4 ms·

> The nuclear arms race started immediately after WWII (or possibly during it), the space race (and associated missile race) started in the 1950s. Those weren'

> The nuclear arms race started immediately after WWII (or possibly during it), the space race (and associated missile race) started in the 1950s. Those weren't races. The decision to start an arms race and space race to starve the USSR of GDP is an explicitly laid out plan in Kennedy admn.'s internal memos.

sokoloff 4y ago
Perhaps you could square your claim of Kennedy starting a space race with Sputnik 1 being launched (with an intentional radio transmitter) 37 months before Kennedy was even elected?
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Those weren’t races. The nuclear arms race, space race, and missile race (the second being intimately connected to the third, and in a way its public face, at least initially) were, in fact, races (and components of the broader arms race) and they, in fact, started before Kennedy was in office (the space and missile races, under Eisenhower.) That Kennedy capitalized on that reality, and built a strategy beyond the most obvious superficial goal of those races, is clear, but to say that he “started” the Cold War arms race is silly and ahistorical.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > The nuclear arms race, space race, and missile race (the second being intimately connected to the third, and in a way its public face, at least initially) were, in fact, races That's your interpretation. And possibly a likely noticeable segment of the public. The Kennedy administration's race is an actual, specific race with a specific plan. It cannot be 'interpreted away' like that. It was a specific decision taken with specific goals in mind. And those goals were not just 'reaching space' or 'have more nuclear bombs' like the others. I recommend watching some relevant Chomsky lectures on the matter. He gives excruciating details of the affair.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > That’s your interpretation. It’s a well-documented fact. > The Kennedy administration’s race is an actual, specific race with a specific plan. The Kennedy strategy only makes sense as an a strategy within the well-documented arms race that was already occurring. > It was a specific decision taken with specific goals in mind. An arms race is not defined by the existence of a strategy of one side, it is an escalating cycle of response between two (or more) sides. The Kennedy strategy might help explain why the superpowers didn’t break out of the race sooner (though, really, arms races continuing until either one or both sides reach economic exhaustion or a geopolitical realignment through either war between them or intervention of a third power renders the race moot is fairly normal, so it’s plausible that the adoption of an obvious strategy by the more economically powerful power given an existing arms race did nothing.) > I recommend watching some relevant Chomsky lectures on the matter. There are things Chomsky might be able to convince me of, but effects preceding their causes isn’t among them.
    - unity1001 4y ago
      > There are things Chomsky might be able to convince me of, but effects preceding their causes isn’t among them. Sorry. Kennedy administration says otherwise in their internal memos released to the public via FOIA requests. This may not fit the worldview that you constructed in your head, but reality is what it is. In between what the Kennedy admn. itself says and your 'interpretations', I'll go with the former. Thanks.

sokoloff 4y ago

Perhaps you could square your claim of Kennedy starting a space race with Sputnik 1 being launched (with an intentional radio transmitter) 37 months before Kennedy was even elected?

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Those weren’t races. The nuclear arms race, space race, and missile race (the second being intimately connected to the third, and in a way its public face, at least initially) were, in fact, races (and components of the broader arms race) and they, in fact, started before Kennedy was in office (the space and missile races, under Eisenhower.) That Kennedy capitalized on that reality, and built a strategy beyond the most obvious superficial goal of those races, is clear, but to say that he “started” the Cold War arms race is silly and ahistorical.

unity1001 4y ago
> The nuclear arms race, space race, and missile race (the second being intimately connected to the third, and in a way its public face, at least initially) were, in fact, races That's your interpretation. And possibly a likely noticeable segment of the public. The Kennedy administration's race is an actual, specific race with a specific plan. It cannot be 'interpreted away' like that. It was a specific decision taken with specific goals in mind. And those goals were not just 'reaching space' or 'have more nuclear bombs' like the others. I recommend watching some relevant Chomsky lectures on the matter. He gives excruciating details of the affair.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > That’s your interpretation. It’s a well-documented fact. > The Kennedy administration’s race is an actual, specific race with a specific plan. The Kennedy strategy only makes sense as an a strategy within the well-documented arms race that was already occurring. > It was a specific decision taken with specific goals in mind. An arms race is not defined by the existence of a strategy of one side, it is an escalating cycle of response between two (or more) sides. The Kennedy strategy might help explain why the superpowers didn’t break out of the race sooner (though, really, arms races continuing until either one or both sides reach economic exhaustion or a geopolitical realignment through either war between them or intervention of a third power renders the race moot is fairly normal, so it’s plausible that the adoption of an obvious strategy by the more economically powerful power given an existing arms race did nothing.) > I recommend watching some relevant Chomsky lectures on the matter. There are things Chomsky might be able to convince me of, but effects preceding their causes isn’t among them.
  - unity1001 4y ago
    > There are things Chomsky might be able to convince me of, but effects preceding their causes isn’t among them. Sorry. Kennedy administration says otherwise in their internal memos released to the public via FOIA requests. This may not fit the worldview that you constructed in your head, but reality is what it is. In between what the Kennedy admn. itself says and your 'interpretations', I'll go with the former. Thanks.