Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

LaunchTransient t1_ixecnk3 wrote

>You seem to have more emotions than reasons.

No, I'm a pragmatist. You have Americans asking "I thought we were allies!?" - we are - until the US decides to break off that relationship. So Europe as a collective has to behave in such a way that our interests are insulated from the whims and vagaries of the US.

It's like living with a dog. The dog can be really friendly with you and help you with stuff and defend you - but it can still turn around and bite you.
Europe is also fully aware of the US's propensity for trying to dominate a field. The US doesn't mind junior partners, but friction arises when they face up against equals. As I mentioned elsewhere on this thread, this is why the US slammed the door on Britain after they finished the Manhattan Project. America wanted to be the only one with the bomb.

So I wouldn't say it is at all "lead by emotion" to treat the US with an appropriate amount of caution.

0

ferrel_hadley t1_ixeduvt wrote

>It's like living with a dog. The dog can be really friendly with you and help you with stuff and defend you - but it can still turn around and bite you.

An emotive analogy that once again betrays no understand of trade relation of international politics.

> this is why the US slammed the door on Britain after they finished the Manhattan Project

Really its a far more complex picture than that. Churchill delayed making it a joint project until the US was so far ahead there was little to share. By then a few specialists joined the team for things like the shaped charges on the plutonium bomb but they had little impact.

You are likely thinking of the Peierls calculations the UK gave to the US in 1940 as part of the Tizard mission, but then the UK went its own way for several years not realising the sheer scale of what the US was doing.

You are all over the place. The US has been flying European astronauts since Ulf Merbold in 83. Europe does not have its own because it wont pay for it.

You seem to know that little about the topic you think you are an expert.

6

LaunchTransient t1_ixeio0x wrote

>An emotive analogy that once again betrays no understand of trade relation of international politics.

No it's an excellent analogy. The US and Europe relationship works because we agree more often than we don't, and we get more stuff done than we would if we had constant knives in each other backs. But that doesn't mean that if the US can get an advantage over Europe, it will refrain from doing so out of respect.

>You are likely thinking of the Peierls calculations the UK gave to the US in
1940 as part of the Tizard mission, but then the UK went its own way
for several years not realising the sheer scale of what the US was
doing.

I'm also talking about the joint funding, the procuration of Uranium, the design and construction of gaseous diffusion plants, etc etc. It wasn't an equal involvement, but the US violated the Quebec agreement because it suited it.
The point I am making here is that the US dealt in bad faith because it had the advantage.

>The US has been flying European astronauts since Ulf Merbold in 83. Europe does not have its own because it wont pay for it.

The US didn't fly them for free. And lest we forget the interlude between 2011 and 2020 where the US was reliant on Soyuz "Because the US wouldn't pay for it". Stones and glass houses.

>you think you are an expert.

Who claimed I was an expert? Do I need to be to have an opinion?

−1

ferrel_hadley t1_ixgr2lg wrote

>The US didn't fly them for free. And lest we forget the interlude between 2011 and 2020 where the US was reliant on Soyuz "Because the US wouldn't pay for it". Stones and glass houses.

Liar. The US paid for Shuttle, paid for CrewDev, paid for Ares I and Orion. The gap was down to changing priorities mandated by the politicians and speed that what they paid for was delivered by the commercial sector.

I am not sure what your point is related to space beyond a childish tantrum about "USA bad". But its reddit, the best way to win an argument is being uneducated and angry.

1