Yes.
Both are/were seen as wastelands of no value. In the beginning, going to Alaska might as well have been going to the moon.
Either could have/can be left to the Russians or another power, which in the case of Alaska would have caused us all types of grief in the 20th century.
Both has/can lead to billions in resources and economic expansion for the U.S..
Both has/can lead to billions in resources and economic expansion for the U.S..I disagree. You're overlooking several things:
- First and foremost is the immense cost of getting anything back from the moon. There is literallly no material substance that could be obtained on the moon that wouldn't be cheaper to obtain right here on earth
- Second, WHAT is on the moon anyway? Alaska gave things like gold, oil, fish, timber. Since the moon doesn't have air or life, we can let out fish and timber. Since the latest moon formation theory considers it to be the ejecta from the mantle due to a really large collision early in earth's history, it is unlikely to have much in the way of heavy metals, and I doubt it has much oil, but even if it were composed of crude oil it would not be economically feasible to exploit it. It short to the best of anyone's knowledge it's a ball of rock, and if you want rocks, you can pick them up just about anywhere prety cheaply.
- There is the lost opportunity cost. For every dollar spent (or squandered) that is forcibly extracted form the taxpayers, a dollar's worth of something that those selfsame taxpayer actually want isn't manufactured developed or purchased.
In short a taxpayer funded lunar colony is nothing but a giant waste of resources.