It goes both ways, and military applications create market pressures and timescales that wouldn't normally exist. Take for example, sustained fission, computing, or the semiconductor industry as a whole (which was subsidized by the government in its early years for aerospace applications, some civilian and some not).
But that said it's more about industrial capacity than research. We build planes and tanks not because we need them today, but because we might need the ability to build them tomorrow. Continued research on military applications prevents institutional knowledge from dying and tools from rotting.
>> They complement one another too.
>> One helps the other. The reverse direction is slower though because it is often held close to the vest for a bit of time.
Glad we agree
> We build planes and tanks not because we need them today, but because we might need the ability to build them tomorrow.
I also agree. I'm not sure why people think I am saying to not build tanks and planes during peace time. I just think we should be funding civilian science more and that the military benefits from such research. I haven't really disagreed with all these people "disagreeing" with me.
Which is prima facie untrue. While there are benefits to basic research over the long term, it took roughly 60 years from the discovery of the laser to the beginnings of deployable laser weaponry today. Those sorts of timeframes aren't that useful for a military expecting a conflict in the next few years.
Only if you have little knowledge of military.
> it took roughly 60 years from the discovery of the laser to the beginnings of deployable laser weaponry today.
But it took less than a year for it to be used by the CIA and FBI for spying (an interferometer was one of the first applications) and not much longer for it to be used for range finding and targeting for the military and not much longer than that to be used to determine mass of objects.
The directed energy weapon you are referring to isn't the only application that the military, CIA, FBI, and other agencies have for lasers. There are hundreds more than what I mentioned and a dozen of which were in practical use within the first 5 years of its discovery.
Just because you aren't aware of the uses of such technology doesn't mean that they aren't used and doesn't mean they aren't __HIGHLY__ valuable assets. We could go on and include things like nightvision, underwater communications (other types of communications as well), guidance, or defensive applications but I think it is pretty clear that the laser is one of the _best_ examples of technology being used (and quickly adopted) by military/government, not worst.
Then in 1969-73, Senate majority leader Mansfield decided that this research might be being misused to fund science in ways that wasn't directly useful to fighting Soviets, so ARPA became DARPA (the D is for Defense!) and now researchers needed to explain why their science might help build missiles.
That said, DARPA has always been one of the biggest funders of research in the US, whether it's basic research or applied. Just think of the DARPA Grand Challenge (self-driving cars in an off-road setting). While, yes, ultimately their goal is military application, this cultivation of research into self-driving cars is something that will benefit everybody, not just the military.
The reason to invest in civilian research while in times of peace is that you want products to go into the public domain and be mass produced. This means that the new fighters you can make are much cheaper to produce and can have much more advanced weapon capabilities. The only real difference between civilian and military research is if the knowledge gets into the public domain or not (with the exception for weapons, which is more niche than you'd expect). This is why DARPA does that funding, but it isn't just DARPA. The entire SBIR/STTR program exists to get companies to bootstrap themselves and mass produce things the government needs (yes, it is abused quite a bit). Many contracts exist for this reason too.
The last aspect is economic and cultural. If your country is doing well economically it is often able to avoid war in the first place. Rich countries often don't fight with soldiers and jets, they fight with computers and resources. Why invade a country when you can put economic shackles on it? China and the US are both doing this. The other part is cultural exportation. If your country is producing all the widgets that another country likes and enjoys then their people are not eager to fight you (as long as you're not being aggressive towards them).
All these, and more matter. War is much more than bullets and fighter jets.
This is __NOT__ what I claimed.