3 ms·

It's not really that straightforward. Believe it or not, developing nukes, aircraft carriers, and a space programme is actually easier than lifting 600 million

by ashray 13y ago

It's not really that straightforward. Believe it or not, developing nukes, aircraft carriers, and a space programme is actually easier than lifting 600 million people and all their future generations out of poverty. Take the above into perspective. High tech research, industry, etc. also need huge investment. What happens if we educate tons of our population and then they end up without jobs ? (this actually happened in Soviet states not so long ago..) Reduction of poverty and advances in technology have to happen in tandem. Besides, most of the amazing strides the US made in technology have origins in military/space exploration applications. Reduction of poverty in India is definitely a priority. It's just one of the priorities. We have a $20 Billion educational plan coming into force soon (targets higher education as well as lower levels). Every problem in India is a problem of scale and penetration. I hope people on HN will appreciate that. Bill Gates certainly recently understood that when he decided to join the fight against polio.

gaius 13y ago
That is also true, but it is a matter of perspective. I am writing this from the UK where we don't have aircraft carriers or indigenous launch capability anymore. There is a time for national prestige but there is also a time to be pragmatic about what a nation can actually afford.
- ashray 13y ago
  It's not because of national prestige (except the space program). The UK doesn't have any of those things because they have big daddy USA protecting them if the need arises. India does not have anyone to protect her against China or Pakistan. In fact, China has been phenomenally increasing it's naval concentration in the Indian ocean. India has failed to grow an indigenous military industry (except for nukes and some other stuff..) and this has resulted in India becoming the largest purchaser of weapons worldwide. Definitely not a title I am proud of. Geopolitics is complex. It could be argued that had the US/UK not 'enabled' Pakistan back in the day we wouldn't have this problem today. It was good for western nations to have an ally in this region against Russia and thus Afghanistan during the cold war era. But I'd like to add. On the subject of our space program. Our president a few terms ago was a fisherman's son (and he was from a very poor family..) who eventually went on to become a rocket scientist and then later the president of the country. We are working on poverty, a one sided perspective on such a complex issue doesn't do it justice. We need the space program as much as we need to improve food distribution. And we have enough people to work on many problems simultaneously. I can understand that as someone from the UK you are upset because your government insists on giving aid to India. But the aid issue is politicized greatly. India has said several times that we do not want the aid but political forces in both countries have resulted in the continuation of aid. I can see how the UK media might spin that into 'Oh, we give them aid and they make missiles'. All I can say to that is, it's not true. I'd encourage anyone to research this more to arrive at the real facts. We don't make nukes with aid money.
  - justin66 13y ago
    > We don't make nukes with aid money. Of course, money is fungible.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- anu_gupta 13y ago
  > I am writing this from the UK where we don't have aircraft carriers or indigenous launch capability anymore. What are you talking about? The reason you're being downvoted is that trite, inaccurate Daily Mail-ish opinions are just dumb. The UK doesn't have aircraft carriers because it fucked up the decommissioning / commissioning cycle. HMS Queen Elizabeth will be operational in 2020 [1]. You seem to be implying that a choice has been made to no longer have aircraft carriers in order to prioritise welfare. And what is Trident if it's not "indigenous launch capability"? When did the UK ever possess land based missile capability? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_...
  - arethuza 13y ago
    "indigenous launch capability" The UK did briefly have the capability to launch satellites with home grown launchers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospero_%28satellite%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospero_%28satellite%29 The UK gave up on ground based launchers as they were far too vulnerable - although the first missile silo designs were actually done for the Blue Streak missile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Streak_missile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Streak_missile
  - gaius 13y ago
    The choice was made to decommission the Invincible class early to save money. You can wriggle all you like, that is true. Trident cannot place satellites in orbit, nor launch probes to Mars (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24729073 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24729073). That's 2 for 2
    - anu_gupta 13y ago
      Wriggling? What is the HMS Queen Elizabeth? When did the UK ever have the sustained ability to launch into orbit? Go back to reading the Daily Mail, son, it's a safe place for bigotry.
      - gaius 13y ago

by ashray 13y ago

gaius 13y ago

That is also true, but it is a matter of perspective. I am writing this from the UK where we don't have aircraft carriers or indigenous launch capability anymore. There is a time for national prestige but there is also a time to be pragmatic about what a nation can actually afford.

ashray 13y ago
It's not because of national prestige (except the space program). The UK doesn't have any of those things because they have big daddy USA protecting them if the need arises. India does not have anyone to protect her against China or Pakistan. In fact, China has been phenomenally increasing it's naval concentration in the Indian ocean. India has failed to grow an indigenous military industry (except for nukes and some other stuff..) and this has resulted in India becoming the largest purchaser of weapons worldwide. Definitely not a title I am proud of. Geopolitics is complex. It could be argued that had the US/UK not 'enabled' Pakistan back in the day we wouldn't have this problem today. It was good for western nations to have an ally in this region against Russia and thus Afghanistan during the cold war era. But I'd like to add. On the subject of our space program. Our president a few terms ago was a fisherman's son (and he was from a very poor family..) who eventually went on to become a rocket scientist and then later the president of the country. We are working on poverty, a one sided perspective on such a complex issue doesn't do it justice. We need the space program as much as we need to improve food distribution. And we have enough people to work on many problems simultaneously. I can understand that as someone from the UK you are upset because your government insists on giving aid to India. But the aid issue is politicized greatly. India has said several times that we do not want the aid but political forces in both countries have resulted in the continuation of aid. I can see how the UK media might spin that into 'Oh, we give them aid and they make missiles'. All I can say to that is, it's not true. I'd encourage anyone to research this more to arrive at the real facts. We don't make nukes with aid money.
- justin66 13y ago
  > We don't make nukes with aid money. Of course, money is fungible.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
anu_gupta 13y ago
> I am writing this from the UK where we don't have aircraft carriers or indigenous launch capability anymore. What are you talking about? The reason you're being downvoted is that trite, inaccurate Daily Mail-ish opinions are just dumb. The UK doesn't have aircraft carriers because it fucked up the decommissioning / commissioning cycle. HMS Queen Elizabeth will be operational in 2020 [1]. You seem to be implying that a choice has been made to no longer have aircraft carriers in order to prioritise welfare. And what is Trident if it's not "indigenous launch capability"? When did the UK ever possess land based missile capability? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_...
- arethuza 13y ago
  "indigenous launch capability" The UK did briefly have the capability to launch satellites with home grown launchers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospero_%28satellite%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospero_%28satellite%29 The UK gave up on ground based launchers as they were far too vulnerable - although the first missile silo designs were actually done for the Blue Streak missile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Streak_missile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Streak_missile
- gaius 13y ago
  The choice was made to decommission the Invincible class early to save money. You can wriggle all you like, that is true. Trident cannot place satellites in orbit, nor launch probes to Mars (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24729073 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24729073). That's 2 for 2
  - anu_gupta 13y ago
    Wriggling? What is the HMS Queen Elizabeth? When did the UK ever have the sustained ability to launch into orbit? Go back to reading the Daily Mail, son, it's a safe place for bigotry.
    - gaius 13y ago