My argument is not related to the space program, but specifically the lunar program, and specifically the mission to land a man on the moon.
Most of the advantages you mentioned are related to developing a space program, which I am not questioning, and am supportive of in Pakistan as well, as I am of the nuclear program (civil and military).
But on the issue of "mineral sources, human settlement" etc, you are just rattling off stuff from popular mechanics.
No I am not rattling off stuff from popular mechanics. Any visionary realizes that space is the next phase of human expansion.
NASA doesn't spend billions on exploring mars just to get a kick out of it.
Even with their far more advanced space programs, when was the last time Western nations sent a manned mission to the moon? If the advantages mentioned above (for the moon - minerals, settlement) were realistic and necessary, why has the West simply been sitting around?
The west has not been 'sitting around'. NASA is actually planning a moon mission in the next dacade.
The reason for the delays is because of the lull in space race after the cold war, not because of any lack of necessity.
Also because NASA has been concentrating its energies elsewhere, like Mars, for example.
Space exploration is a long-term thing. Not something that gives immediate gratification.
The fact is that all the necessary research can be conducted without the need for manned missions - the reasons behind it for India remain a quest for "status" and projecting itself as a "world power".
Not all research can be conducted without manned missions. Thats because the ultimate goal of moon exploration is human settlement.
Don't take my word for it. Ask the visionary heads of any successful space program.
Of course, it is also a quest for status and power projection. However, you don't need to put the word 'world power' into double quotes.
When that is contrasted with the generations of today and tomorrow who will go to bed hungry and never be part of this "proud middle class", it si unjustifiable in my eyes.
Again, the losers argument. I have already busted this line of thinking in a previous post, if you care to read it.
However, I understand your "pride" argument, though I disagree with it. I understand it because of your and Logic's posts in the Hindutva thread, and how you described the movement as one of "regaining Hindu pride".
Sorry, this has to do with national pride, not Hindutva.
You are hopelessly confused between these two.
Hindutva is a mass movement that reaches the grassroots of India. It doesn't interest the secular middle class, though they are affected by it to a certain degree.
However, the moon mission is mostly a source of pride for those who have satellite TVs and enough to eat. i.e. the middle class.
I don't know why I have to mention the obvious here, but there is a reason why countries have national flags, national emblems, national heroes, national monuments, national achievements.
Nationalism is just as important an ingredient for nation building as any other.
Don't dismiss it as something 'intangible' and 'unnecessary'.