China has no problem taking on projects like these.
It's very naive to tout the benefits of central authority without considering the costs. A government that has the power to push through massive public projects isn't going stop there.
One of the main reasons projects on this scale are so difficult to organize is that there are so many independent stakeholders with diverging interests. Glorifying the state's ability to steamroll these interests for the sake of 'progress' is dangerous stuff.
Do you have any examples of egregious civil rights violations as a consequence of the moon mission? I mean, having some sense of investing in your country and future doesn't mean you have to massacre people in Tiananmen square.
The same politicians and ideas that motivated funding for those missions were directly responsible for horrific wars in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and many other countries during that period. I'd gladly trade our man on the moon to erase those wars and the philosophy that led to them from our history.
Generally speaking, the politicians most in favor of nationalistic wars are those who are most opposed to domestic infrastructure speaking. Just saying.
Which politicians are favor nationalistic wars but oppose to domestic infrastructure?
Off the top of my head, the Chinese seem to favor both. The old regime in Iraq also had a penchant for both as well. Going back further, Japanese and German nationalists also were huge proponents of both big domestic infrastructure projects and nationalistic wars.
If you are looking at US politics, the wars mentioned by danenania were all started by US politicians who were also proponents of big infrastructure (Truman, Kennedy, Nixon). I don't think they were nationalistic wars, however.
Am I missing something here?
(Note: I'm ignoring former Communists, since Communism officially disavowed nationalism. In cases of other nationalistic wars, e.g. Rwanda or Kosovo, I don't know the opinions of politicians on infrastructure.)
How about the entire modern conservative movement? I'll reiterate my "generally speaking" qualifier because I'm not trying to pigeonhole any individuals, but I'd say that "in favor of nationalistic wars and cutting domestic spending" is pretty much the 1 sentence description of anyone who gets a good reception on Fox News.
The modern chinese pretty much stay out of the war thing. They got Tibet and that's all they care about.
Communism, well, yeah they said that, but it was really only true for a brief period in between China going communist (solidarity!) and Nixon going to China (they're enemies now!).
EDIT: Also, re: nationalistic wars, I agree on all except for Nixon not wanting to leave Vietnam. There's no other explanation for "peace with honor" besides nationalism and pride. That only half counts since he didn't start it, of course.
You are pigeonholing and you are uninformed. Ron Paul just won the straw poll at the biggest conservative conference in part because of his opposition to the endless wars. Nixon pulled out of Vietnam, a war that Democratic presidents started and expanded. There is a long tradition in the American conservative movement that opposes foreign wars and entanglements. This wing is ascendent at the moment.
In the last 60 years China fought wars of aggression in Tibet, Vietnam, North Korea, and the Indian border. China constantly threatens Taiwan and to some degree Japan as well. I don't understand your Nixon/China comment-- you need to learn some facts, Nixon began America's slow detente with China. (They're friends now!)
Maybe you should get a bit more informed yourself before derailing the discussion into gambling on candidates and bashing others on topics you clearly don't understand.
Bro. The Iraq war happened. John Boehner is speaker of the house right now, they're in a huge budget standoff over slashing domestic spending (while ignoring military spending and entitlements).
Hence, "the modern conservative movement is about nationalistic military stances and cutting domestic spending". This isn't really a hard statement to substantiate.
Ehh, let's be real. Republicans spend just as much domestically as Democrats, they just favor different industries and utilize different accounting scams.
Maybe so, though the space program is a clear exception and I think there are plenty of others--the modern 'neoconservative' platform, for example, pushes for high levels of both military and domestic spending, and is firmly rooted in nationalism. The point is that unchecked domestic power generally implies unchecked military power. And then there's the secret police...
It's very naive to tout the benefits of central authority without considering the costs. A government that has the power to push through massive public projects isn't going stop there.
One of the main reasons projects on this scale are so difficult to organize is that there are so many independent stakeholders with diverging interests. Glorifying the state's ability to steamroll these interests for the sake of 'progress' is dangerous stuff.