Yes, if you tried paying attention to what I said instead of looking for ways to trip me up with semantics and empty "well-informed, thanks" rhetoric, you'd realise that this is consistent with what I said. They'd like to let it die, but they can't. Your graphs are excellent evidence of that, and I thank you for strengthening my argument.
Your constant insistence that I'm trying to be deceptive is getting tiresome. I probably just misunderstood you. You aren't exactly verbose, and you typically leave the reader to guess at what your point might be.
You're merely asserting that these conspirators 'can't' let NASA die. Even if that's true, my graphs show that NASA funding has been pretty stable since 1975. Meanwhile, that money has been spread around to lots and lots of new endeavors, like probes, satellites, and telescopes. It makes no sense for the conspirators to expose themselves to more risk in that way. It makes no sense that the conspirators have the power to initiate a space program on that scale, but not to kill it.
The US isn't the global hegemon because of 'science and technology,' [...]
Again, you can restate it as much as you won't, and it still won't make your argument any more true. You need to start substantiating it if you want to get anywhere.
...
at least not much beyond the contribution those two make to our military and economic strength. It's not because of how impressed everyone is with us.I provided you with the examples of the US, Russia, and China. All three of these are nations that, as you agree, struggle to maintain a positive image internationally and are all consistently involved in violations of international law. China and Russia especially struggle to make their political philosophies attractive to...anyone. And yet, these three nations wield the greatest influence in the international community. Contrast this with India, a nation that is both beloved and culturally influential, and, as I evidenced, internationally inept.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2013/05/22/the-virtues-of-hard-power/Hard power has not been in vogue since the Iraq War turned badly in about 2004. In foreign policy journals and at elite conferences, the talk for years has been about “soft power,” “the power of persuasion” and the need to revitalize the U.S. State Department as opposed to the Pentagon: didn’t you know, it’s about diplomacy, not military might! Except when it isn’t; except when members of this same elite argue for humanitarian intervention in places like Libya and Syria. Then soft power be damned.
The fact is that hard power is supremely necessary in today’s world, for reasons having nothing to do with humanitarian intervention. Indeed, the Harvard professor and former government official, Joseph S. Nye, Jr., who, in 2004, actually coined the term “soft power” in an eponymous book, has always been subtle enough in his own thinking to realize how relevant hard power remains.
As I write, the two areas of the world that are most important in terms of America’s long-term economic and political interests — Asia and Europe — are undergoing power shifts. The growth of Chinese air and naval power is beginning to rearrange the correlation of forces in Asia, while the weakening of the European Union in geopolitical terms – because of its ongoing fiscal crisis — is providing an opportunity for a new Russian sphere of influence to emerge in Central and Eastern Europe. Of course, both challenges require robust diplomacy on America’s part. But fundamentally what they really require is a steadfast commitment of American hard power. And the countries in these two most vital regions are not bashful about saying so.
The coup in Ukraine is another excellent example of why hard power is so much more important to protecting national interests. Russia is able to react to the coup in Ukraine with relative impunity due largely to the fact that they have nuclear weapons. They've said as much explicitly. The US and EU response isn't limited by how much they like Russia. It's limited by the size and power of the Russian military. It's limited by the resistance to a possible trade war with a nation that exports so much energy. The West's desire for closer economic and political ties with Ukraine have nothing to do with Ukraine's sterling reputation (the opposite, in fact) and everything to do with the West's desire to contain Russia.
I can keep going, but you haven't yet provided any evidence that soft power is vital to US influence in foreign affairs. You haven't provided any evidence that admiration of US 'science and technology' is critical to soft power.
Soft power is simply much, much larger and more complex than the US looking good because we went to space. It's much broader. It's about ideology and culture.
Absolutely agreed. The reason we're not discussing irrelevant elements of soft power is that they're irrelevant. You really need to stop trying to shift the focus of this discussion away.
I obviously think that they're relevant. If soft power is about many different aspects of our culture and ideology, then it doesn't make sense for anyone to start a fake space program to increase US soft power. It's too small an aspect of soft power. It has too small an effect to take such a monumental risk. That's my point. Soft power alone isn't a rational incentive to take such serious risks.
That's why I linked the Nye article (oh hey, more evidence that you said I didn't provide). It explains the important aspects of the US soft power landscape, and all of the things he talks about have vastly greater leverage on US foreign policy than NASA.
Despite its strong soft power, it has little ability to influence the behavior of nations around the globe. If your argument were correct, then we should expect India and all its soft power to be the global hegemon. [...]
Right, now that I no longer have doubts that you have no interest in an educated debate, this conversation is over, as far as I'm concerned.
Fine by me. I've been at least as civil as you've been, and I've done my best to engage your arguments seriously. You just keep calling me stupid and accusing me of intentionally trying to obfuscate the discussion.
Merely asserting that all of your claims are obviously true isn't very persuasive.
Show Posts
