34 ms·

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 th

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.

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
> 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-military-purge.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/03/us/politics/china-xi-mili...
- wtodr 8mo ago
  This is the same trite bullshit we’ve been hearing for decades. Look at where China is today.
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > the same trite bullshit we’ve been hearing for decades Nope. It isn’t. Xi has ruled China like a dictator that breaks the tradition of intraparty competition the CCP has had since Mao. When Xi ended his Wolf Warrior nonsense it seemed to signal a reset. Now we have this nonsense. > Look at where China is today Look at where America is today. Both are richer than they’ve ever been. More militarily potent than ever. Both are growing their economies, militaries and territorial ambitions. Both have serious issues, including the gerontocratic oligarchic consolidation of power at the expense of national interests.
    - SilverElfin 8mo ago
      Not that I disagree, but I’m curious how you define national interests.
      - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > curious how you define national interests My metric would be what the country’s population today and weighted populations of the future, if they could weigh in, would choose. It’s possible to frame ex post facto and impossible to pin down in the present. And it’s inherently subjective and culturally relative. But it’s useful to reason with, including for finding patterns in history. One pattern is the cost of corruption. If a leader is making billions off their power, they’re putting person about polity. That’s currently true in America [1] and China [2][3]. The difference is America has a chance to fix that in ‘28. China used to rotate leaders. But Xi fucked that up. (Note the language similarity between the above comment and how MAGA defends itself. “Trite bullshit.” Beijing has a hidden MACA problem, it’s just had a tougher time dealing with it because Xi reveres Mao.) [1] https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/spy-sheikh-secret-stake-trump-crypto-tahnoon-ea4d97e8?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqf5Jz1IFKIvUKWJz3j6LC0u4uyAvT7IM4I7Ddh_Qj0cFSKMHJSNo4fC&gaa_ts=69826954&gaa_sig=u7ikE2qD_u6xufmqE5nl7bZIjQGBE88QP8mnoacPuYZt9R2tbkh4kLAsg-tieoSWxemr8gF1ZJ-WbT-i9gCuVA%3D%3D https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/spy-sheikh-secret-stake-... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/world/asia/chinas-president-xi-jinping-investments.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/world/asia/chinas-preside... [3] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/mar/20/us-intel-says-chinas-xi-jinping-holds-1-billion-hidden-wealth-family/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/mar/20/us-intel-sa...
        SilverElfin 8mo ago
        Can’t weighted population of the future change based on what is chosen? For example by immigration and deportations? Also is MACA actually MCGA? Or something else? Aren’t there similar trends also in Europe and India?
    - blibble 8mo ago
      > Look at where America is today. Both are richer than they’ve ever been. More militarily potent than ever. just don't look at the first derivative vs china
  - tartoran 8mo ago
    Keep in mind that China is not where it is today because of Xi. He could take it further for sure but so can he press the wrong buttons. It remains to be seen how China fares in the next few decades.
    - fakedang 8mo ago
      Yep, China was on a massive and insane growth trajectory prior to Xi. Xi's policies and constant banging of war drums at Taiwan's door has cost China massively in terms of foreign investment and even knowledge transfer opportunities (by the ever-gullible West).
      - aurareturn 8mo ago
        Western powers were never going to let China rise peacefully. As soon as China started designing phones instead of just manufacturing them, the west become much more "China bad". Had nothing to do with Xi.
    - RobotToaster 8mo ago
      He's doing a better job than Zhao Ziyang, that's for sure.
      - tartoran 8mo ago
        I'm not convinced that it could be attributable to Xi. China has been on this trajectory before he became the leader.
    - chii 8mo ago
      > It remains to be seen how China fares in the next few decades. it is easy to continue on momentum alone.
      - rbanffy 8mo ago
        They have the numbers on their side - IIRC they have more STEM grads than the US has workforce, and they graduate a lot more every year. Apple alone spends about a Marshal Plan per year in high-tech manufacturing, for what the know-how remains in China to manufacture other high-tech products. I think Tim Cook mentioned that no company outside China could make their MacBook shells up to the specs they need. The product is "designed in Cupertino", but the machine that builds it is designed, made, and operated in China. Multiply that by the number of companies who spend heavily in China for manufacturing, indirectly causing their advanced manufacturing industry to grow beyond anyone else's and it seems inevitable.
  - baxtr 8mo ago
    The question is rather: Where could China have been today if it started opening up decades earlier?
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > Where could China have been today if it started opening up decades earlier? Or without Mao being a trash fire of a leader. (Flip side: where would they be without Deng or Zemin, or others in the CCP who put nation above personal interest? The folks Xi is killing because they threaten his personal interests.)
      - baxtr 8mo ago
        Maybe the combination of capitalism + democracy is so successful because it aligns the incentives of leaders and the masses best (to the extent possible).
        JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        My takeaway from China is democracy is less important than political competition. Between Mao and Xi, the CCP had the latter without the former. Today, America has the former and is struggling to keep the latter.
        baxtr 8mo ago
        Yes agreed. But competition for what? I'd say for the good of the majority of the people. In other systems only those on top profit (maybe 10-20% max) even if they claim otherwise. Thus democracy, through competition, aligns the leader's incentive with their people best.
        justinclift 8mo ago
        > In other systems only those on top profit Are you saying the US isn't doing that presently?
  - subw00f 8mo ago
    It's amazing. The American president is quite literally creating a parallel military force to jail and kill people on the streets, they're arresting opposing journalists, politicians, pressuring tv channels and news organizations to fire people, invading countries without congressional approval, threatening allies with annexation for no fucking reason, dismantling any social programs left, and all of that led by a proven pedophile billionaire that was the customer and friend of a huge human trafficker, as were most of his billionaire friends who he favors with absolutely no shame. And this is just the latest news coming from over there. I won't mention the fact that there are people alive today who couldn't drink from the same fountain as other people because their skin is dark. It was never fucking great. So if you are American and still talk all this shit about China being a dictatorship and authoritarian this and “purge” that, I wish you would honestly shut the fuck up. Really. You are in no position to have an informed opinion on this because all of your information is force fed down your throat by half a dozen mega companies that are in bed with your regime. So yeah, I'm sure China has a lot of issues, but if you didn't live there for some time or even speak the language for that matter, just shut the fuck the up.
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > if you are American and still talk all this shit about China being a dictatorship and authoritarian this and “purge” that, I wish you would honestly shut the fuck up. Really. You are in no position to have an informed opinion on this because all of your information is force fed Bit defensive there, eh? China is an autocracy and Xi is acting in the predictably self-destructive ways a dictator does. The U.S. is heading down that same path, with Trump practically mimicking Xi. N = 2 doesn’t weaken an argument. And folks who lived through the Nazis saying they see similar veins today doesn’t undermine their credibility. (The hilarity of it is if you take your comment and replace China and America with partisan or pro-American coding, you could pop it out of Hegseth’s office and it would be right at home. Your comment almost seals the point that Xi is all the problems of MAGA, except polling China instead.)
      - subw00f 8mo ago
        Yes, I'm aware how ignorant I may sound, but it's so goddamn frustrating to read this kind of bullshit everytime I come to an American platform. Ok, China is an autocracy, right? Could you explain to me how China conduct elections? Can you explain to me how they approve laws? Do they have a constitution? A justice system? Try answering these questions without much looking up and even if you do, please note the sources. No need to answer me really. Just ask yourself whether you know this or not and how qualified are you to actually label a HUGE state like China with one single heavily charged word.
- hdivider 8mo ago
  I agree there is a lot of chaos over there, and numerous challenges. But I don't see China collapsing anytime soon, nothing like the Soviet Union. It's going to be a long-term space race.
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > I don't see China collapsing anytime soon, nothing like the Soviet Union I don’t either. But the Soviet Union’s space programme lost its steam in the 1970s. (Venus was its last ambitious achievement.) If China gets bogged down in Taiwan because Xi fired every military expert who might disagree with him, that’s going to cost them the space race. (Same as if America decides to replicate the Sino-Soviet split with Europe over Greenland. We can’t afford a competitive space programme at that point.)
    - adventured 8mo ago
      There's a question as to whether China's surplus capability is enough to overflow the deprivation that a space program might suffer in a chaos Taiwan scenario. Their resources and capabilities are obviously substantial and sustained (not going anywhere). The USSR had only a few patches of sustained serious economic output, the rest of the time was rolling from one disaster to another, one deprivation after another. It seems entirely plausible that China getting bogged down in Taiwan wouldn't be enough to deprive them of a run to the Moon. The US was able to sustain NASA during Iraq-Afghanistan, and go to the Moon during the Vietnam War (plus cultural chaos). That said, China isn't going to get bogged down in Taiwan. It's going to unfortunately be easier than most are imagining. China will ultimately regret not moving on the island sooner when they see how easy it's going to be to take it and how weak the US response will be (the US can't sustain a stand-off with China in that region for more than a few weeks before folding, unless it's willing to go to full war mode economically (which it's not)).
      - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > seems entirely plausible that China getting bogged down in Taiwan wouldn't be enough to deprive them of a run to the Moon. The US was able to sustain NASA during Iraq-Afghanistan We probably lost basing on the Moon because Bush went into Iraq. China getting bogged down in Taiwan means more political repression, more restiveness in Xinjiang and—if New Delhi isn’t totally stupid—needing to prop up Pakistan and its strategic fronts in the Himalayas. It also almost certainly means demand destruction in Europe, the EU and ASEAN. > China isn't going to get bogged down in Taiwan. It's going to unfortunately be easier than most are imagining The same people saying this today had hot takes on Kyiv falling in ‘21. China invading Taiwan demilitarized Japan and India. It fundamentally changes its doorstep in ways that incur costs. To the Soviets, Afghanistan. To America, Iraq and possibly Greenland. To China, Taiwan. (And let’s be clear: this is a vanity project for Xi. Taiwan would have voted, eventually, to peacefully join China if pre-Xi trends continued. But he needed it on his watch. Hence the stupidity.)
- ck2 8mo ago
  btw just for comparison over in the US Trump has purged dozens of Generals, the head Admiral of the Navy and Coast Guard, head of NSA and Cyber Command and many other top-level officials in the military and there are only 1,000 women in various special forces (had to pass same physical tests as men) but he is trying to get rid of them all too Now that is the mark of dictator, agreed
  - adventured 8mo ago
    Trump was elected by the people of the United States. Twice. Soundly. Not a dictator. Xi was never elected to his position by the people of China. Being a bad president isn't the same thing as being a dictator.
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > Trump was elected by the people of the United States. Twice. Soundly. Not a dictator Trump is not a dictator, but not because he was elected, but because of our courts and federal system (and theoretically Congress).
    - subw00f 8mo ago
      Your mistake is to confuse universal suffrage and democracy. Neither of which really exists in the US, btw.
  - chrisco255 8mo ago
    The Commander in Chief of the military, also known as the President, has the authority to fire at will, that is how it works in America for 250 years now.
    - SigmundA 8mo ago
      Guess it works that way in China too...
    - anigbrowl 8mo ago
      Right, and everyone else has the right to an opinion on it. The point seemingly being made above is Trump's swingeing cuts seem to be driven more by ideology than administrative efficiency. Xi's dismissal of his top general (which seems to be equivalent to sacking the Secretary of Defense or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff) is perplexing due to the opacity, but it doesn't seem to be indicative of any bigger or broader trend.
- RobotToaster 8mo ago
  There's a better article about it in the WSJ of all places https://archive.is/48m3F https://archive.is/48m3F Missing from both is that Zhang Youxia was the last senior PLA leader to have seen frontline action in the Sino-Vietnamese war.
  - dragonelite 8mo ago
    Vietnam frontline experience is irrelevant in 2026, when its more drone dominated. Im sure China has plenty of observers/volunteers embedded at the Russian side in the SMO making plenty of notes, reports, and get modern warfare experience..
    - largbae 8mo ago
      All frontline experience is valuable. It reminds the leader that in war, real people, people on your own side, people that you know, people that you will miss, will die.
      - smallmancontrov 8mo ago
        and in this case the particulars match the archetype: my understanding is that Zhang was the "dove" while Xi is the "hawk." The hawk just ate the dove. We're going to war.
- smallmancontrov 8mo ago
  Did the USSR ever manufacture 80% of the stuff in your house?
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > Did the USSR ever manufacture 80% of the stuff in your house? China makes about a third of the world’s stuff [1]. Soviet Union probably peaked around a fifth, though it might have been as high as a fourth. China is undoubtedly stronger today, absolutely and relative to the U.S., than the Soviets ever were. But history is littered with self-obsessed autocrats ruining a good thing. Part of what makes the world today frustrating is both America and China are squandering their advantages in remarkably-similar ways, with each regime’s defenders speaking almost identically. [1] https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/china-worlds-sole-manufacturing-superpower-line-sketch-rise https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/china-worlds-sole-manufacturi...
    - alephnerd 8mo ago
      > Part of what makes the world today frustrating is both America and China are squandering their advantages in remarkably-similar ways, with each regime’s defenders speaking almost identically. Personalist rule be personalist. Also glad to see you also appear to recognize our "Wolf Warrior" moment.
    - bmitc 8mo ago
      > China makes about a third of the world’s stuff That isn't what the commenter asked. What percentage of stuff in your house is made in China? I would be extremely surprised if it's not more than 33%.
      - chii 8mo ago
        And the idea of the percentage make up is a bit misleading, because while some things could've been 100% manufactured in america, the machines doing that manufacturing comes from china.
        8mo ago
- janalsncm 8mo ago
  Xi appointed himself president for life in 2018, almost six years ago. China wasnt exactly a bastion of liberal democracy before then either. Sacking a top general is basically par for the course.
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > Sacking a top general is basically par for the course Yes and no. Military readiness and potency doesn’t require liberal democracy. It does require skill and command, and sacking military leaders for political reasons is how powers from Athens to the Soviets screwed themselves.
    - janalsncm 8mo ago
      Yeah but the question of stability was relative to the Soviets. The US has a good amount of instability as well, and has been hemorrhaging scientists lately. So if the argument is that sacking a top general implies that China is too unstable to prevail in a future space race I don’t buy it.
    - XorNot 8mo ago
      Except generals get sacked all the time in actual wartime conditions, it's not even clear why this particular instance is notable. China isn't in wartime, it is in a build up phase and there's perfectly good reasons to dismiss underperforming generals. Which isn't to say that's what happened here, but China sacking a general as a data point doesn't mean anything without appropriate context.
- hbarka 8mo ago
  Our dear leader just purged the Pentagon and other hallowed agencies, what does that make us? https://www.reuters.com/world/us/latest-purge-hegseth-removes-head-pentagon-intelligence-agency-other-senior-2025-08-22/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/latest-purge-hegseth-remove...
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > what does that make us? More vulnerable. More brittle. Not stable.
  - dyauspitr 8mo ago
    Very close to a dictatorship. It will be one if the midterms are not allowed to proceed fairly.
  - rbanffy 8mo ago
    It makes you a big concern everywhere else. Good luck. We can't do much from here.
- bmitc 8mo ago
  Purge seems like a strong word from what I just read. There definitely seems to be actual and power plays going on on his side. It's not exactly because he was out there doing the best for people. But how is this less stable than even the United States now? Trump has literally purged nearly every single person leading federal agencies and institutions, including law enforcement. He also effectively stacked the Supreme Court with the help of Mitch McConnell, cheating the system to do his bidding.
- raincole 8mo ago
  Which means China is indeed very stable at least when Xi is alive.
- weregiraffe 8mo ago
  "Purged top leader" sounds a lot scarier than "a general was fired".
- Markoff 8mo ago
  if I've had to choose between dictator in China and dictator in US, it would be easy choice, at least one of them seems mentally sane the reason why I left China after living there for years was for sure not politics or who is top military leader
  - rbanffy 8mo ago
    I find the Chinese political system very interesting. I read somewhere that, in order to run for any position, you need to have taken a role below that, so you'll never lead the executive branch as your first job just because you are very popular. Would you mind detailing how it works a little bit more? This "onboarding path" seems to be part of the "secret sauce" that keeps the policies consistent over time.
- YinLuck- 8mo ago
  [dead]
- coldtea 8mo ago
  >This is the mark of a dictator Usually the mark of a dictator is being the top millitary leader and taking over a country yourself.
arjie 8mo ago
Do we already know what the best spots on the Moon are or will that be determined by the early missions doing survey?
- hdivider 8mo ago
  Yes to both I'd say. The south polar region will be contested because of the presence of water-ice and abundant sunlight.
rzerowan 8mo ago
Theresa though i read somewhere that i tend to agree with - with the level of tech and space experience that China currently is capable of , they could possibly launch a return mission as early as next year(if they so chose). However they have their own timetable and milestones , hence going to the moon has already been earmarked with followup misson for a lunar base and further missions already penned in. So less of a race if one party is just doing their own thing. We see the same dynamic viz Taiwan , western commentariat seeks to impose deadlines and spin rationales when they never materialise. Or the AI race where China keeps churning out OSS models while American labs are in a sel declared 'race' for supremacy.
nothrowaways 8mo ago
>If we beat the Chinese somehow What a horrible attitude.
- isolatedsystem 8mo ago
  You might be being a tad uncharitable to the GP. Competition isn't an inherently bad thing. Many engineering endeavours (and engineers) have been made better by the crucible of competition. The first space race, Formula 1, even the competition between the different experiments at the Large Hadron Collider, for example.
mrtksn 8mo ago
IMHO the previous race ended because there wasn't that much to be achieved with the technology at hand at that time. They just pivoted to space stations, a space(!) with low hanging fruit. So if US ends up beating China on this, it will all depend if there's something feasible to do next. I'm under impression that everything done in this new space age so far is just a re-do with the cheaper and better technology. SpaceX reaping that but I am not sure if there's any drastically better capabilities. Can't wait for humans on Mars however I don't expect this to be anything more than vanity project.
- JKCalhoun 8mo ago
  You might be right. But a lunar telescope, lunar bases, lunar-orbiting station… Lots still to do within the Earth's sphere of influence.
  - mrtksn 8mo ago
    I’m looking forward for gigantic civilian space stations in Earth and Moon orbit. I think that’s feasible, we aren’t getting interplanetary anytime soon but we can expand to the orbit and our Moon.
stinkbeetle 8mo ago
> If we beat the Chinese somehow, I don't think they'll just dismantle their space program and focus on Earth. The Soviet Union won the "space race" of course (or perhaps Germany did if you define it as suborbital space flight), it just lost the "man on the moon race". In any case, after losing the man on the moon race, the Soviet Union did not just dismantle their space program and focus on Earth. They continued to invest a great deal in their civil, scientific, and military space capabilities after 1969. Will the Chinese Communist Party similarly collapse in the 2050s? Perhaps not, but they will be going through significant demographic decline from the 2030s; they are increasingly in conflict with the west and with their territorial neighbors; they may become involved in significant military conflicts (e.g., over Taiwan); their current leader has consolidated power and succession could be spicy. So who knows? It's not inconceivable. China would surely continue and continue a space program as Russia has.
maxglute 8mo ago
TBH pretty retarded to eat up American spacerace 2.0 / rivalry / competition framing when space is like ~0.1% of GDP spend in both US/PRC. At least bump up to half a percent for a proper space race spending. Of course true purpose of framing is likely to keep US space spent at 0.1% instead of 0.01%. > compete for the best spots Nothing in outer space treaty that enables first come / first serve squatting. Second mover can always park next door. If anything OST allows joint scientific observation, which allows actors to build right next to each other. The entire best spot narrative is US trying to bake in landgrab provisions via Artemis Accords (not international/customary law) for safety zones, i.e. landgrab by exclusion - if US build first, someone else can't because it might effect US safety. But reality is non signatories not obliged to honour Artemis. PRC's Artemis, i.e. International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) doesn't have safety zones baked into language yet, but they're going to want to push for some sort of deconfliction as matter of lawfare eventually. But shit hits fan, and country absolutely need that moon base, everyone who can will be shanty-towning it up in Shackleton, where prime real estate (80-90% illumination windows) are like a few 300m strips. No one is going to settle for shit sloppy seconds because Artemis dictates 2km safety buffer. Exhaust plume from competitor landing next door damage your base? Your fault for not hardening it in first place, building paper mache bases and trying to exclude others under guise of safety is just not going to fly. With all the terrestrial geopolitical implications that entails.
- JKCalhoun 8mo ago
  "Nothing in outer space treaty that enables first come / first serve squatting. Second mover can always park next door." Antarctica then. (That's fine.)
JKCalhoun 8mo ago
In the same way Space Race 1.0 kicked the US into putting engineering at the forefront, I look forward to Space Race 2.0. Even if China kicks our (U.S.) ass, I'm be hoping for a sea-change in our attitudes (in fact, the US getting their asses handed to them might be the best medicine we need right now). (Why do I use the word ass so often?)
bmitc 8mo ago
> 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. This is kind of underselling the situation. China is more stable than the U.S. China is also beating the pants off the U.S. in several sectors and in the ones they're not, they're rapidly catching up. When China beats the U.S. to the Moon, they will also have surpassed the U.S. in several other sectors as well at the same time, all while having a more stable government and continuing to increase the size of their middle class.
- glimshe 8mo ago
  The US landed on the moon in the 1960s. "Beating to the moon" isn't how I'd call this.
  - nazgul17 8mo ago
    There are many firsts to be claimed. First semipermanent settlement. First industrial capacity. First lunar launch facility.
- TacticalCoder 8mo ago
  > China is more stable than the U.S. China is also beating the pants off the U.S. in several sectors and in the ones they're not, they're rapidly catching up. And another big difference is that during the US/Russia space race, the US had a GDP three times the size the GDP of Russia. Now the US's GDP is only 50% bigger than China's GDP. So nearly 200% bigger vs Russia back then and only 50% bigger vs China now: it's not the same game anymore.
  - woooooo 8mo ago
    And that's before you get into purchasing power parity. Not only at the consumer level, but the government level. The US has been working on SLS for what, 15 years? And its an overpriced mess.
m4rtink 8mo ago
Also Soviets were not doing that good economically the whole time and it showed also on their space program - when you read the history of their space pgoram from insiders, it was constant hacking to meet almost impossible political deadlines and goals with hardly adequate technology, industry and workforce.
throawayonthe 8mo ago
Who is we?

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago

> 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-military-purge.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/03/us/politics/china-xi-mili...

wtodr 8mo ago
This is the same trite bullshit we’ve been hearing for decades. Look at where China is today.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > the same trite bullshit we’ve been hearing for decades Nope. It isn’t. Xi has ruled China like a dictator that breaks the tradition of intraparty competition the CCP has had since Mao. When Xi ended his Wolf Warrior nonsense it seemed to signal a reset. Now we have this nonsense. > Look at where China is today Look at where America is today. Both are richer than they’ve ever been. More militarily potent than ever. Both are growing their economies, militaries and territorial ambitions. Both have serious issues, including the gerontocratic oligarchic consolidation of power at the expense of national interests.
  - SilverElfin 8mo ago
    Not that I disagree, but I’m curious how you define national interests.
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > curious how you define national interests My metric would be what the country’s population today and weighted populations of the future, if they could weigh in, would choose. It’s possible to frame ex post facto and impossible to pin down in the present. And it’s inherently subjective and culturally relative. But it’s useful to reason with, including for finding patterns in history. One pattern is the cost of corruption. If a leader is making billions off their power, they’re putting person about polity. That’s currently true in America [1] and China [2][3]. The difference is America has a chance to fix that in ‘28. China used to rotate leaders. But Xi fucked that up. (Note the language similarity between the above comment and how MAGA defends itself. “Trite bullshit.” Beijing has a hidden MACA problem, it’s just had a tougher time dealing with it because Xi reveres Mao.) [1] https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/spy-sheikh-secret-stake-trump-crypto-tahnoon-ea4d97e8?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqf5Jz1IFKIvUKWJz3j6LC0u4uyAvT7IM4I7Ddh_Qj0cFSKMHJSNo4fC&gaa_ts=69826954&gaa_sig=u7ikE2qD_u6xufmqE5nl7bZIjQGBE88QP8mnoacPuYZt9R2tbkh4kLAsg-tieoSWxemr8gF1ZJ-WbT-i9gCuVA%3D%3D https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/spy-sheikh-secret-stake-... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/world/asia/chinas-president-xi-jinping-investments.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/world/asia/chinas-preside... [3] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/mar/20/us-intel-says-chinas-xi-jinping-holds-1-billion-hidden-wealth-family/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/mar/20/us-intel-sa...
      - SilverElfin 8mo ago
        Can’t weighted population of the future change based on what is chosen? For example by immigration and deportations? Also is MACA actually MCGA? Or something else? Aren’t there similar trends also in Europe and India?
  - blibble 8mo ago
    > Look at where America is today. Both are richer than they’ve ever been. More militarily potent than ever. just don't look at the first derivative vs china
- tartoran 8mo ago
  Keep in mind that China is not where it is today because of Xi. He could take it further for sure but so can he press the wrong buttons. It remains to be seen how China fares in the next few decades.
  - fakedang 8mo ago
    Yep, China was on a massive and insane growth trajectory prior to Xi. Xi's policies and constant banging of war drums at Taiwan's door has cost China massively in terms of foreign investment and even knowledge transfer opportunities (by the ever-gullible West).
    - aurareturn 8mo ago
      Western powers were never going to let China rise peacefully. As soon as China started designing phones instead of just manufacturing them, the west become much more "China bad". Had nothing to do with Xi.
  - RobotToaster 8mo ago
    He's doing a better job than Zhao Ziyang, that's for sure.
    - tartoran 8mo ago
      I'm not convinced that it could be attributable to Xi. China has been on this trajectory before he became the leader.
  - chii 8mo ago
    > It remains to be seen how China fares in the next few decades. it is easy to continue on momentum alone.
    - rbanffy 8mo ago
      They have the numbers on their side - IIRC they have more STEM grads than the US has workforce, and they graduate a lot more every year. Apple alone spends about a Marshal Plan per year in high-tech manufacturing, for what the know-how remains in China to manufacture other high-tech products. I think Tim Cook mentioned that no company outside China could make their MacBook shells up to the specs they need. The product is "designed in Cupertino", but the machine that builds it is designed, made, and operated in China. Multiply that by the number of companies who spend heavily in China for manufacturing, indirectly causing their advanced manufacturing industry to grow beyond anyone else's and it seems inevitable.
- baxtr 8mo ago
  The question is rather: Where could China have been today if it started opening up decades earlier?
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > Where could China have been today if it started opening up decades earlier? Or without Mao being a trash fire of a leader. (Flip side: where would they be without Deng or Zemin, or others in the CCP who put nation above personal interest? The folks Xi is killing because they threaten his personal interests.)
    - baxtr 8mo ago
      Maybe the combination of capitalism + democracy is so successful because it aligns the incentives of leaders and the masses best (to the extent possible).
      - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        My takeaway from China is democracy is less important than political competition. Between Mao and Xi, the CCP had the latter without the former. Today, America has the former and is struggling to keep the latter.
        baxtr 8mo ago
        Yes agreed. But competition for what? I'd say for the good of the majority of the people. In other systems only those on top profit (maybe 10-20% max) even if they claim otherwise. Thus democracy, through competition, aligns the leader's incentive with their people best.
        justinclift 8mo ago
        > In other systems only those on top profit Are you saying the US isn't doing that presently?
- subw00f 8mo ago
  It's amazing. The American president is quite literally creating a parallel military force to jail and kill people on the streets, they're arresting opposing journalists, politicians, pressuring tv channels and news organizations to fire people, invading countries without congressional approval, threatening allies with annexation for no fucking reason, dismantling any social programs left, and all of that led by a proven pedophile billionaire that was the customer and friend of a huge human trafficker, as were most of his billionaire friends who he favors with absolutely no shame. And this is just the latest news coming from over there. I won't mention the fact that there are people alive today who couldn't drink from the same fountain as other people because their skin is dark. It was never fucking great. So if you are American and still talk all this shit about China being a dictatorship and authoritarian this and “purge” that, I wish you would honestly shut the fuck up. Really. You are in no position to have an informed opinion on this because all of your information is force fed down your throat by half a dozen mega companies that are in bed with your regime. So yeah, I'm sure China has a lot of issues, but if you didn't live there for some time or even speak the language for that matter, just shut the fuck the up.
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > if you are American and still talk all this shit about China being a dictatorship and authoritarian this and “purge” that, I wish you would honestly shut the fuck up. Really. You are in no position to have an informed opinion on this because all of your information is force fed Bit defensive there, eh? China is an autocracy and Xi is acting in the predictably self-destructive ways a dictator does. The U.S. is heading down that same path, with Trump practically mimicking Xi. N = 2 doesn’t weaken an argument. And folks who lived through the Nazis saying they see similar veins today doesn’t undermine their credibility. (The hilarity of it is if you take your comment and replace China and America with partisan or pro-American coding, you could pop it out of Hegseth’s office and it would be right at home. Your comment almost seals the point that Xi is all the problems of MAGA, except polling China instead.)
    - subw00f 8mo ago
      Yes, I'm aware how ignorant I may sound, but it's so goddamn frustrating to read this kind of bullshit everytime I come to an American platform. Ok, China is an autocracy, right? Could you explain to me how China conduct elections? Can you explain to me how they approve laws? Do they have a constitution? A justice system? Try answering these questions without much looking up and even if you do, please note the sources. No need to answer me really. Just ask yourself whether you know this or not and how qualified are you to actually label a HUGE state like China with one single heavily charged word.
hdivider 8mo ago
I agree there is a lot of chaos over there, and numerous challenges. But I don't see China collapsing anytime soon, nothing like the Soviet Union. It's going to be a long-term space race.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > I don't see China collapsing anytime soon, nothing like the Soviet Union I don’t either. But the Soviet Union’s space programme lost its steam in the 1970s. (Venus was its last ambitious achievement.) If China gets bogged down in Taiwan because Xi fired every military expert who might disagree with him, that’s going to cost them the space race. (Same as if America decides to replicate the Sino-Soviet split with Europe over Greenland. We can’t afford a competitive space programme at that point.)
  - adventured 8mo ago
    There's a question as to whether China's surplus capability is enough to overflow the deprivation that a space program might suffer in a chaos Taiwan scenario. Their resources and capabilities are obviously substantial and sustained (not going anywhere). The USSR had only a few patches of sustained serious economic output, the rest of the time was rolling from one disaster to another, one deprivation after another. It seems entirely plausible that China getting bogged down in Taiwan wouldn't be enough to deprive them of a run to the Moon. The US was able to sustain NASA during Iraq-Afghanistan, and go to the Moon during the Vietnam War (plus cultural chaos). That said, China isn't going to get bogged down in Taiwan. It's going to unfortunately be easier than most are imagining. China will ultimately regret not moving on the island sooner when they see how easy it's going to be to take it and how weak the US response will be (the US can't sustain a stand-off with China in that region for more than a few weeks before folding, unless it's willing to go to full war mode economically (which it's not)).
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > seems entirely plausible that China getting bogged down in Taiwan wouldn't be enough to deprive them of a run to the Moon. The US was able to sustain NASA during Iraq-Afghanistan We probably lost basing on the Moon because Bush went into Iraq. China getting bogged down in Taiwan means more political repression, more restiveness in Xinjiang and—if New Delhi isn’t totally stupid—needing to prop up Pakistan and its strategic fronts in the Himalayas. It also almost certainly means demand destruction in Europe, the EU and ASEAN. > China isn't going to get bogged down in Taiwan. It's going to unfortunately be easier than most are imagining The same people saying this today had hot takes on Kyiv falling in ‘21. China invading Taiwan demilitarized Japan and India. It fundamentally changes its doorstep in ways that incur costs. To the Soviets, Afghanistan. To America, Iraq and possibly Greenland. To China, Taiwan. (And let’s be clear: this is a vanity project for Xi. Taiwan would have voted, eventually, to peacefully join China if pre-Xi trends continued. But he needed it on his watch. Hence the stupidity.)
ck2 8mo ago
btw just for comparison over in the US Trump has purged dozens of Generals, the head Admiral of the Navy and Coast Guard, head of NSA and Cyber Command and many other top-level officials in the military and there are only 1,000 women in various special forces (had to pass same physical tests as men) but he is trying to get rid of them all too Now that is the mark of dictator, agreed
- adventured 8mo ago
  Trump was elected by the people of the United States. Twice. Soundly. Not a dictator. Xi was never elected to his position by the people of China. Being a bad president isn't the same thing as being a dictator.
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > Trump was elected by the people of the United States. Twice. Soundly. Not a dictator Trump is not a dictator, but not because he was elected, but because of our courts and federal system (and theoretically Congress).
  - subw00f 8mo ago
    Your mistake is to confuse universal suffrage and democracy. Neither of which really exists in the US, btw.
- chrisco255 8mo ago
  The Commander in Chief of the military, also known as the President, has the authority to fire at will, that is how it works in America for 250 years now.
  - SigmundA 8mo ago
    Guess it works that way in China too...
  - anigbrowl 8mo ago
    Right, and everyone else has the right to an opinion on it. The point seemingly being made above is Trump's swingeing cuts seem to be driven more by ideology than administrative efficiency. Xi's dismissal of his top general (which seems to be equivalent to sacking the Secretary of Defense or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff) is perplexing due to the opacity, but it doesn't seem to be indicative of any bigger or broader trend.
RobotToaster 8mo ago
There's a better article about it in the WSJ of all places https://archive.is/48m3F https://archive.is/48m3F Missing from both is that Zhang Youxia was the last senior PLA leader to have seen frontline action in the Sino-Vietnamese war.
- dragonelite 8mo ago
  Vietnam frontline experience is irrelevant in 2026, when its more drone dominated. Im sure China has plenty of observers/volunteers embedded at the Russian side in the SMO making plenty of notes, reports, and get modern warfare experience..
  - largbae 8mo ago
    All frontline experience is valuable. It reminds the leader that in war, real people, people on your own side, people that you know, people that you will miss, will die.
    - smallmancontrov 8mo ago
      and in this case the particulars match the archetype: my understanding is that Zhang was the "dove" while Xi is the "hawk." The hawk just ate the dove. We're going to war.
smallmancontrov 8mo ago
Did the USSR ever manufacture 80% of the stuff in your house?
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > Did the USSR ever manufacture 80% of the stuff in your house? China makes about a third of the world’s stuff [1]. Soviet Union probably peaked around a fifth, though it might have been as high as a fourth. China is undoubtedly stronger today, absolutely and relative to the U.S., than the Soviets ever were. But history is littered with self-obsessed autocrats ruining a good thing. Part of what makes the world today frustrating is both America and China are squandering their advantages in remarkably-similar ways, with each regime’s defenders speaking almost identically. [1] https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/china-worlds-sole-manufacturing-superpower-line-sketch-rise https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/china-worlds-sole-manufacturi...
  - alephnerd 8mo ago
    > Part of what makes the world today frustrating is both America and China are squandering their advantages in remarkably-similar ways, with each regime’s defenders speaking almost identically. Personalist rule be personalist. Also glad to see you also appear to recognize our "Wolf Warrior" moment.
  - bmitc 8mo ago
    > China makes about a third of the world’s stuff That isn't what the commenter asked. What percentage of stuff in your house is made in China? I would be extremely surprised if it's not more than 33%.
    - chii 8mo ago
      And the idea of the percentage make up is a bit misleading, because while some things could've been 100% manufactured in america, the machines doing that manufacturing comes from china.
      - 8mo ago
janalsncm 8mo ago
Xi appointed himself president for life in 2018, almost six years ago. China wasnt exactly a bastion of liberal democracy before then either. Sacking a top general is basically par for the course.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > Sacking a top general is basically par for the course Yes and no. Military readiness and potency doesn’t require liberal democracy. It does require skill and command, and sacking military leaders for political reasons is how powers from Athens to the Soviets screwed themselves.
  - janalsncm 8mo ago
    Yeah but the question of stability was relative to the Soviets. The US has a good amount of instability as well, and has been hemorrhaging scientists lately. So if the argument is that sacking a top general implies that China is too unstable to prevail in a future space race I don’t buy it.
  - XorNot 8mo ago
    Except generals get sacked all the time in actual wartime conditions, it's not even clear why this particular instance is notable. China isn't in wartime, it is in a build up phase and there's perfectly good reasons to dismiss underperforming generals. Which isn't to say that's what happened here, but China sacking a general as a data point doesn't mean anything without appropriate context.
hbarka 8mo ago
Our dear leader just purged the Pentagon and other hallowed agencies, what does that make us? https://www.reuters.com/world/us/latest-purge-hegseth-removes-head-pentagon-intelligence-agency-other-senior-2025-08-22/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/latest-purge-hegseth-remove...
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > what does that make us? More vulnerable. More brittle. Not stable.
- dyauspitr 8mo ago
  Very close to a dictatorship. It will be one if the midterms are not allowed to proceed fairly.
- rbanffy 8mo ago
  It makes you a big concern everywhere else. Good luck. We can't do much from here.
bmitc 8mo ago
Purge seems like a strong word from what I just read. There definitely seems to be actual and power plays going on on his side. It's not exactly because he was out there doing the best for people. But how is this less stable than even the United States now? Trump has literally purged nearly every single person leading federal agencies and institutions, including law enforcement. He also effectively stacked the Supreme Court with the help of Mitch McConnell, cheating the system to do his bidding.
raincole 8mo ago
Which means China is indeed very stable at least when Xi is alive.
weregiraffe 8mo ago
"Purged top leader" sounds a lot scarier than "a general was fired".
Markoff 8mo ago
if I've had to choose between dictator in China and dictator in US, it would be easy choice, at least one of them seems mentally sane the reason why I left China after living there for years was for sure not politics or who is top military leader
- rbanffy 8mo ago
  I find the Chinese political system very interesting. I read somewhere that, in order to run for any position, you need to have taken a role below that, so you'll never lead the executive branch as your first job just because you are very popular. Would you mind detailing how it works a little bit more? This "onboarding path" seems to be part of the "secret sauce" that keeps the policies consistent over time.
YinLuck- 8mo ago
[dead]
coldtea 8mo ago
>This is the mark of a dictator Usually the mark of a dictator is being the top millitary leader and taking over a country yourself.

arjie 8mo ago

Do we already know what the best spots on the Moon are or will that be determined by the early missions doing survey?

hdivider 8mo ago
Yes to both I'd say. The south polar region will be contested because of the presence of water-ice and abundant sunlight.

rzerowan 8mo ago

Theresa though i read somewhere that i tend to agree with - with the level of tech and space experience that China currently is capable of , they could possibly launch a return mission as early as next year(if they so chose). However they have their own timetable and milestones , hence going to the moon has already been earmarked with followup misson for a lunar base and further missions already penned in. So less of a race if one party is just doing their own thing. We see the same dynamic viz Taiwan , western commentariat seeks to impose deadlines and spin rationales when they never materialise. Or the AI race where China keeps churning out OSS models while American labs are in a sel declared 'race' for supremacy.

nothrowaways 8mo ago

>If we beat the Chinese somehow What a horrible attitude.

isolatedsystem 8mo ago
You might be being a tad uncharitable to the GP. Competition isn't an inherently bad thing. Many engineering endeavours (and engineers) have been made better by the crucible of competition. The first space race, Formula 1, even the competition between the different experiments at the Large Hadron Collider, for example.

mrtksn 8mo ago

IMHO the previous race ended because there wasn't that much to be achieved with the technology at hand at that time. They just pivoted to space stations, a space(!) with low hanging fruit. So if US ends up beating China on this, it will all depend if there's something feasible to do next. I'm under impression that everything done in this new space age so far is just a re-do with the cheaper and better technology. SpaceX reaping that but I am not sure if there's any drastically better capabilities. Can't wait for humans on Mars however I don't expect this to be anything more than vanity project.

JKCalhoun 8mo ago
You might be right. But a lunar telescope, lunar bases, lunar-orbiting station… Lots still to do within the Earth's sphere of influence.
- mrtksn 8mo ago
  I’m looking forward for gigantic civilian space stations in Earth and Moon orbit. I think that’s feasible, we aren’t getting interplanetary anytime soon but we can expand to the orbit and our Moon.

stinkbeetle 8mo ago

> If we beat the Chinese somehow, I don't think they'll just dismantle their space program and focus on Earth. The Soviet Union won the "space race" of course (or perhaps Germany did if you define it as suborbital space flight), it just lost the "man on the moon race". In any case, after losing the man on the moon race, the Soviet Union did not just dismantle their space program and focus on Earth. They continued to invest a great deal in their civil, scientific, and military space capabilities after 1969. Will the Chinese Communist Party similarly collapse in the 2050s? Perhaps not, but they will be going through significant demographic decline from the 2030s; they are increasingly in conflict with the west and with their territorial neighbors; they may become involved in significant military conflicts (e.g., over Taiwan); their current leader has consolidated power and succession could be spicy. So who knows? It's not inconceivable. China would surely continue and continue a space program as Russia has.

maxglute 8mo ago

TBH pretty retarded to eat up American spacerace 2.0 / rivalry / competition framing when space is like ~0.1% of GDP spend in both US/PRC. At least bump up to half a percent for a proper space race spending. Of course true purpose of framing is likely to keep US space spent at 0.1% instead of 0.01%. > compete for the best spots Nothing in outer space treaty that enables first come / first serve squatting. Second mover can always park next door. If anything OST allows joint scientific observation, which allows actors to build right next to each other. The entire best spot narrative is US trying to bake in landgrab provisions via Artemis Accords (not international/customary law) for safety zones, i.e. landgrab by exclusion - if US build first, someone else can't because it might effect US safety. But reality is non signatories not obliged to honour Artemis. PRC's Artemis, i.e. International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) doesn't have safety zones baked into language yet, but they're going to want to push for some sort of deconfliction as matter of lawfare eventually. But shit hits fan, and country absolutely need that moon base, everyone who can will be shanty-towning it up in Shackleton, where prime real estate (80-90% illumination windows) are like a few 300m strips. No one is going to settle for shit sloppy seconds because Artemis dictates 2km safety buffer. Exhaust plume from competitor landing next door damage your base? Your fault for not hardening it in first place, building paper mache bases and trying to exclude others under guise of safety is just not going to fly. With all the terrestrial geopolitical implications that entails.

JKCalhoun 8mo ago
"Nothing in outer space treaty that enables first come / first serve squatting. Second mover can always park next door." Antarctica then. (That's fine.)

JKCalhoun 8mo ago

In the same way Space Race 1.0 kicked the US into putting engineering at the forefront, I look forward to Space Race 2.0. Even if China kicks our (U.S.) ass, I'm be hoping for a sea-change in our attitudes (in fact, the US getting their asses handed to them might be the best medicine we need right now). (Why do I use the word ass so often?)

bmitc 8mo ago

> 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. This is kind of underselling the situation. China is more stable than the U.S. China is also beating the pants off the U.S. in several sectors and in the ones they're not, they're rapidly catching up. When China beats the U.S. to the Moon, they will also have surpassed the U.S. in several other sectors as well at the same time, all while having a more stable government and continuing to increase the size of their middle class.

glimshe 8mo ago
The US landed on the moon in the 1960s. "Beating to the moon" isn't how I'd call this.
- nazgul17 8mo ago
  There are many firsts to be claimed. First semipermanent settlement. First industrial capacity. First lunar launch facility.
TacticalCoder 8mo ago
> China is more stable than the U.S. China is also beating the pants off the U.S. in several sectors and in the ones they're not, they're rapidly catching up. And another big difference is that during the US/Russia space race, the US had a GDP three times the size the GDP of Russia. Now the US's GDP is only 50% bigger than China's GDP. So nearly 200% bigger vs Russia back then and only 50% bigger vs China now: it's not the same game anymore.
- woooooo 8mo ago
  And that's before you get into purchasing power parity. Not only at the consumer level, but the government level. The US has been working on SLS for what, 15 years? And its an overpriced mess.

m4rtink 8mo ago

Also Soviets were not doing that good economically the whole time and it showed also on their space program - when you read the history of their space pgoram from insiders, it was constant hacking to meet almost impossible political deadlines and goals with hardly adequate technology, industry and workforce.

throawayonthe 8mo ago

Who is we?