No we would not have the technology we have now.  Warfare seems to be one of the greatest stimulants for technological advancement (needless to say, the same does not hold true for diplomatic advancement).  In another thread we discussed the way European technology seemed to quickly surpass that of other ancient civilizations over the course of thousands of years.  One of the things I think this was due to was the frequency at which Europeans were engaged in war or preparing to defend themselves against invaders.  Because of necessity – their very survival was at stake – civilizations adopted new practices in metallurgy, weaponry, transportation and more.  Of course, these sometimes had practical applications in non-military ways as well.  As one technology benefits another, advancement begins to take hold.The same is true for the U.S. during the Cold War.  Without it, it's likely that we would not have as many technological advancements as we do now.

Donnie, interesting post.  I'm going to have to disagree with you, though, in that military efforts do bring about more technological advancements.  When motivated, the government has far greater means and resources to accomplish its goals than even the private sector has.  Businesses need to ensure a cost-effective design; they need to make sure profit is attainable; they need to offer high enough compensation to their employees.  The government doesn't have these obstacles.  Think about the development of the atomic bomb.  One of the hugest technological advancements ever, and I think this could have been done at that point in time only with governmental resources.  Think about Rome's sytem of roads throughout the Empire.  Think about shipbuilding in England, metallurgy throughout the Bronze Age and beyond.  Think about gunpowder.  Once this technology has left the confines of the government, I think that the private sector is able to run with it and make advancements on their own.  However, I think this might be more true nowadays than it was in the past; I don't think that R&D would have been such a priority for, say private sector Medieval Europe.  I am a big fan of private enterprise and I think it can do wonders.  However, I guess what I'm trying to say is that governments can justify technology at any price when they're facing potential destruction, so they should be able to come up with greater advancements. 

Looking back on my post, though, I see Donnie said “over a longer period of time”.  So yes, economic competition does bring about more advances for the duration,  but perhaps this is only because wars don't usually last for that long comparitively speaking.  Advancements during times of strife are quick and significant, but economics drives steady advances plentifully in times of peace.