Not compared to the loss of productive value by the entire re-orienting of the economy towards war production.
The best argument for war economies being productive is exactly what you said, but the Left can't tolerate the argument: trickle-down economics. It's the only actual argument where you say: "without the war, rocket science and electronics would not have developed as quickly as they did."
The issue is opportunity cost. How soon would those developments have taken place if you hadn't destroyed the productive capacity of 55 million people, and completely savaged an entire continent and almost every major city on it.
This is why war can be productive if you only engage in foreign wars to steal assets. It's actually why Hitler went to war in the first place: he could stave off the consequences of his inflation by increasing the assets in the German economy. Germany's domestic industrial capacity couldn't stave off inflation on it's own, so if it re-configured for military production and stole more than it could produce, then that counters inflation.... for a moment. ...
...
... Additionally if you remove millions of your own citizens from your economy, you will unburden the welfare state, and the lessens value in your economy can be transferred over to fewer people (who will be your political loyalists), masking the effects of your collapsing economy until the whole thing collapses all at once.
To a tyrant, the solution to a over-burdened welfare state and inflation is simple: kill your own people.
Gee, I wonder why the US is trying to start a war with Russia, while it's facing a major inflation problem and an out-of-control welfare state. Especially when Russia has some of the largest national gold reserves of any country.
Could it not argued that increase in applicable science during war could be useful later after the war?
Not compared to the loss of productive value by the entire re-orienting of the economy towards war production.
The best argument for war economies being productive is exactly what you said, but the Left can't tolerate the argument: trickle-down economics. It's the only actual argument where you say: "without the war, rocket science and electronics would not have developed as quickly as they did."
The issue is opportunity cost. How soon would those developments have taken place if you hadn't destroyed the productive capacity of 55 million people, and completely savaged an entire continent and almost every major city on it.
This is why war can be productive if you only engage in foreign wars to steal assets. It's actually why Hitler went to war in the first place: he could stave off the consequences of his inflation by increasing the assets in the German economy. Germany's domestic industrial capacity couldn't stave off inflation on it's own, so if it re-configured for military production and stole more than it could produce, then that counters inflation.... for a moment. ...
...
... Additionally if you remove millions of your own citizens from your economy, you will unburden the welfare state, and the lessens value in your economy can be transferred over to fewer people (who will be your political loyalists), masking the effects of your collapsing economy until the whole thing collapses all at once.
To a tyrant, the solution to a over-burdened welfare state and inflation is simple: kill your own people.
Tik History on Why HItler Started the War is a good partial example of why this logic lead to the Holocaust
Gee, I wonder why the US is trying to start a war with Russia, while it's facing a major inflation problem and an out-of-control welfare state. Especially when Russia has some of the largest national gold reserves of any country.