Trump

[pogo]

The Democrats have an excellent candidate, in Clinton. Probably no-one has more relevant experience than her, with her years in the Senate and as Secretary of State. She is personally very well suited and has united the Democratic party behind her very impressively. Where she is not strong, such as on economics, she can draw on a breadth of expertise from government and academia. And of course she is inheriting much of Obama’s excellent work, and if it’s not broke don’t fix it.

The main criticisms of her from Republicans are fabrications. Her health, obviously. Benghazi she had nothing to do with. Her e-mails the FBI investigated thoroughly and found no evidence of wrongdoing. At worst she could have been sanctioned administratively, but that would have needed to happen when she was employed at the State Department. You can’t suffer administrative sanctions for an employment you are no longer part of.

[gumboot]

An argument could be made that war isn't as much of a spur to science as is sometimes thought - taking World War II as an example, radar, the jet engine, atomic psychics, improved aerodynamics etc were all pre-war inventions. What war did do is provide funding and much greater concentration of effort.

So war didn't spur science so much as engineering?

[gumboot]

At worst she could have been sanctioned administratively, but that would have needed to happen when she was employed at the State Department. You can’t suffer administrative sanctions for an employment you are no longer part of.

I don't think punishment is the issue, though, is it. The issue is whether or not she did something that might suggest she shouldn't be put in a position of authority.

Trump, on the other hand, clearly has a pristine record.

[F-ZeroOne]

An argument could be made that war isn't as much of a spur to science as is sometimes thought - taking World War II as an example, radar, the jet engine, atomic psychics, improved aerodynamics etc were all pre-war inventions. What war did do is provide funding and much greater concentration of effort.

So war didn't spur science so much as engineering?

To a degree, yes. Take the Supermarine Spitfire - it evolved out of various efforts during the interwar years to improve aerodynamic performance of aircraft, combined with engineering efforts to produce ever more powerful aircraft engines. Possibly the most advanced aircraft of that time period was not a military aircraft but the Douglas DC-3, a civilian airliner; improved aerodynamics, engine cowlings and variable-pitch propellers were all taken up by civilian users first. During the war, the Spitfire became twice as powerful as the original early models, but those late models then began to hit a brick wall which was only solved by jet engines - another pre-war invention.

Science does get done during wartime, at least partly because funds and equipment becomes available which might not otherwise have been done (some early ocean floor investigation was carried out by a bored enlisted scientist playing around with his ships new-fangled electronic depth-finder, which was not the devices original design purpose) but at least as far as World War I and II goes by and large improvement of equipment was to refine existing designs rather than create break-through new paradigms (there are always exceptions, such as the swept-wing jet-powered Me262).

War can spur science by bringing together groups of minds who might not otherwise have met; Germanys atomic programme lagged far behind the allies despite Germany being a pioneer in the field at least partly because national policy drove some of the most brilliant scientists of that generation into the arms of its enemies.

[Dio]

The swept wing on the Me262 was an accident. They did it to move the centre of gravity backwards, it wasn't known that it would also dramatically reduce drag close to the supersonic region.

[pogo]

So war didn't spur science so much as engineering?

Peace spurs science and engineering, much more than war. Providing things for a peaceful and growing economy spurs all sorts of innovation, while allowing the sort of long term investment and planning that is only possible in peace time. While war tends to drive innovation in weapons of war almost all other forms of innovation is put on hold, or diverted to other things, an effect that sometimes long outlasts the war.

Another mistake is thinking the destruction of war can be beneficial if it spurs reconstruction after the war. But this is wrong, so wrong it has its own name, the broken window fallacy. Basically although destruction can spur reconstruction, it would be better if the destruction had not happened at all, and efforts had instead been directed at other things – building new homes instead or repairing old ones for example.

[gravy]

So war didn't spur science so much as engineering?

Peace spurs science and engineering, much more than war.

By what metric?

I mean other than "I reckon"

[F-ZeroOne]

Dio, thanks for the information on the Me262, that it was a design accident doesn't seem to have cropped up in anything I've ever read on the aircraft, the assumption always seems to be that it was intentional.

[pogo]

Peace spurs science and engineering, much more than war.

By what metric?

I mean other than "I reckon"

The broken window fallacy is one reason: there is no dividend from reconstruction. But some do argue that, despite this, war drives innovation which outlasts the war. There are many arguments against this.

First the innovation is overwhelmingly focussed on winning war, even winning this particular war even surviving it. Little of it has civilian applications. If the war had not happened chances are the innovations would have happened anyway, along with many others that war postponed or disrupted.

One real world example. The first programmable computer was created in secret at Bletchley Park, part of the codebreaking effort there. But the intense secrecy led to it being destroyed, its existence hidden for decades, so it did not kick-start the computer revolution. Except at the same time as it was being destroyed work was already underway on computers in the US, and the computer revolution started there instead.

Second the effect of war, on depressing the economy, can last long after the war formally ends. Britain was not invaded in WWII so largely escaped its worst effects. But things were grim for years after. Rationing continued into the 1950s, the 1948 Olympics in London were the austerity Olympics, and so on. And we escaped the worst of it.

Third the government role. Spending and investment rose massively during the world wars, leading to record debt levels (as is sometimes pointed out in debates over the current debt levels, it was much higher in the past). This had to be eliminated, through debt repayment and financial repression – inflated away with savers and asset owners shouldering the burden – depressing the economy long after the end of the war.

[zip accident]

Dio, thanks for the information on the Me262, that it was a design accident doesn't seem to have cropped up in anything I've ever read on the aircraft, the assumption always seems to be that it was intentional.

Well I've heard it before somewhere. Don't know for sure where.

[zip accident]

Britain was not invaded in WWII so largely escaped its worst effects. But things were grim for years after. Rationing continued into the 1950s, the 1948 Olympics in London were the austerity Olympics, and so on. And we escaped the worst of it.

The USA profitted hugely from Lend Lease, largely at Britain's expense. Lend Lease largely broke the Empire.

[Dio]

Amusingly, it's on the Wikipedia page.

So maybe it's wrong .

But the same article notes that the research on swept wings, while not influencing the Me262 itself, was completed and planned to influence the jet-powered follow-ups.

[pogo]

Britain was not invaded in WWII so largely escaped its worst effects. But things were grim for years after. Rationing continued into the 1950s, the 1948 Olympics in London were the austerity Olympics, and so on. And we escaped the worst of it.

The USA profitted hugely from Lend Lease, largely at Britain's expense. Lend Lease largely broke the Empire.

The USA is a good example here as the war, or wars, had minimal impact on them. The wars were fought in Europe and Asia, not America, and the US entered both wars late.

And the 20th century is the when the US went from catching up with the rest of the world to leading it, a lead it has not lost. If you want lots of innovation, lots of scientific development, lots of engineering excellence, the best thing is to stay out of wars or at least not get too involved in them.

[gumboot]

So war didn't spur science so much as engineering?

Peace spurs science and engineering, much more than war.

By what metric?

I mean other than "I reckon"

But "I reckon" is a base unit in the Internet System of Units.

[gravy]

Peace spurs science and engineering, much more than war.

By what metric?

I mean other than "I reckon"

The broken window fallacy is one reason: there is no dividend from reconstruction. But some do argue that, despite this, war drives innovation which outlasts the war. There are many arguments against this.

First the innovation is overwhelmingly focussed on winning war, even winning this particular war even surviving it. Little of it has civilian applications. If the war had not happened chances are the innovations would have happened anyway, along with many others that war postponed or disrupted.

One real world example. The first programmable computer was created in secret at Bletchley Park, part of the codebreaking effort there. But the intense secrecy led to it being destroyed, its existence hidden for decades, so it did not kick-start the computer revolution. Except at the same time as it was being destroyed work was already underway on computers in the US, and the computer revolution started there instead.

That's not right. The first programmable, stored program computer was made in the Manchester just after the war. And hugely influenced by experiences of many people do computing war work. Turing's EDVAC paper pretty much describes a working, modern day computer.

That wouldn't have existed without the huge investment into code break during WW2 IMHO. That's an opinion obviously but at least it doesn't derive from a faulty view of the past.

If you want to keep on that tack have a look and see why the first integrated circuit was invented.