No, there is evidence to back 1 and 2. I'm not sure where the fiction falls in to his worldview, however.I know, I just think that like most things it is more complicated then the simplistic world view being bantered about, by some on this thread. But as they say ignorance is Bliss.
I would say some views are more simple than simplistic. Ignorance is indeed quite blissful, but it also sometimes shears the fetters patriotism occasionally encourages.
|
Ah so you base your understanding of the world on fiction...got it your easier to understand now.CJ, you did start this line of debate with a hypothetical situation. I do not see how someone bringing up another hypothetical situation can suddenly be accused of basing all of their reasoning on 'fiction'. You are making a huge leap there. Furthermore, your dismissive tone is exactly the sort of thing you complain about in the Civil Religious Discussion thread.
Fair enough, with that rather then to make things worse and take this thread far more off topic then it already is I will simply bow out.
|
|
I would say some views are more simple than simplistic. Ignorance is indeed quite blissful, but it also sometimes shears the fetters patriotism occasionally encourages.No, there is evidence to back 1 and 2. I'm not sure where the fiction falls in to his worldview, however.I know, I just think that like most things it is more complicated then the simplistic world view being bantered about, by some on this thread. But as they say ignorance is Bliss.
My issue is that this is not always the correct answer.
.....and take this thread far more off topic then it already is......
You called?
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKKKKK!!!
|
So I'm a patriot because I avoid voting?Depending on your reasons, I would argue, "No." It would be more patriotic to inform yourself and others, and then vote.
I had a sergeant tell me about the advice he had been given when he first joined the military.
"Don't vote. You'll get a boot up the ass either way, what size it is doesn't matter."
And this was from the voting advocacy officer.
GLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRB
Hmmm....
picks out an old boot
I was wondering where that came from.....
I do vote, but I think the electoral college, for me, is the biggest reason not to vote.
My issue is that this is not always the correct answer.I would say some views are more simple than simplistic. Ignorance is indeed quite blissful, but it also sometimes shears the fetters patriotism occasionally encourages.No, there is evidence to back 1 and 2. I'm not sure where the fiction falls in to his worldview, however.I know, I just think that like most things it is more complicated then the simplistic world view being bantered about, by some on this thread. But as they say ignorance is Bliss.
Oh, I wholeheartedly agree. Patriotism is usually quite good for both the individual(or the public good) and the country. However, I must stress the word "usually" when I say that statement.
Well, since I mistook Samuel Johnson for Oscar Wilde, I shall provide two more applicable quotations:
I am a citizen of the world--Diogenes
Nothing human is foreign to me--Terence
So Lasar X
So with a decimated population, a destroyed industry and no ecconomy to speak of the Russians who fought the bulk of the German Army inflicted the most casualties and made the farthest advances on land, and then captured some very very good Rocket Scientists (although they do have a very good history of rocket science on their own).
Then the busted arse Soviets Put an object into space FIRST then put a man into space FIRST and only because they were getting ready to put a man on the moon did Kennedy act to save the US from embarissment.
It is also important to note that Rocket Science is fracken hard and Werner Von Braun was the best rocket scientist of his time and without him you would have been running second to a Soviet Union that was still recovering from the effects of the war.
(If you want to know what they did in the Pacific. They invaded the Japanese held parts of China 1945 with 1 million men effectively preventing any reinforcement of Japan from its holdings in China should the Allies have to invade).
As for the effects of the Americans in World War 1 and 2.... the Allies would have won the first world war with out US assistance it would have added at most 2 years to the war.
The second world war - No US involvement = Total Axis victory.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTKn1aSOyOs
for more Werner von Braun action.
You may have missed the meaning of the chart Record of Lodoss War's first incarnation was as a Japanese Paper and Dice game. The Anime that we know was inspired from t hat.@LazarX: both posts...as I don't know how to do multi-post on these boards...
1) Thanks about the infomation about forgein RPGs...I did not doubt they exist or think USA is the only place they come from...I just have not heard of them...or in the case of InNominee did not connect it to the French.
Though the Record of the Lodass War felt like a D&D game because it was based on a D&D game...atleast that is what I heard. Watching it I thought it was too much mindless drivel like most Anime is...
I am not going to argue somantics...I'll do my own looking into it...as I have conflicting souce which are hearsay...and it is off topic.
I am not going to argue somantics...I'll do my own looking into it...as I have conflicting souce which are hearsay...and it is off topic.You may have missed the meaning of the chart Record of Lodoss War's first incarnation was as a Japanese Paper and Dice game. The Anime that we know was inspired from t hat.@LazarX: both posts...as I don't know how to do multi-post on these boards...
1) Thanks about the infomation about forgein RPGs...I did not doubt they exist or think USA is the only place they come from...I just have not heard of them...or in the case of InNominee did not connect it to the French.
Though the Record of the Lodass War felt like a D&D game because it was based on a D&D game...atleast that is what I heard. Watching it I thought it was too much mindless drivel like most Anime is...
Ah, but semantics are important here. Is it indeed from the director's own D&D game(as was often stated), or is it just a story written by someone who enjoyed the popular pen and paper RPG in Japan played with d6s? Let me know what you discover...
Actually more likely in Europe the Soviets would have won for many of the reasons you already mentioned in your post.The second world war - No US involvement = Total Axis victory.
I have to disagree, even though the Soviets did the bulk of the fighting, they still need US and British assistance for parts (for their factories) and supplies to keep fighting, At best they would have fought the Wehrmacht to a stalemate and Stalin would have been forced to surrender large chunks of the Soviet Union... 5 or 10 years later it would have kicked off again after the Russians had time to regroup and sort themselves out... and without Allied support I dont see them winning back any hypothetical losses.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTKn1aSOyOs
for more Werner von Braun action.
That was cool - I saw part of it in a documentary about Werner Von Braun
|
I can pick bits and pieces too: how might Europe had done without the enormous Lend-Lease program? Do you have any idea how many planes, trucks, tanks, munitions, sundries and foodstuffs we essentially 'loaned' Russia and the the other allies...?
As to space, tech and the moon... sour grapes?
As to RPGs... none of the listed games predate Gygax. I'd be more than happy to eat my words, if anyone can point out a fantasy RPG that predates the EGG Man.
I can pick bits and pieces too: how might Europe had done without the enormous Lend-Lease program? Do you have any idea how many planes, trucks, tanks, munitions, sundries and foodstuffs we essentially 'loaned' Russia and the the other allies...?
As to space, tech and the moon... sour grapes?
As to RPGs... none of the listed games predate Gygax. I'd be more than happy to eat my words, if anyone can point out a fantasy RPG that predates the EGG Man.
Im not a European - I also said very distinctly in another post that the Soviet Union would not have won on its own without allied support.
The thing that pisses me off is when people say "we saved your asses in two world wars"... That is ignorance of the facts and disrespect of the veterans and civilians that suffered, fighting totalitarianism.
As for sour grapes about space tech.... Once the Shuttle is officially retired the US will be paying the Russians to put their Astronauts and heavy payloads into space.....
As to RPGs... none of the listed games predate Gygax. I'd be more than happy to eat my words, if anyone can point out a fantasy RPG that predates the EGG Man.
Actually, I stole it from the Nazis.
|
|
So Lasar X
So with a decimated population, a destroyed industry and no ecconomy to speak of the Russians who fought the bulk of the German Army inflicted the most casualties and made the farthest advances on land, and then captured some very very good Rocket Scientists (although they do have a very good history of rocket science on their own).
Then the busted arse Soviets Put an object into space FIRST then put a man into space FIRST and only because they were getting ready to put a man on the moon did Kennedy act to save the US from embarissment.
It is also important to note that Rocket Science is fracken hard and Werner Von Braun was the best rocket scientist of his time and without him you would have been running second to a Soviet Union that was still recovering from the effects of the war.
(If you want to know what they did in the Pacific. They invaded the Japanese held parts of China 1945 with 1 million men effectively preventing any reinforcement of Japan from its holdings in China should the Allies have to invade).
As for the effects of the Americans in World War 1 and 2.... the Allies would have won the first world war with out US assistance it would have added at most 2 years to the war.
The second world war - No US involvement = Total Axis victory.
You really have to give soviet russia and nazi germany some credit, they went from crushed and impoverished to absolute powerhouses fast. of course neither were successfull in the end and did horrible things but such rapid growth and advancement.....
.....
Good point Frank.
Ah so you base your understanding of the world on fiction...got it your easier to understand now.
I wish this line actually surprised me. I'm jaded.
Most of the leaps in U.S. aerospace technology was mainy due to the fact that the United States was willing (and able) to throw alot more money into the research. In fact at the end of World War 2 in just about every area of industry the United States was sitting in a very good position being the only major country which....
1. Had not suffered significant losses of population
2. Had not had the bulk of it's major industries burned down to the ground due to invasion or aerial bombardment.
These fortuitous circumstances are the main reason the United States enjoyed the longest period of prosperity on record
Percents of population loss due to WW II of "major countries."
Australia......57% of population.
France......
1.35% of population.
Canada.......
.4% of population.
U.S.
.32% population.
U.K.
.94% of population.
Gleaned from Wikipedia. here.
I would posit that the U.S.'s population loss, though the smallest of the aforementioned major countries, wasn't that much significantly lower.
Further, Canada and Australia didn't suffer bombing, mayhem, and other general "hell on earth" like conditions as occured elsewhere.
Ergo, your entire statement re: "our unique and fortuitous circumstances" seems entirely inaccurate.
I'm surprised you didn't counter with the Bible. Leaving that for the religious thread?I wish this line actually surprised me. I'm jaded.
Ah so you base your understanding of the world on fiction...got it your easier to understand now.
I knew from experience the effort would be wasted.
|
|
I'm not a European - I also said very distinctly in another post that the Soviet Union would not have won on its own without allied support.
The thing that pisses me off is when people say "we saved your asses in two world wars"... That is ignorance of the facts and disrespect of the veterans and civilians that suffered, fighting totalitarianism...
Sorry if it seemed I was directing at you, TED; I just happened to post after you did. As a military man, I very greatly appreciate the efforts and sacrifices of all the Allies during the World Wars and would never mean to denigrate that. I'm proud my country was a part of the Alliance, but we Americans didn't win on our own, we won together. My very sincerest apologies if any of my cross-pond Cousins took offense.
Sorry if it seemed I was directing at you, TED; I just happened to post after you did. As a military man, I very greatly appreciate the efforts and sacrifices of all the Allies during the World Wars and would never mean to denigrate that. I'm proud my country was a part of the Alliance, but we Americans didn't win on our own, we won together. My very sincerest apologies if any of my cross-pond Cousins took offense.I'm not a European - I also said very distinctly in another post that the Soviet Union would not have won on its own without allied support.
The thing that pisses me off is when people say "we saved your asses in two world wars"... That is ignorance of the facts and disrespect of the veterans and civilians that suffered, fighting totalitarianism...
No offence taken it was a general throw out to all concerned. Not across pond either :-)
Not ever having served I am always appreciative of those that have put their lives on the line for us civies...
The UK and France were in no position to fight a war in 1939 they were still war weary... think of all the men & women at that time who had lost fathers or uncles in WW1 that had the horrors of mechanised warfare and how it should never happen again drummed into them... If it wasn't for Churchill (whom I don't like but do have a grudging admiration for) I am sure the British would have come to terms - the Soviets were lucky that Hitler wanted to make a deal early in the piece and that the Japanese were too interested in the Pacific to go another round...
Every Australian is thankful to the US and Australia has shown its appreciation by putting troops on the ground when ever you have asked Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Not ever having served I am always appreciative of those that have put their lives on the line for us civies...
The UK and France were in no position to fight a war in 1939 they were still war weary... think of all the men & women at that time who had lost fathers or uncles in WW1 that had the horrors of mechanised warfare and how it should never happen again drummed into them... If it wasn't for Churchill (whom I don't like but do have a grudging admiration for) I am sure the British would have come to terms - the Soviets were lucky that Hitler wanted to make a deal early in the piece and that the Japanese were too interested in the Pacific to go another round...
Every Australian is thankful to the US and Australia has shown its appreciation by putting troops on the ground when ever you have asked Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Afghanistan and Iraq are easy compared to WW2, which was easy compared to WW1. WW1 trench warfare was truly nightmarish. None of this should be construed to denigrate the service of my comrades in arms who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq.
For my part, I feel very appreciative of the contributions of US allies. At an advanced military school I attended, we had a briefing by a Canadian officer who showed us that Canada had a larger commitment, proportional to the size of its military, to Afghanistan than did the US. That made me learn to appreciate every allied brigade, battalion, platoon, or individual soldier that our allies send.
Most of the leaps in U.S. aerospace technology was mainy due to the fact that the United States was willing (and able) to throw alot more money into the research. In fact at the end of World War 2 in just about every area of industry the United States was sitting in a very good position being the only major country which....
1. Had not suffered significant losses of population
2. Had not had the bulk of it's major industries burned down to the ground due to invasion or aerial bombardment.
These fortuitous circumstances are the main reason the United States enjoyed the longest period of prosperity on record
Percents of population loss due to WW II of "major countries."
Australia.....
.57% of population.France......
1.35% of population.Canada.......
.4% of population.U.S.
.32% population.U.K.
.94% of population.Gleaned from Wikipedia. here.
I would posit that the U.S.'s population loss, though the smallest of the aforementioned major countries, wasn't that much significantly lower.
Further, Canada and Australia didn't suffer bombing, mayhem, and other general "hell on earth" like conditions as occured elsewhere.
Ergo, your entire statement re: "our unique and fortuitous circumstances" seems entirely inaccurate.
Hnn.
How they could be innaccurate? American industry survived the war untouched because we had two oceans protecting our mainland. (Alaska and Hawaii suffered some minor incursions but there was never a serious threat to the mainland U.S.) The big reason our auto and heavy industry enjoyed such a prolonged period of dominance was that their would-be competition had been bombed down to the bedrock. It would take at least a generation for them to recover.
Ergo, your entire statement re: "our unique and fortuitous circumstances" seems entirely inaccurate.
Having access to population, money and resources makes the US unique... Australia has the money and the natural resources to make it a superpower but not the population we have 20 million people spread over an area the size of continental United States. We don't have the people to drive the engines that are required to become a major military and economic power. We are bold, adventurous and tough enough to do it, there is just not enough of us to make it happen.
The UK may just have the population and the money, but no longer has access to vast stores of population and resources it once had. At one time it could command the resources from its holdings on all seven continents.
China has a vast resources, massive population and it has just hit the Jackpot financially, it has become the other Big kid on the block.. Don't discount Russia either, it may have wandered off stage for the moment but it is still lurking and once it sorts its self out financially it will be back on the block as well.
Is there.....like.....EVER going to be an end to our TOTAL EPIC WIN?!?
Sorry to sound arrogant.....it's hard not to when you're this awesome.
How they could be innaccurate? American industry survived the war untouched because we had two oceans protecting our mainland. (Alaska and Hawaii suffered some minor incursions but there was never a serious threat to the mainland U.S.) The big reason our auto and heavy industry enjoyed such a prolonged period of dominance was that their would-be competition had been bombed down to the bedrock. It would take at least a generation for them to recover.
Ergo, your entire statement re: "our unique and fortuitous circumstances" seems entirely inaccurate.
Here's your statement then:
"Most of the leaps in U.S. aerospace technology was mainy due to the fact that the United States was willing (and able) to throw alot more money into the research. In fact at the end of World War 2 in just about every area of industry the United States was sitting in a very good position being the only major country which....1. Had not suffered significant losses of population
2. Had not had the bulk of it's major industries burned down to the ground due to invasion or aerial bombardment.
These fortuitous circumstances are the main reason the United States enjoyed the longest period of prosperity on record."
I demonstrated that there WERE major countries whose population loss, though higher than the US's, weren't that much more "significant." Hence, point 1 is incorrect.
Further, there are other countries that didn't get their factories carpetbombed. Thus, point 2 is incorrect. We weren't the only major country that didn't get bombed.
Ergo, your statement is erroneous. You seem to be trying to establish some sort of causality through this erroneous statement.
We DID have a higher population from the outset, and access to vast natural resources.
Whatever reason we began with a higher population than Canada and Australia is the reason for this success, NOT the fact that we didn't get all our factories carpetbombed.
I'm not sure why this was offhand; no offence, but if you have any idea, I think you'll need to do a far better job of fact checking and source quoting in the future.
Question for our Canadian and Australian brethren:
From when does your country mark its independence from the United Kingdom? Or does it?
I read on wikipedia about something called the Statute of Westminster that took place before WW II (and wasn't ratified in Australia until the middle of the war).
I also know that in both of your countries agents of the British monarchy are able to dissolve elected governments.
I'm just thinking out loud in response to the controversy between Lazar and Spanky above.
Thanks in advance for enlightening an ignorant Yank.
Woah....
"All of Russians first-class aviation gasoline was supplied by the USA. A great deal of food was american. Their boots, most of the uniform material was as well. Plus rubber for the their tires, all their aluminum, fully 1/3 of their munitions, over 500,000 trucks which were all far better than any Russian produced during the war (about 200,000). The 9000 or so tanks supplied by the allies were a small amount but helped. Upgunned (76mm) Shermans were a big part of the Russian drive through the Balkans, where hundreds of them participatedm and had a measure of success. Aerocobras, P40s, C-47 and A-20's (18000+) all considerably assisted the Russian war effort. Almost all telephone communication was over american phones late in the war. The Russians produced 92 locomotives during the war. They got 2000 through lend-lease. The numbers go on and on, but a picture of the value of lend-lease should start making itself clear."
Just random, mindblowing stuff I found.
The 2000 locomotives vs. 92 produced in wartime.....that's kinda telling there I think.
(edit) oh; I see it was Churchill's idea....don't want to take all the damn credit for the epic f!&@ing win that was the lend-lease program.
Question for our Canadian and Australian brethren:
From when does your country mark its independence from the United Kingdom? Or does it?
We (Canada) became a country (it was called the "Dominon of Canada") on July 1, 1867. We are still part of the Commonwealth, and the Queen is still our Head of State. More info here.
I read on wikipedia about something called the Statute of Westminster that took place before WW II (and wasn't ratified in Australia until the middle of the war).
Canada entered WWI because England went. Because of the Statute of Westminster, we were able to enter WWII on our own.
I also know that in both of your countries agents of the British monarchy are able to dissolve elected governments.
The Governor General is the Queen's Representative in Canada, but is a Canadian citizen. The GG is appointed by the ruling party when the previous GG's term is up. The GG has the power to dissolve government, but, to my knowledge, has never done so pre-emptively. Only as a formality when asked by the Prime Minister, as the first step for a new election. (We don't hold regular elections, like the US does. The party in power can stay in for as much as 5 years, but can call an election any time before that.)
Greg
Again, from Wikipedia....some more erosion of LazarX's point 2.
Copy pasted from here.
The Germans launched some spectacular attacks against important British industries, but they could not destroy the British industrial potential, and made little systematic effort to do so. Hindsight does not disguise the fact that the threat to Fighter Command was very real, and for the participants it seemed as if there was a narrow margin between victory and defeat. Nevertheless, even if the German attacks on the 11 Group airfields which guarded southeast England and the approaches to London had continued, the RAF could have withdrawn to the Midlands out of German fighter range and continued the battle from there.[217] The victory was as much psychological as physical. Alfred Price:
The truth of the matter, borne out by the events of 18 August is more prosaic: neither by attacking the airfields, nor by attacking London, was the Luftwaffe likely to destroy Fighter Command. Given the size of the British fighter force and the general high quality of its equipment, training and morale, the Luftwaffe could have achieved no more than a Pyrrhic victory. During the action on 18 August it had cost the Luftwaffe five trained aircrewmen killed, wounded or taken prisoner, for each British fighter pilot killed or wounded; the ratio was similar on other days in the battle. And this ratio of 5:1 was very close to that between the number of German aircrew involved in the battle and those in Fighter Command. In other words the two sides were suffering almost the same losses in trained aircrew, in proportion to their overall strengths. In the Battle of Britain, for the first time during the Second World War, the German war machine had set itself a major task which it patently failed to achieve, and so demonstrated that it was not invincible. In stiffening the resolve of those determined to resist Hitler the battle was an important turning point in the conflict.[218]"
It's taking me a while, but I'm slowly but surely gathering actual evidence that seems to discount the two points.
Are you guys still arguing about whether or not America is great because they were the first to put a man on the moon?
Have either of you considered that, awesome spectacle though it might've been, it was a colossal waste of time and resources with only limited benefits for mankind?
Have either of you considered that, awesome spectacle though it might've been, it was a colossal waste of time and resources with only limited benefits for mankind?
Whoa dude! Think of all the shrooms I could have grown with those kind of resources.....
Whoa dude! Think of all the shrooms I could have grown with those kind of resources.....
Shrooms? Bah, all you need are some cows and some pasture. We could've had MDMA back in '69! We could've brought hallucinogenics to undiscovered levels of cosmic trippiness!
You remember the freakout scene in 2001? We could be living like that ALL THE TIME!
You remember the freakout scene in 2001? We could be living like that ALL THE TIME!
Sad but true, dude. Sad but true. And so many negative waves could have been avoided, man.
|
|
Are you guys still arguing about whether or not America is great because they were the first to put a man on the moon?
Have either of you considered that, awesome spectacle though it might've been, it was a colossal waste of time and resources with only limited benefits for mankind?
Limited benefits for Mankind?? really? Seriously people need to stop living under rocks.
Limited benefits for Mankind?? really? Seriously people need to stop living under rocks.Are you guys still arguing about whether or not America is great because they were the first to put a man on the moon?
Have either of you considered that, awesome spectacle though it might've been, it was a colossal waste of time and resources with only limited benefits for mankind?
I must agree. Space exploration is a popular whipping boy when economic times get tight, but we see some amazing things come out of those programs.
How's that an erosion of my point? Are you going to say that the London Blitz never happened? Or that the Battle of Britain was a fight with no real consequence? London was bombed, repeatedly, no major or even minor U.S. city was even touched. All of Germany and Japan, which would be our two major compeititors in the auto industry was bombed to the foundations. Are you saying that having a head start of 2 or three decades did not give us a major economic advantage?Again, from Wikipedia....some more erosion of LazarX's point 2.
Copy pasted from here.The Germans launched some spectacular attacks against important British industries, but they could not destroy the British industrial potential, and made little systematic effort to do so. Hindsight does not disguise the fact that the threat to Fighter Command was very real, and for the participants it seemed as if there was a narrow margin between victory and defeat. Nevertheless, even if the German attacks on the 11 Group airfields which guarded southeast England and the approaches to London had continued, the RAF could have withdrawn to the Midlands out of German fighter range and continued the battle from there.[217] The victory was as much psychological as physical. Alfred Price:
The truth of the matter, borne out by the events of 18 August is more prosaic: neither by attacking the airfields, nor by attacking London, was the Luftwaffe likely to destroy Fighter Command.
The thing speaks for itsself. There was no destruction of the British industrial potential.
I don't know what I could have said to cause you to infer the bizarre questions you asked me in return. I have to wonder at your motives and intellectual honesty at this point.Your point 2, however, is invalidated by the statement that there was no destruction of the British industrial potential.
How's that an erosion of my point? Are you going to say that the London Blitz never happened? Or that the Battle of Britain was a fight with no real consequence? London was bombed, repeatedly, no major or even minor U.S. city was even touched. All of Germany and Japan, which would be our two major compeititors in the auto industry was bombed to the foundations. Are you saying that having a head start of 2 or three decades did not give us a major economic advantage?Again, from Wikipedia....some more erosion of LazarX's point 2.
Copy pasted from here.The Germans launched some spectacular attacks against important British industries, but they could not destroy the British industrial potential, and made little systematic effort to do so. Hindsight does not disguise the fact that the threat to Fighter Command was very real, and for the participants it seemed as if there was a narrow margin between victory and defeat. Nevertheless, even if the German attacks on the 11 Group airfields which guarded southeast England and the approaches to London had continued, the RAF could have withdrawn to the Midlands out of German fighter range and continued the battle from there.[217] The victory was as much psychological as physical. Alfred Price:
The truth of the matter, borne out by the events of 18 August is more prosaic: neither by attacking the airfields, nor by attacking London, was the Luftwaffe likely to destroy Fighter Command.
The thing speaks for itsself. There was no destruction of the British industrial potential.
I don't know what I could have said to cause you to infer the bizarre questions you asked me in return. I have to wonder at your motives and intellectual honesty at this point.
Your point 2, however, is invalidated by the statement that there was no destruction of the British industrial potential.
Interesting stuff. Still, some of this is starting to go in a Turtledove direction in terms of what might have been. It can easily be argued that Germany would have upped their game in response to Britain upping theirs.
Limited benefits for Mankind?? really? Seriously people need to stop living under rocks.Are you guys still arguing about whether or not America is great because they were the first to put a man on the moon?
Have either of you considered that, awesome spectacle though it might've been, it was a colossal waste of time and resources with only limited benefits for mankind?
Space exploration does not equal putting a man on the moon.
And none of that stuff on the NASA webpage is as cool as the hallucinogens we could've come up with for the same money.