If perpetual war existed, how advanced would humanity be?

[Minivanistan]

The wars in 1984 are terrible at population control. In The Book by Emanuel Goldstein, he remarks that the fighting, when there is any, is carried out by a few, highly trained specialists. The wars in which millions of people would die in the matter of a few months or even weeks are not allowed to happen again.

That is right. I forgot about that. Thanx.

See, in practice, the Party always under estimates the bare needs of the population. And it does this intentionally. The war also acts not merely to keep the morale of the aimless bottom masses, who are called the Proles, in line, but to keep the morale of the Party itself in line.

I still hold the same reasoning for the underestimation.
They would not be able maintain a more prosperous standard even if they wanted to.

[Senkaku]

Perpetual war does exist. You're talking about perpetual global total war, which would lead to one thing: the annihilation of humanity and a mass extinction event, or possibly the extinguishing of all life on Earth.

[Minivanistan]

Perpetual war does exist. You're talking about perpetual global total war, which would lead to one thing: the annihilation of humanity and a mass extinction event, or possibly the extinguishing of all life on Earth.

I dunno.
An all out nuclear exchange is fairly short of the Chicxulub event.
Though there could be longer reaching consequence to soil and water quality.

[The Great Devourer of All]

Einstein had very little to do with the Manhattan Project.

Picky, picky. You're correct: other than using his tremendous influence to push Roosevelt towards building nukes, he didn't play with the bombs. On the other hand, General Relativity explained where the energy in radioactivity was coming from, and suggested that, in principle, atomic power and weapons might be possible. Nobody knew how to do that at the time, though.

It's quite possible that the world would be a very different place today if Einstein had never left Germany. I'd say it's not entirely implausible that that Roosevelt would never have given the Manhattan Project the green light is Albert hadn't given him a little shove.

Perpetual war does exist. You're talking about perpetual global total war, which would lead to one thing: the annihilation of humanity and a mass extinction event, or possibly the extinguishing of all life on Earth.

I dunno.
An all out nuclear exchange is fairly short of the Chicxulub event.
Though there could be longer reaching consequence to soil and water quality.

Damn right it is. The asteroid that crashed the dinosaurs' party hit the modern-day Mexican state of Yucatan and sent tsunamis nearly 150 meters high as far away as what is now New Orleans. The amount of ash and dust kicked into the atmosphere pretty much stopped all photosynthesis in its tracks, and the seismic disturbances from the impact set off volcanic eruptions all around the world. Some of the pieces of debris sent into the stratosphere and lower mesosphere were large enough to fall back down to the surface as 'city killer' asteroids, which added insult to injury for the dying dinosaurs.

In contrast, even if every nuclear weapon on Earth was detonated within a single day, the same biosphere-wide catastrophe would not be achieved, but humanity would certainly disappear. Instead of a 'year without a summer', we'd have a 'century without a summer' on our hands. However, we wouldn't come anywhere close to wiping out everything bigger than a house cat.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

I think it would be a very advanced, but also very violent society.

There are fiction works where WWI never ended, meaning WWII never began. All the technological advancements due to WWII still happened in this alternate timeline, but their uses were limited largely to the military locked in a perpetual total war.

In a certain respect, a perpetual war would be a good thing. It would help to weed out the weak and the unfit from society, ensuring that only those with at least some martial prowess could pass on their genes. In that respect, humanity would certainly be more advanced than it is now. Weakness and tolerance of it is a counter-indication to progress.

[Neanderthaland]

The answer to this depends a lot on what "perpetual war" looks like.

Depending on how you define it, that could describe the world we live in now as easily as Warhammer.

[The Great Devourer of All]

I think it would be a very advanced, but also very violent society.

There are fiction works where WWI never ended, meaning WWII never began. All the technological advancements due to WWII still happened in this alternate timeline, but their uses were limited largely to the military locked in a perpetual total war.

In a certain respect, a perpetual war would be a good thing. It would help to weed out the weak and the unfit from society, ensuring that only those with at least some martial prowess could pass on their genes. In that respect, humanity would certainly be more advanced than it is now. Weakness and tolerance of it is a counter-indication to progress.

How would that be a good thing again?

Also, martial prowess isn't genetic.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

The answer to this depends a lot on what "perpetual war" looks like.

Depending on how you define it, that could describe the world we live in now as easily as Warhammer.

I gather that the OP's intent was a world where WWI/WWII never ended. In short, a world with two irreconcilable sides at war with each other, each committed to destroy the other in full.

[Minivanistan]

However, if there were an enforceable accord that would limit global war to conventional methodology, I might find that interesting.
Welcome to Colosseum, formerly known as Earth.

Ironically, such a paradigm could lead to eventually discovering longer lasting periods of peace.
Imagine warfare becoming so much of the fabric of culture that survival over the course of millenia requires every society and sect involved to become so objectively honest about the net loss intellectually dishonest conflict accrues that every political perspective regardless of motivation comes together in realization of the futility of it all.
Dunno, might just be channeling my inner hippie.

[Dahon]

I think it would be a very advanced, but also very violent society.

There are fiction works where WWI never ended, meaning WWII never began. All the technological advancements due to WWII still happened in this alternate timeline, but their uses were limited largely to the military locked in a perpetual total war.

In a certain respect, a perpetual war would be a good thing. It would help to weed out the weak and the unfit from society, ensuring that only those with at least some martial prowess could pass on their genes. In that respect, humanity would certainly be more advanced than it is now. Weakness and tolerance of it is a counter-indication to progress.

War is not a planned state of affairs, where you can predict with absolute certainty who lives and who dies -- though you can certainly predict who leaves the theater of perpetual war broken in spirit if not in body. You know, "weak".

[Neanderthaland]

The answer to this depends a lot on what "perpetual war" looks like.

Depending on how you define it, that could describe the world we live in now as easily as Warhammer.

I gather that the OP's intent was a world where WWI/WWII never ended. In short, a world with two irreconcilable sides at war with each other, each committed to destroy the other in full.

Such a war is probably not sustainable.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

I gather that the OP's intent was a world where WWI/WWII never ended. In short, a world with two irreconcilable sides at war with each other, each committed to destroy the other in full.

Such a war is probably not sustainable.

Not if both sides agreed to a perpetual state of limited war, as in Orwell's 1984. In this scenario, neither of the three superpowers could be defeated even with the combined efforts of the other two, so all that remained for the three of them was to adopt an ideology that would promote perpetual war without an option of victory.

This would, of course, require the stifling of practical technological development, even if the technological knowledge for it existed (i.e., the suppression of knowledge on the atomic bomb). Still, if all involved sides benefitted from it, it would not be entirely implausible.

[Neanderthaland]

Such a war is probably not sustainable.

Not if both sides agreed to a perpetual state of limited war, as in Orwell's 1984. In this scenario, neither of the three superpowers could be defeated even with the combined efforts of the other two, so all that remained for the three of them was to adopt an ideology that would promote perpetual war without an option of victory.

This would, of course, require the stifling of practical technological development, even if the technological knowledge for it existed (i.e., the suppression of knowledge on the atomic bomb). Still, if all involved sides benefitted from it, it would not be entirely implausible.

I had that in mind as well. However you said, "a world with two irreconcilable sides at war with each other, each committed to destroy the other in full. Which obviously isn't the case here.

Perpetual war, in an Orwellian sense, is suggested to result in stagnation. That's sort of what we see in great empires throughout history as well. They're always off fighting someone, but things don't really change much. At least, not until they lose.

[USS Monitor]

Now, let's pretend that this doesn't have any effect on economy and stuff.

You realize this makes your whole scenario meaningless, right? You can't have war without any effect on the economy. It would also affect population growth, political systems, etc.

You would have lower population, lower standards of living because so much of the economy has to be dedicated to the war effort rather than producing things for civilian consumption, more authoritarian political systems, and ultimately much slower technological development because so many would get killed before they had the chance to invent anything useful, would have their education disrupted by the wars, would be too busy just surviving to do any research, etc.

Lots of new technology gets developed during wartime, but the people developing it generally got their education and did some of the preliminary research during peacetime. The lack of urgency in peacetime is a good chance for people to explore science that might not have an immediate practical application, but is useful in the long run. And the stability makes it easier for young people to pursue their education.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Not if both sides agreed to a perpetual state of limited war, as in Orwell's 1984. In this scenario, neither of the three superpowers could be defeated even with the combined efforts of the other two, so all that remained for the three of them was to adopt an ideology that would promote perpetual war without an option of victory.

This would, of course, require the stifling of practical technological development, even if the technological knowledge for it existed (i.e., the suppression of knowledge on the atomic bomb). Still, if all involved sides benefitted from it, it would not be entirely implausible.

I had that in mind as well. However you said, "a world with two irreconcilable sides at war with each other, each committed to destroy the other in full. Which obviously isn't the case here.

Perpetual war, in an Orwellian sense, is suggested to result in stagnation. That's sort of what we see in great empires throughout history as well. They're always off fighting someone, but things don't really change much. At least, not until they lose.

Stagnation is the very point of the Orwellian exchange, because any radical innovation would grant one side a decisive advantage, and thus upset the existing social order, which has thus far been largely the same on all sides.

Not taking things to such extreme, I think a world at perpetual war would be more akin to the Cold War era, military technologies also entering civilian market to the degree their governments allow. If we assume the atomic bomb technology to exist (which is a really-important game-changer), then I do not see much technological difference emerging, if only because both sides would want to avoid that final war.

[Socialist Nordia]

Now, let's pretend that this doesn't have any effect on economy and stuff.

You realize this makes your whole scenario meaningless, right? You can't have war without any effect on the economy. It would also affect population growth, political systems, etc.

You would have lower population, lower standards of living because so much of the economy has to be dedicated to the war effort rather than producing things for civilian consumption, more authoritarian political systems, and ultimately much slower technological development because so many would get killed before they had the chance to invent anything useful, would have their education disrupted by the wars, would be too busy just surviving to do any research, etc.

Lots of new technology gets developed during wartime, but the people developing it generally got their education and did some of the preliminary research during peacetime. The lack of urgency in peacetime is a good chance for people to explore science that might not have an immediate practical application, but is useful in the long run. And the stability makes it easier for young people to pursue their education.

Says the ship that was built during wartime

[Wisconsin9]

You realize this makes your whole scenario meaningless, right? You can't have war without any effect on the economy. It would also affect population growth, political systems, etc.

You would have lower population, lower standards of living because so much of the economy has to be dedicated to the war effort rather than producing things for civilian consumption, more authoritarian political systems, and ultimately much slower technological development because so many would get killed before they had the chance to invent anything useful, would have their education disrupted by the wars, would be too busy just surviving to do any research, etc.

Lots of new technology gets developed during wartime, but the people developing it generally got their education and did some of the preliminary research during peacetime. The lack of urgency in peacetime is a good chance for people to explore science that might not have an immediate practical application, but is useful in the long run. And the stability makes it easier for young people to pursue their education.

Says the ship that was built during wartime

Which was propelled by a steam engine, which originated as research devices and water pumps.

[Threlizdun]

Considering the fact that sustaining perpetual war is impossible for the foreseeable future, we'd be extinct.

[USS Monitor]

You realize this makes your whole scenario meaningless, right? You can't have war without any effect on the economy. It would also affect population growth, political systems, etc.

You would have lower population, lower standards of living because so much of the economy has to be dedicated to the war effort rather than producing things for civilian consumption, more authoritarian political systems, and ultimately much slower technological development because so many would get killed before they had the chance to invent anything useful, would have their education disrupted by the wars, would be too busy just surviving to do any research, etc.

Lots of new technology gets developed during wartime, but the people developing it generally got their education and did some of the preliminary research during peacetime. The lack of urgency in peacetime is a good chance for people to explore science that might not have an immediate practical application, but is useful in the long run. And the stability makes it easier for young people to pursue their education.

Says the ship that was built during wartime

And has iron for brains.

Pretty much all modern warship designs are influenced by the Monitor, but not many things outside the military are. I guess you could argue that the Monitor was using flush toilets before they were cool, but I'm pretty sure those were actually invented earlier.

[USS Monitor]

Says the ship that was built during wartime

Which was propelled by a steam engine, which originated as research devices and water pumps.

And was designed by someone who got his education before the war started.

[Trotskylvania]

Okay, so let's pretend the whole world is nationstates. Always at war with each other, always. Never a day of peace. Now, let's pretend that this doesn't have any effect on economy and stuff. If this scenario was real, how advanced would humans be?

I mean, space travel was first done with the V-2, a Nazi cruise missile.

The Internet was made as a military communication tool, as were radios.

The Nazis pioneered many medical technologies, including the catheter, during horrendous war related experiments.

The Nazis also developed the first jet fighter, designed for combat. Now we use jets in civilian ways too.

So, if we were ways at war, would we gen more advanced or no?

I think we would be, becuase we would be under more pressure to develop better tech faster.

Thoughts, NSG?

There's so much wrong here.

The biggest problem is the fallacy that war drives technological progress. This is nonsensical; at best war can only focus intellectual efforts towards the waging of war. This may mean, in the short term, a boost in war related research. But this means that research unrelated to immediately realizable war aims is suspended. Resources are consumed in the production of armaments. Large amounts of manpower that could be used more productively are instead used to produce instruments of war. Education suffers, resources are scared. Millions of men at arms have, at the very least, missed opportunities for productive work. And many of them will be killed.

The last great war, WW2, left three continents war ravaged. 70 million were killed. Hundreds of millions more suffered great physical and psychological torment. A whole generation of of young men practically disappeared from many countries. Learning and scientific research plummeted, and an exhausted people were left far poorer than they had been a generation ago.

This was merely from a decade of overlapping war that merged together into a single great conflict. The countries that made the most technological progress in this period were the ones that avoided the worst of the devastation, the United States and the UK, which avoided direct occupation, enduring only major bombing and blockade.

The Nazis did not develop the first operational jet fighter, that distinction goes to the British Gloster Meteor. Jet engines had been in research for many years before the war began; the war only resulted in unsafe test designs being rushed into production, like the Jumo jet engines powering the Me262. Nazi scientific breakthroughs were very rare, and nearly all medical research done by Nazi scientists was completely worthless.

A world of unrelenting war would be a poorer, less advanced one. As Eisenhower said in his Chance for Peace speech:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

[Giovenith]

Which was propelled by a steam engine, which originated as research devices and water pumps.

And was designed by someone who got his education before the war started.

Are you telling me that WWII, although an important and influential event, wasn't as cool or world-molding as NS'ers frequently make it out to be?!

[Northwest Slobovia]

Says the ship that was built during wartime

And has iron for brains.

Pretty much all modern warship designs are influenced by the Monitor, but not many things outside the military are.

That was true up until the end of WW1, when people started to realize how much fun you could have with aircraft carriers. And that's leaving out subs, because they ride even lower in the water than you do.

[Northwest Slobovia]

And was designed by someone who got his education before the war started.

Are you telling me that WWII, although an important and influential event, wasn't as cool or world-molding as NS'ers frequently make it out to be?!

Oh, it is. (Well, maybe not as cool, but I'm about 100 million years old, and I'm no longer quite as excited about bloodletting as I used to be.) But there are lots of people badly confused about technology and where it comes from.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

I'm very fond of that paragraph, but you can stop there. Ike got the memo about science and technology.

[Wisconsin9]

And was designed by someone who got his education before the war started.

Are you telling me that WWII, although an important and influential event, wasn't as cool or world-molding as NS'ers frequently make it out to be?!

I certainly wouldn't call it cool, but either way, proper world wars probably count as a special case.