• @Candelestine
    link
    English
    -53 months ago

    Where does this association that all things bad and colonialism must always be one-in-the-same? If it’s not colonialism, it must not be bad. If it’s not bad, it must not be colonialism.

    Regardless, the solution to the problem is fairly simple. The American stations, at least, are somewhat multinational, people from all over can go there. Perhaps they could invite foreigners to do work as well?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      103 months ago

      The American stations, at least, are somewhat multinational, people from all over can go there. Perhaps they could invite foreigners to do work as well?

      Where do you get the info that China isn’t inviting foreigners?

      China’s Qinling Station in Antarctica, the country’s fifth research station on the continent, started operation on Wednesday. The research facility is expected to help enhance mankind’s scientific understanding of Antarctica, provide a platform for China to cooperate with other countries in scientific expeditions and promote peace and sustainable development in the region, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said on Wednesday.

      https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202402/1306895.shtml

      Also American research sites aren’t somewhat open either. They kicked out the Chinese from the ISS…

      • @Candelestine
        link
        English
        -43 months ago

        I don’t know if they are or are not inviting foreigners. However, I do know that inviting them and allowing them full access to the station would put national security concerns to rest.

        I was talking about American antarctic stations, not all American research sites. Though I’m now curious what the reasoning was for the ISS kick.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          103 months ago

          Your comment implied they weren’t thats why I asked. Especially since the Chinese are in fact inviting foreigners as per their foreign ministry.

          Though I’m now curious what the reasoning was for the ISS kick.

          Iirc it was the same national security bs

          • @Candelestine
            link
            English
            -63 months ago

            Do we have invitees accounts of that, or just the word of a governmental body?

            National security is a legitimate concern, hand-waving it away as just “bs” is not a very practical attitude.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              73 months ago

              Do we have invitees accounts of that, or just the word of a governmental body?

              The word of a governmental body that has been consistent in their foreign policy and also accounts of other research projects: Why Some Scientists Choose China’s Space Station for Research - NYT Also the station is opened not even a month…

              I see you moving goal posts. You’re not even doing basic research and implying that there’s no invites for international cooperation going out. How about you back up your initial claim that they aren’t or at least edit your post?

              National security is a legitimate concern

              For rubes, as anything can be a national security concern. Anything can be used dualy (militarily and civilian)

              • @Candelestine
                link
                English
                -53 months ago

                In other words no, just the words of the governmental body. My goalpost there has been pretty consistent. I’m not tossing any accusations whatsoever, despite apparently offending you. Just pointing out that national security concerns can be alleviated, there is a viable, diplomatic path forward for that. Since I am not an expert on the subject matter, I simply do not know if that has been attempted in earnest or not. I’m just being cautious before simply giving completely blanket trust to a country, I’m withholding my judgement and not yet forming an opinion.

                No, not anything. Studies on, oh, let’s say emperor penguins would be difficult to militarize. Or, atmospheric studies using ice cores. But many things, yes. Hand-waving them away and tossing casual insults about it is silly regardless.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  83 months ago

                  just the words of the governmental body

                  And of course (what you conventiently omit) past examples which I provided.

                  My goalpost there has been pretty consistent. I’m not tossing any accusations whatsoever

                  In deed you are consistent, in holding the default position that aligns with the current hegemon the US: China Bad.

                  Since I am not an expert on the subject matter

                  Then why are you concern trolling? No research, no right to speak.

                  No, not anything. Studies on, oh, let’s say emperor penguins would be difficult to militarize. Or, atmospheric studies using ice cores. But many things, yes. Hand-waving them away and tossing casual insults about it is silly regardless.

                  Can you point to any chinese research facilities doing military research to hold this type of skepticism?

                  Also the argument for anything can be a national security concern goes more like: Hey you have a research station? My nation security is violated because you could be doing military research and spying Hey you have a civilian port and are producing X amount container ships a year? My national security is violated as you could easily turn these into naval battle ship production facilities Hey you’re stockpiling food? My national security is violated as in the event of war you could be feeding your soldiers

                  Michael Parenti

                  “During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”

                  • @Candelestine
                    link
                    English
                    -33 months ago

                    Again, I’m not forming an opinion yet. I apologize that this does not align with your very clearly pro-Chinese opinion. It is not China-Bad, it is China-is-a-country-and-countries-act-in-their-own-interests. These ideas are not harmful, they simply question your faith I suppose. I’m not trolling, I am dead serious in my position.

                    … you seriously asking me to provide evidence of any Chinese military research facilities? You understand how silly that sounds? Where do you think their hypersonic missiles came from, gifts from some UFO or something? I suspect the technology was researched through the scientific method.

                    Transparency is generally the key to securing trust. Otherwise yes, suspicion should be a default position. I don’t fully trust my government, I’m certainly not going to trust someone else’s.

        • davel [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          23 months ago

          What national security concerns? Antarctica is on the other side of the planet. China isn’t going to invade the US from there, so I’m not especially concerned for my safety.

          • @Candelestine
            link
            English
            -23 months ago

            The article cited signals intelligence. I’m not with the NSA or anything, so I’m pretty much just going off the article.