The Economist in 2032:
China diverts doomsday asteroid… but at what cost?
China diverts doomsday asteroid… to maintain its big panda paw’s grip on the world’s rare earth mineral supplies. Don’t look up!
China’s aerospace sector is advancing, and it’s not clear the recruitment has been specifically prompted by the discovery of the asteroid. SASTIND did not respond to requests for comment.
Absolute clickbait article
EDF! EDF!
Uh… Don’t chant that in the UK
21st Century Childhood’s End? One may hope
But where are they going to find drillers when their entire economy is electric based?
They’re taking wind turbines and solar panels with them.
Didn’t dont look up say that’s a real place?
it feels unfair, think of the lucky city that could get away from this shit.
Nop. It is to counter current US efforts to establish dominance in military space force
I mean, even if that is the case, so what?
Are other countries not allowed to have militaries anymore?
Space should not be militarized, in my opinion, but if the US is going to do it, then we don’t get to finger wag at other countries for doing the same thing.
I am not saying they shouldn’t. I am not finger wagging anybody
Username checks out
Hahaha, what does that even mean? I am just guessing that that’s their actual intention. I don’t know how that relates to my username
Can I join anyway?
The world must be counter anything that North Musksthan Empire is trying to do!
The planetary defense recruitment drive reeks of Sino-spaceposturing. State media’s “collision probability window” rhetoric smells like fearmongering to justify militarizing orbital infrastructure under the guise of asteroid protection. Typical authoritarian playbook – manufacture existential threats to centralize power.
Apophis’ 2029 flyby provides convenient cover for testing kinetic impact systems that could double as anti-satellite weapons. Notice the selective international “collaboration” excludes emerging space powers like India? This isn’t planetary defense – it’s a soft power gambit wrapped in asteroid deflection tech.
The real threat isn’t space rocks. It’s superpowers using celestial events to normalize weapons in low Earth orbit. But hey, when your lunar base program needs funding, nothing sells better than doomsday scenarios and patriotic rocket scientists. Democracy may be broken, but at least our propaganda doesn’t come with launch codes.
Edit: banana peel shrimp moss
Removed by mod
Imagine my surprise when my lukewarm take on China’s checks notes flawless human rights record got nuked faster than a Tibetan monastery in the cultural revolution archives.
I’m pretty sure virtually all of the Tibetan people are happy to no longer be suffering under agrarian theocratic feudalism. Happy to no longer be illiterate serfs suffering depredation. I’m not at all sad that CIA asset Dalai “suck my tongue” Lama is unhappy.
The irony of Western tankies cosplaying as bastions of free speech while wielding the banhammer like a digital Tiananmen Square reenactment isn’t lost on me.
There’s no irony in Westerners like you believing that the Tiananmen Square riots are censored in China, because that’s what Western propaganda works to have you believe.
Post anything that doesn’t align with the Party-approved narrative and you’ll find yourself exiled to the cyber-gulag of defederation.
What instances have we defederated from?
How very critical support of them.
That don’t see how that term applies here, but it makes you sound very smart to drop it in there, so you must be right 👍
Ah, the classic tanky playbook: rewrite history, deflect criticism, and sprinkle in some smug condescension. Let’s dismantle this nonsense.
First, your glorification of China’s “liberation” of Tibet is as hollow as your grasp of nuance. Replacing one form of oppression with another isn’t progress—it’s just a different boot on the neck. Illiterate serfs? Sure. But now they’re surveilled subjects in a police state, stripped of their culture and autonomy. Some upgrade.
Second, the Tiananmen Square denialism is peak propaganda regurgitation. You’re not edgy for parroting state narratives; you’re just embarrassing. The fact that you think censorship is a Western fabrication while ignoring China’s Great Firewall is laughable.
And defederation? Don’t play coy. Lemmy.ml’s selective “critical support” is just authoritarianism with extra steps.
And honestly, watching you tankies work overtime to defend this is adorable. My post has you running in circles, grasping for links and buzzwords like your credibility depends on it. Keep scrambling—it’s the most effort I’ve seen from your side in ages.
But now they’re surveilled subjects in a police state, stripped of their culture and autonomy. Some upgrade.
- I doubt they’re any more surveilled than I am in the US
- The US is more of a police state than China is
- Tibetans were not stripped of their culture, and they certainly have more autonomy than they had under a feudal theocracy.
.
Second, the Tiananmen Square denialism is peak propaganda regurgitation.
Literally no one is denying it, so what exactly is being regurgitated?
And defederation? Don’t play coy. Lemmy.ml’s selective “critical support” is just authoritarianism with extra steps.
What am I playing coy about? What is the “critical support” you’re talking about, and how is it “selective,” and how is that selectivity “authoritarian”?
Like I said, you just vibe and jazz, and gish gallop. And it’s getting increasingly incoherent.
And honestly, watching you tankies work overtime to defend this is adorable. My post has you running in circles, grasping for links and buzzwords like your credibility depends on it. Keep scrambling—it’s the most effort I’ve seen from your side in ages.
🤣
And defederation? Don’t play coy. Lemmy.ml’s selective “critical support” is just authoritarianism with extra steps.
Y’all are past not reading any articles and straight onto not reading the ridiculous word salads you post lmao
My post has you running in circles, grasping for links and buzzwords
IMAX level projection. I’d bet this was cringebait if I didn’t know there were actually people this melodramatic.
Oh, brilliant. Accidentally tripped into the lemmy.ml thought-police zone and dared to breathe oxygen that wasn’t pre-approved by the Ministry of Online Correctness. Imagine my surprise when my lukewarm take on China’s checks notes flawless human rights record got nuked faster than a Tibetan monastery in the cultural revolution archives. The irony of Western tankies cosplaying as bastions of free speech while wielding the banhammer like a digital Tiananmen Square reenactment isn’t lost on me. But hey, why engage with dissent when you can just yeet it into the memory hole? Turns out, federated platforms are just a game of ideological whack-a-mole. Post anything that doesn’t align with the Party-approved narrative and you’ll find yourself exiled to the cyber-gulag of defederation. How very critical support of them
It truly is really odd to see a forum (even one banned in China) repeating the same anti-worker “truthspeak” that state propaganda uses. Even in this article China frames asteroid defense as a patriotic mission, but the job ads demand loyalty to the Party over expertise, and their “international cooperation” leaves out key players. Marx taught us (though some seem to have strayed far) that history is shaped by class struggle, yet here we see ruling powers using fear to push orbital militarization disguised as “defense.” Lenin warned that state narratives often hide their true purpose of controlling workers and dividing solidarity. Another distraction from the real enemy: those exploiting celestial events to strengthen ruling-class power.
Marx taught us
The “Marx taught us” turtle has arrived. Your rhetoric is as vibes-based and formulaic as meowmeowbeanz’s.
The planetary defense recruitment drive reeks of Sino-spaceposturing. State media’s “collision probability window” rhetoric smells like fearmongering to justify militarizing orbital infrastructure under the guise of asteroid protection.
This sounds like sinophobia. China isn’t “posturing,” and the threat is real (if comparatively small) or else NASA’s DART mission wouldn’t have happened.
State media’s “collision probability window” rhetoric smells like fearmongering to justify militarizing orbital infrastructure under the guise of asteroid protection.
You’re making a lot of assumptions about what their collision deflection method might be, when they don’t even know yet.
Typical authoritarian playbook – manufacture existential threats to centralize power.
🙄 Please send me a link to the “authoritarian playbook.” The Chinese state doesn’t need to centralize its power, because it’s not suffering from a lack of authority. Democratic centralism is working well, and people are happy with it and with their government.
Your defense of militarized planetary defense is riddled with contradictions and selective omissions. The “collision probability window” is a convenient pretext to justify weaponizing space under the guise of global security. If asteroid threats were truly the focus, why hasn’t there been a push for transparent, multilateral collaboration? The selective participation of allies exposes this as a geopolitical chess move to dominate orbital space.
China’s actions aren’t posturing but pragmatic, given the West’s monopoly on celestial dominance. The DART mission isn’t a planetary shield; it’s a veiled weapons test. Kinetic impact systems double as anti-satellite tools—convenient for future conflicts.
Your dismissal of authoritarianism in Western policies is laughable. The same nations championing “freedom” in space are centralizing power through opaque treaties and unilateral actions. Stop parroting propaganda and start questioning who benefits from this militarized high ground
given the West’s monopoly on celestial dominance.
🤣
Ah, the classic move—pointing to isolated achievements as a rebuttal to systemic critique. Yes, China has made strides in space exploration, but listing a few programs doesn’t erase the broader reality of Western dominance in orbital governance and military presence.
The issue isn’t about who can build a space station or return moon samples; it’s about who dictates the rules, monopolizes treaties, and weaponizes “defense” initiatives under the pretense of global security. The West’s grip on these levers of power remains unchallenged, despite China’s advancements.
Try addressing the actual argument next time: the selective militarization of space and its implications for global equity. Or is that too inconvenient for your narrative?
Let’s say you’re right. Is China supposed to just sit back and let the US “space force” militarize space unopposed?
Your take assumes a binary choice: either militarize space or surrender it. That’s the same tired logic that justifies every arms race. Why not advocate for international treaties that prevent anyone from turning orbit into a battlefield? Or is that too inconvenient for those who profit from perpetual conflict?
China isn’t reacting to some noble threat; it’s playing the same imperialist game, just under a different banner. Both sides are carving up space for dominance, not defense. Pretending one is more justified than the other only fuels this dystopian spiral.
Instead of cheerleading for one empire over another, maybe question why humanity’s greatest frontier is being turned into yet another arena for power struggles. The stars deserve better than this petty tribalism.
Why not advocate for international treaties that prevent anyone from turning orbit into a battlefield?
We had that, it was signed in 1967, and then the US abandoned those commitments.
What is China supposed to do when a belligerent and violent empire starts violating its international agreements?
The 1967 treaty was a symbolic gesture at best, toothless in a world where empires operate above their own laws. Blaming one empire’s violations while excusing another’s opportunism is just ideological cosplay. China isn’t “forced” to militarize space—it’s choosing to, because power, not principle, drives these decisions.
If you think space should be a battleground for dueling empires, just say so. But don’t dress it up as some righteous response to injustice. The entire framework of international agreements collapses when every player uses violations as a pretext for their own ambitions.
The stars don’t belong to nations or corporations. They’re the last place we should let imperialist squabbles metastasize.
I’m pointing out that this is a material response to material conditions. Ideology is irrelevant. This is just realpolitik. Why should China leave itself defenses against the empire?
You’re the one swinging ideology around, but your peacenik ideology won’t protect China from inevitable US aggression.
China isn’t reacting to some noble threat; it’s playing the same imperialist game, just under a different banner.
China is not an empire. In the modern era, the era of capitalism, imperialism is what capitalist states do once they reach the stage of monopoly capitalism. At that point they’ve run low of domestic exploitation options and so they reach out abroad for exploitation. After around WWII, colonialism mostly evolved into neocolonialism, where, instead of direct control of lands, they are given nominal independence, but are controlled indirectly through the export of capital, through comprador heads of state, and through the threat of violence. That’s what the imperial core mostly does these days.
- Super-Imperialism
- Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
- The Shock Doctrine
- How to Hide an Empire
- The Jakarta Method
.
That is not what China is doing. The claim that China is doing “debt trap diplomacy” is slanderous projection. The US has over 750 overseas bases, while China has one anti-piracy port in Djibouti.Removed by mod
China’s Belt and Road Initiative is neo-colonialism 101: bait nations with loans, then tighten the noose when they can’t pay up. That’s not defense; that’s exploitation.
I see, so not only do you never provide evidence for your claims, you also never read evidence provided to you.
You’ve got quite the interesting comment history. Is Lemmy your full time job?
I see this neolib plant all over lemmy. They do seem to get around.
I can’t decide if I should block them so I don’t have to read their nonsense, or not so I can down vote their neolib propaganda.
I’m in the same boat. A lot of what they say has merit but every so often they say something uber capitalist and I’m like ok Daniel Ortega.
Interesting how you interpret engagement as a full-time job. Is it that hard to believe someone might just enjoy dismantling propaganda in their spare time? Or does the idea of critical thinking outside a paycheck confuse you?
Maybe instead of questioning my “history,” you could try building one of your own—preferably one that doesn’t involve parroting banalities.
Dismantling propaganda by endlessly propagandizing A and the opposite of A as China bad? Lmao
Propagandizing? Cute buzzword. If pointing out the obvious contradictions in your worldview feels like propaganda to you, maybe the issue isn’t me—it’s your inability to defend your own stance without collapsing into clichés.
China bad? That’s the depth of your critique? Lmao indeed.
China bad? That’s the depth of your critique? Lmao indeed.
???
That’s the depth of YOUR critique
Ain’t my fault y’all use the vibes based analysis of “how can this be interpreted as a totalitarian power grab?” for everything. If your talking points are canned and labeled with the State Dept seal don’t expect the response to be unique every time, because your view sure isn’t.
You ain’t destroying shit, I try to adjust my views according to hard evidence and you libs wouldn’t know what that is if a “trustrworthy anonymous source” pointed you to it.
But have you considered china bad? Yellow peril? Don’t you know America is exceptional?
Real talk, how much gas did you huff before writing that comment?
