Military Speculations

n7axw wrote:And Weird Harold, there is truth to what you are saying, but I don't think it is completely true.
...
However here on earth, steam was developed for economically driven reasons on the civilian side. So also was the internal combustion engine, the air plane and much more. In fact, the need for efficiency to drive costs down to enhance profit has probably been the biggest driver of research overall.

I don't think you're reading the same history books I am.

I can't speak positively about the rest of the world, but in the US, Steam -- specifically rail and maritime applications -- were driven by government subsidies and the Civil War. Military needs drove the development of cross-country rail networks (and later the freeway system) and any economic benefits were secondary.

The internal combustion engine field in the US got a big boost from the development of the Liberty Engine and the network of US highways that preceded the freeway system as designated military access routes.

The airplane was a fragile toy from it's invention to the first world war. During the first world war, the airplane went from 60MPH single engine biplanes to 200MPH+ multi-engined transports and bombers (Zeppelins also progressed from one and two seaters to near the peak of airship designs.) Without war surplus JN4 trainers and war surplus liberty engines, Aviation would have died in the US for lack of planes and pilots. Government mail contracts subsidized early passenger service, or that too would have never taken off.

At the beginning of WWII, war and preparations for war (eg a cold war) only added another 100MPH to airplane speeds in Europe and Asia (Japan) but hardly affected the US -- although military requirements did produce the B-17 and B-24 heavy bomber designs and the C47/DC-3 inventory.

During WWII aircraft went from 250-300MPH to 600-700 MPH and fatal encounters with the Sound Barrier and compressibility.

The Korean Conflict saw another burst in aircraft capability and SAC's need for a jet tanker led to the Boeing 707/KC-35 design. A losing design for the C-5 competition by Boeing led to the 747 Jumbo -- which nobody thought would be economical at first.

There are a few advances in aeronautics that weren't driven by the Cold War with the Soviet Bloc, but almost all aeronautic advancement prior to 1950 or so took place in the five years of WWI and five years of WWII -- plus some slower developments in the interwar years -- was driven by military requirements and contracts.

Government and/or military requirements have been behind the expansion of everything from food-preservation to the internet; it may not have been responsible for the inventions, but government has funded most of the infrastructure to support general use -- usually justified as "military necessity."

n7axw wrote:I guess I am sort of a direct kind of guy. The power of the inquisition needs to be broken. And EOC needs to know what is really under the temple. Those are both war aims even if they are not formally stated. In addition, purging the church of the vicarage's corruption is not accomplished if the present regime in Zion is left in place which is what a cold war would imply.

Actually, conquest of Zion isn't really incompatible with a cold war against a "Church In Exile." Harchong, for example, is unlikely to be conquered and very inclined to give refuge to the vicarate of "The True Church."

There's no guarantee that Sidermark will remain allied to Charis; it certainly won't become part of the Empire of Charis and it will be an economic rival. Since it is a Republic, a change of administration could well turn Siddermark into a potential adversary if not an outright enemy. It's not likely to offer refuge to CoGA loyalists, but may well develop its own "protestant" variation.

There's a lot of room for a Cold War with a lot of different entities who object to Charis over one point or another -- or cold wars between several non-charisian polities.

Weird Harold wrote:

n7axw wrote:And Weird Harold, there is truth to what you are saying, but I don't think it is completely true.
...
However here on earth, steam was developed for economically driven reasons on the civilian side. So also was the internal combustion engine, the air plane and much more. In fact, the need for efficiency to drive costs down to enhance profit has probably been the biggest driver of research overall.

I don't think you're reading the same history books I am.

I can't speak positively about the rest of the world, but in the US, Steam -- specifically rail and maritime applications -- were driven by government subsidies and the Civil War. Military needs drove the development of cross-country rail networks (and later the freeway system) and any economic benefits were secondary.

The internal combustion engine field in the US got a big boost from the development of the Liberty Engine and the network of US highways that preceded the freeway system as designated military access routes.

The airplane was a fragile toy from it's invention to the first world war. During the first world war, the airplane went from 60MPH single engine biplanes to 200MPH+ multi-engined transports and bombers (Zeppelins also progressed from one and two seaters to near the peak of airship designs.) Without war surplus JN4 trainers and war surplus liberty engines, Aviation would have died in the US for lack of planes and pilots. Government mail contracts subsidized early passenger service, or that too would have never taken off.

At the beginning of WWII, war and preparations for war (eg a cold war) only added another 100MPH to airplane speeds in Europe and Asia (Japan) but hardly affected the US -- although military requirements did produce the B-17 and B-24 heavy bomber designs and the C47/DC-3 inventory.

During WWII aircraft went from 250-300MPH to 600-700 MPH and fatal encounters with the Sound Barrier and compressibility.

The Korean Conflict saw another burst in aircraft capability and SAC's need for a jet tanker led to the Boeing 707/KC-35 design. A losing design for the C-5 competition by Boeing led to the 747 Jumbo -- which nobody thought would be economical at first.

There are a few advances in aeronautics that weren't driven by the Cold War with the Soviet Bloc, but almost all aeronautic advancement prior to 1950 or so took place in the five years of WWI and five years of WWII -- plus some slower developments in the interwar years -- was driven by military requirements and contracts.

Government and/or military requirements have been behind the expansion of everything from food-preservation to the internet; it may not have been responsible for the inventions, but government has funded most of the infrastructure to support general use -- usually justified as "military necessity."

I think you named the key to the situation here. What the military usually does very well is to take existing ideas or tech and refine it driving it toward the specific applications that the military needs at the moment which in turn eventually finds it way back to civilian application. You are quite right to point that out. However the civilian role in this is to take these applications and modify them so that they are economical for widespread use in the civilian sector.

However it needs to be said that much of the pure scientific research occurs in the civilian sector, particularly these days in the universities. How much of that is military driven, I don't know. I think that those lines get pretty fuzzy.

Finally, as per the Rosen book, steam was first developed primarily in Britian from commercial incentive. First to run water pumps in the coal mines, then to power factories, particularly mill grinding, the textile industries, and foundaries for processing iron and steel. Indeed the first railroads were for getting coal to the industrial sector. None of this is to say that the military contributed nothing to this. What it is to say is that the industrial revolution gave birth to the modern military, not the other way around. In fact war fighting capability actually lagged behind the possibilities of the existing tech for a long time. A modern military rests upon the foundation of a strongly industrial economy. That remains true today upon good ole Terra, and along with its tech advantage, its also true for Charis on Safehold.

Don

Weird Harold wrote:

n7axw wrote:I guess I am sort of a direct kind of guy. The power of the inquisition needs to be broken. And EOC needs to know what is really under the temple. Those are both war aims even if they are not formally stated. In addition, purging the church of the vicarage's corruption is not accomplished if the present regime in Zion is left in place which is what a cold war would imply.

Actually, conquest of Zion isn't really incompatible with a cold war against a "Church In Exile." Harchong, for example, is unlikely to be conquered and very inclined to give refuge to the vicarate of "The True Church."

There's no guarantee that Sidermark will remain allied to Charis; it certainly won't become part of the Empire of Charis and it will be an economic rival. Since it is a Republic, a change of administration could well turn Siddermark into a potential adversary if not an outright enemy. It's not likely to offer refuge to CoGA loyalists, but may well develop its own "protestant" variation.

There's a lot of room for a Cold War with a lot of different entities who object to Charis over one point or another -- or cold wars between several non-charisian polities.

I agree that there will be economic competition between Charis and Siddarmark. But I would wager that a certain commonality of viewpoint along with the memories of shared adversity are going to make Siddarmark and Charis allies for a long time to come. Siddarmark is not going to forget those food convoys that showed up after the Sword of Schuler or that it was imperial armies that turned the tide against the church when it looked like all was lost.

Don

I was just wondering if they can keep north ad south harchong seperated long enough, would it secedes from the empire. Then the north would be forced to send their army to pull them back, but charis would stop sea travel

Weird Harold wrote:
At the beginning of WWII, war and preparations for war (eg a cold war) only added another 100MPH to airplane speeds in Europe and Asia (Japan) but hardly affected the US -- although military requirements did produce the B-17 and B-24 heavy bomber designs and the C47/DC-3 inventory.

During WWII aircraft went from 250-300MPH to 600-700 MPH and fatal encounters with the Sound Barrier and compressibility.

The DC-3 was purely a civilian completion driven design (without WWII it would have been superseded by the superior DC-5 design (which lived on as the Fokker F-27/50). If anything the military is slower to adopt new technologies than civil users (the military order more though and push the development harder).
The 747's design had more to do with the fact that they were designed from day 1 to be converted to cargo planes with nose doors when the 2707 went into production. The 747 did share the C-5's high bypass engines (and that's all (deliberately). Boeing's management bet the company on the 747 as there was no military or government interest. (The 707 was however subsidized by its Military sister C-135 (with a basic wing design borrowed from the B-52).
If WWI hadn't happened Boeing would be competing with a Russian Sikorsky (who built four engined airliners prior to WWI).
In short commercial completion can be just as big driver for innovation so long as monopolies can be avoided (by which I mean any company with more than 25% of the market as these become too dominant and lean to single sourcing contracts - just like the government).

AirTech wrote:The DC-3 was purely a civilian completion driven design (without WWII it would have been superseded by the superior DC-5 design (which lived on as the Fokker F-27/50). If anything the military is slower to adopt new technologies than civil users (the military order more though and push the development harder).

You're missing the point:

Production

Total production of all derivatives was 16,079.[1] More than 400 remained in commercial service in 1998. Production was as follows:

607 civil variants of the DC-3.

10,048 military C-47 and C-53 derivatives were built at Santa Monica, California, Long Beach, California, and Oklahoma City.

4,937 were built under license in Soviet Union as the Lisunov Li-2 (NATO reporting name: Cab).

487 Mitsubishi Kinsei-engined aircraft were built by Showa and Nakajima in Japan, as the L2D Type 0 transport (Allied codename Tabby).

How long would it have taken for civilian profit motivation to multiply DC-3 (or derivatives) by 2.5 times?

At the same time the US was aggressively NOT supporting its military aviation, Germany and Russia -- and to a lesser extent the UK and Italy -- were building two and four engine bombers (disguised as transports and airliners in Germany) and pushing fighter speeds and maneuverability with every design.

Yes, commerce can drive progress, but war drives progress three to five times as fast -- and that's why Safehold needs a cold war.

I see what you are saying, Harold. But I'm not convinced that you are pointing the right direction. A military emphasis tends to promote growth in the comparatively narrow areas that the military needs to maintain its edge. Frequently more money gets shoved to the military than it can successfully absorb.Then we get cost overruns and $750 hammers. Then we get a reaction in which an ax is taken to military spending in ways that are unwise.

Shifting capital to the civilian sector on the other hand, grows the economy as a whole. R&D in the specific areas that interest the military may slow, but overall as countries become more wealthy, more revenue becomes available for the military as well. A large successful civilian industrial infrastructure is just as important to security as R&D.

As for the Gbabba, we don't seem to be on a timeline. From what as been said, they are not expansionist as far as we know. That's not to say that Safehold shouldn't be preparing for the confrontation. But Safeholds overall economy is far too small to support the sort of military investment it would take to build the space navy needed to defend Safehold to say nothing of actually going after them. Then we need to overcome the superstition that the church has been promoting and get people away from the notion that change, invention, and generally exercising our brains is contrary to God's will. Charis and perhaps to a lesser extent Siddarmark has a start on this, but only a start with a comparatively tiny group of people. Also Safehold needs some political consolodation...at least a federation of countries committed to the task at hand. A divided Safehold constantly at war with itself won't be able to prepare for the Gbabba.

So right now once the war is over, what we need is education, expanding commerce and industry along with a growing population and a rising standard of living. This alongside both civilian and military r&d leading to the sort of mindset that accepts change. The whole process will take centuries, not just decades.

I don't think that a deliberately induced cold war would be the best way to promote that.

Don

n7axw wrote:I see what you are saying, Harold. But I'm not convinced that you are pointing the right direction. A military emphasis tends to promote growth in the comparatively narrow areas that the military needs to maintain its edge. Frequently more money gets shoved to the military than it can successfully absorb.Then we get cost overruns and $750 hammers. Then we get a reaction in which an ax is taken to military spending in ways that are unwise.

The real world Cold War brought more progress than simple direct military applications. It brought government backing and funding for virtually anything that fostered "national prestige" or could be cast as "military necessity" got funded.

Simple Capitalist pressures during the inter-war years didn't promote much progress in the US. War and preparations for war drove progress in Europe and Asia far ahead of US progress.

n7axw wrote:Shifting capital to the civilian sector on the other hand, grows the economy as a whole. R&D in the specific areas that interest the military may slow, but overall as countries become more wealthy, ...

"Growing the economy" isn't necessarily progress. Take the auto industry for example: There isn't a great deal of difference between a Ford Model T with a flat-head V8 and a 1960's vintage Thunderbird. The bodywork was nicer, there was more variety in colors, but under the hood there wasn't much change.

There was a burst of change, but not a lot of innovation with the "Muscle Car" competition in the 70s, but it wasn't until the gas shortage of the 70s and the "Japanese Invasion" that any real innovation or more than incremental improvements happened.

As long as the US auto manufacturers were making a profit, there was very little incentive to improve aerodynamics or engine efficiency until "National Pride" was invoked by real competition from foreign imports. Also, government regulation forced innovation to meet environmental requirements.

Incidentally, the auto industry was one of the few industries that wasn't threatened by the soviets. The Soviets did as you fear I'm advocating and pushed more of their GNP into Military R&D and let very little innovation in the civilian sector happen, so their civilian auto industry was well behind the west's.

The US, otoh, has an Olympic Training facility in Colorado, Tang, our flag on the moon, freeways, the internet, containerized cargo, ad nauseum. All thanks to National Pride and/or Military necessity that diverted Government funding to the development of both civilian and military progress.

Safehold needs one or more Cold Wars to prevent a fall into complacency like the interwar years in the US. It needs a Cold War to feed progress like the 50s, through the 80s.

Lots of different factors affected aviation in the inter war years, and a lot had to do with what sort of society you are looking at.

In the United States, the primary drivers of innovation were such things as government mail contracts, air racing and other prize competitions (Lindberg flew solo across the atlantic for such a prize; the Atlantic itself and been crossed before...) and chasing prestige. Newspaper stories of aviation firsts and the fame which came of them spurred people to do many strange and foolish things, but also develop new techniques, technologies and build new types of aircraft. Military development was woefully behind that of Europe, and the US entered WWII with grossly outmatched aircraft. One reason the US could turn its situation round so quickly is the sheer number of aircraft companies that existed at the time, there were ma y different competitors for many of the same "markets" and multiple solutions to the same "problems". Long range fighters? How about the P-51, P-47 or P-38? Companies like Curtiss, Brewster and Bell also made fighters, and the Naval aviation niche also had multiple companies creating aircraft as well. And we haven't even started on bombers...

In the UK, government "guided" the development of advanced military and civilian aircraft. Because of the pressures of the war, research was preferentially devoted to a narrow slice of military aviation, which meant that the UK had effectively killed its civil aviation sector during the war, and relied on the US for transportation aircraft. Since some government bureaucrats saw what was coming, they formed a committee to develop new aircraft for the post war world, but being bureaucrats, they failed to see what sorts of aircraft the market really wanted, sponsoring oddities like the Saunders Roe "Princess" flying boat (marginally smaller than the "Spruce Goose") and the giant Brabazon airliner. Simpler, cheaper and (lets face it) more rugged American aircraft were what the market really wanted, and even military projects were quickly converted to the civil market if at all possible (the Boeing 707 is the prime case in point).

Military aviation is a bit like Formula One racing. Since you need to go to extremes, military aircraft often debut advanced new features, some of which eventually make their way into the civil market. Today's markets are much smaller and have far fewer players, which makes military R&D a far larger slice of the pie than in (say) consumer electronics.