China launches second trial space station
bbc.com
bbc.com
> If all this makes you worried about China's long-term cosmic ambitions, then you are not the only one.
I think it's dumb that China is not allowed to participate in the ISS.
"China has been barred from the ISS since 2011, when Congress passed a law prohibiting official American contact with the Chinese space program due to concerns about national security. “National security,” of course, is the lingua franca excuse for any country to do anything it jolly well wants to do even if it has nothing to do with, you know, the security of the nation. But never mind." - [1]
On the other hand, I agree with you.
To paraphrase Andy Weir, scientists can always work together. Things get messy when politics are involved.
I personally trust China with rocketry far far more than I trust North Korea, but "Do we trust this country with knowledge useful for killing large numbers of people?" is totally within the scope of a government to decide.
The US just happens to be very inefficient in space investments, because lots of politicians try to use it to get jobs into their states
I too saw that as a weasel phrase. Propaganda isn't limited to countries we claim don't have free speech. Little things like this are probably not due to government's direct control over media, but they're a result of the natural fears people tend to have been given due to their government's political stance and foreign policy.
The western world depends on China to be their manufacturer. Many of our startups and industry that deal with durable goods are dependent on their vast manufacturing power. Yet we use their government as a means to also hold them at an arms length.
Why not let our space agencies work together?
If I was a US military adviser I would absolutely be putting full pressure on avoiding any situation that gives the Chinese or the Russians more insight or access to the space program.
I think war and military stuff is stupid and antithesis to the advancement of the human race, but I can see how someone who's job it is to be concerned about that sort of thing is very concerned about that sort of thing.
As a non-American, I would much rather have the US in that role than any other country in the world. In diplomacy and international relations the United States has conducted itself with fairness and honour, and is generally regarded outside of her borders as an honest broker.
If you want to know what the world would look like without a strong, democratic, law-abiding nation as supreme military power, read up on recent news about the South China Sea and the 11-dash line. Look at the honesty and even-handedness with which America has approached border disputes with it's neighbours, and then look at what Japan, Vietnam, and the Phillipines are up against. In the world view of China's leaders, the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
That's an excellent propaganda piece. You deserve a medal for that.
> If you want to know what the world would look like without a strong, democratic, law-abiding nation as supreme military power, read up on recent news about the South China Sea and the 11-dash line.
You can say that because your country has not been invaded by US and the "international community", or the "Coalition of the Willing", to get rid of your government - by all means necessary. Assad of Syria, Saddam and Muammar Gaddafi will no doubt disagree with your characterization of the US as a "law-abiding nation". Ditto for many South American countries.
The following groups or countries may argue otherwise - Sandinista National Liberation Front - Cubans - Certain Arab countries - Mexico - Pacific Islanders - Certain North African nations - Certain Central African nations - The Cherokee Nation - Certain Far East nations
If you think the US has behaved better than other countries, that's reasonable. But that's not the same as behaving well. And a far cry from behaving well enough to be entrusted with "supreme military power".
The United States has also conducted at least 4 wars since the end of World War II; should America be condemned for not having smart bombs in the Korean war?
, used nuclear weapons
...to end World War II and save countless lives, US and Japanese, by avoiding an invasion of Japan. Just the fact that the US was able to end the horrible incendiary bombing of Japanese cities and force Japan's truculent leaders into immediate surrender argues that the use of nuclear weapons in World War II saved far more lives than it cost.
But historical revisionism wins out against lost memories of the worst war ever fought and only barely won.
, launched unjustified invasions of other countries, deposed democratically elected foreign leaders for opposing American interests
The United States is tremendously powerful, and yet generally acts with restraint. And would the world have been better off if more countries had allied themselves with the Soviet Union?
, and to this day spies on everyone we possibly can.
If American power and influence has created a world so stable and peaceful that there are Polly-Annas who believe that espionage isn't universal and endemic among all nations, then that is a very good thing in my opinion.
But that's not the same as behaving well. And a far cry from behaving well enough to be entrusted with "supreme military power".
Nature and international relations abhors a vacuum; no one 'entrusted' the United States to the role they now occupy. Would you be happier if China filled this vacuum?
You would rather see people like Trump gain the power over that, than a possible future federated Europe?
I would take Donald Trump or anyone currently involved in Federal US politics over Xi Xinping or Vladimir Putin. Is that what you're asking?
And a federated Europe is now a given. Brexit is an existential challenge for Europe; with federation's most vocal opponent now out and with the fundamental moral hazard of endless Greek bail-outs still an issue, the EU will federate or eventually dissolve.
Any country in the world would love to be in the position of security that the US occupies. Any one.
Why shouldn't we do everything we can to hold on to that treasure we have?
The only power that really matters is economic power and, honestly, military strength doesn't really help with that past the point you are roughly equal to everyone else.
Why did Western leadership adopt the policy of technology transfer to Peoples Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party?
If there is a "national security concern" then we can thank the likes of CFR membership and their fellow travelers [1], and continual transfer of American technology to PRC/CCP by successive US administrations and our "allies".
[1]: http://www.cfr.org/china/history-declassified-nixon-china/p7...
http://www.psychedinsanfrancisco.com/wp-content/uploads/2014...
[edit/grammar]
Umm, no. Modern military power is all about the ability to project that power, and that means aircraft carriers. The USA has 11. China has only 1 (and it's an old, shitty one).
https://warisboring.com/the-u-s-navy-s-big-mistake-building-...
> The influential U.S. Adm. Hyman Rickover shared this view. In a 1982 congressional hearing, legislators asked him how long American carriers would survive in an actual war. Rickover’s response? “Forty-eight hours,” he said.
That's a terrifying assessment, and tells us that if there was a war, we don't really know what anyone would be fighting it with. Perhaps the only thing we can feel good about is that if the US has been wasting its military budget on aircraft carriers, China appears to be pretty eager to emulate this mistake.
citation?
From what i've read/heard the Chinese military may be second or third in might, but the drop is so steep so as to not compare to first place holder.
Chomsky sure as hell paints that picture, at least.
China is clearly number 1 and very alive threat to USA and americans would be wise to be skeptical about China at all steps.
What gives? Is USA gearing up the propaganda engine for another cold war?
China's encroachment on international shipping lanes in the S. Pacific is certainly a visible symptom, but the debt to GDP trend (250% and growing [-]) is probably more significant. There's tension brewing in currency markets, trade, FDI policy, etc.
- https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/16/chinas-debt...
As far as I'm aware we've got China, Russia, ISIS/Muslims, and "Immigrants"/Mexicans so far. Plus internal tension over things like BLM and the election itself.
> What gives? Is USA gearing up the propaganda engine for another cold war?
Market manipulation, hacking US networks, and military posturing towards our allies. (e.g. Japan)
Peace, please! National conflicts hurt the common people the most, especially so in such a globalized world.
Neither of which is in any way relevant to the civilian space program.
Loral was accused of transferring technology to China in 1996. The incident arose as a result of an investigation into the launch failure of Intelsat 708, a Space Systems/Loral–built satellite. In a 2002 agreement with the State Department and Department of Justice the company agreed to pay $20 million in fines to settle the matter and to improve its compliance procedures. In the agreement Loral officials neither admitted nor denied the government's charges, but Loral executives acknowledged "the nature and seriousness of the offenses alleged by the department in the draft charging letter, including the risk of harm to the security and foreign policy interests of the United States", and stated that they wished to make amends through the payment of restitution. Schwartz subsequently released a statement accepting "full responsibility for the matter" and portrayed the incident as an error by a single Loral employee.
Far from being a tour-de-force of Chinese espionage, this rocket technology leak apparently happened because a Loral employee accidentally sent a single internal Loral post-mortem document by fax to their Chinese partners. Its almost impossible to keep secrets when there's close business cooperation like this; accidents happen.
In 2016? If Snowden and Manning can walk off with what they did, I can't imagine more subtle agents aren't siphoning off much, much more.
And what part of "you can send astronauts and modules to be part of the ISS" would expose American missile guidance systems to the Chinese?
> Most interestingly perhaps for a layperson, the space station will carry an atomic clock ...
> This is expected to make future mobile navigation more accurate, Xinhua cited scientists has saying.
Are they laying the (political) groundwork for reducing the inaccuracy they put into civilian GPS, much as the US did in the 90s (96?).
Classic psyops. A non-manipulative variant would follow up with "So and so nation/organizations have expressed their worry that ..".
So "you are not alone" but do you know the 'company' you keep?
Of course BBC "News" is an old hand in the propaganda business.
I think American decision to not giving China access to ISS is political and knee jerk but might be a very pragmatic one too.
> Yang Liwei became the first Chinese person to go to space
Should probably be the first Chinese national to go into space. The first ethnically Chinese person in space was Chinese-born Taylor Wang.
Interestingly, in a pub-quiz question kind of way, the first Chinese-born woman in space was... Shannon Lucid.
Lucid is CHINA-born...
not Chinese-born.
She's not ethnically Chinese.
What is it you think "Chinese-born" means?
> She's not ethnically Chinese.
Yes, that's why I said Chinese-born and not Chinese.
Uh, as a non-American, not more than America's. Why should it?
On the one hand, China would have the resources to make a far more ambitious showing in space, if they really wanted to. They could easily outpace the early space-age Soviet launch rate etc; this would make a vivid statement about their prowess as a nation, but it wouldn't really do much more than that (until they get to the point of, I don't know, mining asteroids or something).
On the other hand, they could equally take the view that human spaceflight is totally frivolous and they should keep their investments firmly rooted on Earth. This would be hugely short-sighted -- abdicating the rest of the universe to whomever has more vision than them. In fact, China did this already, when they reined in Zheng He, burned the Treasure Fleet, and focused all investment inward. The result was centuries of humiliation, which China is not particularly keen to repeat.
So the path that they're taking seems to be keeping one foot prudently planted in space, without going nuts. When it's strategically important to make a major push in space, they'll have the technology and the experience to do that. Until then, they've mostly got other fish to fry. It seems to be a pretty reasonable approach.
The US went from its first suborbital spaceflight to landing two people on the moon in just over eight years. But that furious pace didn't really work out very well in the long term. Maybe they mean it but are just taking their sweet time.
In addition to that however, sending a human crew to Mars will result in more digging, surveying, water prospecting and life hunting being done within the first month of exploration than all of the rover missions combined.
The added benefit of having humans in space, especially if their reason for being in there is because that particular bit of space is in the way of earth and a planet, is securing the legacy of the human race by putting our eggs in more than one basket.
To that end, I'll flip your assertion back on you: The only reason to send a robot to space is to prove that you can, especially if we don't follow it up with human missions.
Remember, this isn't just wishful thinking. We can do a side-by-side comparison:
The Russian Lunokhod Moon rovers were engineering marvels, vastly outperforming most of NASA's Mars rovers… and they're barely worth a footnote in our exploration history of the Moon, because Apollo astronauts collected more data during lunch breaks than the Lunokhods in a good week.
Whilst it might be valid that you could launch a more-effective-in-aggregate fleet of rovers for the cost of a manned mission, I'm still a huge proponent of getting people out there to have a look around.
And the US hasn't done a manned flight since 2011, so China a doing great comparatively!
This is possible now?