Plausibility of an Anti-Aerospace Movement?

Delta Force

Banned
Airships, aircraft, and rocketry were all used for military purposes before they had civilian uses. Even then, they spent decades serving niche roles such as luxury transportation that weren't really of obvious utility for the general population. Could an anti-aerospace movement have developed due to this? Could the term rocket scientist carry the same connotations as calling someone a mad scientist?
 
Perhaps there could be something akin to the naval treaties, but for aviation instead?

I could see that. In the 1920s when the air power theorists are writing about using bombers to bomb cities and whole populations, a fear of aviation grips people and politicians and treaties are put in place to limit the development of aviation.
 
I also read somewhere years ago that if the railroads had realized they were in the transportation business instead of the train business they would have bought up the airlines in the 1930s.

Have that happen and then have the railroad CEOs actively work to stymie the development of aviation to include a lot of anti-aviation publicity that succeeds in taking hold.
 
I also read somewhere years ago that if the railroads had realized they were in the transportation business instead of the train business they would have bought up the airlines in the 1930s.

Have that happen and then have the railroad CEOs actively work to stymie the development of aviation to include a lot of anti-aviation publicity that succeeds in taking hold.

Interesting. I have wondered a similar thought over the years flying on regional airlines in the U.S. If the regional rail infrastructure had been upgraded / enhanced / promoted to compete or never allow regional airlines to flourish what would the state of the aviation industry be in the U.S.?
 

NoMommsen

Donor
Such a movement to come into place isn't too big an issue IMO.
Could have happened around the line alraedy proposed here
(what about : have the Junkers G 38 make a major crash in Berlin or any other major city with some 100 - 200 death an injured ... like the Hindenburg-Zeppelin desaster).
Happens everytime there are plans to develop/increas aan airport facility (even though only on a 'local' base);)
Could happen even today (just get the 'green öko-terrorists':D a decent money base for propaganda).

Question is :
What shall be accomplished by such a movement ?
(mad rocket scientists are one of THE paradigms of the pulp-comic era.;))
 
Perhaps there could be something akin to the naval treaties, but for aviation instead?

I could see that. In the 1920s when the air power theorists are writing about using bombers to bomb cities and whole populations, a fear of aviation grips people and politicians and treaties are put in place to limit the development of aviation.
Problem with this. The Naval Treaties were conceived of as a cost savings measure. Air Power Advocates were pushing it as a cost savings measure, IE an Air Force could do the same thing cheaper than armies or fleets (and several incidents in the early 20's seemed to prove this right). Abstract revulsion at theoretical use is going to get overwhelmed by the cold hard prospect of saving money in the very tight budgets of the 20's

It would take A LOT of aircraft being built fr the cost to become treaty worthy, and by that point any anti aerospace movement is going to be trying to shut the barn door after the horse got out
 
Top