(Factual correction) The US didn’t have nuclear weapons when Japan started the war.
{Mulling the topic) Not only that, but I think “the other side won’t come up with a superweapon” is generally the way to bet, though perhaps less so than it used to be.
I thought radar was invented for WWII, but it’s not that simple.
It’s close enough—as that page notes, what we know as RADAR was developed during the war. That’s also when Norbert Wiener developed the first radar-integrated guns.
Maybe I’ve missed something, but I don’t think there’s been anything but incremental improvement in war tech since WWII—nothing really surprising.
It really depends what you call “incremental”, and what sorts of increments you’re looking at. We have robots with guns!
If the standard is nukes and radar, then only things which leave the other side saying “how is that even possible?” or “that came out of nowhere” counts as surprising.
Robot drones are not surprising. I’m pretty sure invisibility tech would not be surprising. Anti-gravity would be surprising.
Decreasing frequency of surprising technology advancements are caused by faster and more frequent information of the general public about scientific advancements.
If the rate of news consumes grows faster than the rate of innovations produced, the perceived magnitude of innovation per news will go down.
How many people, even as smart as us, correctly predicted the sorts of wonder weapons that the intense research pressures that a world war would create in say, 1935? If we’re talking about surprising sorts of weapons, I expect not to have been exposed to them, or if I have, to have rejected them out of hand.
It is difficult for me to conceive of military technology that is:
a) potentially surprising b) powerful enough to make a big difference c) near-future
“Rods from God” might count, if they exist, but they’re not surprising. The best example I can think of is strong memetic warfare, but I’m not confident that will be developed in the near future (or indeed ever).
(Factual correction) The US didn’t have nuclear weapons when Japan started the war.
{Mulling the topic) Not only that, but I think “the other side won’t come up with a superweapon” is generally the way to bet, though perhaps less so than it used to be.
I thought radar was invented for WWII, but it’s not that simple.
Maybe I’ve missed something, but I don’t think there’s been anything but incremental improvement in war tech since WWII—nothing really surprising.
It’s close enough—as that page notes, what we know as RADAR was developed during the war. That’s also when Norbert Wiener developed the first radar-integrated guns.
It really depends what you call “incremental”, and what sorts of increments you’re looking at. We have robots with guns!
If the standard is nukes and radar, then only things which leave the other side saying “how is that even possible?” or “that came out of nowhere” counts as surprising.
Robot drones are not surprising. I’m pretty sure invisibility tech would not be surprising. Anti-gravity would be surprising.
Decreasing frequency of surprising technology advancements are caused by faster and more frequent information of the general public about scientific advancements.
If the rate of news consumes grows faster than the rate of innovations produced, the perceived magnitude of innovation per news will go down.
How many people, even as smart as us, correctly predicted the sorts of wonder weapons that the intense research pressures that a world war would create in say, 1935? If we’re talking about surprising sorts of weapons, I expect not to have been exposed to them, or if I have, to have rejected them out of hand.
It is difficult for me to conceive of military technology that is:
a) potentially surprising
b) powerful enough to make a big difference
c) near-future
“Rods from God” might count, if they exist, but they’re not surprising. The best example I can think of is strong memetic warfare, but I’m not confident that will be developed in the near future (or indeed ever).