Very interesting as always Sam. A minor correction is that the Nemesis was not in fact a Royal Navy ship (so not 'HMS'). She was an East India Company vessel, which underlines rather nicely your point about civil-military fusion and the important role of the private economy in developing and funding military technology. The Royal Navy was rather suspicious of steam to begin with, so in this case the initiative was taken by the Company, which was less hide-bound in its attitude to new technology.
Great piece, Sam, though I thought your final paragraph somewhat at odds with the balanced tone of the rest of the article. It’s not necessarily unhealthy that in established capitalist liberal democratic economies there’s an unwillingness on the part of companies to participate in the defence industrial complex. In the past this has been easier to justify where there is a clear and present danger to defend against: is that in your view now the case with China? Aside from Taiwan and the South China Sea, do you see China as militarily threatening broader interests?
Thanks, Sam, for sharing your thoughts. This is all rather tricky... It should be all the other way around: military science effort contributing to making the civilian world a better place for all. The argument that Western scientists should support Western military to indirectly defend their values is likely a textbook example of how conflict escalation works. As long as 'world dominance' is the goal, there is sadly no cure for this.
Very interesting as always Sam. A minor correction is that the Nemesis was not in fact a Royal Navy ship (so not 'HMS'). She was an East India Company vessel, which underlines rather nicely your point about civil-military fusion and the important role of the private economy in developing and funding military technology. The Royal Navy was rather suspicious of steam to begin with, so in this case the initiative was taken by the Company, which was less hide-bound in its attitude to new technology.
Great piece, Sam, though I thought your final paragraph somewhat at odds with the balanced tone of the rest of the article. It’s not necessarily unhealthy that in established capitalist liberal democratic economies there’s an unwillingness on the part of companies to participate in the defence industrial complex. In the past this has been easier to justify where there is a clear and present danger to defend against: is that in your view now the case with China? Aside from Taiwan and the South China Sea, do you see China as militarily threatening broader interests?
Thanks, Sam, for sharing your thoughts. This is all rather tricky... It should be all the other way around: military science effort contributing to making the civilian world a better place for all. The argument that Western scientists should support Western military to indirectly defend their values is likely a textbook example of how conflict escalation works. As long as 'world dominance' is the goal, there is sadly no cure for this.