CSNET was just the project used for civilian research offshoots of the ARPANET project funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and part of the United States Department of Defense. But why are you even debating this?

@RangerHi the internet was a science driven development, not military driven...
ARPANET, CSNET, CYCLADES, and the likes were all research networks, no military had anything to do with them. The early life of the internet was 100% academic.

Why are patriots against research into new weapons? Surely that would be Liberals and Socialists as it spends more money on creating distructive weaponry which means less money for schools and hospitals and money on killing people

@Sparkles
This is true. Most of the foundation the patriots are built on is isolationism from other countries, and ridiculous military power. Patriots love you if you add to your military power, making it relatively feasible when combined with the other effects. (if you have a serious budget) However, I'm sure this is a mistake on the author's part. Also, space.

Okay wait a minute why does Military Science give a tiny little red blip to patriots? Isn't the military supposed to be what they sexually identify as? Or does this sky-rocket if you go past medium?

@RangerHi let's not talk about the fact that modern consumer society and international trade would not be possible in its current form without the invention of the so-called Liberty Ship. Liberty ships were American cargo ships designed to cheaply and efficiently support the trementous overseas effort that won WWII, including not just supporting our army but also feeding and supplying the armies of our other alliest.

That massive cargo tonnage went private sector after the war when the military had no need for it, and so did a lot of the logistical training, experience and expertise that created it. And that radically dropped the price of international cargo, and once that tonnage and the shipyards that built it were there, expanding it was easy, evolving ultimately into the massive world export/import economy that exists today.

This is actually a good mod, because you don't need a massively over-sized military to keep sharp on your military tech. Military tech should have a much greater effect on defense for each billion dollars you put into it vs each billion you put into Military Size. Thank you for this mod.

@moggy the internet and GPS were military projects and the econmic benfits of thoose have out wieght the cost and pardon the bad spelling if any is there.

@moggy: I am not an expert on the subject so I will bow to your superior knowledge!

Yes.. you're talking about externalities... that's obviously the point and there are lots of examples of technical developments that have come as the result of investment in the military. But the point is that, to invest in military science (with other factors remaining constant) you need to increase taxation which diverts away from private investment and lowers consumption. Most advances the military make will not encourage growth because they are not a product of the same incentives that scientific advances in the the private sector are. Thus, it is less efficient, thus it would act to depress growth. For every breakthrough that does affect GDP, there are a thousand that don't - you talk about improving armour on tanks, and having more destructive bombs... big whoop, how does that increase production in a national economy? It doesn't, most of the time military research is a black hole. I assure you, having your mod increase GDP is not accurate to the real world most of the time.

@moggy: This isn't just about the military, think about it, many advances that we have made have primarily been military based, so although the military work would not do a lot to the GDP the scientific advances made would, but thank you :)

I wrote my economics dissertation on this whilst I was at university and there is only a very weak (negative) granger causal link between military expenditure and GDP growth... and I was able to show it depressed growth when I factored it into a widely used growth model. Don't want to get bogged down in the details here because it was chronically boring - but the point is that I don't think you can reasonably say that military spending by the government is more efficient than investment in the private sector, so this mod should drive down GDP...

How cool! It can kill six people per second! Bam! Bam! Bam! I like it when they scream! All in the name of oil!

I think you should do a little research into the most popular military development areas currently and include those in the description. Guns-bombs-armor is a little too generic and it jars me.

I'm no expert either, but I am a bit of a military nerd, so I think the policy description should be made less generic. For inspiration, some of the things the US military has been looking into include better body armor, drones, stealth aircraft, super missiles, electronic warfare, anti-missile lasers, and using 'green tech' to improve logistics, like making biofuel on a carrier to power the jets or recycling water in FOBs.

I realize you can only mention two or three things before running out of room, so it's up to you, but I suggest rewriting it to mention some 'cool' military tech.

Looks good. But its small. You also took my mods place as best mod of the week :( but it looks ok

nice.