China Moving At 'Breathtaking Speed' In Final Frontier, Space Force Says (space.com) 196
China is rapidly advancing its space capabilities to challenge the United States' dominance in space, as evidenced by its significant increase in on-orbit intelligence and reconnaissance satellites and the development of sophisticated counterspace weapons. Space.com reports: "Frankly, China is moving at a breathtaking speed. Since 2018, China has more than tripled their on-orbit intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance satellites," Gen. Stephen Whiting, commander of U.S. Space Command, said here on Tuesday, during a talk at the 39th Space Symposium. "And with these systems, they've built a kill web over the Pacific Ocean to find, fix, track and, yes, target United States and allied military capabilities," he added. And that's not all. China has also "built a range of counterspace weapons, from reversible jamming all the way up to kinetic hit-to-kill direct-ascent and co-orbital ASATs," Whiting said.
Indeed, China demonstrated direct-ascent ASAT, or anti-satellite, weapon technology back in January 2007, when it destroyed one of its defunct weather satellites with a missile. That test was widely decried as irresponsible, for it generated thousands of pieces of debris, many of which are still cluttering up Earth orbit. Such activities show that China is now treating space as a war-fighting domain, Whiting said. And so, he added, is Russia, which has also conducted ASAT tests recently, including a destructive one in November 2021. Russia has also been aggressively building out its orbital architecture; since 2018, the nation has more than doubled its total number of active satellites, according to Whiting. The U.S. government has taken notice of these trends.
"We are at a pivotal moment in history," Troy Meink, principal deputy director of the National Reconnaissance Office, which builds and operates the United States' fleet of spy satellites, said during a different talk on Tuesday here at the symposium. "For the first time in decades, U.S. leadership in space and space technology is being challenged," Meink added. "Our competitors are actively seeking ways to threaten our capabilities, and we see this every day." The U.S. must act if it wishes to beat back this challenge, Meink and Whiting stressed; it cannot rely on the inertia of past success to do the job. For example, Meink highlighted the need to innovate with the nation's reconnaissance satellites, to make them more numerous, more agile and more resilient. U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Heidi Shyu also emphasized the importance of increasing resilience, a goal that she said could be achieved by diversifying the nation's space capabilities. "We must assess ways to incorporate radiation-hardened electronics, novel orbits, varied communication pathways, advancements in propulsion technologies and increased cooperation with our allies," Shyu said in another talk on Tuesday at the symposium.
Indeed, China demonstrated direct-ascent ASAT, or anti-satellite, weapon technology back in January 2007, when it destroyed one of its defunct weather satellites with a missile. That test was widely decried as irresponsible, for it generated thousands of pieces of debris, many of which are still cluttering up Earth orbit. Such activities show that China is now treating space as a war-fighting domain, Whiting said. And so, he added, is Russia, which has also conducted ASAT tests recently, including a destructive one in November 2021. Russia has also been aggressively building out its orbital architecture; since 2018, the nation has more than doubled its total number of active satellites, according to Whiting. The U.S. government has taken notice of these trends.
"We are at a pivotal moment in history," Troy Meink, principal deputy director of the National Reconnaissance Office, which builds and operates the United States' fleet of spy satellites, said during a different talk on Tuesday here at the symposium. "For the first time in decades, U.S. leadership in space and space technology is being challenged," Meink added. "Our competitors are actively seeking ways to threaten our capabilities, and we see this every day." The U.S. must act if it wishes to beat back this challenge, Meink and Whiting stressed; it cannot rely on the inertia of past success to do the job. For example, Meink highlighted the need to innovate with the nation's reconnaissance satellites, to make them more numerous, more agile and more resilient. U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Heidi Shyu also emphasized the importance of increasing resilience, a goal that she said could be achieved by diversifying the nation's space capabilities. "We must assess ways to incorporate radiation-hardened electronics, novel orbits, varied communication pathways, advancements in propulsion technologies and increased cooperation with our allies," Shyu said in another talk on Tuesday at the symposium.
Duh.. (Score:2)
Re:Duh.. (Score:5, Interesting)
There are a whole group of people who no longer respect making things and don't understand that manufacturing is a strategic core to science and technology. They honestly believe that banks are what "create value".
Re:Duh.. (Score:4, Informative)
Per capita, America manufactures twice as much as China.
Re:Duh.. (Score:5, Informative)
But China has 4 times as many people, so by your own metric, China actually manufactures 2x as much as the US,
Then again, I live in the UK where the Thatcher government made a conscious decision 40 years ago to disinvest in manufacturing and concentrate on service and financial industries, That short termism and lack of foresight has become horribly apparent over the succeeding years.
Re:Duh.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It was pretty clear that certain segments of UK manufacturing were going to be unrecoverable undercut by other countries. So it was either a complex (and expensive) web of trade tariffs and government subsidies or change tack. So the decision itself wasn't necessarily wrong. The failure was in then leaving 90% of the country to rot. So I agree completely about the failures of UK governance.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I saw a tv show decades ago with a panel of people discussing economics, industry etc.
This woman was saying we didn't need industry anymore. The future economy was all about services. When another panelist grilled her and asked if her idea was we'd all just make money sitting in offices cycling paperwork and writing reports while no one actually produced anything real, like some giant Monty Python skit, she choked and fell apart, deer in the headlights.
And then we killed off most manufacturing so we could
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And then we killed off most manufacturing
No, we didn't. America manufactures as much as it ever did.
What has fallen is manufacturing employment, as industry has automated. America has also shifted to higher-value products, such as aircraft and CPUs, instead of plastic toys.
American manufacturing output by year [macrotrends.net]
Re: (Score:2)
We really don't make CPUs at all
Most Intel CPUs are manufactured in the United States.
Re:Duh.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I really dislike conservative ideology. They seem to arrange things in favor of those holding the capital. And the economic numbers can look great. But I prefer a world where most of the working class takes pride in making things, instead of slinging fries and other service jobs. That's the real fall out for shifting an industrialized nation to a finance and service economy, what do you do with all these people who aren't bankers? Conservative's solution is to create social strife and point at big numbers.
disclaimer: I'm firmly part of the bourgeoisie. I won't be first against the wall when the revolution comes, but I'll be in the third or fourth group they take out.
Re: (Score:3)
There's absolutely nothing wrong with slinging fries if the pay gets you far enough up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. You can even take pride in doing so. And there is plenty of non-banker work to do. We've just got the ratio of pay to hours wrong at both ends of the spectrum at present.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How is slinging fries, or any kitchen work for that matter, not manufacturing? At the very least it's assembly. What do you think of when you say "making things"? Do you mean creative or artistic work? If so, does the guy bolting together the same car parts all day qualify as "making things"? If so, why doesn't the guy stuffing the Happy Meal box qualify?
I'm not conservative by any measure. I just think there's a really weird distinction being made here, especially when you're discussing taking pride in o
Re: (Score:2)
How is slinging fries, or any kitchen work for that matter, not manufacturing?
Economists distinguish between goods made for immediate consumption and durable goods that add to wealth and can be exported.
If you buy a pizza, you have a nice meal, but you're no better off. If you buy a washing machine, you have an asset that will save you labor for the next 20 years. The washing machine adds to your wealth and the wealth of the nation. The pizza does not.
Re: (Score:2)
what do you do with all these people who aren't bankers? Conservative's solution is to create social strife and point at big numbers.
I think you are giving them too much credit for coordinated effort. They don't have a plan.
And costs 10x as much (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you look at the top donors of the political parties in America. One party is full of bankers and hedge fund types, the other is full of business owners that actually do something.
From your perspective, which is which? I honestly can't tell.
Re: (Score:2)
The race to space is not as important as the race to AGI.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.statista.com/outlo... [statista.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The utterly useless US Space Farce (spelling deliberate) has only been around for less than 5 years and it already has a $30 billion budget. NASA's budget last year is under $25 billion and it actually manages to accomplish useful tasks.
All NASA budgets since foundation combined (including Apollo) - $690 billion
Pentagon budget just last year not counting Black Budget, intel agencies, or nukes - $860 billion
This is why we can't have nice things.
Re: Duh.. (Score:3)
Re: Duh.. (Score:2)
Your comment could have been written any time since the eighties. And it would be equally well supported. Nobody knows whether or not the current techniques can lead to AGI. Maybe so, maybe not. More likely it will only be useful for simulated intelligence, where it still doesn't actually know anything and isn't actually thinking, but does a good imitation. That's not worthless, but it's also not singularity-inducing AGI.
Re: Duh.. (Score:2)
Re: Duh.. (Score:2)
"neural net based AI learns exactly the same way as a human does"
That is factually false.
Humans have neurons, computers have transistors. They are not the same.
Believing they are the same is not even a religious view, although it might seem like one because it's stupid. It's just being wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans have neurons, computers have transistors.
A neuron is not analogous to a transistor.
A neuron is analogous to a row in a parameter tensor.
Re: (Score:2)
But it isn't, because we are still finding additional complexity in neurons. We don't even know all the things they do yet!
Re: Duh.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
only be useful for simulated intelligence
There is no such thing as "simulated intelligence". If a system behaves intelligently, then it is intelligent. The underlying mechanism is irrelevant.
Re: Duh.. (Score:3)
Simulated intelligence isn't reasoning, it's just following a script. It only gives the appearance of reasoning. Artificial intelligence can actually reason, extrapolate, etc. It can handle new situations, SI cannot.
Re: (Score:2)
Close, but you're thinking of the other China:
American components, Russian components...all made in Taiwan [youtube.com]!
In seriousness: when it comes to "space tech" - that's largely an outgrowth of the aerospace and military, which still largely sources domestically.
Bound to happen sooner or later (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
WW2 ended in 1945. Apollo 13 landed on the moon in 1970. If the US could transform from a war economy to winning the space race in 25 years, then this really shouldn't come as a surprise
Really? We just gonna pretend the Korean and Vietnam wars happened in some other century as you claim the US transformed “away” from a war economy? President Eisenhowers farewell address/warning is memorable for a reason. The US has been a war economy since the MIC was established. Let’s stop bullshitting otherwise. If you were right, JFK might have lived.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Bound to happen sooner or later (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying that voters voted for corrupt elite billionaire to protest corrupt elite billionaires running things. Seems a weird way to protest corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
The US isn't a war economy by any rational measure, and hasn't been since the end of WWII. It spends an outsize amount on war compared to contemporaries, but judging by the reaction during COVID if an actual war economy were imposed half the population's heads would explode.
https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
Re:Bound to happen sooner or later (Score:4, Informative)
WW2 ended in 1945. Apollo 13 landed on the moon in 1970.
In some alternate reality, maybe.
Govrnment official spreads FUD, seeks more money (Score:2, Insightful)
How many of these clickbait soundbite quotes does it take for us to be skeptical?
Make the quote generic "Country X is advancing its military faster than us. Congress must give us more money to spend!"
Just add a "So, you want more money for your government agency to spend, right?" to the end of each of the quotes and the entire article falls apart.
How about putting in some hard news into the article, like before and after capabilities of the country, stated future plans for the country's space program, budg
Accurate (Score:4)
In this particular case, however, the headline is accurate. China's progress in space is astonishing. They have plans for a lunar landing by 2030, and from the pace of their progress, I'll expect that they've got a good shot at making that goal.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=chinese+space+program
Re: (Score:2)
It's still FUD when scariness is implied without credible reason to fear.
*[THIS]* (Score:2)
When you want to sway the public to a candidate, or sell the congress on the need to fire the money canon, the most-tried and true method is to claim imminent threats exist.
This happened in 1960 when then-senator John Kennedy campaigned for president on a so-called "missile gap" which he knew did not exist. Kennedy as a senator knew that there was no gap in ICBM capability between the USA and USSR at the time, but also knew then Vice President Nixon could not expose the lie without exposing classified intel
Oh noes, how dare they defend themselves (Score:3, Interesting)
Hate China all you want, its a free country here you can do that, but what would be the American response if China (or Russia) ringed the US with military bases as the US has done to China (and Russia). US still claims to stand by the One China policy that recognizes Taiwan as part of China just like Hong Kong, yet keeps spending billions to support secessionist parties and prepping Australia to fight China just as it did with Ukraine on Russia.
Pretty analogous would be China spending billions to support the secessionist movement in Puerto Rico (or even Texas) and sending naval fleets close to American shorelines for "freedom of navigation" exercises. As a warning for the US not to invade Puerto Rico (why would you want to invade something already yours) and to protect Latin America from the US (which actually has a very long history of coups and invasions in the region).
Re:Oh noes, how dare they defend themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
Analogous but very different threats.
This is not a story about China defending itself, it is about the CCP defending itself.
Part of the US story is resisting a tyrant, the King of England, and though US produces tyrants it's political class still has to convince an electorate and funding every now and then. CCP is a tyrant, rules with absolute authority, without question and crushes dissent. If their plans for the rest of the world are the same or worse than how they treat their own people the threat that poses is very different.
Keep resisting tyrants, they live on fear, crush the human spirit, hold back evolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the US story is resisting a tyrant, the King of England, and though US produces tyrants it's political class still has to convince an electorate and funding every now and then. CCP is a tyrant, rules with absolute authority, without question and crushes dissent. If their plans for the rest of the world are the same or worse than how they treat their own people the threat that poses is very different.
Hang on, those are two different things. You seem to be implying that because the US is a democracy, it isn't a threat to the rest of the world. That is clearly not the case. Your last president was not so good for us, and the US has been known to invade other countries for various reasons. There are other democracies that have engaged in genocide, in Europe and the Middle East.
Not that I'm defending what China does to its own people, but the US doesn't treat all of its own well either, and more importantly
Re: Oh noes, how dare they defend themselves (Score:2)
Hang on, those are two different things. You seem to be implying that because the US is a democracy, it isn't a threat to the rest of the world. That is clearly not the case. Your last president was not so good for us, and the US has been known to invade other countries for various reasons.
Yeah I think we shouldn't have invaded Europe either. Should have just kept giving Stalin just enough ammunition to continue justifying sending more warm bodies into the meat grinder like we were already doing. He had enough to help Western Europe wear down the Nazis, but likely wouldn't have been able to raise the iron curtain after (only reason he could is because Eastern Europe didn't see as much destruction and he still had a lot of warm bodies.) Having legions of our dead soldiers buried in a large gra
Re: (Score:2)
The CPC (Communist Party of China, CCP is wrong) has never shown any interest in ruling the rest of the world, or for that matter even any of their neighbors. The Chinese have learned over the course of 5,000 years of history that invasion and occupation of unwilling populations is a waste of energy and resources, trade and shared economic interests are more stable and less wasteful in the long run. The Chinese model works for China, and its leadership is smart enough to realize that it's not appropriate
Re: (Score:2)
CCP shill much?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no expert, but I don't think the CCP existed 250 years ago. ... I've missed a joke, haven't I?
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese Commie Partay.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China 600 years ago was more than three times its current size and the highest civilization on the planet. Things change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for trolling like a 12-year-old. It proves how intellectually stunted the lot of you sympathizers are.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for trolling like a 12-year-old. It proves how intellectually stunted the lot of you sympathizers are.
Troll? nobody actually familiar with history actually believes that line about the tyrant king. Nor did the educated at the time. It was just a slogan to rouse the illiterate rabble, like "make america great again". You need to persuade the cannon fodder to die for their new masters.
The colonial gentry also used the injustice of taxes to stir revolution. Then when they won, they went ahead and put up the taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Must be my public education, but I cannot make sense of that incoherent rant. Are you under the impression that I am American? Cannot tell.
Re:Oh noes, how dare they defend themselves (Score:5, Informative)
just as it did with Ukraine on Russia.
You mean the U.S. helped prepare Ukraine for the unprovoked Russian invasion? How dare they help a fledgling democracy fend off an attacker!
It's always amusing when someone whines about Ukraine fighting off Russia when they deliberately ignore the Budapest Memorandum [harvard.edu] which Russia signed and which says, in part:
1. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE [Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe] Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
2. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
3. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
As for Taiwan, they're a sovereign country with free and open democratic elections. Unlike China. As we've seen with Hong Kong, why would anyone want to be part of a dictatorial regime where you can't criticize Winnie the Pooh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Taiwan, don't forget the CCP consistently uses the term "re-unification" when Taiwan was never a part of Mao's China and is in fact still technically at war with the mainland. There is nothing to re-unify when they were never unified in the first place.
Taiwan is the last refuge of the pre-Mao Chinese government. Also, a functioning modern democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
"Pre-Mao Chinese government" = warlords who let millions (literally) starve because they could make more money exporting rice than letting the people who grew it eat it.
Re: Oh noes, how dare they defend themselves (Score:3)
Re: Oh noes, how dare they defend themselves (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah I know the western media/internet seems to only report as if Russia just invaded Ukraine over nothing
Which it did. There was absolutely no justification for Russia to attack Ukraine in any fashion.
OFFICIALLY, Russia invaded Ukraine because in the east 2 large populations (finally) separated themselves from Ukraine
No, they didn't. No such thing ever happened. It was Russian agents spreading lies of "separation". Try harder.
People seem to think it was all peaceful there before Russia 'invaded' Ukraine, but it was far from it
It was. There was no issue as the people got along and in fact, spoke both Ukrainian and Russian.
Since the fall of the USSR it has been a mess in that area of the Ukraine
That is because of Russia trying to create a puppet state. It's why Ukraine didn't have much of a military to fight back when Russia invaded a decade ago. After all, if you're a puppet state, why have a military? And it is Ukraine, not 'the' Ukraine. Ukraine is a fully independent country, not subservient to Russia.
even the downed commercial airliner MH-17 years before the 'invasion' was a result of that turmoil.
You mean the jet Russia downed [bbc.com] because they thought it was a Ukrainian plane defending its country?
Those people where more russian than Ukraine, and didn't want to be governed by the highly corrupted government in Kyiv.
And by corrupt, you mean the one Russia installed through Yanukovich and others, right? Because that's who was in charge when Russia invaded.
Let's not also forget Ukraine was known as one of the most corrupt nations of Europe.
Well yes, being a puppet state to Russia would tend to do that. Look at the abject corruption in Russia. Where do you think Yanukovich got that corruption from?
Now then, Sergei, you can keep repeating every single lie you just mentioned, but it won't change the truth. There was no 'separation', there was no issue with anyone in Donbas, there was no anything else other than the Muscovite Midget wanting to try and resurrect the former Soviet Union. Russia is the one who violated the Budapest Agreement which you conveniently never mention, Russia is the one who had its little green men invade Ukraine a decade ago, Russia is wholly to blame for this.
That it's been over two years and Russia still hasn't taken Kyiv in two weeks, that it's lost over 450,000 dead, wounded, and captured, that Russia routinely attacks civilians, that Russia has lost a third of its Black Sea fleet, including its flag ship, to a country which doesn't even have a navy to speak of, shows how truly pathetic that cesspool of corruption and incompetence truly is. When Ukraine wins and ejects the last Russian soldier from its soil, the embarrassing nature of Russia's folly will be complete. Russia is already a laughingstock of the world. Once it puts its tail between its legs and molders in misery at its pathetic defeat, it will be a glorious day.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you just uncritically swallow everything that the NYT says, don't you? Damn. You're pretty much their ideal consumer.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you just uncritically swallow everything that the NYT says, don't you? Damn. You're pretty much their ideal consumer.
Funny, I never mentioned the NYT. They must be doing something right if people keep bringing them up when facts are put out.
Your sig couldn't be any more perfect.
Re: Oh noes, how dare they defend themselves (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably right and conservative, are you? The kind of people that live by shameless lying and twisting of facts. You all should be hanged by your feet and drowned in mud.
Re: Oh noes, how dare they defend themselves (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"unprovoked Russian invasion" I guess you've forgotten why, officially, russia invaded the Ukraine and where the actual war is waging.
The why is obvious. Russia wasted no time invaded Ukraine DURING the revolution of dignity as soon as it was clear their puppet president Yanukovych had lost his power.
Yeah I know the western media/internet seems to only report as if Russia just invaded Ukraine over nothing and just wanting the whole of Ukraine as an expansion of Russia, but, again, OFFICIALLY, Russia invaded Ukraine because in the east 2 large populations (finally) separated themselves from Ukraine and declared their own 2 states, but the government in Kyiv said before, if that would happen they would send their army into that area. So when it happened, those two 'states' asked Russia to protect them, and Russia acknowledged the call.
Back on planet earth Russia destabilized and invaded eastern Ukraine:
"Despite the strict limits imposed on the Observer Missionâ(TM)s mandate and operating procedures, the Mission has still been able to document Russiaâ(TM)s destabilizing and destructive activity in eastern Ukraine. The Observer Mission has observed more than 30,00
Re: (Score:2)
You are either ignorant of malicious. Take your pick.
My wife is a Russian speaking Ukrainian from Donetsk. She, her family, friends and acquaintances all view themselves as Ukrainians, and when the Russian backed militias destroyed their homes they fled to Kiev, not Moscow. Every⦠single⦠one of them.
The âoeindependenceâ was claimed by armed militias, never the general populace, and these were Russian backed and armed.
Re: Oh noes, how dare they defend themselves (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
US still claims to stand by the One China policy that recognizes Taiwan as part of China just like Hong Kong
Everyone is merely paying China lip service to appease them. Nobody is confused as to the reality of this situation. Taiwan is a sovereign state that has always been a sovereign state in the living memory of its citizens. The fact there are dueling claims with Taiwan claiming the mainland and mainland claiming Taiwan changes nothing.
Pretty analogous would be China spending billions to support the secessionist movement in Puerto Rico (or even Texas) and sending naval fleets close to American shorelines for "freedom of navigation" exercises.
China already spends billions of dollars on foreign propaganda. All countries have the right to freedom of navigation including China. What no country has the right to is c
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese are blasting ships with water cannons and setting up bases on islands that are not part of their territory. The idea that they are defending themselves from aggression is ludicrous. They are the aggressor, and you are complaining about the inevitable push-back when a country adopts a hostile, bellicose, imperialist policy. North Korea, and China's inexplicable failure to contain that nonsense, doesn't help either.
The people who are defending themselves are those who have "ringed" the country wit
Re: (Score:2)
Hate China all you want, its a free country here you can do that, but what would be the American response if China (or Russia) ringed the US with military bases as the US has done to China (and Russia). US still claims to stand by the One China policy that recognizes Taiwan as part of China just like Hong Kong, yet keeps spending billions to support secessionist parties and prepping Australia to fight China just as it did with Ukraine on Russia.
Pretty analogous would be China spending billions to support the secessionist movement in Puerto Rico (or even Texas) and sending naval fleets close to American shorelines for "freedom of navigation" exercises. As a warning for the US not to invade Puerto Rico (why would you want to invade something already yours) and to protect Latin America from the US (which actually has a very long history of coups and invasions in the region).
My God, you're stupid. Absolutely nothing is as you depict it. You must be a Russian or Chinese troll.
First, Russia. Russia could have joined NATO. They didn't want to. You know why? Because the whole Russian psyche thing is about how they are better than everybody, including their friends in China, and they don't need anybody's help. Having actually spent a good deal of time in the past in Ukraine, I can tell you that most Ukrainians just want to live in peace and be part of the EU. Russ
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but what? Putin attempted to join Russia to NATO, but it turns out that with the USSR gone NATO needed an enemy to continue justifying its existence so Russia has been the lucky recipient of three decades of aggression.
And your ignorance of the pre-invasion situation in Ukraine is deplorable.
Re: (Score:2)
Calling Taiwan secessionist is blatant CCP propaganda.
You cannot secede from something that you have never been a part of, and at no point in history has the PRC been in control of Taiwan.
Re: (Score:2)
It has never been the PRCs to rule. Ever.
Any claim to the contrary is CCP propaganda and false.
The CCP started a civil war and win only most but not all of it. The only argument that Taiwan is theirs is that they deserve to have won the whole civil war simply because they won most of it.
The civil war split the country into two asymmetric halves, and the PRC is still attempting to win, and the ROC is still attempting to keep their freedom. They are not at this point attempting to win.
Re: (Score:2)
You making shit up about what I said isn't just nonsense it's you speewing CCP propaganda.
If you can't make your point without outright lying then had it not occurred to you that your point is not worth making.
I said that Taiwan has never been party of the PRC.
Fuckin' lying propagandists...
Re: (Score:2)
Actually following up
Imagine Texas secede and invaded the rest of America and mostly won but the leaders escaped from DC to, say Oregon. Your claim is that Texas would deserve to rule Oregon too simply because it already beat most of the country
"United States' dominance in space" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which we traded to China to make all of our stuff so the Rich could bleed us from the inside out. Via the government in conjunction with a select few rich folks who control the real cash flow. It's over. We lost because of the rich. Think about that.
666
Re: (Score:2)
That's a gross overstatement WRT "Russian theory of space travel".
As for the "German engineers", well, that's true. There were US engineers working on rockets, but they were ignored and never funded, so they never developed massive hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There were contributions from multiple countries. You can point to particular problems that the Russians solved, but also some the the folks in the US solved. And the Germans. (And, IIRC, the French.) If you go back far enough, most of the progress happened in China.
For that matter, I suspect that in the 1700's much of the progress happened in Britain. (Consider "in the rocket's red glare", and there was a lot of work on rockets between ships...often for carrying a line to allow a rescue.)
This is a popular myth (Score:4, Informative)
As with many such things, it's complicated.
Robert Goddard pioneered the liquid fueled rockets (as opposed to the solid fueled rockets everybody else had been playing with since the invention of gunpowder) in the United States. Goddard published some of his work and became somewhat known to people interested in the subject, but he had no big backing (certainly no government agency support) and so most people knew little to nothing about him and his work.
A young Werner Von Braun, in a Germany under extreme arms limitations post-WWII, found himself playing with small rockets in a country that wanted to re0build its military but was under those restrictions and then realized the restrictions said nothing about rockets - so government support and enthusiasm for rockets was a positive thing for him. Von Braun was aware of Goddard and almost certainly read Goddard's stuff, but it would have been more inspirational to him rather than a technical reference library, providing info on what could be done and approaches to take, but not specifics. The German government did have at least one spy in the US who reported to Berlin on Goddard's work, but it appears to have been rather amateurish, more like a guy living in a foreign land and justifying his expenses by reporting stuff easily obtained. At the end of WWII, Von Braun decided it would be better to surrender to the Americans than the Russians and therefore the US ended up with most of the brains of the German program, which lead to the myth that America only got to the moon because of the Germans. But when Von Braun was asked, by his new American benefactors, where he got his stuff, he essentially pointed at Goddard, which lead to the myth that Goddard was the guy who really put us on the moon, and was a claim Goddard embraced to the end of his life.
In truth, Goddard proved the liquid rocket was workable, but his work dead-ended because nobody in the US had the vision to back him and see where his work could lead, and when Von Braun pointed at Goddard he was not saying Goddard had showed him exactly how to do it, but rather that Goddard pointed the way and showed that it COULD be done and that, had the Americans paid attention to their own guy, they could have done it too and would not need Von Braun and his team. BOTH men were therefore needed (as was the impetus of WWII), yet they never worked together and did not know each other. Supporters of Goddard like to pretend he worked it all out and Von Braun merely copied him but with lots of funding. Supporters of Von Braun like to point out that he got few technical details from Goddard, never met Goddard, and that Goddard never got anywhere significant with his rockets. The truth is certainly more in the middle, with Goddard pointing the way, Von Braun mastering the details, and a nasty global war providing the fuel... and then a truly spectacular and essentially peaceful and inspirational goal of man-on-the-moon putting a happy face on all of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a quote. I'm guessing Russian.
Re: "United States' dominance in space" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NOT a QUOTE. You MORON.
Warmongering Bullshit (Score:2)
Taxpayers gotta love it when the senior sales rep from the for-profit MIC starts making “space terrorist” claims that only the for-profit MIC can confirm, which of course will be a (classified) matter of national security.
activities show that China is now treating space as a war-fighting domain.
Really? And what orbit around what planet again will China be using to replace the current one, after they shoot themselves in the face destroying their own?
China is communist. Not stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
> China is communist. Not stupid.
Lol
Long term, they are the same thing but I get what you meant. :-)
huh? (Score:2)
"Given that the USA has essentially eaten itself into resource starvation,..." - where do people get this garbage? The US is in no way resource starved. It's true that we have shortages of things like rare Earth minerals, but that's NOT because we've exhausted the supplies, it's because politicians have placed the vast resources "off limits" in response to pressure from environmentalist supporters. If there were ever a true emergency that squeezed the public enough to overcome the political considerations
Re: (Score:2)
China is NOT communist. They pretend to be, but they are actually a tyrannical oligarchy. (OTOH, no large government can ever be communist, as the theory doesn't scale beyond around Dunbar's number of people...and that requires a charismatic leader.)
Re: Warmongering Bullshit (Score:2)
Increase our pork budget (Score:2)
final frontier (Score:2)
Uh, the "final frontier" was intergalactic travel. China is doing that? Or is it now just the consumption of galactose near earth?
Meanwhile (Score:2)
Millions of highly trained and highly educated Americans are sitting at home arguing with an ATS firewall.
Exactly as designed.
If US stuff did not cost 10x China's (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heathens! Do not disparage the legacy of the Small Dong! It is integral to the culture of China and Korea (though in North Korea they refer to it as the flaccid chode). Surely the Small Dong will penetrate space, just as it has penetrated USA security through multiple back doors. Has anyone really looked at the Windows 11 code? Of course not. It's riddled with ports for our access. Climate change? Fuck that. With a single thought I can fart and turn this place into Venus. Rise, Small Dong! Show us your POWER!
And soon we shall recognize the true power of this alleged dong? I swear, it's getting like Star Wars meets Space Balls meets Austin Powers in this place. Look, China may have a small dong but the reality of it is that they have more people. More people means more draftable military. Granted, those conscripts might be on the level of what the Russian prisons are pumping out and don't know how to hold their AK-47s, but so it is. They're already the source of much of the world's industrial capacity, so the i
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not afraid of China, you're a fool. China is potentially the greatest power on the planet. OTOH, the key word there is "potentially". This report is a sign that they are achieving at least part of their potential.
China has the largest population, and has at least SOME tradition of respecting scholarship. The Mandarins were originally scholars more than aristocrats. And it's also got a large number of internal resources that have been excessively mined out.
That said, China also has a history o