How long can a nation maintain a technological edge over the rest of the world?












4












$begingroup$


My question was raised by this post.




Aliens crash-land at the Boston Airport (ie, in the United States). [...] The potential benefits of being able to reverse-engineer their tech alone is enough to propel the US to a new level of technology.




This happened in the early 21st century. After some years, the US have extracted enough knowledge from the spaceship and its passengers to create a huge technological gap between them and the rest of the world. Assume (if that makes any sense) that this gap is similar to the difference between WW2 and 2000's techs.



I guess that all this knowledge will leak at some point (intelligence services, private companies, bribes, retro-engineering of latest American devices...). So the question is,



How long before all other (developed) countries get to the same level of technology?



If you have to address the resulting political transformations too much, then this question may be too broad...









share











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Are those technologies going to be fully classified and available only to the military, or available to the general public?
    $endgroup$
    – Alexander
    6 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I think a big issue with the question is the state of the world when this happens. From what I understand the US already has Military Tech that far surpasses what anyone else has on the planet, and we are pretty good at keeping all that under wraps. Maybe the US would end up doing what we have done in the past (give military technology to a developing country who will fight our enemies for us), and then end up with those weapons pointed towards us.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    "We have an awesome new tech that lets us leap ahead of our enemies, and everyone else runs around trying to steal/replicate/counter it. Then they manage to do so but by then we have come up with something else!" This is basically half the running plot in most of David Weber's multi-book series. The Honorverse and Safehold books are a fun read if you want a good example of politics and tech wars done right. Warning though, his books tend to be on the massive side (probably because of all the politics and tech wars!)
    $endgroup$
    – MarielS
    2 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    Depends upon the technology, and how badly somebody wants it. Wakanda ruthlessly guarded it's (secret) advantage in Vibranium-based tech for thousands of years. The USA lost it's spectacular atomic advantage to spies in less than five years. There is no curve to be drawn, so it seems a matter of opinion and speculation...which seems to make this question story-based or opinion-based.
    $endgroup$
    – user535733
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    An important point that needs to be addressed before a proper answer could be made: Is the US willing to use advanced military means to protect their advantage? - German production of, well, anything, wouldn't have gotten very far if every factory at the start of WWII had been targeted with a tomahawk... And research into new technology would not have gotten anywhere very quickly.
    $endgroup$
    – TheLuckless
    2 hours ago
















4












$begingroup$


My question was raised by this post.




Aliens crash-land at the Boston Airport (ie, in the United States). [...] The potential benefits of being able to reverse-engineer their tech alone is enough to propel the US to a new level of technology.




This happened in the early 21st century. After some years, the US have extracted enough knowledge from the spaceship and its passengers to create a huge technological gap between them and the rest of the world. Assume (if that makes any sense) that this gap is similar to the difference between WW2 and 2000's techs.



I guess that all this knowledge will leak at some point (intelligence services, private companies, bribes, retro-engineering of latest American devices...). So the question is,



How long before all other (developed) countries get to the same level of technology?



If you have to address the resulting political transformations too much, then this question may be too broad...









share











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Are those technologies going to be fully classified and available only to the military, or available to the general public?
    $endgroup$
    – Alexander
    6 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I think a big issue with the question is the state of the world when this happens. From what I understand the US already has Military Tech that far surpasses what anyone else has on the planet, and we are pretty good at keeping all that under wraps. Maybe the US would end up doing what we have done in the past (give military technology to a developing country who will fight our enemies for us), and then end up with those weapons pointed towards us.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    "We have an awesome new tech that lets us leap ahead of our enemies, and everyone else runs around trying to steal/replicate/counter it. Then they manage to do so but by then we have come up with something else!" This is basically half the running plot in most of David Weber's multi-book series. The Honorverse and Safehold books are a fun read if you want a good example of politics and tech wars done right. Warning though, his books tend to be on the massive side (probably because of all the politics and tech wars!)
    $endgroup$
    – MarielS
    2 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    Depends upon the technology, and how badly somebody wants it. Wakanda ruthlessly guarded it's (secret) advantage in Vibranium-based tech for thousands of years. The USA lost it's spectacular atomic advantage to spies in less than five years. There is no curve to be drawn, so it seems a matter of opinion and speculation...which seems to make this question story-based or opinion-based.
    $endgroup$
    – user535733
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    An important point that needs to be addressed before a proper answer could be made: Is the US willing to use advanced military means to protect their advantage? - German production of, well, anything, wouldn't have gotten very far if every factory at the start of WWII had been targeted with a tomahawk... And research into new technology would not have gotten anywhere very quickly.
    $endgroup$
    – TheLuckless
    2 hours ago














4












4








4





$begingroup$


My question was raised by this post.




Aliens crash-land at the Boston Airport (ie, in the United States). [...] The potential benefits of being able to reverse-engineer their tech alone is enough to propel the US to a new level of technology.




This happened in the early 21st century. After some years, the US have extracted enough knowledge from the spaceship and its passengers to create a huge technological gap between them and the rest of the world. Assume (if that makes any sense) that this gap is similar to the difference between WW2 and 2000's techs.



I guess that all this knowledge will leak at some point (intelligence services, private companies, bribes, retro-engineering of latest American devices...). So the question is,



How long before all other (developed) countries get to the same level of technology?



If you have to address the resulting political transformations too much, then this question may be too broad...









share











$endgroup$




My question was raised by this post.




Aliens crash-land at the Boston Airport (ie, in the United States). [...] The potential benefits of being able to reverse-engineer their tech alone is enough to propel the US to a new level of technology.




This happened in the early 21st century. After some years, the US have extracted enough knowledge from the spaceship and its passengers to create a huge technological gap between them and the rest of the world. Assume (if that makes any sense) that this gap is similar to the difference between WW2 and 2000's techs.



I guess that all this knowledge will leak at some point (intelligence services, private companies, bribes, retro-engineering of latest American devices...). So the question is,



How long before all other (developed) countries get to the same level of technology?



If you have to address the resulting political transformations too much, then this question may be too broad...







technological-development geopolitics





share














share












share



share








edited 5 hours ago









Cyn

12.3k12758




12.3k12758










asked 7 hours ago









ArgemioneArgemione

1417




1417








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Are those technologies going to be fully classified and available only to the military, or available to the general public?
    $endgroup$
    – Alexander
    6 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I think a big issue with the question is the state of the world when this happens. From what I understand the US already has Military Tech that far surpasses what anyone else has on the planet, and we are pretty good at keeping all that under wraps. Maybe the US would end up doing what we have done in the past (give military technology to a developing country who will fight our enemies for us), and then end up with those weapons pointed towards us.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    "We have an awesome new tech that lets us leap ahead of our enemies, and everyone else runs around trying to steal/replicate/counter it. Then they manage to do so but by then we have come up with something else!" This is basically half the running plot in most of David Weber's multi-book series. The Honorverse and Safehold books are a fun read if you want a good example of politics and tech wars done right. Warning though, his books tend to be on the massive side (probably because of all the politics and tech wars!)
    $endgroup$
    – MarielS
    2 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    Depends upon the technology, and how badly somebody wants it. Wakanda ruthlessly guarded it's (secret) advantage in Vibranium-based tech for thousands of years. The USA lost it's spectacular atomic advantage to spies in less than five years. There is no curve to be drawn, so it seems a matter of opinion and speculation...which seems to make this question story-based or opinion-based.
    $endgroup$
    – user535733
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    An important point that needs to be addressed before a proper answer could be made: Is the US willing to use advanced military means to protect their advantage? - German production of, well, anything, wouldn't have gotten very far if every factory at the start of WWII had been targeted with a tomahawk... And research into new technology would not have gotten anywhere very quickly.
    $endgroup$
    – TheLuckless
    2 hours ago














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Are those technologies going to be fully classified and available only to the military, or available to the general public?
    $endgroup$
    – Alexander
    6 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I think a big issue with the question is the state of the world when this happens. From what I understand the US already has Military Tech that far surpasses what anyone else has on the planet, and we are pretty good at keeping all that under wraps. Maybe the US would end up doing what we have done in the past (give military technology to a developing country who will fight our enemies for us), and then end up with those weapons pointed towards us.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    "We have an awesome new tech that lets us leap ahead of our enemies, and everyone else runs around trying to steal/replicate/counter it. Then they manage to do so but by then we have come up with something else!" This is basically half the running plot in most of David Weber's multi-book series. The Honorverse and Safehold books are a fun read if you want a good example of politics and tech wars done right. Warning though, his books tend to be on the massive side (probably because of all the politics and tech wars!)
    $endgroup$
    – MarielS
    2 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    Depends upon the technology, and how badly somebody wants it. Wakanda ruthlessly guarded it's (secret) advantage in Vibranium-based tech for thousands of years. The USA lost it's spectacular atomic advantage to spies in less than five years. There is no curve to be drawn, so it seems a matter of opinion and speculation...which seems to make this question story-based or opinion-based.
    $endgroup$
    – user535733
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    An important point that needs to be addressed before a proper answer could be made: Is the US willing to use advanced military means to protect their advantage? - German production of, well, anything, wouldn't have gotten very far if every factory at the start of WWII had been targeted with a tomahawk... And research into new technology would not have gotten anywhere very quickly.
    $endgroup$
    – TheLuckless
    2 hours ago








1




1




$begingroup$
Are those technologies going to be fully classified and available only to the military, or available to the general public?
$endgroup$
– Alexander
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
Are those technologies going to be fully classified and available only to the military, or available to the general public?
$endgroup$
– Alexander
6 hours ago




2




2




$begingroup$
I think a big issue with the question is the state of the world when this happens. From what I understand the US already has Military Tech that far surpasses what anyone else has on the planet, and we are pretty good at keeping all that under wraps. Maybe the US would end up doing what we have done in the past (give military technology to a developing country who will fight our enemies for us), and then end up with those weapons pointed towards us.
$endgroup$
– Alex
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
I think a big issue with the question is the state of the world when this happens. From what I understand the US already has Military Tech that far surpasses what anyone else has on the planet, and we are pretty good at keeping all that under wraps. Maybe the US would end up doing what we have done in the past (give military technology to a developing country who will fight our enemies for us), and then end up with those weapons pointed towards us.
$endgroup$
– Alex
5 hours ago












$begingroup$
"We have an awesome new tech that lets us leap ahead of our enemies, and everyone else runs around trying to steal/replicate/counter it. Then they manage to do so but by then we have come up with something else!" This is basically half the running plot in most of David Weber's multi-book series. The Honorverse and Safehold books are a fun read if you want a good example of politics and tech wars done right. Warning though, his books tend to be on the massive side (probably because of all the politics and tech wars!)
$endgroup$
– MarielS
2 hours ago






$begingroup$
"We have an awesome new tech that lets us leap ahead of our enemies, and everyone else runs around trying to steal/replicate/counter it. Then they manage to do so but by then we have come up with something else!" This is basically half the running plot in most of David Weber's multi-book series. The Honorverse and Safehold books are a fun read if you want a good example of politics and tech wars done right. Warning though, his books tend to be on the massive side (probably because of all the politics and tech wars!)
$endgroup$
– MarielS
2 hours ago














$begingroup$
Depends upon the technology, and how badly somebody wants it. Wakanda ruthlessly guarded it's (secret) advantage in Vibranium-based tech for thousands of years. The USA lost it's spectacular atomic advantage to spies in less than five years. There is no curve to be drawn, so it seems a matter of opinion and speculation...which seems to make this question story-based or opinion-based.
$endgroup$
– user535733
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
Depends upon the technology, and how badly somebody wants it. Wakanda ruthlessly guarded it's (secret) advantage in Vibranium-based tech for thousands of years. The USA lost it's spectacular atomic advantage to spies in less than five years. There is no curve to be drawn, so it seems a matter of opinion and speculation...which seems to make this question story-based or opinion-based.
$endgroup$
– user535733
2 hours ago












$begingroup$
An important point that needs to be addressed before a proper answer could be made: Is the US willing to use advanced military means to protect their advantage? - German production of, well, anything, wouldn't have gotten very far if every factory at the start of WWII had been targeted with a tomahawk... And research into new technology would not have gotten anywhere very quickly.
$endgroup$
– TheLuckless
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
An important point that needs to be addressed before a proper answer could be made: Is the US willing to use advanced military means to protect their advantage? - German production of, well, anything, wouldn't have gotten very far if every factory at the start of WWII had been targeted with a tomahawk... And research into new technology would not have gotten anywhere very quickly.
$endgroup$
– TheLuckless
2 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















6












$begingroup$

Skipping a bunch of me complaining about the complexities behind this, the answer is something in the frame of "they can keep their edge almost indefinitely if it gives them enough of an economic advantage". Short version if it costs too much to retool for the new technology it won't be adopted if the US is far enough ahead that other nations can't afford it. Look at the gap that developed between the US and USSR after the space race. It wasn't until relatively recently that Russia was able to catch up in the computer sciences through access to cheap components produced by outsourced offshore vendors in sympathetic countries.



This does assume an initial manufacturing monopoly, if they outsource production they'll lose almost immediately.





share











$endgroup$









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Russia was delayed as you say because their nation fell into anarchy and economic ruin, but this question is about other developed countries. In this same time frame, other economically healthy countries such as England, Japan, etc. didn't particularly fall behind.
    $endgroup$
    – Nosajimiki
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Nosajimiki No because they benefited from in the case of Britain and the European nations information sharing agreements and in the case of Japan early production outsourcing.
    $endgroup$
    – Ash
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The problem with this theory is that it is cheaper to only invest in technologies that are already proven, even if you can't steal the exact designs. Here, the USA would get a strong lead, but every new piece of tech they invest in would be a complete shot in the dark once they are done exploring the alien tech, this would result in a dramatic slowdown for new improvements in the USA. In contrast, other countries would see what the USA is doing and be able to focus research on things that they know can be done resulting in better returns.
    $endgroup$
    – Nosajimiki
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Also, when you are in the lead, you are the most affected by inflation. Inflation encourages outsourcing, and outsourcing also makes it easier to pirate your tech. So yes, information sharing with other economically healthy countries caused a lot of american technology to propagate faster, but the catch-up was always inevitable.
    $endgroup$
    – Nosajimiki
    3 hours ago





















5












$begingroup$

I think the best way to look at this is by seeing how long it took China to catch up to the USA's technology. 20 years ago, the average level of technology in China was 50-100 years outdated by Western Standards, now they have pretty comparable technologies in most areas of life; so, if you are beginning your narrative from any time period before 2000, that would be a reasonable time frame.



That said, we live in an age of hacking and surveillance where national secretes are much harder to keep than they once were. It only takes one researcher opening a bad email for someone else to gain access to an entire office building worth of research. I would not be surprised if half a dozen countries had at least some of what the USA discovered from the wreck, before they are even ready to go into production with it.





share











$endgroup$





















    3












    $begingroup$

    I don't think there will be any appreciable delay at all.
    There are to many variables at play to answer precisely (and I assume the question will be marked as opinion based soon). But my overall line of reasoning goes like this - in this scenario the US doesn't have much head start over other nations, they do not have the infrastructure in place to produce alien technology devices at once. In short, the more secrecy there is around the alien technology, the slower the rate of adoption in the US itself, so the nation gets less benefit from it's new technology. The less secrecy, the faster it spreads.
    The best use of this technological superiority, IMO, would be not trying to conceal it, but to patent it - but then you will have it produced in China and used globally the next morning (although US would profit economically the most, I guess).



    UPD: the main point I see here is that initially US itself is in the position of a developing nation - they have reverse engineered alien blueprints and no manufacturing base to produce them. To use this technology, US would need to invest into overhauling its manufacturing base first. So, using this alien technology will get expensive before it gets profitable. And in order for it to get profitable you need to actually sell it, and other countries to buy it. So in this 'peaceful' scenario the whole world gets technology, though US profits.



    If the technologies are going to be used only for military, US is going to have problems with its NATO allies unless it shares. I do not think there are many pieces of technology your would want to go to war with the whole world. And barring some comic-book superweapon, most military technologies take decades to integrate and implement.



    The only way some alien technology can assure swift and decisive technological and military dominance is the case where it is its own manufacturing base - something like self-replicating nano-robots. And that is not 50 years worth of technological difference, it's magical philosophers stone for all intents and purposes.





    share











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      If you compare the Alien tech to that of nuclear warheads in the cold war, there would be a substantial delay. The US and Russia at the time were the only countries with the resources to develop and experiment with those weapons and the world watched as we almost killed each other. Today more countries have nuclear weapons, but majority still have none.
      $endgroup$
      – Alex
      5 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Alex just possessing an alien nuke doesn't give you 'technological edge' over all other countries. Especially if you had usual human nukes to begin with. It's a deterrent and scare weapon, not a backbone of industry.
      $endgroup$
      – Cumehtar
      4 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      I believe his point is not what a nuke can be used for, but the resources that go into making a nuclear industry. It takes very precisely milled manufactured equipment and rare elements that many counties could not provide themselves with even if they wanted to. That said, a nuke is also sort of a bad example because there is so much political pushback when a smaller country tries to invest in it. If the technology was less dangerous but equally expensive and revolutionary (such as computers), then a natural spread will happen faster.
      $endgroup$
      – Nosajimiki
      2 hours ago



















    0












    $begingroup$

    Best case: Egypt got the wheel about 1,000 years after Mesopotamia. Similarly, China managed to delay European competition in porcelain and silk by centuries. Both of these gaps were before the existence of aircraft and electronic communications.



    Worst case: The U.S. allowed Soviet spies to get key information from the Manhattan Project, so the U.S.S.R was only about 5 years behind in the nuclear race.





    share









    $endgroup$





















      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      6












      $begingroup$

      Skipping a bunch of me complaining about the complexities behind this, the answer is something in the frame of "they can keep their edge almost indefinitely if it gives them enough of an economic advantage". Short version if it costs too much to retool for the new technology it won't be adopted if the US is far enough ahead that other nations can't afford it. Look at the gap that developed between the US and USSR after the space race. It wasn't until relatively recently that Russia was able to catch up in the computer sciences through access to cheap components produced by outsourced offshore vendors in sympathetic countries.



      This does assume an initial manufacturing monopoly, if they outsource production they'll lose almost immediately.





      share











      $endgroup$









      • 2




        $begingroup$
        Russia was delayed as you say because their nation fell into anarchy and economic ruin, but this question is about other developed countries. In this same time frame, other economically healthy countries such as England, Japan, etc. didn't particularly fall behind.
        $endgroup$
        – Nosajimiki
        6 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @Nosajimiki No because they benefited from in the case of Britain and the European nations information sharing agreements and in the case of Japan early production outsourcing.
        $endgroup$
        – Ash
        6 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        The problem with this theory is that it is cheaper to only invest in technologies that are already proven, even if you can't steal the exact designs. Here, the USA would get a strong lead, but every new piece of tech they invest in would be a complete shot in the dark once they are done exploring the alien tech, this would result in a dramatic slowdown for new improvements in the USA. In contrast, other countries would see what the USA is doing and be able to focus research on things that they know can be done resulting in better returns.
        $endgroup$
        – Nosajimiki
        3 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        Also, when you are in the lead, you are the most affected by inflation. Inflation encourages outsourcing, and outsourcing also makes it easier to pirate your tech. So yes, information sharing with other economically healthy countries caused a lot of american technology to propagate faster, but the catch-up was always inevitable.
        $endgroup$
        – Nosajimiki
        3 hours ago


















      6












      $begingroup$

      Skipping a bunch of me complaining about the complexities behind this, the answer is something in the frame of "they can keep their edge almost indefinitely if it gives them enough of an economic advantage". Short version if it costs too much to retool for the new technology it won't be adopted if the US is far enough ahead that other nations can't afford it. Look at the gap that developed between the US and USSR after the space race. It wasn't until relatively recently that Russia was able to catch up in the computer sciences through access to cheap components produced by outsourced offshore vendors in sympathetic countries.



      This does assume an initial manufacturing monopoly, if they outsource production they'll lose almost immediately.





      share











      $endgroup$









      • 2




        $begingroup$
        Russia was delayed as you say because their nation fell into anarchy and economic ruin, but this question is about other developed countries. In this same time frame, other economically healthy countries such as England, Japan, etc. didn't particularly fall behind.
        $endgroup$
        – Nosajimiki
        6 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @Nosajimiki No because they benefited from in the case of Britain and the European nations information sharing agreements and in the case of Japan early production outsourcing.
        $endgroup$
        – Ash
        6 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        The problem with this theory is that it is cheaper to only invest in technologies that are already proven, even if you can't steal the exact designs. Here, the USA would get a strong lead, but every new piece of tech they invest in would be a complete shot in the dark once they are done exploring the alien tech, this would result in a dramatic slowdown for new improvements in the USA. In contrast, other countries would see what the USA is doing and be able to focus research on things that they know can be done resulting in better returns.
        $endgroup$
        – Nosajimiki
        3 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        Also, when you are in the lead, you are the most affected by inflation. Inflation encourages outsourcing, and outsourcing also makes it easier to pirate your tech. So yes, information sharing with other economically healthy countries caused a lot of american technology to propagate faster, but the catch-up was always inevitable.
        $endgroup$
        – Nosajimiki
        3 hours ago
















      6












      6








      6





      $begingroup$

      Skipping a bunch of me complaining about the complexities behind this, the answer is something in the frame of "they can keep their edge almost indefinitely if it gives them enough of an economic advantage". Short version if it costs too much to retool for the new technology it won't be adopted if the US is far enough ahead that other nations can't afford it. Look at the gap that developed between the US and USSR after the space race. It wasn't until relatively recently that Russia was able to catch up in the computer sciences through access to cheap components produced by outsourced offshore vendors in sympathetic countries.



      This does assume an initial manufacturing monopoly, if they outsource production they'll lose almost immediately.





      share











      $endgroup$



      Skipping a bunch of me complaining about the complexities behind this, the answer is something in the frame of "they can keep their edge almost indefinitely if it gives them enough of an economic advantage". Short version if it costs too much to retool for the new technology it won't be adopted if the US is far enough ahead that other nations can't afford it. Look at the gap that developed between the US and USSR after the space race. It wasn't until relatively recently that Russia was able to catch up in the computer sciences through access to cheap components produced by outsourced offshore vendors in sympathetic countries.



      This does assume an initial manufacturing monopoly, if they outsource production they'll lose almost immediately.






      share













      share


      share








      edited 6 hours ago

























      answered 6 hours ago









      AshAsh

      26.7k466150




      26.7k466150








      • 2




        $begingroup$
        Russia was delayed as you say because their nation fell into anarchy and economic ruin, but this question is about other developed countries. In this same time frame, other economically healthy countries such as England, Japan, etc. didn't particularly fall behind.
        $endgroup$
        – Nosajimiki
        6 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @Nosajimiki No because they benefited from in the case of Britain and the European nations information sharing agreements and in the case of Japan early production outsourcing.
        $endgroup$
        – Ash
        6 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        The problem with this theory is that it is cheaper to only invest in technologies that are already proven, even if you can't steal the exact designs. Here, the USA would get a strong lead, but every new piece of tech they invest in would be a complete shot in the dark once they are done exploring the alien tech, this would result in a dramatic slowdown for new improvements in the USA. In contrast, other countries would see what the USA is doing and be able to focus research on things that they know can be done resulting in better returns.
        $endgroup$
        – Nosajimiki
        3 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        Also, when you are in the lead, you are the most affected by inflation. Inflation encourages outsourcing, and outsourcing also makes it easier to pirate your tech. So yes, information sharing with other economically healthy countries caused a lot of american technology to propagate faster, but the catch-up was always inevitable.
        $endgroup$
        – Nosajimiki
        3 hours ago
















      • 2




        $begingroup$
        Russia was delayed as you say because their nation fell into anarchy and economic ruin, but this question is about other developed countries. In this same time frame, other economically healthy countries such as England, Japan, etc. didn't particularly fall behind.
        $endgroup$
        – Nosajimiki
        6 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        @Nosajimiki No because they benefited from in the case of Britain and the European nations information sharing agreements and in the case of Japan early production outsourcing.
        $endgroup$
        – Ash
        6 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        The problem with this theory is that it is cheaper to only invest in technologies that are already proven, even if you can't steal the exact designs. Here, the USA would get a strong lead, but every new piece of tech they invest in would be a complete shot in the dark once they are done exploring the alien tech, this would result in a dramatic slowdown for new improvements in the USA. In contrast, other countries would see what the USA is doing and be able to focus research on things that they know can be done resulting in better returns.
        $endgroup$
        – Nosajimiki
        3 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        Also, when you are in the lead, you are the most affected by inflation. Inflation encourages outsourcing, and outsourcing also makes it easier to pirate your tech. So yes, information sharing with other economically healthy countries caused a lot of american technology to propagate faster, but the catch-up was always inevitable.
        $endgroup$
        – Nosajimiki
        3 hours ago










      2




      2




      $begingroup$
      Russia was delayed as you say because their nation fell into anarchy and economic ruin, but this question is about other developed countries. In this same time frame, other economically healthy countries such as England, Japan, etc. didn't particularly fall behind.
      $endgroup$
      – Nosajimiki
      6 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      Russia was delayed as you say because their nation fell into anarchy and economic ruin, but this question is about other developed countries. In this same time frame, other economically healthy countries such as England, Japan, etc. didn't particularly fall behind.
      $endgroup$
      – Nosajimiki
      6 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      @Nosajimiki No because they benefited from in the case of Britain and the European nations information sharing agreements and in the case of Japan early production outsourcing.
      $endgroup$
      – Ash
      6 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      @Nosajimiki No because they benefited from in the case of Britain and the European nations information sharing agreements and in the case of Japan early production outsourcing.
      $endgroup$
      – Ash
      6 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      The problem with this theory is that it is cheaper to only invest in technologies that are already proven, even if you can't steal the exact designs. Here, the USA would get a strong lead, but every new piece of tech they invest in would be a complete shot in the dark once they are done exploring the alien tech, this would result in a dramatic slowdown for new improvements in the USA. In contrast, other countries would see what the USA is doing and be able to focus research on things that they know can be done resulting in better returns.
      $endgroup$
      – Nosajimiki
      3 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      The problem with this theory is that it is cheaper to only invest in technologies that are already proven, even if you can't steal the exact designs. Here, the USA would get a strong lead, but every new piece of tech they invest in would be a complete shot in the dark once they are done exploring the alien tech, this would result in a dramatic slowdown for new improvements in the USA. In contrast, other countries would see what the USA is doing and be able to focus research on things that they know can be done resulting in better returns.
      $endgroup$
      – Nosajimiki
      3 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      Also, when you are in the lead, you are the most affected by inflation. Inflation encourages outsourcing, and outsourcing also makes it easier to pirate your tech. So yes, information sharing with other economically healthy countries caused a lot of american technology to propagate faster, but the catch-up was always inevitable.
      $endgroup$
      – Nosajimiki
      3 hours ago






      $begingroup$
      Also, when you are in the lead, you are the most affected by inflation. Inflation encourages outsourcing, and outsourcing also makes it easier to pirate your tech. So yes, information sharing with other economically healthy countries caused a lot of american technology to propagate faster, but the catch-up was always inevitable.
      $endgroup$
      – Nosajimiki
      3 hours ago













      5












      $begingroup$

      I think the best way to look at this is by seeing how long it took China to catch up to the USA's technology. 20 years ago, the average level of technology in China was 50-100 years outdated by Western Standards, now they have pretty comparable technologies in most areas of life; so, if you are beginning your narrative from any time period before 2000, that would be a reasonable time frame.



      That said, we live in an age of hacking and surveillance where national secretes are much harder to keep than they once were. It only takes one researcher opening a bad email for someone else to gain access to an entire office building worth of research. I would not be surprised if half a dozen countries had at least some of what the USA discovered from the wreck, before they are even ready to go into production with it.





      share











      $endgroup$


















        5












        $begingroup$

        I think the best way to look at this is by seeing how long it took China to catch up to the USA's technology. 20 years ago, the average level of technology in China was 50-100 years outdated by Western Standards, now they have pretty comparable technologies in most areas of life; so, if you are beginning your narrative from any time period before 2000, that would be a reasonable time frame.



        That said, we live in an age of hacking and surveillance where national secretes are much harder to keep than they once were. It only takes one researcher opening a bad email for someone else to gain access to an entire office building worth of research. I would not be surprised if half a dozen countries had at least some of what the USA discovered from the wreck, before they are even ready to go into production with it.





        share











        $endgroup$
















          5












          5








          5





          $begingroup$

          I think the best way to look at this is by seeing how long it took China to catch up to the USA's technology. 20 years ago, the average level of technology in China was 50-100 years outdated by Western Standards, now they have pretty comparable technologies in most areas of life; so, if you are beginning your narrative from any time period before 2000, that would be a reasonable time frame.



          That said, we live in an age of hacking and surveillance where national secretes are much harder to keep than they once were. It only takes one researcher opening a bad email for someone else to gain access to an entire office building worth of research. I would not be surprised if half a dozen countries had at least some of what the USA discovered from the wreck, before they are even ready to go into production with it.





          share











          $endgroup$



          I think the best way to look at this is by seeing how long it took China to catch up to the USA's technology. 20 years ago, the average level of technology in China was 50-100 years outdated by Western Standards, now they have pretty comparable technologies in most areas of life; so, if you are beginning your narrative from any time period before 2000, that would be a reasonable time frame.



          That said, we live in an age of hacking and surveillance where national secretes are much harder to keep than they once were. It only takes one researcher opening a bad email for someone else to gain access to an entire office building worth of research. I would not be surprised if half a dozen countries had at least some of what the USA discovered from the wreck, before they are even ready to go into production with it.






          share













          share


          share








          edited 4 hours ago

























          answered 6 hours ago









          NosajimikiNosajimiki

          2,892120




          2,892120























              3












              $begingroup$

              I don't think there will be any appreciable delay at all.
              There are to many variables at play to answer precisely (and I assume the question will be marked as opinion based soon). But my overall line of reasoning goes like this - in this scenario the US doesn't have much head start over other nations, they do not have the infrastructure in place to produce alien technology devices at once. In short, the more secrecy there is around the alien technology, the slower the rate of adoption in the US itself, so the nation gets less benefit from it's new technology. The less secrecy, the faster it spreads.
              The best use of this technological superiority, IMO, would be not trying to conceal it, but to patent it - but then you will have it produced in China and used globally the next morning (although US would profit economically the most, I guess).



              UPD: the main point I see here is that initially US itself is in the position of a developing nation - they have reverse engineered alien blueprints and no manufacturing base to produce them. To use this technology, US would need to invest into overhauling its manufacturing base first. So, using this alien technology will get expensive before it gets profitable. And in order for it to get profitable you need to actually sell it, and other countries to buy it. So in this 'peaceful' scenario the whole world gets technology, though US profits.



              If the technologies are going to be used only for military, US is going to have problems with its NATO allies unless it shares. I do not think there are many pieces of technology your would want to go to war with the whole world. And barring some comic-book superweapon, most military technologies take decades to integrate and implement.



              The only way some alien technology can assure swift and decisive technological and military dominance is the case where it is its own manufacturing base - something like self-replicating nano-robots. And that is not 50 years worth of technological difference, it's magical philosophers stone for all intents and purposes.





              share











              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                If you compare the Alien tech to that of nuclear warheads in the cold war, there would be a substantial delay. The US and Russia at the time were the only countries with the resources to develop and experiment with those weapons and the world watched as we almost killed each other. Today more countries have nuclear weapons, but majority still have none.
                $endgroup$
                – Alex
                5 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                @Alex just possessing an alien nuke doesn't give you 'technological edge' over all other countries. Especially if you had usual human nukes to begin with. It's a deterrent and scare weapon, not a backbone of industry.
                $endgroup$
                – Cumehtar
                4 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                I believe his point is not what a nuke can be used for, but the resources that go into making a nuclear industry. It takes very precisely milled manufactured equipment and rare elements that many counties could not provide themselves with even if they wanted to. That said, a nuke is also sort of a bad example because there is so much political pushback when a smaller country tries to invest in it. If the technology was less dangerous but equally expensive and revolutionary (such as computers), then a natural spread will happen faster.
                $endgroup$
                – Nosajimiki
                2 hours ago
















              3












              $begingroup$

              I don't think there will be any appreciable delay at all.
              There are to many variables at play to answer precisely (and I assume the question will be marked as opinion based soon). But my overall line of reasoning goes like this - in this scenario the US doesn't have much head start over other nations, they do not have the infrastructure in place to produce alien technology devices at once. In short, the more secrecy there is around the alien technology, the slower the rate of adoption in the US itself, so the nation gets less benefit from it's new technology. The less secrecy, the faster it spreads.
              The best use of this technological superiority, IMO, would be not trying to conceal it, but to patent it - but then you will have it produced in China and used globally the next morning (although US would profit economically the most, I guess).



              UPD: the main point I see here is that initially US itself is in the position of a developing nation - they have reverse engineered alien blueprints and no manufacturing base to produce them. To use this technology, US would need to invest into overhauling its manufacturing base first. So, using this alien technology will get expensive before it gets profitable. And in order for it to get profitable you need to actually sell it, and other countries to buy it. So in this 'peaceful' scenario the whole world gets technology, though US profits.



              If the technologies are going to be used only for military, US is going to have problems with its NATO allies unless it shares. I do not think there are many pieces of technology your would want to go to war with the whole world. And barring some comic-book superweapon, most military technologies take decades to integrate and implement.



              The only way some alien technology can assure swift and decisive technological and military dominance is the case where it is its own manufacturing base - something like self-replicating nano-robots. And that is not 50 years worth of technological difference, it's magical philosophers stone for all intents and purposes.





              share











              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                If you compare the Alien tech to that of nuclear warheads in the cold war, there would be a substantial delay. The US and Russia at the time were the only countries with the resources to develop and experiment with those weapons and the world watched as we almost killed each other. Today more countries have nuclear weapons, but majority still have none.
                $endgroup$
                – Alex
                5 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                @Alex just possessing an alien nuke doesn't give you 'technological edge' over all other countries. Especially if you had usual human nukes to begin with. It's a deterrent and scare weapon, not a backbone of industry.
                $endgroup$
                – Cumehtar
                4 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                I believe his point is not what a nuke can be used for, but the resources that go into making a nuclear industry. It takes very precisely milled manufactured equipment and rare elements that many counties could not provide themselves with even if they wanted to. That said, a nuke is also sort of a bad example because there is so much political pushback when a smaller country tries to invest in it. If the technology was less dangerous but equally expensive and revolutionary (such as computers), then a natural spread will happen faster.
                $endgroup$
                – Nosajimiki
                2 hours ago














              3












              3








              3





              $begingroup$

              I don't think there will be any appreciable delay at all.
              There are to many variables at play to answer precisely (and I assume the question will be marked as opinion based soon). But my overall line of reasoning goes like this - in this scenario the US doesn't have much head start over other nations, they do not have the infrastructure in place to produce alien technology devices at once. In short, the more secrecy there is around the alien technology, the slower the rate of adoption in the US itself, so the nation gets less benefit from it's new technology. The less secrecy, the faster it spreads.
              The best use of this technological superiority, IMO, would be not trying to conceal it, but to patent it - but then you will have it produced in China and used globally the next morning (although US would profit economically the most, I guess).



              UPD: the main point I see here is that initially US itself is in the position of a developing nation - they have reverse engineered alien blueprints and no manufacturing base to produce them. To use this technology, US would need to invest into overhauling its manufacturing base first. So, using this alien technology will get expensive before it gets profitable. And in order for it to get profitable you need to actually sell it, and other countries to buy it. So in this 'peaceful' scenario the whole world gets technology, though US profits.



              If the technologies are going to be used only for military, US is going to have problems with its NATO allies unless it shares. I do not think there are many pieces of technology your would want to go to war with the whole world. And barring some comic-book superweapon, most military technologies take decades to integrate and implement.



              The only way some alien technology can assure swift and decisive technological and military dominance is the case where it is its own manufacturing base - something like self-replicating nano-robots. And that is not 50 years worth of technological difference, it's magical philosophers stone for all intents and purposes.





              share











              $endgroup$



              I don't think there will be any appreciable delay at all.
              There are to many variables at play to answer precisely (and I assume the question will be marked as opinion based soon). But my overall line of reasoning goes like this - in this scenario the US doesn't have much head start over other nations, they do not have the infrastructure in place to produce alien technology devices at once. In short, the more secrecy there is around the alien technology, the slower the rate of adoption in the US itself, so the nation gets less benefit from it's new technology. The less secrecy, the faster it spreads.
              The best use of this technological superiority, IMO, would be not trying to conceal it, but to patent it - but then you will have it produced in China and used globally the next morning (although US would profit economically the most, I guess).



              UPD: the main point I see here is that initially US itself is in the position of a developing nation - they have reverse engineered alien blueprints and no manufacturing base to produce them. To use this technology, US would need to invest into overhauling its manufacturing base first. So, using this alien technology will get expensive before it gets profitable. And in order for it to get profitable you need to actually sell it, and other countries to buy it. So in this 'peaceful' scenario the whole world gets technology, though US profits.



              If the technologies are going to be used only for military, US is going to have problems with its NATO allies unless it shares. I do not think there are many pieces of technology your would want to go to war with the whole world. And barring some comic-book superweapon, most military technologies take decades to integrate and implement.



              The only way some alien technology can assure swift and decisive technological and military dominance is the case where it is its own manufacturing base - something like self-replicating nano-robots. And that is not 50 years worth of technological difference, it's magical philosophers stone for all intents and purposes.






              share













              share


              share








              edited 1 hour ago

























              answered 6 hours ago









              CumehtarCumehtar

              1834




              1834












              • $begingroup$
                If you compare the Alien tech to that of nuclear warheads in the cold war, there would be a substantial delay. The US and Russia at the time were the only countries with the resources to develop and experiment with those weapons and the world watched as we almost killed each other. Today more countries have nuclear weapons, but majority still have none.
                $endgroup$
                – Alex
                5 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                @Alex just possessing an alien nuke doesn't give you 'technological edge' over all other countries. Especially if you had usual human nukes to begin with. It's a deterrent and scare weapon, not a backbone of industry.
                $endgroup$
                – Cumehtar
                4 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                I believe his point is not what a nuke can be used for, but the resources that go into making a nuclear industry. It takes very precisely milled manufactured equipment and rare elements that many counties could not provide themselves with even if they wanted to. That said, a nuke is also sort of a bad example because there is so much political pushback when a smaller country tries to invest in it. If the technology was less dangerous but equally expensive and revolutionary (such as computers), then a natural spread will happen faster.
                $endgroup$
                – Nosajimiki
                2 hours ago


















              • $begingroup$
                If you compare the Alien tech to that of nuclear warheads in the cold war, there would be a substantial delay. The US and Russia at the time were the only countries with the resources to develop and experiment with those weapons and the world watched as we almost killed each other. Today more countries have nuclear weapons, but majority still have none.
                $endgroup$
                – Alex
                5 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                @Alex just possessing an alien nuke doesn't give you 'technological edge' over all other countries. Especially if you had usual human nukes to begin with. It's a deterrent and scare weapon, not a backbone of industry.
                $endgroup$
                – Cumehtar
                4 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                I believe his point is not what a nuke can be used for, but the resources that go into making a nuclear industry. It takes very precisely milled manufactured equipment and rare elements that many counties could not provide themselves with even if they wanted to. That said, a nuke is also sort of a bad example because there is so much political pushback when a smaller country tries to invest in it. If the technology was less dangerous but equally expensive and revolutionary (such as computers), then a natural spread will happen faster.
                $endgroup$
                – Nosajimiki
                2 hours ago
















              $begingroup$
              If you compare the Alien tech to that of nuclear warheads in the cold war, there would be a substantial delay. The US and Russia at the time were the only countries with the resources to develop and experiment with those weapons and the world watched as we almost killed each other. Today more countries have nuclear weapons, but majority still have none.
              $endgroup$
              – Alex
              5 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              If you compare the Alien tech to that of nuclear warheads in the cold war, there would be a substantial delay. The US and Russia at the time were the only countries with the resources to develop and experiment with those weapons and the world watched as we almost killed each other. Today more countries have nuclear weapons, but majority still have none.
              $endgroup$
              – Alex
              5 hours ago












              $begingroup$
              @Alex just possessing an alien nuke doesn't give you 'technological edge' over all other countries. Especially if you had usual human nukes to begin with. It's a deterrent and scare weapon, not a backbone of industry.
              $endgroup$
              – Cumehtar
              4 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              @Alex just possessing an alien nuke doesn't give you 'technological edge' over all other countries. Especially if you had usual human nukes to begin with. It's a deterrent and scare weapon, not a backbone of industry.
              $endgroup$
              – Cumehtar
              4 hours ago




              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              I believe his point is not what a nuke can be used for, but the resources that go into making a nuclear industry. It takes very precisely milled manufactured equipment and rare elements that many counties could not provide themselves with even if they wanted to. That said, a nuke is also sort of a bad example because there is so much political pushback when a smaller country tries to invest in it. If the technology was less dangerous but equally expensive and revolutionary (such as computers), then a natural spread will happen faster.
              $endgroup$
              – Nosajimiki
              2 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              I believe his point is not what a nuke can be used for, but the resources that go into making a nuclear industry. It takes very precisely milled manufactured equipment and rare elements that many counties could not provide themselves with even if they wanted to. That said, a nuke is also sort of a bad example because there is so much political pushback when a smaller country tries to invest in it. If the technology was less dangerous but equally expensive and revolutionary (such as computers), then a natural spread will happen faster.
              $endgroup$
              – Nosajimiki
              2 hours ago











              0












              $begingroup$

              Best case: Egypt got the wheel about 1,000 years after Mesopotamia. Similarly, China managed to delay European competition in porcelain and silk by centuries. Both of these gaps were before the existence of aircraft and electronic communications.



              Worst case: The U.S. allowed Soviet spies to get key information from the Manhattan Project, so the U.S.S.R was only about 5 years behind in the nuclear race.





              share









              $endgroup$


















                0












                $begingroup$

                Best case: Egypt got the wheel about 1,000 years after Mesopotamia. Similarly, China managed to delay European competition in porcelain and silk by centuries. Both of these gaps were before the existence of aircraft and electronic communications.



                Worst case: The U.S. allowed Soviet spies to get key information from the Manhattan Project, so the U.S.S.R was only about 5 years behind in the nuclear race.





                share









                $endgroup$
















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  Best case: Egypt got the wheel about 1,000 years after Mesopotamia. Similarly, China managed to delay European competition in porcelain and silk by centuries. Both of these gaps were before the existence of aircraft and electronic communications.



                  Worst case: The U.S. allowed Soviet spies to get key information from the Manhattan Project, so the U.S.S.R was only about 5 years behind in the nuclear race.





                  share









                  $endgroup$



                  Best case: Egypt got the wheel about 1,000 years after Mesopotamia. Similarly, China managed to delay European competition in porcelain and silk by centuries. Both of these gaps were before the existence of aircraft and electronic communications.



                  Worst case: The U.S. allowed Soviet spies to get key information from the Manhattan Project, so the U.S.S.R was only about 5 years behind in the nuclear race.






                  share











                  share


                  share










                  answered 1 hour ago









                  JasperJasper

                  3,1951029




                  3,1951029















                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How did Captain America manage to do this?

                      迪纳利

                      南乌拉尔铁路局