See when everyone tells me the USA is on the down trend I point to stories like these. Where else in the world are technologies being produced like this?
I understand Japan and India and Europe have great technological feats and strong science programs but nobody compares to the US when it comes to research and development.
I'm sure you like to believe that, but I doubt you have any data to back that up. You probably just think it obvious from everything you hear and read, but the slightest chauvinist tendency is enough to tilt the amount of perceived evidence strongly into the direction that confirms your bias.
In 2006, the world's four largest spenders of R&D were the United States (US$343 billion), the EU (US$231 billion), China (US$136 billion), and Japan (US$130 billion).
So the US spends almost 50% more on R&D than the entire EU, and more than 150% more than each of the next two on the list. Sounds like perhaps someone has some bias of their own. If you have some data, throw it up.
It's hardly a controversial statement to say the U.S. spends more on technology research and development than other countries. It's all part of military spending and there's not even a comparison - but here's some nice little bar chart if you want: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federatio...
No, but neither do you and that was my point. I'm not saying you are wrong; I'm saying there is no reason to believe you are right.
It's pretty hard to quantify technological development. Other commenters provide some financial arguments, but is there a reason to believe that the number of innovative/creative/breakthrough technologies being developed depends on the amount of money spent on research? I don't think so: the way that money is distributed is all important and can turn the table entirely. The US may well be interested in spending a few billion on hardening the steel on their tanks a bit further. It's definitely R&D, but it's unlikely something groundbreaking will come of it.
The answer to the question 'where else are technologies being produced like this' is: everywhere. The question is: how much? We are interested in something like the aggregate 'technological improvement' times 'impact on society' or something. If anyone has numbers on that, I will gladly concede victory to whoever turns out to be at the top.
First, with regard to your example of spending billions to harden steel on tanks, such a discovery might not be a worthy breakthrough to you, but that doesn't make it any less innovative. Many of our incremental advances in military technology have led to wider benefits in society at large. One could argue that the project that ARPA created that eventually gave birth to the Internet was one such project.
Second, while the aggregate impact of R&D efforts is difficult to measure, we do have some tools at our disposal, many of which agree with the OP's statement that "no one beats the US when it comes to research and development." There is no perfect way to measure global trends involving hundreds of countries and billions of people and trillions of dollars and expect to have a nice, neat little data-point. Think about education, or economic development. Our measures for those are incredibly imperfect and ugly and hackish, but they're what we've got. R&D spending is a well-recognized measure of the level of importance a country places on innovation and technological advancement. If you have a better one, we're all ears. If not, it seems unreasonable to attack someone you don't know for being chauvinist because they used the standard measure.
...is there a reason to believe that the number of innovative/creative/breakthrough technologies being developed depends on the amount of money spent on research?
Actually, there is. A surprising amount of what goes on in research is aimed at reducing the combinatorial complexity of big search spaces -- organic compounds that might be medically useful, or doping and annealing schedules that might make better semiconductor substrates, or porous materials that might be good anchors for nanotubes or nanowires. Computer scientists call this an "embarrassingly parallel" problem. The more researchers you have, the faster you get an inventory of possible routes forward, etc.
Then why such strong attacks? I've always thought it was common knowledge that the US government spends trillions more then any other nation in the Millitary and a large portion of that spending goes to R&D. I apologize and in the future I will present links.
> I've always thought it was common knowledge that the US government spends trillions more then any other nation in the Military
The link presented above, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federatio...
says that the US spends a bit over $650B (650E9) on its military. That link also says that the world total is under $1.5T (1.5E12) and that the NATO total (including the US) is a bit over $1T.
So, if it's "common knowledge that the US government spends trillions more then any other nation in the Military", said common knowledge appears to be significantly wrong.
Drexler collects some nice background papers here:
http://metamodern.com/2009/05/22/a-third-revolution-in-dna-n...