Should you spend money on technology or development?

I posted this story on Slashdot about India's moon mission and as expected, there were plenty of comments on the lines of 'Shouldn't India focus on removing poverty before sending rockets to the moon?'. I could give plenty of arguments about how it is impossible for a nation to focus single-mindedly on development while completely ignoring technological progress, but one poster gave the best possible analogy using the President's Moon to Mars commission report:

One hundred and fifty years ago, if President Lincoln had formed this board, you might have called the "The Commission on Iowa, Colorado and Beyond." And you would have faced the very same questions!

"Can we afford to explore the West?"
"Isn't it dangerous out there?"
"Shouldn't we solve the problems of the East Coast first?"

And maybe even, "Is there life in California?"

(This comment was actually made by a witness during a public hearing of the Blue Ribbon Space Commission in San Francisco)

$83 million spent on science is $83 million that creates jobs, makes people want to get get educated, makes educated people want to work in India, and yes, it's $83 million that's *not* spent on bombs. I say, Hurray!