Besides, def establishment is already clamoring for a "why not both option"[2] with increasing the development of capabilities to conduct war in space.

[0] I have some ideas about how this can be done in practice in the future, though I suspect some could call it the War on Humans™

[1] https://elifesciences.org/articles/27069 "Tetherless magnetothermal deep brain neuro-stimulation"

[2] http://spacenews.com/air-force-chief-goldfein-well-be-fighti...

Without a sufficiently good reason, governments won't put money directly into research (at least, in the eye-wateringly large quantities spent in wartime).

I don't know why someone would even think that unless they were extremely ignorant of history.

True, but it is also true that periods of heightened tension even short of shooting wars do accelerate development. The Space Race is the classic example. The Internet is also a product of the Cold War. The jet engine was developed in the period before WW2 when things were already looking fraught.

That’s historical fact; “worth it” is a whole ‘nother matter.

The kind of technical breakthrough that saves billions?

I'm not especially a fan of this approach, but the absolutist stance that you've taken seems obviously falsifiable.

None of this is justification to start a war, nor would our ethics largely permit us to proceed towards uncertain success contingent upon the sacrifice of many lives.

That said - for example the American Civil War was potentially a 'justifiable' war, costing many lives to improve lives; there is little reason to think that a technical breakthrough could not justify a war.

---

NB: Besides - the GP talked about the 'technical breakthroughs outweighing the direct deaths'.

It's certainly plausible that we've saved more lives since WW1/2 than we lost in WW1/2 on account of technology developed for the war.

This has probably been studied and proven right/wrong, so it's entirely plausible to check (and to be curious about).

That's not a justification to start a war necessarily, but that's not at all GP's phrasing.

Restrospectively wondering if the deaths of millions, which as a side effect inspired innovation, isn't exactly the same thing though. The murder of one person causes non existence of all of their future descendents, so the moral calculus of future lives isn't clear either.

Either way the original comment was callous and borderline sociopathic.

That's not to say that technological innovation should be some perverse incentive for war, or that war even guarantees any benefits, but there are inadvertent benefits to some wars and other negative events in the world.

Definitely not denying the benefit that innovation brought, but just because the human testing on humans in concentration camps brought medical advances doesn't justify the original crime.