NEWS Is the pivot to China a bunch of bullshit?

[Hair Warrior]

It prevents NASA, or any company that works with NASA, from cooperating with China in any space venture.

I know the MO for China is to steal tech, and we'd have to keep a close eye on them.

We saw a lot of success in relationship building with the Russians in space with Apollo-Soyuz, Skylab, and the ISS. I think we should open a similar avenue of cooperation between NASA and the CNSA. We can set conditions for their participation in said venture- like obeying UNCLOS- or they get kicked out. They have some pretty interesting capabilities and keeping our friends close but our enemies closer, especially when it comes to the (re)emerging potential conflict region of space, is going to be important.

I looked up the amendment. It doesn’t prevent space cooperation with China - you just need FBI and Congress to approve it first. Yes, I’m aware that in all practical purposes, getting Congress to do anything is an uphill battle, but if the need is compelling then it’s possible. Both chambers have unanimous consent as parliamentary tools.

 

[Swanee]

I looked up the amendment. It doesn’t prevent space cooperation with China - you just need FBI and Congress to approve it first. Yes, I’m aware that in all practical purposes, getting Congress to do anything is an uphill battle, but if the need is compelling then it’s possible. Both chambers have unanimous consent as parliamentary tools.

It's too restrictive and requires by line specific approval to even the simplest of tasks, like share academic papers for peer review, or attend conferences.

The consequences now include China not sharing their latest moon rock samples with us- even though we did get approval to use some comms satellites to help them.

I'm pretty firm in the belief that the amendment does more hurt then good.

 

[Hair Warrior]

It's too restrictive and requires by line specific approval to even the simplest of tasks, like share academic papers for peer review, or attend conferences.

The consequences now include China not sharing their latest moon rock samples with us- even though we did get approval to use some comms satellites to help them.

I'm pretty firm in the belief that the amendment does more hurt then good.

Congress seems to have a good reason for adopting the amendment in the first place and renewing it each year.

 

[Brett327]

A defense-industrial complex yearning for a USSR surrogate in the 20-30 years post USSR.

I dunno. How do you think defense contractors fared during the 20 years of GWOT? Pretty nicely, I’d say.

 

[MIDNJAC]

I dunno. How do you think defense contractors fared during the 20 years of GWOT? Pretty nicely, I’d say.

Oh of course. But I don't know that it was the golden goose that the USSR/Cold War had been.

 

[Brett327]

Oh of course. But I don't know that it was the golden goose that the USSR/Cold War had been.

Feels like a pretty acceptable proxy compared to peace dividend years post 1989.

 

[MIDNJAC]

Feels like a pretty acceptable proxy compared to peace dividend years post 1989.

That is kind of what I was getting it though. GWOT was a surrogate for a much longer lasting fix that would be a true multi-generational arms race. Again, I don't think that the current alarm over the PRC is wrong, but did we just ignore it for far too long, or did we create that response in them, ourselves?

 

[Brett327]

That is kind of what I was getting it though. GWOT was a surrogate for a much longer lasting fix that would be a true multi-generational arms race. Again, I don't think that the current alarm over the PRC is wrong, but did we just ignore it for far too long, or did we create that response in them, ourselves?

The genesis of the pivot during the Obama admin is fairly well understood. I'm not sure the MIC has as much influence has as some may think. It's not like China's capabilities have been static. They're the pacing threat, which wasn't the case 25 years ago.

 

[Spekkio]

did we just ignore it for far too long, or did we create that response in them, ourselves?

Xi Jinping came to power in 2012, and he has a drastically different policy toward economics and China's relationships with the west than his predecessor. Then he changed the rules to make himself President for life and has consolidated power within the CCP to remove any potential opponents.

The US has very stable politics. A change in leadership rarely results in a drastic policy shift like this.

To that end, I get the impression that most experts believe that US-sino diplomatic relationship is irreparable while Xi holds power, and his successor is unlikely to be more friendly to the west.

 

[Random8145]

I've read three things that it is believed helped trigger China's military buildup were the Gulf War, the 1996 embarrassment when the U.S. sent in aircraft carriers over China's trying to intimidate Taiwan, and then the Iraq War and toppling of Saddam's regime.

 

[MIDNJAC]

I've read three things that it is believed helped trigger China's military buildup were the Gulf War, the 1996 embarrassment when the U.S. sent in aircraft carriers over China's trying to intimidate Taiwan, and then the Iraq War and toppling of Saddam's regime.

People argue the same things motivated Putin. Desert Storm, Allied Force (compared to his embarrassment of aviation assets in Georgia in the next decade), and ultimately successful regime change in Iraq which probably really hammered the nail into his tiny autocratic brain.

 

[JTS11]

(compared to his embarrassment of aviation assets in Georgia in the next decade)

Go Dawgs! They almost got there against Bama. 😁

 

[Swanee]

Xi Jinping came to power in 2012, and he has a drastically different policy toward economics and China's relationships with the west than his predecessor. Then he changed the rules to make himself President for life and has consolidated power within the CCP to remove any potential opponents.

The US has very stable politics. A change in leadership rarely results in a drastic policy shift like this.

To that end, I get the impression that most experts believe that US-sino diplomatic relationship is irreparable while Xi holds power, and his successor is unlikely to be more friendly to the west.

Stable-ish. Trump had really thrown our ASEAN allies for a loop. NATO isn't far behind them if the "screw Ukraine" movement takes hold. Principled realism isn't legitimate, it's a buzzword to mask isolationism. We're not an isolationist country, and we never have been. We've been a liberalist foreign policy country since the Tripolitan Wars and the original six frigates of the US Navy and their ability to project power. Our brief periods of isolationism found ourselves caught with our pants down on the world stage.

 

[MIDNJAC]

Go Dawgs! They almost got there against Bama. 😁

damn it. Murica sir

 

[MIDNJAC]

Stable-ish. Trump had really thrown our ASEAN allies for a loop. NATO isn't far behind them if the "screw Ukraine" movement takes hold. Principled realism isn't legitimate, it's a buzzword to mask isolationism. We're not an isolationist country, and we never have been. We've been a liberalist foreign policy country since the Tripolitan Wars and the original six frigates of the US Navy and their ability to project power. Our brief periods of isolationism found ourselves caught with our pants down on the world stage.

Just spent the last few nights reading an awesome book written by a B-17G radio operator, of his time during the war (and in training). 8h AF, lots of really mundane details, that matter only to those of us who ever strapped on a grey airplane (or in their time, green). Really good read, but he keeps talking about how his old man was an "isolationist" even after Pearl Harbor. Sounds a lot like the idiots from the tea party or MAGA. Dim wits who run their mouths when adults are talking.