201–210 of 292 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can see very closely from a distance at satellites. If you're getting close it's probably to tamper or to signal the capability to do so.
They get close to take detailed pictures to understand capabilities.
Forget radio waves and lasers, what would happen if someone aimed a particle accelerator at a satellite. Just a tight beam of relativistic protons fired from the earth's surface into the sky?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Whose culture is right? What is right in the eyes of the law? Perhaps I’m the only one who feels this way based on the number of pro-China posts, but a Chinese hegemony would likely be a world of censorship and social credit. Compared to a flawed US democracy I’ll take the US democracy every time.
There will never be a Chinese hegemony. The actual decision is between US hegemony and a duopolar or multipolar world. The latter are pretty obviously preferable if you're not American or not very closely allied.
And as you say, it's good to be at the top.
It would be irrational of China's leadership to seek anything else.
Forget radio waves and lasers, what would happen if someone aimed a particle accelerator at a satellite. Just a tight beam of relativistic protons fired from the earth's surface into the sky?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If retaliation for an attack makes the lives of 1 billion Chinese worse, then that's on them for attacking, not on us for responding. A space force general is not "one guy saying"
I don't think temporarily stopping us from spying on them justifies potentially killing people, particularly as I'd bet we do the same thing. And no matter how important a guy is they still need to provide evidence for their claims.
Interestingly enough, Trump took the same position when the Iranians shot down an expensive spy drone, and Trump called off the punitive strike against Iran that would have killed ~150 people. Yet people maintained that he was an unstable warmonger. shrug
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/21/734683701/trump-reportedly-or...
On Aug 2020, a US spy satellite moved close to a Chinese satellite, attempting to shadow it closely. It was caught by the Chinese and they maneuvered it to get away from the US satellite. This seems to constitute ill or malign intent. Why would you go and bother the property of another person? What is the intent behind this move? Trust goes both ways, and it takes effort from both parties to build trust. This kind of…
Everything has two sides. Thanks to arms race, militarization; Human race advanced and will advance forward. Internet, computers, and so many other things we take for granted today are developed thanks to military ventures. Also, military technology is probably one of the coolest, tech-savvy things we will ever have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There will never be a Chinese hegemony. The actual decision is between US hegemony and a duopolar or multipolar world. The latter are pretty obviously preferable if you're not American or not very closely allied.
The scale of China's economy and population is so massive that they're clearly capable of hegemony. And as you say, it's good to be at the top. It would be irrational of China's leadership to seek anything else.
To be the hegemon, you need to have a clear advantage over everyone else. China will never have that over the US+Europe. And by the time the US and Europe seriously decline, China will start declining too.
China's leadership would be foolish to seek hegemony. It's just not feasible short of the US going into a civil war, and if you come at the king, you best not miss. Becoming a second king yourself instead of trying to take his place is much less risky and has most of the same rewards.
Another way to look at it is that China will never have the same advantage over the US as the US gained over the UK before taking the lead. The US passed the British in economy and population much before it became the hegemon. You need more than an advantage in prosperity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean those are the problems that are being worked on, I presume. Seems a little tautological to say we currently have no space defense/offense capabilities so it's senseless to invest in space defense/offense.
I see your point, but at the same time, whether it is a branch of the Air Force or its own branch, it's the same situation. I'm willing to stipulate that I'm basing my opinion at the farcical manner in which it was created, and how can we take anything seriously like that especially after their uniform design so clearly ripped off of scifi. Edit: sorry, I meant logo/emblem in place of uniform.
We have all sorts of neat things because people with real jobs "ripped off sci-fi". Plus I'm glad to see a military uniform that breaks with such conservative conventions, and if you are gonna steal style cues from sci-fi, TMP-era Star Trek & nBSG are some of the best to copy.
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/tech-leaders-share-how-...
We're still waiting on our Starship Troopers power armor though:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/vikrammittal/2020/08/17/militar...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything has two sides. Thanks to arms race, militarization; Human race advanced and will advance forward. Internet, computers, and so many other things we take for granted today are developed thanks to military ventures. Also, military technology is probably one of the coolest, tech-savvy things we will ever have.
There's absolutely nothing cool about the military. https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
Now I have a toddler, and I think it's appalling that kids books include this machinery amongst the same pages as firetrucks, ambulances, passenger jets, and cruise ships.
It's completely fucked up how we normalize weapons of war and indoctrinate our children into thinking they're cool.
Look, I'm not naïve. There are parts of the world in active military conflict. If you are in Ukraine or South Korea, you have a very legitimate reason to be preparing to take up arms in a military conflict. But just because it might be "necessary", doesn't mean it's "cool".
War means death. Unnecessary human death. Military technology are tools for maximizing unnecessary human death. As a secular humanist who believes we all have only one finite life to live, every unnecessary death is an unforgivable tragedy.