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.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[+] meowmeowbeanz@sh.itjust.works -10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[+] meowmeowbeanz@sh.itjust.works -8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

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

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I already laid out the alternative: reject the arms race altogether.

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.

Militarizing space isn’t defense; it’s escalation. That was the point from the start.

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?

If China genuinely wanted to counter U.S. imperialism without mimicking it, it could focus on international cooperation instead of unilateral dominance.

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.

[–] doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago

If China genuinely wanted to counter U.S. imperialism without mimicking it, it could focus on international cooperation instead of unilateral dominance.

From the article:

Job descriptions attached to the ads suggest the force will have a key focus on international cooperation, and on designing systems for new and experimental technology

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.