Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
World War 2 More Beneficial To Humanity Than Not?  
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8064 times:

Before anyone points it out, World War II had a huge impact on the people involved. Millions of people were murdered brutally and that can never be forgotten. Please consider this as more of an academic brainstorm than anything else, I certainly don’t mean to belittle the things that happened or cause offence.

With that over, read on for my topic.

Without WW2 we wouldn’t have had such a huge advance in aviation, flying boats would have reigned supreme for much longer due to the lack of long runways. The jet engine wouldn’t have been developed as quickly which means no fast cheap aviation travel.

Without WW2 there would have been no Manhattan project, as the nuclear bomb wasn’t needed. No nuclear weapons means no ICBMs as there was no need to lob small conventional bombs halfway around the world. No ICBMs means no space race, as the military need for large rockets wouldn’t have existed, and all space based research would have been relegated to civilian agencies. NASA wouldn’t have been funded to the same extent because there would have been no rival to beat. No space race means no satellites, severely limiting global communications and other things.

No WW2 means no urgent need to decode military encryption (enigma) which means computers would have been set back a great deal as they weren’t needed. RADAR and similar radio based technological advancements wouldn’t have occurred which would leave long distance communications to telephone lines.

The Internet wouldn’t have been created when it did, both because of the lack of computers and the lack of requirement for it militarily.

Medical advances in antibiotics and other treatments wouldn’t have happened as quickly, as there was no need for them on the battlefield.

The US would have remained within its isolationist policy, negating the advances it has given other countries since. The British Empire would have lasted longer, perhaps to this day. No WW2 means no military build-up in Europe, which also means no Soviet occupation of a lot of Eastern Europe which, combined with the US isolationist policy, means no cold war, or at most a vastly reduced one.

A lot of 20th century development occurred because of governmental funding due to war. Where would we be without it? A lot of the above things would have probably happened anyway eventually, but how much later than they actually did?


6 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineJush From Germany, joined Apr 2005, 1638 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8057 times:

My thought is that you just making history very easy.
Some technologies wouldn't have been developed that quickly but eventually.
I think you're going a bit too far. In a war technology develops quicker, sure.
Funding is a big deal there.
But you're almost saying that nothing of that would have ever been invented withot WW2 and that is not true.
Think about great inventions which were invented much later without a state of war everywhere.


There is one problem with airbus. Though their products are engineering marvels they lack passion, completely.
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8050 times:

War-especially a huge, cataclysmic one ,can often be an engine for changes in society far beyond the fighting. World War II is a prime example of that.

Yes, all those changes you speak of ended up benefitting humanity, but it cannot be said the war benefitted humanity in general. And who's to say the changes still would not have taken places in short order anyway.

There is no way, looking back 60 years, and saying with certainty that the advances we made because of the war would not have taken place, or would have taken a lot longer to occur. That's conjecture only, although it does make for good conversation.

User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11454 posts, RR: 72
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8041 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It's certainly an interesting conundrum. UPenn developed that computer with Sperry (Univac?) in order to more accurately and speedily calculate artillery trajectories for range cards, and Pearl Harbor forced our navy to focus on aircraft carriers rather than battlewagons which took our r&d in new directions with an incredible impetus that would not have been there otherwise.

We probably would have developed much of what we currently have, but it would have happened much more slowly, and many things that are dangerous and risky, would not have happened at all without competition of some kind.

Look at what happened to NASA once the space race was over. It languished.

INteresting thought, but in the end it's an exercise in alternate history and what-ifs. The lesson to be learned is that most great advancements in this world came about because someone was competing with someone else and they wanted to win so they took risks and lived dangerously.

Perhaps the bean counters operating in safety should remember that on occasion.

Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineSaintsman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 2065 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 8031 times:

You have to remember that the world had been quite happy with what they had before the war. I'm sure they did okay without digital watches and mobile phones etc. You don't miss what you don't know.

Having said that, even in the 21st century we can't get far from a war or some sort of conflict. I'm fairly sure that there would have been some other war that would have led to the development of the things we have today. Things may not have developped so fast but are we really better off with some of the things we take for granted today?

Probably not.

User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 8009 times:

Some of the technological advances we take for granted, particularly in aviation, happened (or their development started) before WW2 -- variable pitch propellors, slats, retractable undercarriage etc. and that includes the jet engine and the rocket engine. The war speeded them up considerably, but I don't think we'd still be motoring across the country in DC-7s without the war.

You can pick almost any cataclysmic event and speculate on what would have happened if the event didn't occur; WW2 may not even be the most dramatic example of that. For instance, apply the same argument to WW1; the American Revolution; the US Civil War; the Russo-Japanese war; the Russian Revolution. Or how about the Battle of Hastings?

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineLutenist From Canada, joined May 2005, 280 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7996 times:

I like airplanes, but I think that the speedy development of variable pitch propellers, jet turbines, etc. are more than eclipsed by the death, upheaval, and political enslavement of tens of millions of people the world over. All the material things advanced by WWII don't begin to make up for the utter calamity of this war and its aftermath.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
More Likely To Be Killed By Police Than Terrorist posted Fri Sep 15 2006 15:30:04 by Cairo
Great Lyrics To A Song About World War III posted Thu Aug 3 2006 08:34:00 by COIAH756CA
A Good Book On World War Two In Italy. Any Advice? posted Fri May 11 2012 19:26:00 by AR385
The First World War Is Now Over posted Thu Oct 7 2010 05:52:08 by oly720man
To Buy Or Not To Buy Presenter Dead! (UK TV) posted Mon Mar 1 2010 15:35:16 by LHR380
A Pretzel Is More Popular On FB Than Tokio Hotel posted Mon Feb 15 2010 09:07:09 by LTU932
Surplus PC For 80 Bucks... To Buy Or Not To Buy posted Tue Sep 29 2009 12:52:13 by DesertJets
China .. World War II posted Tue Mar 3 2009 13:22:00 by AGM100
EU To Allow Vegetables Not Pretty Enough.... posted Tue Dec 2 2008 10:02:12 by PNQIAD
A World War II Debate For You posted Tue Jul 1 2008 13:42:31 by Falcon84