[leftyted]

Your post shows how significant events are stripped of their meaning by the dictum that there must be some material end behind every act. But it's a decision to look at history and explain everything in terms of geopolitics. Can't people get together and do something for the glory of doing it?

[jcranmer]

When a government chooses to (or not to!) spend a significant portion of its budget advancing a particular scientific research program, that is pretty much by definition a political motivation. And if the motivation is driven by international relations, well again, that is the definition of geopolitics.

There's a reason we talk about the Space Race and not the International Geophysical Year. Popular and political support for the Apollo and predecessor programs were ultimately driven by the geopolitical goals, and once the Space Race had been "won," that support dwindled to the normal, pitiful scientific research levels. Spaceflight and space research reverted to just being yet another scientific field trying to catch a few drips of the governmental funding pipeline. It's the sad truth here.

This isn't to say that all science is driven by geopolitics. A lot of high-energy physics research isn't, for example (although supporters of the SCC did try to frame cancelling it thusly to try to preserve its funding, though they ultimately failed).

[crocodiletears]

In theory? Yes. In practice? Rarely, if ever at scale.

Retroactively misattributing human action to fulfill a moral narrative produces a distorted view of the world, conducive to making dangerously naive mistakes.

That the space program was a friendly front for a highly visible ICBM program doesn't negate the glorious achievement of reaching the moon.

Not everyone working on the space program particularly cared about missiles. I'm certain most of them probably just wanted to reach the moon in the spirit of patriotism and scientific advancement. Their victory was pure. We just shouldn't pretend that their project was only facilitated due to a confluence of circumstances that made it a political necessity.

[leftyted]

Unless "geopolitical theory" can be used to predict the future then I see no reason to assume it's the correct way of interpreting the past.

[crocodiletears]

Predicting, advising, and describing political behaviors within the bounds of their constraints are geopolitic's raison d'être. 100% accurate all the time? No. But then again, neither is any other predictive field.

Friedman, and Zeihan have both proven very prescient over the last decade or so.

Besides, I hardly think there's a lot of latitude for interpretation. As far back as 1958 the USAF was mulling over nuking the moon as a show of force with incidental scientific ramifications. Sagan was involved in it. [0]

I think willfully ignoring those parts of the story stretch credulity within the context where the events of the space race happened borders on historical revisionism for the sake of creating a moral parable about the virtues of human endeavor.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119