|
|
|
|
|
|
by godelski
2125 days ago
|
|
|
I think you're misunderstanding me. You seem to imply it is 100% of funding into one vs 100% into another. I'd argue such a swing is absurd. The other part is that I'm arguing that civilian research is also military research (the reverse is also true, but not as strong of a connection). The reason to invest in civilian research while in times of peace is that you want products to go into the public domain and be mass produced. This means that the new fighters you can make are much cheaper to produce and can have much more advanced weapon capabilities. The only real difference between civilian and military research is if the knowledge gets into the public domain or not (with the exception for weapons, which is more niche than you'd expect). This is why DARPA does that funding, but it isn't just DARPA. The entire SBIR/STTR program exists to get companies to bootstrap themselves and mass produce things the government needs (yes, it is abused quite a bit). Many contracts exist for this reason too. The last aspect is economic and cultural. If your country is doing well economically it is often able to avoid war in the first place. Rich countries often don't fight with soldiers and jets, they fight with computers and resources. Why invade a country when you can put economic shackles on it? China and the US are both doing this. The other part is cultural exportation. If your country is producing all the widgets that another country likes and enjoys then their people are not eager to fight you (as long as you're not being aggressive towards them). All these, and more matter. War is much more than bullets and fighter jets. |
|
|