by It’s a broad topic to talk about referring to how science and technology interwind with wars. Most people will immediately think of nuclear bomb in World War II, and this is exactly the typical example to illustrate the relation between science and war in many textbooks. However, by looking at the development of science and wars from a broad picture, some interesting trends can be found regarding the pattern of change and progression of people’s focus in this topic. In this WordPress Entry, I will try to explain my discovery about one of these trends.
The thing that I want to write about is how science and technology take part in wars in different period. Obviously, science and technology both play important roles in three global wars, and I think there’s an increasing participation of ST.
It is said that WWI is a “chemical warfare”. During WWI, many poisoned gases were invented including chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gases. These chemical weapons were used in the battle field to help people win the war. Besides, technologies such as tanks, aircrafts and machine guns were also first used in the war, all made the war more violented. However, all these science and technology applications were not decisive to the result of the war: they do help both sides increase the possibility to win the war, but other factors such as strategies, number of people, and quality of soldiers still plays an important role.
However, the role of science and technology increased significantly in WWII. The mostly well-known Uranium 235 fission bomb and bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 is the typical illustration of it. If we say the one who owns technology will have a higher chance of win the war in WWI, then when it comes to WWII, the one who owns technology will no doubt win the war. Part of the reason I think is due to the big ST projects. By letting scientists work together, the investigation and exploration of new use of energy and new technology become easier, and this contribute to the invention of more powerful and large-scale weapons, which can’t be easily done by only a small group of people.
When it comes to the cold war, the participation of science and technology has reached the highest peak ever in history: it has become the battle filed. Cold war is not the traditional form of war we know. Instead of fighting against each other by using weapons such as guns and bombs, people (mainly between US and Soviet) compete against each other in fields such as telecommunication, space projects etc. It is an interesting phenomenon that from WWI to cold war, the way science and technology took part in wars has gradually changed, and it has become more and more important. Based on this trend, a prediction can be made about wars in the future: just like those in science fiction novels, wars in the future will no longer take years or cause millions of deaths, but all about technological battle. Or, some countries command advanced technology won’t share it with other countries in order to sustain its absolutely powerful status. However, there also might be situations that the whole world shares the same technologies, thus war can be eliminated as none of the countries could take benefits from the others.
Continue on the topic of whether technology would be shared among different countries, I want to elaborate a little bit about the topic of “should scientists be patriotic?”
In my opinion, politics shouldn’t be taken into consideration together with science. It’s true that scientists discover new ways to use science and technologies, but it’s politicians who use it, apply it, and construct relation between science and politics. Scientists just provide the “building blocks”, and it’s totally up to politicians whether to use these blocks to build buildings or bridges. However, my ultimate understanding toward science is always that It should be used to help us understand the world, as well as have a better life. Science shouldn’t be used as a tool to accomplish any political goals, nor be used to destroy the world. Science with humanity, not with war.