zlacker

[return to "China Moon Mission: Aiming for 2030 lunar landing"]
1. hdivid+ef[view] [source] 2026-02-03 20:42:54
>>rbanff+(OP)
This space race is different for one core reason: China is more stable than the Soviet Union was in the 1960s.

If we beat the Chinese somehow, I don't think they'll just dismantle their space program and focus on Earth. They'll keep going, and they have the economic base to expand their program.

I think we're seeing the beginning of a new kind of space race. It's likely to be much longer term and grander in scale over time, as we compete for the best spots on the Moon and the first human landing on Mars in the decades to come.

◧◩
2. JumpCr+Jf[view] [source] 2026-02-03 20:45:27
>>hdivid+ef
> China is more stable than the Soviet Union was in the 1960s

Xi literally just purged “the country’s top military leader, Gen. Zhang Youxia, and an associate, Gen. Liu Zhenli” [1].

This is the mark of a dictator. Not the Soviet Union at its finest.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/03/us/politics/china-xi-mili...

◧◩◪
3. smallm+Qk[view] [source] 2026-02-03 21:10:49
>>JumpCr+Jf
Did the USSR ever manufacture 80% of the stuff in your house?
◧◩◪◨
4. NoMore+pn[view] [source] 2026-02-03 21:23:49
>>smallm+Qk
If they had manufactured 80% of the stuff in my house, wouldn't Reagan have concluded that they had won the war before it started? A country that manufactures 80% of the things you need to live might just decide to not sell them to you if you misbehave.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. smallm+7u[view] [source] 2026-02-03 21:58:39
>>NoMore+pn
Yes, but the real question is if Reagan still would have pushed as hard for financialization and deindustrialization if he understood that he was ultimately selling American industry to communists.

I think he would have. I think he hated American labor more than he hated foreign communists. If his head were still around in a Futurama Jar to comment on the matter, I think he would be blaming American workers for the consequences of his own policies.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. chrisc+5C[view] [source] 2026-02-03 22:41:00
>>smallm+7u
Reagan didnt push for deindustrialization and "the world is flat" world view didn't take precedence until after the fall of the Soviet Union in the 90s.

At the time, everyone was still optimistic that China would eventually become more open and even democratic, that Russia would not regress, etc.

It was still common for electronics and microprocessors to be made in USA well into the 90s. Reagan had nothing to do with the expansion of WTO and trade deficits with China that ballooned under HW, Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. smallm+US[view] [source] 2026-02-04 00:16:02
>>chrisc+5C
You can't have financialization without deindustrialization and he didn't push in that direction, he shoved. This macroeconomic story is 500 years old. He knew what he was doing.
[go to top]