Haha.
Yeah, had it in 1988.
Not in the Soviet Union.
Not in the Soviet Union.
Not always available in the Soviet Union.
Not in the Soviet Union.
Not in the Soviet Union.
Not in the Soviet Union.
Not in the Soviet Union.
Not in the Soviet Union.
But rockets were produced like sausages at the same time...
But now it isn't the Soviet Union. Tell me, are these things there now?
---------- Post added at 01:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:38 AM ----------
Who is saying this? Certainly no one who has posted in this thread is saying we shouldn't use technology just because it was spawned in the Cold War.
Well, you, for one. I said seems... which is that I meant that your argument that insisting that everyone else argues the so-called "broken window fallacy", you imply that we should spurn those things which are ill-gotten through the suffering of others. Even if you do not actually buy into that yourself, the implication is there.
Please explain your theory of how inventing velcro and an internet is not possible without a nuclear standoff.
I never said they weren't
possible. What I was stating is that they came to us when they did and how they did as a result of these things. Please, show me how these things would have come about if not for the 50 years of standoff? How long would we have had to wait for corporate competition to have brought these about. And while you are computing that, be sure to consider the following-- 1) without war or the threat of war, industry would NOT be geared to high production 2) isolationism breeds stagnation in the lack of a threat 3) the corporate culture of post-WWII was considerably less oreinted toward technology.
Further, consider that the Cold War was, in and of itself, a direct result of WWII, and WWII was a direct result of the Treaty of Versailles, which ended WWI. So, how far back to you want to take the whole show? If you want to argue that the Cold War was unnecessary to the progress of technology, then you also have to do the same for both World Wars. So, from a buisness, technological, historical and scientific standpoint, we have to assume technology would not have progressed at nearly as fast a rate as it has since 1916. How about we look at the achievements from 1846 to 1916 and see the rate at which technology increased. Then apply that increase to the years 1917 to 1987. Where are we? Hmmmm. Oh wait, I see a problem with this... there were some wars between 1846 and 1916 that influenced the rate at which technology rose. Well, that's ok, we can always find a period in history during a peaceful time when technology rose by leaps and bounds, can't we? Well, can't we?
You are repeating the broken window fallacy, by stating that technological advances cannot come to pass without a lengthy, expensive, and outright dangerous military confrontation, and the attendant loss of lives and liberty that comes with it.
Because you keep using the "broken window fallacy" so much, let us define what you mean. In 1850, a Frenchman by the name of Frédéric Bastiat provided the following story:
Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.
Now, what I have said was simply this. The Cold War is a part of history. Like all history, it is something we can learn from. Like the man said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (George Santayana for anyone who wants to look that up) In addition to that, I have stated that it is an historical fact that conflict has cultivated advances in technology. What I have not said is that this is the best way to advance technology. Therefore, your stating that I am just using the "Broken window fallacy" again is an incorrect conclusion.
The fact is that money spent on defense is money lost. The defense industry produces no goods and services; it is at best a necessary drain on resources to protect against outside threats. It does produce spinoffs, but these are merely secondary benefits and are never the primary reason for the spending. Velcro and Tang would've been a lot cheaper to invent without having to build a Saturn V to carry it. I acknowledge that some defense spending is required, especially during the Cold War. But had there been no Cold War than that capital would've been freed up to be spent on innovations for everyday people, instead of soldiers and government-employed space explorers.
Lets see... Money spent on defense is money lost... and... The defense industry produces no goods and services. Can you back these two statements up? Oh, I will grant you that defense spending is overly bloated and a drain of resources -- but that is not the industry itself as much as human greed. The research going into defense spending, the actual deep research, turns out products with a whole myriad of non-defense applications. Often times before practical defense applications exist, the civilian market finds something which is put to practical use in the marketplace. But velcro and tang being cheaper? Sure, they might not even exist. Keep in mind that if it weren't for the military applications, man would not have likely breached the sound barrier -- everyone felt that it was a solid barrier and quite nearly everyone who had breached it prior to Chuck Yeager died. How's that for grounding things a little.
You are correct if you are saying that what we have today would not the same without the Cold War, of course. Change history and the form of technological advances change with it. But to say there's no way we could have this stuff is not logical.
Thank you for the acknowledgement that I said at least some small thing right. But you did not take what I said quite as clearly as I had hoped. At no time did I ever say that there was no way we could have this stuff. What I did say is that there is a lot less likelihood we would have this stuff when we did.
Do the ends justify the means? Is the little boy the public benefactor? Does the technology gained from the Cold War make the world any better? Those are questions for each reader to decide for themselves. History will attend to itself.
