China's New Military Space Stations Coming Soon 345
WindBourne writes "China will be launching 2 new space stations this next year. One is for their civil program (as run by the military), while the second is openly for the military. It appears that there will be multiples of the military version to be launched in 2010, and that they are developing the same US Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) that was canceled in 1969. In addition, it appears that China is accelerating their timelines on a number of the earlier space announcements."
Military in the administrative sense? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of them even test fired a large-caliber cannon [wikipedia.org] in space at another satellite.
Sound and fury signifying nothing... That is one helluva an ammo run.
Re: (Score:2)
It is interesting that they'd see some value in building two manned stations.
R&D
China is calling it the Mobile Space Garrison (Score:4, Funny)
Or MSG.
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
NOTHING will kick NASA (and Roscosmos) in the ass like some actual competition.
We beat the Soviets to the moon... now, can we get back there before the Chinese?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I was just thinkin' this! It's about gorram time, too. If we're not careful we'll have to cooperate with'em to build the Core Planets, and then all of our children's children will be cursing in Chinese!
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of cursing in Chinese...
"It's about gorram time, too"
Re: (Score:2)
America is falling behind again (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Just to say were better? Yes, I know that there have been several "trickle down" advancements from NASA. But, I'm not a fan of Trickle Down Economics, so I'm not sure how much I support Trickle Down Science. So, what is the direct advancement? Why put money into space for off shoot Advancement when we could put money directly into scientific research for different problems we currently have?
Re: (Score:2)
Soviet space battlestations (Score:5, Informative)
Of possible interest, the Soviet Union had a number of military space stations. The Almaz project culminated in a Salyut analogue that actually had a 20mm cannon that was test fired in orbit.
In the 1980s, they built the Polyus Space Battlestation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyus_(spacecraft)) which was to be equipped with nuclear mines, a boron field generator, frickin' laser beams, cannons, etc. As part of a last gasp effort to regain relevancy by showing command of the sky, a test battlestation was launched on one of the two Energia boosters that flew. A funny thing happened on the way to orbit, though...
Because of CG issues, the battlestation (about as big as a US space shuttle) was mounted upside down on the booster. Once it separated from the Energia, it was designed to fire a thruster that would turn it 180 degrees, stop rotation, then the final stage would boost this Cyrillic emblazoned death star into orbit.
The Energia booster completed it's cycle, the explosive bolts detonated, and the Polyus slowly pulled away. A thruster at the bottom fired, and the ponderous bulk began to rotate. With steady precision, it rotated 90 degrees, 135 degrees, then finally 180 degrees.... ....and kept rotating. As it completed a _complete_ rotation, the rocket fired again and smartly placed it back in the exact same angle it had been when it started.
The rocket fired as scheduled, but unfortunately for this military menace, the effect was the opposite intended. With typical maniacal mechanical thoroughness, the rocket ran, slowing the station and neatly dropping it into the Indian ocean.
I've heard rumors (for what that's worth) that one of the US Nuclear subs equipped for deep sea salvage just happened to be in the area at the time. If true, that's the goddamndest thing...
Nonetheless, it's interesting to speculate about what might have happened in the end-stages of the Cold War if the Soviets had gained control of the high ground in this fashion.
An aside, a great site for learning more about the military efforts in space during the 60s and 70s is Cold Orbits: http://www.deepcold.com/ [deepcold.com]
Re:Soviet space battlestations (Score:4, Funny)
Nonetheless, it's interesting to speculate about what might have happened in the end-stages of the Cold War if the Soviets had gained control of the high ground in this fashion.
If quality control was so low that they couldn't even rotate it correctly, it probably wasn't anything to worry about. Besides, it had a well-known small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Besides, it had a well-known small thermal exhaust port
It was only well-known because many Bothans died to bring us that information.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth emphasising the word 'test' here!
The Polyus was based on a TKS logistics vehicle (combination man-rated cargo transport, tug and on-orbit living quarters module that was intended for Mir-2) that was surplus from a test stand (!), mated to a mockup of the Skif-D battlestation that had been under design for years but had no actual functionin
Re: (Score:2)
That's incredible. A "fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL battle station" in space, killed by a silly launch malfunction. Makes you wonder about what other Cold War relics are flying around above our heads that we don't even know about...
Was the Polyus even known about (outside the USSR) prior to its launch? I'm sure there was some explaining to do after it splashed down in the Indian Ocean, though... Too bad there isn't video of that. It would have been something to see :)
Re: (Score:2)
frickin' laser beams
These won't work very well in space at the moment. Space suits for sharks aren't practicle, and without them, the sharks tend to explode.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Because of CG issues, the battlestation (about as big as a US space shuttle) was mounted upside down on the booster.
Okay I know CG was pretty primitive in the 80s, but I can't for the life of figure out how a 180 degree rotate on the station model would help. Or was it just a bug in their transform matrix? I could buy that. Now what really has me baffled is how a CG battle station would have affected the outcome of the cold war. Upstaging Pixar in the early days? I don't get it.
Red Scare Bollocks (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't ever see stories on /. talking about NASA that make a point of mentioning their obvious military ties when they undertake civilian space programs.
So far, the single dissenter against efforts to prevent militarisation of space at the UN has been the US, not China.
What this "acceleration of timelines" indicates is that the Chinese are taking the US stance very seriously.
Nuclear rover? Will nukes power their stations? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm actually much more intrigued by the statement at the end of the article in Space.com about the nuclear powered rover they intend to land on the moon.
Interesting (if true) that they didn't just put on solar panels (will the rover be used during the lunar night?).
If they are willing to use nuclear power (probably just RTGs) for such a relatively modest application (except for an experiment or two the Apollo astronauts left on the moon I don't think any nuclear power was ever used there) will they be using nukes for more applications in their space program?
Nuclear power (first as RTGs, then as full fledged reactors) will REALLY give their spacecraft an order of magnitude more capability than solar powered ones. The Russian radar satellites used to locate American carrier groups used nukes (and one crashed in Canada!). If the Chinese are willing to take the risk (our collective risk?) for using nukes in space what kind of benefits will they obtain?
Certainly, for some military applications a small, compact nuclear power plant might be a better power source than large vulnerable solar cells. (though the reactor would likely need radiator fins).
Re:Nuclear rover? Will nukes power their stations? (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting (if true) that they didn't just put on solar panels (will the rover be used during the lunar night?).
Very slightly off topic, you'd be amazed how many people confuse "same face always facing the earth" with "same face always facing the sun". Then for a good time explain Mercury's spin-orbit resonance and they get all confused.
During the night, a good way to keep warm is a nice toasty nuclear reactor or RTG.
Re: (Score:2)
Would the empty vacuum of space really be a good way to dissipate heat? I thought everything in space was cold on the dark side and hot on the sun side. Without a medium to transfer heat into it wouldn't be a good thermal conductor... or am I totally incorrect in this?
Re: (Score:2)
or am I totally incorrect in this?
Yes, you are. Heat can dissipate through radiative transfer.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Conduction
2) Convection
3) Radiation
The first two wouldn't work in space, but the 3rd's a charm. After all, if it didn't, the Sun wouldn't be able to warm the Earth, would it? We'd all be dead- or never have evolved in the first place.
China Copying US, Including Mistakes Made and Not (Score:5, Insightful)
Let China put up a dozen "military" stations. The Manned Orbiting Laboratory (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/mol.htm ) was canceled for good reasons. Primarily that all the functions could be automated and/or ground controlled, without the extra mass, complexity and vulnerability of a manned station. It will provide them with many individual opportunities to practice maintaining manned stations, docking, crew and supply transfers, etc. We already have the experience and know which works best. But let them make their own mistakes. They many even pull off their entire program through lunar landing in their own fashion, but their particular path isn't the most efficient or effective. Perhaps the hard way will be the best way to learn. OTOH, they may develop technology and techniques we didn't because we didn't need to.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And what happens when a) you get hacked or b) someone from the manned station next door comes over for a visit and unplugs a few things.
Re:China Copying US, Including Mistakes Made and N (Score:4, Funny)
And what happens when a) you get hacked or b) someone from the manned station next door comes over for a visit and unplugs a few things.
a) Explode the space station.
b) Explode the space station.
And you didn't ask this, but the answer to what happens when c) you get bored of your stupid unmanned space station
is
c) Explode the space station.
Re: (Score:2)
China will soon lead in space. (Score:5, Insightful)
In a few years you will see China overtake the 'West' in the utilization of 'space' and the West will never be able to regain their prominence in that area. This is because the West does not have the one thing that is needed in order to maintain long tern projects of this magnitude. The West does not have continuous governments.
In China with one party rule they have the ability to put forward really long term plans. This is not so in the West where governments only have a life of about four years. No sooner does a Western government come to power than they start to campaign for the next election instead of moving their societies forward and usually in the process discontinue the grand plans of the previous governments so that they don't get credit for their success should their be any.
Re:China will soon lead in space. (Score:5, Insightful)
Aiya! (Score:2)
What the hell for? (Score:2)
Can anyone tell me what the strategic advantage of a manned space station is? Is there anything that outweighs the obvious disadvantages of all that extra technology (and accompanying risk) for keepin
Nothing to worry about here (Score:2)
They're just getting ready to evacuate the "Earth that Was".
there is hope (Score:2)
Plenty of jobs for all those united technologies layoffs.
Firefly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
China's military is tightly interwoven into the country's economy. Apparently you won't find a company that doesn't have a general behind it somewhere. So military or civilian, it's all the same in the end.
Re: (Score:2)
You could probably swap China for America or Russia in your comment, and it nearly as accurate. And I'm former NASA, so I'm not one to want to mix military and civilian space.
Re:China is the real enemy (Score:4, Insightful)
And we did this (Score:5, Insightful)
Our trade-deficit has largely funded them (and killed our industrial base as a side-effect). If they turn into a large menace, we largely have ourselves to thank/blame. Blowback Theory is live and well. The belief that doing business with a country creates a democracy has proven to be horsewash. It seems the US creates most of its own monsters.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Cheap labor always kills the industrial base of countries with expensive labor. If it wasn't China, it would have been India.
If they turn into a large menace they will have themselves to blame. Same if they turn into a large peaceful country.
You've decided that a country which is just now getting a middle class is never going to be a democracy? Most of China is still living large on the peasant lifestyle; those people have to be educated before there will be any significant attempt on their part to take pow
Re:And we did this (Score:4, Insightful)
---
Bzzzt! Nice try, but wrong. As long as you keep the majority of the populace in a lifestyle that they will accept, you can have any form of government you like. China is doing it EXACTLY right, by giving the population a middle-class lifestyle, stuff to buy, TV programs, etc.
Look at the USA... How many in this country actually demand their share of political power? Very, very few. How many Americans actually vote? How many Americans vote for someone outside of the "two choices" they are offered by the system? How many Americans realize that the two choices they are offered is really no choice, because for the most part, the two options are pretty much the same?
Let's face reality. As long as you have shopping malls, nice cars and dancing with the stars, most Americans are satisfied. Same with China. And the government that's providing the lifestyle doesn't matter, as long as you have the lifestyle.
And with China, most people there think the government is doing a good job. After all, their lifestyle is improving. Therefore, things are going well. Who's going to rock the boat if life is improving?
but why did we do this? (Score:2)
Remember, the US did not make the deals with China last year, in 2000, in 1990, but has made the deal to trade with them since 1970's. Because the US wanted them to help defeat the Soviet Union. You get what you want, should you pay as promise.
Like all other countries, we deal with others not because we are nice nor naive, but because we have something to ask for.
Finally, for most people who care about their every day life much more than ideology, the value of democracy is questionable. Buddy, look around
Re: (Score:2)
I'm standing firm in my belief that the best thing George Bush did during his 8 years (and maybe the only good thing) (and intentionally or otherwise) was watching the Olympics in China rather than holding out. Their military is huge and their economic grip on the US is tight, so remaining on good terms with them is really the best option to get them to do what you want.
Re: (Score:2)
WTO step in? China nationalizing anything with a hint of US owned assets? Global Anarchy?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the negotiating position of the US is all that bad - the US is a lot more powerful militarily, and while the Chinese economy has been growing fast - it's still only about a third of the US'.
Re:China is the real enemy (Score:5, Insightful)
"minus some of the things that we (supposedly) have that makes us better than them"
The big difference between the west and other areas is that the west has a large middle class. Having a large middle class encourages upward mobility both from poor to middle class and middle class to rich.
China is a contender for sure, but so are India, Brazil, Russia, etc.
"china is the worlds largest military threat"
I'm not sure the world agrees. The Chinese are actually good people. Their leaders have made some bad decisions but whose hasn't.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Chinese are actually good people. Their leaders have made some bad decisions but whose hasn't.
The Chinese people don't have their finger on the button, their leaders do, making their leaders (and therefore all of China) a very large potential military threat to the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would argue that North Korea is the world's largest military threat. They have what, the fourth largest standing army in the world, and a crazy, unpredictable dictator giving commands. The only somewhat ally North Korea has is China, and describing that relationship as an alliance is a bit of a stretch.
China isn't looking to start a war. Its interested in stability. North Korea, on the other hand, may very well be looking for the right excuse to internally justify war.
Re: (Score:2)
China in the 2000's could plausibly go on the rampage a bit like Japan in the 1930s.
They are running out of time to meet that deadline...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is that ironic? Big projects are a direct result from a centralized bureaucracy with a billion people that can do the work. Their space project is nothing compared to other infrastructure projects they have.
Specialist tasks are, pretty much by default, more expensive in our current capitalist system with companies having more power than the governments. The chinese work cheaper and are faster at taking decisions. And their government does have the power to tell a company that "they will do this-and-this
Re: (Score:2)
What we need here is a good 'ol "gap" of something sexy and important sounding to get the US politicians to be riled up enough to spend the money to compete. "Space Race" or "Missile Gap" seems just too plain, and they've been used before.
Anybody with enough caffeine or other drugs in their nervous systems to do this idea justice?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My $.02:
"Cold War Reloaded"
"Yes We Can Again"
"Oh No They Di'n't!"
"Space Smackdown"
"The [Sp]asian Invasion"
"We're Just Not That In To Noodles"
I'm sure someone else can do better -- I haven't even had coffee...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The biggest problem is that China has a virtually unlimited pool of cheap labor, and we don't. China doesn't have to spend the money on robotics or worker benefits or anything like that to get work done. If something big needs to be done, they keep throwing people at it until it's done.
I suppose we could adopt a new plan sort of like China's "1 child per family" policy, except more like "at least 10 children per family". Of course, 90% of the population would have to get used to living like a Chinese pea
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem is that China has a virtually unlimited pool of cheap labor, and we don't. China doesn't have to spend the money on robotics or worker benefits or anything like that to get work done. If something big needs to be done, they keep throwing people at it until it's done.
As I recall that strategy didn't work out so well for the Soviet Union.....
Re: (Score:2)
It works fine for a while. The problem is, once you start building a middle class, you can't sustain the flow of cheap labor to the factories, and then the whole thing turns to shit, and you have to hope you can transition your economy away from cheap labor, and into more skilled work.
The Soviet problem was more one of pure communism. The economy went stagnant, the black market thrived, and factory productivity was terrible.
China won't have those problems so much, but they will have the same issues every ot
Re: (Score:2)
We have plenty of space in the United States. The two highest populates countries on earth are China and India. I'm not sure where India ranks as far as total area goes, but it's definitely smaller than the United States, and they've got waaaay more people.
China's fourth for area and first for population, and the United States is third for both categories. If China can handle a billion, then the United States could certainly do it too.
Re: (Score:2)
We could have an unlimited pool of labor, just allow unlimited immigration. We could produce dirt cheap manufactured goods, just repeal the minimum wage laws and some of the federal worker protections. Most people don't think that's a good idea.
The idea of breeding your own population boom is silly. Historically we've always siphoned off other peoples.
Re: (Score:2)
THAT is why we allow immigration in droves, and most of the immigrants come from places where 6-8 kids is the norm. Most of the immigrants from India, Pakistan, and the Middle East are well educated and willing to live "like a Chinese peasant" while competing with native workers for 6 figure tech jobs. If the US was only "white people" we'd be having slightly negative population growth already. Allowing immigrants lets us "have our cake and eat it too" the children of immigrants won't tolerate the condition
Re: (Score:2)
The US government has and still does invest in big projects. The growing distinction is that the US government is growing increasingly burdened with having spent money in many other areas, one of the biggest being social programs. Additionally, the US has to deal with issues of all sorts, one of the biggest being environmental concerns. Look at all the environmental impact studies American companies have to engage in before they can even start working. And this is just one of many obstacles.
The advantage th
less red tape? (Score:5, Funny)
isn't all their tape red?
Re:You know whats ironic? (Score:5, Funny)
That isn't an example of irony at all, unless you are following the "Alanis Morissette" theory whereby anything can be called ironic without consideration of it's actual relevence to irony.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the problem is if there's a word to describe what frequently gets called 'irony', most people (including myself) don't know it. You end up with a well-known concept which has no label for it. The closest fit people have adopted is irony.
It would seem that situational irony [wikipedia.org] is what most people are currently using
Re: (Score:2)
The original poster claimed it's ironic that China has more will to get space projects up and running than the USA. You might view this as "a shame" (most examples in the Alanis Morissette song fall into this category, as does the song itself for that matter) but it certainly isn't "ironic".
An example of irony would be if China launched so many military satellites that two of them crashed into each other, and the resulting debris fell to Earth and wiped out a Chinese military base.
Therefore, I would suggest
Re:You know whats ironic? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:You know whats ironic? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The Chinese government announced that over 7% of all domestic companies went out of business over the last year
Of course, those are just the failed companies due to a crackdown by Blizzard. LOL
Re:You know whats ironic? (Score:5, Informative)
This is a pretty fundamental observation of economics, but if you can refute it with something besides "you're a brainwashed sheep," I'd be interested to hear your argument.
Re:You know whats ironic? (Score:4, Funny)
if you can refute it with something besides "you're a brainwashed sheep," I'd be interested to hear your argument.
Your a brainwashed duck!
Re: (Score:2)
You're a brainwashed llama. Oh, SNAP!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they probably continue to operate at a loss with the belief (supported by evidence or not) that the deflationary period will only last for the next quarter... or the next six months... the next year at the most...
Then they run out of cash and ask for a government bailout.
(Actually, the Chinese government has just told shipping companies that they aren't allowed to charge "zero rates"; that i
Re:You know whats ironic? (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason the previous poster called you a 'brainwashed sheep' is because you clearly believe that deflation and taking a loss on every every unit sold are synonymous. This is simply false. The 'same fundamental observations of economics' always seem to not notice the benefits of deflation like lower raw material costs for equal quality materials as well lower wages for an equal quality of life for their employees. In fact, if the factory continues to pay their employees the same amount, it will have the real effect of having given their employees a raise.
Every time that deflation comes up, someone does what you did. They make up a very specifically crafted scenario that would be bad in a deflation economy, and then call it a 'fundamental observation of economics. They completely ignore the fact that inflation is exactly what has cause our current financial problems. An inflation economy encourage people not to save a safety net because in an inflation economy, every dollar you save is money lost.
Since there is not stable economy (as in no inflation or deflation) every economy is either in a state of inflation or deflation, and dealing with the problems caused by the change. Inflation economies hurt the individual while deflation economies hurt the business. If a billion dollars is lost, it sounds worse if it is from a business (a single entity) than if it is from 100 million individuals. It isn't worse. It just sounds that way because it makes a better sound bite.
Re:You know whats ironic? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because they planned to turn the 100 widgets into 150 yuan so after the .03 point deflation, they are still making .47 yuan per unit, and to replace the raw materials will now only cost 0.97 yuan because of the deflation.
The instantaneous cost of the commodity isn't what's at hand here, only the price obtained for the finished good relative to the commodity when it was purchased. The raw materials only cost 0.97 now? That's fantastic, until you realize that deflation still exists. Deflation is a trap for the producer that cuts into earnings. Also, I doubt many Chinese manufacturers are making a 47% margin.
The reason the previous poster called you a 'brainwashed sheep' is because you clearly believe that deflation and taking a loss on every every unit sold are synonymous.
I never said they were synonymous. In China's current manufacturing climate, though, deflation will erase any profits from many manufacturing concerns.
The 'same fundamental observations of economics' always seem to not notice the benefits of deflation like lower raw material costs for equal quality materials as well lower wages for an equal quality of life for their employees.
Again, you're focusing on the instantaneous cost of the raw materials, which is, well, immaterial. Lower material costs are good for producers only if they are lower relative to the price of the finished goods. Why is that so hard to understand?
In fact, if the factory continues to pay their employees the same amount, it will have the real effect of having given their employees a raise.
... and increasing the manufacturer's labor costs, reinforcing my point.
Every time that deflation comes up, someone does what you did. They make up a very specifically crafted scenario that would be bad in a deflation economy, and then call it a 'fundamental observation of economics.'
... which you countered with very specifically crafted and rather unrealistic scenario. I remain unconvinced.
They completely ignore the fact that inflation is exactly what has cause our current financial problems.
You are the very first person I've ever heard attribute the current financial crisis to monetary inflation. At best, you could ascribe it to asset inflation, i.e. the housing crisis, but even that is a proximate cause. Inflation has been quite low over the past decade. A more immediate problem is the insane leveraging of financial institutions coupled with a serious lack of regulation.
Re:You know whats ironic? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. When our currency tanked it was an economic nut-punch to China. When our economy tanked it was like a fricking sledgehammer.
China is in a seriously bad situation right now. Their crazy growth has been a calculated attempt to try and build up their economy before their demographics catch up to them: their "all families get 1 kid" bump makes the baby boomers look like a population contraction. They must build up a cushion before those people get too old to work.
This happening right now is about the worst thing imaginable for them. Manufacturing economies are critically reliant on other countries buying their goods, and China cannot afford an economic contraction at this point in their development.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
China cannot afford an economic contraction at this point in their development.
Which is a perfect reason NOT to buy products made in China. Yeah, yeah, all those electronic gizmos people buy are made in China (most anyway), but you don't have to buy that spatula, plates, dog toy, sneakers or anything else made in their country.
I've done it and while at times it can get frustrating, it can be done with minimal to no effect o
Re: (Score:2)
The expensive sunglasses are worth it. You get better vision, an aura of smug, and longevity.
I have trouble with shoes, especially workboots. Where can I get a pair of those?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Try outdoor places such as Cabella's or Bass Pro Shop. No guarantees. Another option might be to try outlets. I know the one down the road from me (two actually, located a mile apart), have places which sell boots.
When you find a place which has boots you like, buy multiple pairs. I've had to resort to that when I find something I really like. I buy two shirts, two pairs of shoes, etc because I know since I like it, it won't be around for more than a few months, never to be seen again.
Re:You know whats ironic? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's certainly one way to look at it, another way is that you disagree with the countries policies and choose not to purchase their goods until they make changes.
Don't push the responsibility of a government back to United States consumers. And I'm not attempting to imply that China should feel compelled to listen because it's really up to the Chinese government, but your line of thinking looks like abdication responsibility to me!
In a sense, the consumer is the ultimate proponent of democracy. You vote
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, why not? The people get restless over not having jobs and take out their frustrations on the government. It's already happening in some places in China where the local people are fed up with the corruption of the local administrators and have both attacked government offices and demanded the people be put on trial for corruption. Which they were.
If China truly wanted raise the quality of life of its people, they'd concentrate on cleaning up that noxious cloud hanging over Beijing, building more was
Re: (Score:2)
People tend to make their own economic decisions based on the quality of the item, and the cost of the item.
Very few people base their decisions off the "place of origin" of the item. That's why "Buy USA/Don't Buy China" campaigns tend not to work, aside cases where there is a clear benefit to the more expensive item (e.g. unleaded toys).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree. With the exception of China and a few other countries, I don't really care where a product is made. As your second paragraph relates, I look for the best quality at the best price.
However, unlike most people, when I buy something, I buy the best I can so it lasts as long as possible. For example, I have finally replaced my original cookware with a much more sturdy, and expensive, set but I don't have to worry for
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, because we all know what a peaceful nation China is.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:You know whats ironic? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell that to the Tibetans. Of course, China, like an imperialist state, used some old, and even at the time, dubious claim to seize a sovereign state. So, if you redefine annexations of other territories purely an internal issue, maybe you have a point.
Re:You know whats ironic? (Score:5, Insightful)
tell the same to vietnam, granada, panama, iraq, afghanistan...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And it could be argued that if my grandma had had balls, she would have been my grandpa.
South Vietnam was not an ally, it was a puppet regime. The North may have been a puppet of the Soviet Union, but that's beside the point. The North won also because the South regime, that represented the Christian urban minority, was never accepted by the Buddhist rural majority. That's what pushed the population to support the Viet Cong, and that's why all major US operations were in South Vietnam, not in the North.
Re:You know whats ironic? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why, I would have said "tell the same to the Sioux, the Apache, the Comanche, the Pawnee, the Alaska natives," and so on.
It has always puzzled me how some Americans can double-think on such a grand scale when talking about Tibet: almost the entire area of the US was taken by outright theft, swindle or larceny.
At the same time, while China is the evil empire persecuting Tibetans, Israel is "just defending itself". Would be interesting to see how the US public opinion would react if China bombed Tibet the way Israel bombed Gaza, and whether it would be considered that Tibetans actually killed more Chinese of other ethnic groups last year (see Lhasa riots) than Palestinians killed Israelis.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not really going to answer to everything, but...
Ahem. *Points to the current Italian prime minister* Ahem.
Disclaimer: I actually am Italian, and I can confirm that your accuracy (>90% idiots) is quite amazing. It seems you have found a good statistical predictor.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, you're right about Hawaii, but Alaska was purchased from the Russians.
At any rate, I wasn't defending the US, but merely pointing out that anyone who thinks that China is such a wonderful country needs to be reminded that it too, in its turn, has played the imperialist game, and with the same cheap, shoddy justifications as everyone else.
BTW, I'm not American, so anyone hear who is trying to evade the debate by saying "Just another damned Yank" can stick it up their asses, particularly those of you who
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I take it your schools didn't mention that war between China and the Soviet Union? Or between China and Vietnam? Or....
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Counter Strike class? Is that what you guys called your IT classes in school? We called it Quake class.