125
China opens recruitment for ‘planetary defence force’ amid fears of asteroid hitting Earth
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2025
125 points (97.7% liked)
World News
33440 readers
462 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
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.
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.
What instances have we defederated from?
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.
.
Literally no one is denying it, so what exactly is being regurgitated?
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.
🤣
Y'all are past not reading any articles and straight onto not reading the ridiculous word salads you post lmao
IMAX level projection. I'd bet this was cringebait if I didn't know there were actually people this melodramatic.
The “Marx taught us” turtle has arrived. Your rhetoric is as vibes-based and formulaic as meowmeowbeanz’s.
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.
???
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?
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.
You’re making a lot of assumptions about what their collision deflection method might be, when they don’t even know yet.
🙄 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
🤣
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.
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.
The inevitability of US aggression doesn’t justify replicating its imperial playbook. If China’s actions are purely reactive, why do they mirror the same expansionist strategies? Militarizing space isn’t defense—it’s escalation, and dressing it up as “material conditions” is just a euphemism for empire-building.
Realpolitik isn’t a shield from critique; it’s an admission that power trumps principle. If you’re fine with that, own it. But don’t pretend it’s some noble resistance. The moment you excuse one empire’s overreach because of another’s, you’re endorsing the cycle of domination.
Peace doesn’t come from picking sides in an arms race. It comes from rejecting the premise that empires deserve the stars at all.
What do you want China to do? I'm sure you aren't demanding they just let the US militarize space unopposed, so surely you have something else in mind.
Are we seriously back to this? I already laid out the alternative: reject the arms race altogether. You’re acting like I didn’t just dismantle the entire premise of “material conditions” as an excuse for empire-building. Militarizing space isn’t defense; it’s escalation. That was the point from the start.
But sure, let's spell it out once again. If China genuinely wanted to counter U.S. imperialism without mimicking it, it could focus on international cooperation instead of unilateral dominance. Build alliances for peaceful space exploration, fund global scientific initiatives, and push for treaties banning weaponization of space. The goal shouldn’t be to outgun the U.S. but to make militarization itself politically untenable.
If you’re so invested in this circular argument, at least admit it’s not about solutions—it’s about justifying domination. You want to frame this as “realpolitik,” but all you’re doing is cheerleading for one empire over another. That’s not strategy; it’s surrender to the same tired logic that keeps humanity locked in cycles of conquest.
So, what should China do? Stop playing the empire game entirely. Or are you too committed to this narrative to even consider that?
PS: I hate to be the Karen here, but can I speak to your manager? Because whoever sent you clearly didn’t prep you for this conversation
This is like the nuclear arms race. If you don't have nukes, the US might decide to regime change you at any moment.
Your alternative is "let the US dominate them" as if that's actually a real option.
Doing it in response to another military power also militarizing space is obviously defensive. Again, is China supposed to just roll over for the US?
They... are? That's Belt and Road and the China Development Bank and BRICS.
Why are you assuming China seeks dominance anyway? It's not like they kept making nukes until they had more than the US. This is likely the same - do just enough so the US leaves them alone and let's them continue their path of peaceful development.
That doesn't look like dominance to me.
From the article:
btw, there's a reason why China won't cooperate with the US on space missions. It's because the US banned cooperation with China.
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.
.
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.
I see, so not only do you never provide evidence for your claims, you also never read evidence provided to you.
You have provided no evidence to support your arguments, you’re just saying them, as usual.
No one is saying that any of it is altruism. But just because it’s not altuism doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s exploitation. There is a third option.
And I’m not passing whatever that is through a translator.
Ah, the “third option” cop-out—where exploitation gets rebranded as benevolence. You’re right, it’s not altruism; it’s calculated self-interest dressed up in flowery rhetoric. Call it what you want, but when nations lose sovereignty over ports, railways, and resources, it’s not a partnership—it’s a leash.
And if you don’t recognize the last paragraph, just show it to your handler. They’ll know what it means.
Again, no evidence. Just assertions that I guess you’re accustomed to people simply accepting as received wisdom.
Show this to your handler in Langley: Pound sand.
Real talk, how much gas did you huff before writing that comment?