The article Why Build Computers?: The Military Role in Computer Research Argument
argues that the improvement of technology is the result of the compulsion for
countries to assemble greater military potential. While this argument reveals
the historical necessity for the fast paced advancement in the development of
the computer, the cultural argument for furthering improvement and providing
tax resources proves the value our society places on warfare. The article
depicts an argument that contradicts the notion that education is not always
directly linked with peaceful means as the construction of a hyper militarized
society immediately after World War II. However this argument is less
surprising when regarding how several the most renowned American scientists of
the last century are recognized for their contributions to the military, such
as the Atomic Bomb and Albert Einstein.
The
allocation of the budget as described during the Truman Era reveals how the
production of weapons and emphasis on ballistics were compelled by the fears
during the Cold War. The urgency to
constantly improve the security is based on the fears of a technology being
developed overseas that could be more advanced and ahead what is already being
developed inside the United States. This transfer of power is characterized in
the chapter where the impending “apocalypse” where research became almost a
code for improvement of military resources. However both sides of the argument
for improving military strength military rely on the notion that war becomes
less human as ballistics is automated. Has all this research and improvement in
military technology alongside the creation of the modern computer actually made
the world a safer place?
Perhaps in an effort to further "securitize" our democracy after WWII, the pendulum was set to swing so far that we became the superpower.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, our technological advancement has served us well, however, it has also served others just the same (or almost the same). Can we consider ourselves secure? The question is, who has the best technology and for how long before the next entity has the "power seat", if technology continues in a forward trajectory.
Jonathan, I am glad you picked up on one of Edwards's primary points, that it was less the military-industrial complex than a triad of academic-military-industry connections that enabled the development of both basic research and military dominance in the latter half of the twentieth century. These debates are still quite current, though we might argue that contemporary debates over the place of the university in governmental or corporate partnerships tends to center around new frontiers in biotechnology or pharmaceutical innovation (patents!).
ReplyDelete