War has driven some of our biggest technological leaps. If only we could innovate with such purpose and drive in peacetime we might just solve all the world’s problems, writes our anonymous blogger.
It is no more than coincidence that my date for the submission of November’s piece falls close to Remembrance Day, but this results in it being a revisited inspiration. I have considered whether I should actively avoid it this year but the thoughts and questions that lead from the contemplation of war and loss is, perversely, such fertile ground that I have at least decided to keep with it for now.
Engineering could possibly lay claim to being the profession with the closest link to warfare, beyond the armed forces themselves. You could argue that throwing rocks and sticks is merely the application of our innate ability to use our environment. However, when our ancestors first selected a tool, and then used it to sharpen one of those sticks; they stepped onto the first rung of the armaments engineering ladder.
There are plenty of civilian led advances but the acceleration of our level of technical sophistication during times of war is notable
Sadly it is the nature of humanity to use weapons to assert their dominance, also establishing a need to defend. A stalemate creates the conditions for further developments, which then have to be countered in turn. Situations with an imbalance of power coupled to mobility go further and lead to the creation of empires. Of course technology does not produce empires alone but it is a key part. Roman tactics and political will would have achieved very little without the short sword and roads. Would England ever have been more than a damp little island above Europe without superior arms and shipping?
A lot of military led developments have gone on to benefit mankind in a wider context. Flying in your jet powered aircraft, kept safe by radar informed air traffic control, at high subsonic speeds is testament to this. Who can say if, in a purely civilian world, we would have had them anyway; but the fact remains they were born of the near constant state of being in an armaments race. There are also plenty of civilian led advances but the necessary acceleration of our level of technical sophistication during times of war is notable.
It may be naïve and unrealistic but there is something incredibly uplifting about the belief that the continued arc of research and investment will cure all the world’s problems
I suspect that the classic triangle of cost/quality/time provides the answer. It is a basic tenet that you can only ever achieve two of the three. If you are in a war with a roughly equal enemy then you do not have the luxury of compromising on either delivery dates or quality. You need better weapons than your enemy and you need them immediately. Therefore you are compelled to spend the money to get them.
Come peacetime, largely free of either “hot” or “cold” wars, and the use of money to advance science and technology is questioned. The impetus changes from the preservation of freedom or ideology and focuses instead on the protection of wealth. I do not know how this can be changed, or even if it can be, but I feel failed by the optimism shown immediately after the first and second world wars.
Looking at the popular culture of the 1920’s and 1950’s you see a hope that the strides made forward in the sciences will continue. It may be naïve and unrealistic but there is something incredibly uplifting about the belief that the continued arc of research and investment will cure all the world’s problems. A lack of hunger and disease along with the provision of a comfortable life for all may bring its own concerns but without the pressures of noted inequalities across the globe in these respects, surely the drive for conflict would be reduced?
Utopia may be unobtainable but while that most selfish act “self-preservation” can lead to the advancement of human-kind as a whole it seems that when we can look at investing in the wider vision we become more insular. One man notably bucked this trend and saw his inventions as being for the betterment of all, to his own detriment. Yet, as is the way, he was to be eclipsed by those who sought to build empires and accrue wealth instead. The engineer’s contribution to a world without wars surely lies within what he does in peacetime and for that he or she need look no further for a role model than Nikola Tesla.
You can read about some of Tesla’s contributions to the engineering of electricity generation and distribution in this feature from our 160th anniversary supplement.
We need a peace time economic clear out to take advantage of modern technologies.
It is worth remembering that much of the optimism for Post War (WWII more so than WWI) technology and economic growth came about through the physical and economic destruction of much of western and central Europe and Japan. Less so in the UK although still significant. The US having a less ‘old’ industrial base still continued to expand without the need for such a ‘clean out’.
This destruction allowed for many of the armament driven technological developments to be industrialised in new plant (sucking in investment and aid from the Marshall plan type aid plans into Germany and Japan in particular) and R&D . The oft forgotten Korean War also provided a boost to the market in industrial goods generally. Backing all this up was a large number of people (in the vanquished countries) who were educated and skilled, but not unionised/organised but would work for very low wages. Also lack of resources also possibly drove better industrial processes and lean etc (helped by Americans and others such as Demming).
So low wages and a relatively clean ‘Industrial’ sheet together with a willingness for investment by the US to help other countries create markets for itself, rapidly led to high economic expansion and the post war boom (up until the early 70s after which it flattened out).
So Perhaps the real question is: how can we produce a modern day clear out of the industrialised countries’ industrial bases to provide the preconditions for the better use of newer technologies, which the article mentions? Of course without resorting to war and death – but with creative destruction.
Technologies by them selves won’t produce economic growth unless the old industries are literally – but peacefully destroyed. And to work out how to do that is politics and economics.
Technology was supposed to lead all to a world where war was obsolete, but will we find out (too late) that humans are the only part of the equation that might be going obsolete?
Humans must change their own human nature to the less violent side, and do so universally, but I do not expect this will be true any time soon.
When I had a job at an Industrial firm in Ipswich , ignorant as I was about engineering, I soon noticed that all the tools-lathes etc, were German made. Commenting on this, it emerged that after WW2, the Americans re-equipped Germany with brand new lathes etc, to set them up again as a strong nation (bulwark against Soviet Union, of course). Would you care to guess who got Germany’s old lathes et al? Yes, you are correct—we did. Perfectly good basic lathes, but way too old to compete with the emerging German industry. On top of that, they-as a nation-are much more energetic than us, in my experience there. Beer kellers are the example that I remember best (for some reason), still going strong at 2am and up bouncing around at 7am . Haven’t always put that drive to beneficial ends, course……………I found them wonderful hosts in a splendid, rich country.
Did we go wrong somewhere along the line….??
Did we go wrong somewhere along the line….?? Asks John Fulcher.
Well John, we spent the fortune of Empire to win two world wars, and then some. Such that we ended up in hock to the USA and spent the following decades paying off the loans. We had allowed our aging railways to decline through lack of maintenance and investment; then whilst continental Europe was rebuilding their infrastructure, we paid our loans but failed to invest at home.
Then we proceeded to swing between elected governments who either threw taxpayers cash at the wrong projects, or cancelled projects that were 90% complete to becoming world leading products. This is the problem of having governments (and a civil service) without sufficient engineering, industrial and scientific capabilities to make sensible decisions. And if you think things have changed, take a look at the Navy’s new aircraft carriers . . . I rest my case!
I always know when my post(s) really hit the spot -our editor spikes them!
If, for 50+ years, two nations, the apparent losers in WWII, who always valued, respected and encouraged technology (sadly too often for military purposes) are told by the winners: -after what you have done twice, do NOT make any weapons or their means of delivery, yet re-boot? your economy, we should not be surprised if they set too and make everything else. As they have done.
Wonderful manifesto, thank you “Secret Engineer”.
I like The Engineer magazine and learn a lot from it, but I do not read any of the articles dedicated to military technology. Nor anywhere else. I am not in awe with the great civilian applications of war technology, if killing human beings is the only way to obtain them, than we should reject them. Of course animals kill each other, but is there an example of killing for trophies or for trinkets or political/economic power or just to strut around? Yes, we are animals, but animals with the greatest organ ever evolved in the universe: the brain. Let’s use it to preserve and advance life, not destroy it.
The question on human nature as violent or empathetic has not been settled, and I am optimistic that, as we make progress in neuroscience, the answer will be the latter. It is neuroscience, science in general and engineering for a sustainable planet that need most our investment of knowledge, passion and money.
Why then there is still so much admiration for and investment in military technology and war? Because, there are still too many people (mostly men, sorry to sound biased, but it is statistically true) who cannot comprehend how human civilization should be organized, how unique and fragile is Earth, as the only life supporting planet in the Universe, that we know of or will ever know.