3 ms·

> 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) wer

> 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.

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.