Print 90 comment(s) - last by masher2.. on Oct 23 at 9:45 PM

Communist China is thinking of creating a Communist party space branch

Chinese astronauts are considering the creation of a space branch of the Communist Party of China (CPC). Even though the growing space nation is not a participating member of the International Space Station (ISS) project, the country hopes to be able to one day create its own permanent space station.

The Chinese astronaut corp now has 14 members -- all communist party members -- and the Communist party only requires three members for a government application.

"If China has its own space station, the taikonauts on mission will carry out the regular activities of a CPC branch in space in the way we do on Earth, such as learning the Party's policies and exchanging opinions on the Party's decisions," said Yang Liwei, China's first astronaut. "If we establish a Party branch in space, it would also be the 'highest' of its kind in the world.”

Yang, current deputy director of the China Astronaut Research Training Center, became the world's first taikonaut aboard the Shenzhou V spacecraft in 2003. During a mission two years later, two more Chinese astronauts were successfully sent to space aboard the Shenzhou VI spacecraft. Only the United States and Russia have successfully launched astronauts into space before China.

China plans another manned launch in mid-2008, this time with a three-man crew.

It will be a long time before an official party can be established, especially since the party branch must need a permanent space residence – a feat China will likely not be able to complete soon.

"Like foreign astronauts having their beliefs, we believe in Communism, which is also a spiritual power," closed Yang in a statement to Chinese media.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: just wondering
By Samus on 10/20/2007 5:34:09 PM , Rating: 5
The United States made a political decision to give Japan what they needed to rebuild after we completely destroyed their country. It was, after all, the right decision, because since the demise of the Samuri, Japan was a political mess itself with it's people having little control over government decisions (a lot like Germany during the early-mid 1900's)

We didn't help Germany much because Europe was there to assist with post war damage. That, and Germany didn't have to deal with nuclear aftermath.

RE: just wondering
By Ringold on 10/20/2007 5:40:25 PM , Rating: 5
That, and Germany didn't have to deal with nuclear aftermath.

Correct. They had to deal with the aftermath of strategic bombing; in this case, far, far worse than nuclear aftermath.

Today it's be a little different, but people give the nuclear weapons used against Japan a lot more credit than they're due.. They had psychological impact more than anything.

RE: just wondering
By Gul Westfale on 10/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: just wondering
By masher2 on 10/20/2007 9:55:50 PM , Rating: 4
> > "as they had already hinted that they would [surrender] before the bombings..."

What sort of revisionist nonsense is this? Even after the bombings, the Supreme War Council voted against surrender. The SWC wanted America to invade. They felt that, with their rugged terrain and willingness of the civilian population to fight, they could kill enough Americans to turn the tide of the war.

Even after the suprise declaration of war on Japan by the Soviet Union (two days after the boming of Hiroshima) the SWC once again voted against surrender, saying that any other decision would result in a coup by angry military officers. Hirohito requested the council surrender anyway...they responded by drawing up a list of officers to be shot for supporting peace. The US continued to exert pressure, by new bombing raids on Tokyo.

It wasn't until Hirohito made a public appeal by radio that the SWC decided to accept peace. And even then, the predicted coup occurred, with a group officers mutinying, assassinating several high-ranking officials, and attacking the Imperial Palace itself. Luckily, the coup was stopped in time.

The notion that Japan "would have accepted peace" without the bombings is nonsense. Even with the bombings, they very nearly didn't.

RE: just wondering
By lompocus on 10/20/2007 11:16:32 PM , Rating: 1
quite true.

An example of how war leads to peace. Unfourtunately, people die in war.

One has to the hell can a few power hungry people lead to war, e.g. terrorist guys?

ANYWAYS this is a space topic. These ALWAYS end up in 'china is t3h world power' shit talk.

RE: just wondering
By jacarte8 on 10/22/2007 9:54:29 AM , Rating: 2
Let that be a lesson to other knuckle-heads thinking of attacking America! We don't care if you're about to surrender or not!

Any further complaints will result in your vaporization.

RE: just wondering
By Hawkido on 10/22/2007 3:04:24 PM , Rating: 3
> > "as they had already hinted that they would [surrender] before the bombings..."

What sort of revisionist nonsense is this?

Actually, Masher, there have been documents indicating that a surrender was being negotiated. However, it is often omitted as to who they were going to surrender to. The answer is Russia, and the were going to surrender with provisions that they retain their military power. All they had to do was become Communist and help take over China, Korea, Vietnan, and the rest of the island states in the Pacific Rim, including Hawaii and Australia.

Hey that doesn't sound like a surrender to the US who was doing all the fighting (okay, china and the islanders helped some to). That just sounds like they are picking up a new ally!!!

Nuking them was the only way to bring their war machine down before they fell under the protection of an uneasy ally, that eventually turned into the Red Monster. Without Japan during the Cold War, we would have been hard pressed to hold back the Red Tide, as we still didn't have global bombers. Europe would have fallen to the Red Tide as we wouldn't have had the resources to keep them tied up so neatly on the pacific front.

I still think MacArthur was right in confronting China's communist elements before they took over the country. Had we done that we would have been able to end the cold war much faster (else spawned WWIII). Things worked out okay for the US, we are still standing, the USSR is in pieces. Japan is healthy, poor china can't have a university rally without someone getting ran over by a tank.

RE: just wondering
By masher2 on 10/23/2007 7:30:26 AM , Rating: 1
Actually, Masher, there have been documents indicating that a surrender was being negotiated. However, it is often omitted as to who they were going to surrender to. The answer is Russia,
No. Before the bombings, Hirohito had some limited communications with Stalin in which he indicated a willingness to "settle all scores". However, it most certainly wasn't a surrender, particularly since at that time Japan wasn't even at war with the Soviet Union.

Furthermore, such revisionist attempts ignore the fact that Hirohito -- despite the name 'Emperor' -- had limited power over the nation. As I mentioned above, the Supreme War Council and the population at large both favored continuing the war. It's illuminating to note that, immediately after the surrender, a poll showed over 70% of all Japanese favored death or exile for Hirohito.

The bombing of Hiroshima didn't compel the Japanese to surrender. The later bombing of Nagasaki didn't. Those, combined with the declaration of war by the Soviets, the subsequent (non-nuclear) bombing raids on Tokyo, and widespread Allied drops of propaganda flyers, showing the results of the bombings and threatening more, eventually turned the tide.

RE: just wondering
By masher2 on 10/23/2007 7:35:03 AM , Rating: 1
I also want to point out that, in the month before the bombings, the US intercepted and decrypted the private communications between the Japanese ambassador to the USSR and the Japanese government. Those communiques specifically warned the ambassador against offering even a hint of surrender.

RE: just wondering
By Hawkido on 10/23/2007 9:37:38 PM , Rating: 1
It appears even tho I looked into it I still got fed some revisionist history (truely that is the greatest Civil Rights violation). Tho as I haven't found all the data you have, I will take you datawith a grain of salt... I do agree with you that communist influences in the US have distorted our recorded history after the fact... If you think that the US population would have balked about nuking Japan you don't know enough WWII era people. All my grandparents served (grandma's and grandpa's). They said it was bad that we had to crush the civilians to stop the war machine, but they were not against it. "It was one of those things you weeped about but you knew it had to be done... Like amputating a soldier's leg" That's the way my grandma put it who served as a nurse in Hawaii.

RE: just wondering
By masher2 on 10/23/2007 9:45:01 PM , Rating: 1
> " If you think that the US population would have balked about nuking Japan you don't know enough WWII era people"

Very true. Also, remember perspectives on nuclear weapons are wholly different today, after living through the Cold War era. We consider nuclear weapons to be in a different category than conventional ones, and for good reason.

However, in 1945 a nuclear bomb was just a bomb...albeit a very large one. There was no stigma attached to their usage.

RE: just wondering
By jskirwin on 10/22/2007 11:25:53 AM , Rating: 2
they had already hinted that they would do so before the bombings

I met Japanese who were being trained by the neighborhood watch to attack the expected American invaders with sharpened sticks. They also told me how children were being taught to overcome their fear of foreigners so that they would don backpacks holding bombs and approach American soldiers. It was a difficult task considering that most had never seen a foreigners.

They were convinced that had the bombs not been dropped they would have fought to the last man/woman/child - as the Okinawans had earlier in the Summer of '45.

RE: just wondering
By Gul Westfale on 10/22/2007 2:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
that is all true, however the emperor himself had hinted in messages sent to the allies that he would consider surrender if it meant that he himself could remain as head of state. the allies refused, dropped the bombs, and then let him continue on as emperor after japan's unconditional surrender. it's not revisionist if it actually happened.

RE: just wondering
By jacarte8 on 10/22/2007 9:58:25 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong, we (the US) spent BILLIONS to assist the rebuilding of Germany.


RE: just wondering
By lemonadesoda on 10/22/2007 5:39:58 PM , Rating: 2

The "aid" was interest bearing loans. Germany paid the U.S. back in installments (the last check was handed over in June 1971).

The "aid" was used to support US growth (exports). There were significant restrictions on how the money could be spent, i.e buying US imports.

While the Marshall Plan DID HELP Europe significantly during the post war periods, it needs to be considered as the provision of much needed liquidity, via loan, and not a gift, and was equally designed to benefit the US as much as it did any European country.

Remember also the Industry Plan for Germany after the war. The US led the distruction of 75% of Germany's industrial capacity. Some of this distruction was by physically destroying factories. The other form of distruction was by "stealing"(?) the machines and shipping them to other countries, esp. the US.

Perhaps not dissimilar from the rebuilding of Iraq? Force US contractors at US prices, NOT LOCAL PRICES, and pay via oil.

The Marshall Plan was not wrong. It was a good idea. It helped Europe. It was also clever. It helped the US. It was not charity.

RE: just wondering
By lompocus on 10/23/2007 3:17:28 AM , Rating: 1

We fought for them. We built for them. We saved the whole damn world for them.

We deserve more than what we got, aka unconditional respect!

"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki