an accelerated pace of development in technology to OTL?

The caveat would be of course this war would not devolve into total nuclear armagedon which would probably set things back a bit.

Note that despite attempts to limit military technological growth between WWI and WWII the effort in general failed due to rather obvious progress outside of strict military necessity. Further you don't require a world-spanning war to progress though in general some form of conflict where various doctrines, procedures along with technological assumptions and ideas can be tried out helps a great deal.

More often than not the 'advance' of military technology is retarded by factors outside direct military control. For example ballistic missiles were actually quite obvious and admitted by most experts to be the next big weapons technology following WWII. What delayed this in the US was significant budget cuts post-war and the need to choose between programs which lead to a concentration on "known" technology, (manned bombers) and what experts thought was "near" and "long" term technology. It was thought that air-breathing cruise missiles could be brought to fruition within 10 years whereas ballistic missiles of the needed (intercontinental) capability would take longer than 10 years to develop and deploy.

So within the funding given bombers had the highest priority, defensive systems, (aircraft, radar, and AAA-weapons) next with air-breathing cruise missiles in a slow development and almost nothing left over for long range missile development. Then came Korea and both budget and priority changed. Somewhat. After that, once again the concept and priorities changed again to (supposedly) reflect the new paradigms but as usual the exact priorities were ever shifting. Behind in some areas, ahead in others.

High speed aircraft armed with cannons became less and less effective so the air-to-air guided missile was developed but research was driven by the agency with the most money rather than what was the best choice or opportunity. Hence the Falcon over the Sidewinder despite their large differences in performance, operations, and technology. It took a lot of use in low grade conflicts and testing to finally work out that the latter was in fact far superior to the former and why. Similarly the case of aircraft 'defensive' systems such as ECM were developed based very much on assumptions and vague information on the expected 'enemy' threat. So much so that once deployed against those threats even in the arguably 'sub-peer' conflict in Vietnam they were found almost useless and both new technology and new doctrine for their use had to be found.

The other issue is no "World War" after WWII is going to be a long drug out conflict in the manner of previous wars. Near total commitment and total war will be required and keep very much in mind that between 1947 and the late 50s specifically, and up to the very late 80s in general NO ONE was planning any conflict between the US and USSR that did NOT devolve at some point into nuclear conflict. The only "hope" in fact was to somehow keep it 'tactical' rather than 'strategic' but that was quite obviously a forlorn hope at best.

The bottom line is that the initial and later US policy to the early 60s was based mostly on massive retaliation in any conflict directly with the USSR. And that retaliation was fully projected to be the massive us of nuclear weapons both against front line units and Warsaw Pact infrastructure and civil areas. The reasoning was rather straight forward as there were always going to be insufficient "conventional" forces to oppose those of the WP without immediate and deep reserves which no NATO nation was willing to fund or support. So at best any 'war' would consist of NATO falling back and inflicting as much damage as possible while trying to delay the Soviet forces long enough to allow resupply and reinforcements from the Continental US to arrive. That was not even the 'plan' prior to the mid-to-late 60s mind you. Between about 1949 and around 1965 the 'plan' was any Soviet aggression in Europe would be met with full release of all tactical, short and intermediate range nuclear weapons available with a 'follow-up' launched by strategic nuclear forces immediately afterwards.

The rather obvious flaw in this plan is twofold; First as a policy NATO and the US would never strike first, secondly any "build-up" to do such a thing would have obvious indicators that would and could be pre-empted with Soviet counter responses.

I that kind of planning there is neither need for development or research as the whole 'war' will be over one way or another within weeks at the longest. You go to full production of what you have and you let the future take care of itself if you are still around to see it.

OTL's Cold War on the other hand kept research and development funded and supported the whole time even if it became rarer to field actual units due to rising costs. The low-scale conflicts and confrontations also allowed field testing of doctrine, operations, planning and equipment which was invaluable and fed directly back into that same research and development cycle.

There was continual development and refinement of technology during both WWI and WWII but in general all forces retained and used what they started with or was in advanced development prior to the conflict with few exceptions. Granted that in many cases those 'exceptions' would end up having larger than life effects but for the most part they can also not be positively tied to the reason the conflicts ended the way they did. They are still only 'contributing' factors.

The idea that "war accelerates technology" is a gross simplification of trends seen rather than actual fact. While conflict can accelerate technology in the sense that more funding and support is available for research and development this is most often applied to what is available and in production rather than significantly new technology that is not yet in production. Again examples exist which "prove the rule" by not obeying the rule but they are as noted 'exceptions' :)

Randy
 
Top