Slashdot Mirror


China's Secret Scientific Megaprojects

An anonymous reader writes "The Diplomat reports on the 2006 National Medium to Long-term Plan (MLP) for the Development of Science and Technology, China's most ambitious national science and technology plan to date. The MLP consists of sixteen megaprojects — both civilian and military — that serve as 'S&T vanguard programs designed to transform China's science & technology capabilities in areas such as electronics, semiconductors, [and] telecommunications.' Thirteen of the megaprojects are listed in the MLP, while three are classified for national security reasons. The three classified megaprojects are likely the military components of the Shenguang Laser Project (used for thermonuclear weapons), the Beidou 2 Satellite Navigation System, and the Hypersonic Vehicle Technology Project."

142 comments

  1. Shenguang Laser Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    is not for thermonuclear weapon but for laser weapon.

    1. Re:Shenguang Laser Project by rasmusbr · · Score: 4, Informative

      The article refers to it as Shenguang Laser Project for Inertial Confinement Fusion, which may give a clue about what it's primarily for. It's apparently the Chinese equivalent of USA's National Ignition Facility.

    2. Re:Shenguang Laser Project by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It's apparently the Chinese equivalent of USA's National Ignition Facility.

      Except that it will probably work sooner...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:Shenguang Laser Project by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Or a 1970's band.

    4. Re:Shenguang Laser Project by godel_56 · · Score: 1

      It's apparently the Chinese equivalent of USA's National Ignition Facility.

      Except that it will probably work sooner...

      Yes, it's 15 years away (and always will be) instead of the usual 20 years away (ditto) for western fusion projects.

    5. Re:Shenguang Laser Project by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It would be nice if the US would co-operate with the Chinese on fusion and on space projects. The ESA was happy to work with them on the ISS and the Chinese were interested, so why the shitty attitude from your side of the pond?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Shenguang Laser Project by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

      I'm not personally guilty since I'm not in the US or a US citizen or involved in the NIF project, but I suspect that mbkennel's answer contains a clue to why there isn't a lot of cooperation on the laser fusion projects. The results will be useful if and when it is time to build new hydrogen bombs. The main reason why the US and China have nukes is so that they can point them at one another and at Russia, which could be an obstacle when it comes to cooperation.

      USA, China, EU and Russia are all partners in the ITER project which is the most ambitious mainstream fusion project aimed at a commercially viable reactor design for the grid. The really sad part is that the US and other leading industrial countries have only spent proverbial pennies on fusion research over the years. The US has spent a mere 30 billion in total according to this source http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/reframe/wasteful. We're probably not going to find out if fusion is viable in our lifetimes.

      I'm afraid we're looking at lots and lots of 'clean' coal, a good deal of fracking and other unconventional natural gas, lots of solar panels, some wind turbines and maybe a tiny bit of fission for the next 50 years or so. (Unless someone comes up with a really good fission reactor design. That could change everything.)

    7. Re:Shenguang Laser Project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all your base are belong to us.

    8. Re:Shenguang Laser Project by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The flying car has been 5-10 years away for about 50 years now. How long until I can power my skycar with Mr. Fusion?

  2. Two Weapons, One Satellite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    From the article:
    the “Two Weapons, and One Satellite” science and technology development plan

    Nothing good came from that project...

    1. Re:Two Weapons, One Satellite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Chuckle*

  3. We're safe by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Funny

    They haven't started on the project framework factory project.
    When that one completes, the Eschaton shall surely be immanentized.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    1. Re:We're safe by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Some people don't like Joel (probably the J2EE guys) but he really does have some good things to say about software development. The project framework factory sounds like something that only the Architecture Astronauts could love.

    2. Re:We're safe by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      I love the smell of classic rant in the morning. Smells like. . .well, not much, really.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  4. Lost in translation? by kheldan · · Score: 2

    Are they sure they translated everything properly, and China isn't actually going to weaponize My Little Pony?

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Lost in translation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean the MLP Sterilization Project? Ensuring a whole generation of males is rendered incompatible with females.

      I'd say that project has been a rousing success

    2. Re:Lost in translation? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ensuring a whole generation of males is rendered incompatible with females.

      Male Linuxification Project?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:Lost in translation? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      My Little Ponies need no weaponization. They warp in from some chthonic Plane of Evil, sort of like Dark Archons with sparkles, and assimilate the minds of the innocent.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    4. Re:Lost in translation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Little Ponies need no weaponization. They warp in from some chthonic Plane of Evil, sort of like Dark Archons with sparkles, and assimilate the minds of the innocent.

      My Little Ponies need no weaponization. They warp in from some chthonic Plane of Evil, sort of like Dark Archons with sparkles, and assimilate the minds of the innocent^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H socially inept.

    5. Re:Lost in translation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they sure they translated everything properly, and China isn't actually going to weaponize My Little Pony?

      The Herd's got that department covered: Manehattan Project

  5. The Civ feeling by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

    You know when you're playing Civ and another player builds a wonder you wanted. Thats what this feels like and I expect more to follow.

    1. Re:The Civ feeling by KingTank · · Score: 1

      They don't seem to be afraid of large projects. I hope they build the first fusion reactor. That would really teach the rest of the world not to underfund that kind of thing and just dick around for 40+ years.

    2. Re:The Civ feeling by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      They are... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EAST
      I'm sure there are better links to other projects too. Mind you, the "West" did build CERN.

    3. Re:The Civ feeling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EAST won't be the first break even fusion reactor and is on par with some projects in the west (better at some things, slightly worse at others, all of the projects at that level have some specializations they do better at). China is a member of ITER and will be contributing toward that project. The question is if they will decide and follow through with making their own version of ITER in addition to contributing to ITER, and follow it up with a project on par with DEMO.

    4. Re:The Civ feeling by ciderbrew · · Score: 2

      After having a read, it looks like here in the UK we are actually doing stuff; but crap at showing off about it. No change there.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus

  6. I hope China crushes the US and the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I am tired of seeing old white men who have a sense of entitlement acting like
    they run the world.

    The west has had a good run, but it is time for the next wave.

    Bring it on.

    1. Re:I hope China crushes the US and the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod me down, but the wave is coming, you sorry cocksuckers,
      and it will envelop ALL OF YOU.

    2. Re:I hope China crushes the US and the EU by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is the solution to one group thinking it can "crush" the others having another group "crush" the first, or everybody learning to work with each other, regardless of which plot of land they happened to be born on?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:I hope China crushes the US and the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      work with each other? to what end. The only purpose we have is self defined. Violence and intimidation are tools in writing our history.

    4. Re:I hope China crushes the US and the EU by bdwebb · · Score: 1
      Thank you for some logic! From the parent:

      I am tired of seeing old white men who have a sense of entitlement acting like they run the world.

      While I'm white, I'm not old and I'm not running anything. If China crushes the EU and US, all people in the EU and US are crushed regardless of race. They may get the old white guys, too, but I think the more likely consequence is that the people of the EU and US suffer far far worse.

      How about we work towards something together instead of trying to thwart progress by trying to crush one another all the time.

    5. Re:I hope China crushes the US and the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean you expect us to "get along" with people who have a different skin colour than us? Are you insane?

      Seriously though, be careful...you'll get modded down for being a Socialist with that kind of talk...

    6. Re:I hope China crushes the US and the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

      Aren't China as a government actually funding a space mining project now?
      (or wanting to make an asteroid cannon)

      Most countries except the US generally would rather have a peaceful solution to everything.
      Even China and Russia. (but that's notttt true, commiessss, dictatorrssss, wdahaduyogds)
      USA is too much MURRICA to care for peaceful solutions these days. Starting wars left, right and center.

      Another large-scale war will end us. All of us. Nobody will win except those hermits hiding in mountains that will get to play Fallout in real life.

    7. Re:I hope China crushes the US and the EU by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      I think the statement that everyone but the USA seeks peace is far too simplistic an assessment (particularly your parenthetical, which ignores a lot of the modern international dynamic in favor of tongue-in-cheek name-calling). There are problems with violence throughout the fabric of humanity. In China, violence tends to be focused on dissidents, the occasional border tiff with India, and the proxy wars in the Middle East and Africa. In Europe, there is a tendency to suggest peace, but right now there is a real push in a number of European countries to fix the Syrian and Egyptian problems (not that there is a real solution for Syria--both "sides" are problematic, and in Egypt it was under the military dictatorship that women could walk alone at dusk in the streets without fear of rape, the Christians and Muslims didn't kill each other, and a return to that government might help restore that peace). Europe is divided on the question, though, and throwing in war hawks from Iran and Russia doesn't help. The USA has its own share of stirring the ants nests of the world, but it is by no means alone. A number of the powers that be see it as beneficial for the individual country to shift problems outside its borders--proxy wars, aiding in "police actions", etc. Should we seek peace where possible? Yes--and that is certainly the goal of many. Should we fail to be realistic about general human self-interest? I hope not.

    8. Re:I hope China crushes the US and the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we don't have a sense of entitlement. we think if we kill you for it, it's ours. that's not entitlement. entitlement is if we just sat back and whined that some foreign entity is beating us and that it's just not right.

    9. Re:I hope China crushes the US and the EU by khallow · · Score: 1
      By the time China does such a thing, most of the population won't be old, white men. Excuse me, but I have to go act like I'm running the world.

      The west has had a good run, but it is time for the next wave.

      Ever consider running your own affairs rather than having them run by someone else?

    10. Re:I hope China crushes the US and the EU by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You are afraid that China selling more trains to South America than the US or Europe will really affect your daily life? China isn't looking to "crush" anyone or harm anyone, but to bring up China to a world-class economy without pulling a USSR (oops, too much enrichment, they are fighting back). It'll only harm the US if the US is stupid, which we have been for the last 20+ years.

    11. Re:I hope China crushes the US and the EU by bdwebb · · Score: 1

      You are afraid that China selling more trains to South America than the US or Europe will really affect your daily life? China isn't looking to "crush" anyone or harm anyone, but to bring up China to a world-class economy without pulling a USSR (oops, too much enrichment, they are fighting back). It'll only harm the US if the US is stupid, which we have been for the last 20+ years.

      Err...I think you missed my point. The AC said he wanted China to crush the EU and US because old white men run things and have a sense of entitlement and I said hey why don't we not crush anyone and stop being dicks to one another. I didn't indicate that I was scared that China selling trains to South America would have any effect on me at all or anything to that effect...I just said that if China crushes the EU and US like the AC desperately hopes, it doesn't effect the old white guys nearly as much as the people of the nations involved.

    12. Re:I hope China crushes the US and the EU by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Like the financial collapse, the rich old white men still made piles.

  7. test for free enterprise by duckintheface · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since WW2, the US has had a huge lead in science and tech, in part due to the lack of competition from countries that were severely damaged by the war. China is the second largest economy in the world and is the first "command economy" to actually offer competition in innovation to the US. US companies have long argued that the free market was the best way to produce cutting edge innovation. Aside from the defense arena, that is how most tech has been developed.... without an overarching central plan. Now US tech faces a concerted, planned, and nationally funded challenge from China. If the MLP innitiatives are successful in moving China ahead of the US in the targeted areas of research, it will be the end of the hands-off approach of the US government.

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    1. Re:test for free enterprise by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's never so simple. The US claims to be a free market, but in reality the government extensively subsidizes some industries and penalizes others, and is the single largest purchaser in the country. China claims to be a communist success story, but in reality the government long ago realized that it isn't practical to command an entire economy and turned to the free market to set prices and determine manufacture of most goods - it is the private sector that forms the mighty Chinese manufacturing base, not the government.

      They really aren't as far apart as many want to believe.

    2. Re:test for free enterprise by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      it is the private sector that forms the mighty Chinese manufacturing base, not the government

      Sure, if you consider the PLA part of the private sector. PLA enterprises do largely work within a market system though.

    3. Re:test for free enterprise by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Informative

      China is the second largest economy in the world and is the first "command economy" to actually offer competition in innovation to the US.

      The first? Better check out which country put the first satellite into orbit and the first man into space, and which country had the first ballistic missiles and jet aircraft.

    4. Re:test for free enterprise by Khashishi · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Soviets offered some real competition back in the day.

    5. Re:test for free enterprise by duckintheface · · Score: 5, Interesting

      SuricouRaven, you are correct that China has turned to free enterprise at the micro level to set prices and allocate resources. No argument there. But China still has a command economy at the macro level, setting overall goals and choosing winners and losers in the marketplace. A recent example is that the Chinese government has forced all the rare earth mining companies in the country to join a government consortium which controls access at the source. This is part of a plan to make China pre-eminent in high-tech manufacturing using rare earths. I'm saying that China has a plan. The US has no industrial or innovation plan. So we will see which system works better. If US companies focus on short term profit instead of long term innovation, I think this will be the last time they do that. The US government will step in to secure our future.

      --
      "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    6. Re:test for free enterprise by duckintheface · · Score: 1

      The Russians offered military competition because (as we discovered after the fall of Communism) they were sacrificing everything else in their country to pay for the military. Russia never offered economic competition or competition in innovation outside of the military arena. The real long term battle is economic and not military.

      --
      "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    7. Re:test for free enterprise by TWiTfan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they were sacrificing everything else in their country to pay for the military

      Sounds familiar.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    8. Re:test for free enterprise by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      You're moving the goalposts. Your original post referred to "competition in innovation". If the Soviet space accomplishments as innovation, I don't know what does. It's also a dual-use technology, not strictly military. Moreover, even as far as the purely military technology goes, that doesn't count as innovation?

    9. Re:test for free enterprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nooooooo! Don't shatter the narrative that we have so come to love!

    10. Re:test for free enterprise by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      It could be that I am missing part of your point, but isn't the indirect stimulation of DARPA projects, green energy investment, etc. a part of the US government's way of responding to the potential threat of a foreign unified macro-economy?

    11. Re:test for free enterprise by khallow · · Score: 1

      it will be the end of the hands-off approach of the US government.

      What hands-off approach? The US spends gobs of money and directs plenty of research. It just doesn't do that particularly well even for a government.

      And what "first 'command economy'"? Both Russia and Japan predate this and they were able to offer such competition (Japan still does).

      I'm also a bit amused by the insistence that this time around directed research will show the folly of relying on "hands-off" research. If directed research were that effective, especially when practiced by the US, then it'd have a better track record.

    12. Re:test for free enterprise by khallow · · Score: 1

      The US government will step in to secure our future.

      Previous US government steps to secure our future are why the US has so many short term viewpoints in the private sector. If you reward a behavior, such as short term thinking, then it gets worse.

      And of course, the obvious solution is for the US government to baby us even more so that we are even less prepared to deal with the future. I'm sure this will turn out well.

    13. Re:test for free enterprise by handleym99 · · Score: 1

      DARPA is the US Ministry of Planning. The people in America who actually know WTF they are doing give it a nice militaristic name to get the twits in Congress to keep funding it, but let's not be stupid about this. Its job is the same as any other ministry of planning, in Russia, China, or Japan --- to look into the future, make guesses as to where technology is going, and try to steer research in such a way as to benefit (for some meaning of "benefit") the US (for some meaning of "US"). Where the US has a great advantage over other countries (including China) is that the totalizing tendency has not got very far here. So while DARPA is out there doing its thing and supporting its favorites, we also have NSF supporting a different set of favorites. Or ONR supporting yet another set. Or the National Labs doing their own thing. Or NASA supporting yet another approach. Or various SBR programs supporting small companies. Or even research funded by the various large foundations. It's easy to claim that this results in higher overhead, duplication of effort, blah blah. But we have more than 60 years of experience with the US system, along with a variety of other national systems, and, really, there's no contest. The very minor additional overhead in the US system is vastly compensated for by the fact that malicious or simply stupid or shortsighted individuals cannot capture the system as a whole. The head of DARPA may, for whatever reason, be absolutely unwilling to spend money on, I don't know, THz lasers --- maybe he thinks they'll never work, maybe he hates the guy who invented them, maybe he thinks they're so "obviously" desirable that private industry will invent them without government money. Regardless, if UCLA wants to work on THz lasers, they're not screwed; they can still talk to ONR or NSF or a dozen other funding sources and IF they have a credible story, they'll probably find someone willing to help them.

    14. Re:test for free enterprise by handleym99 · · Score: 1

      WTF is wrong with the Slashdot editing system that it never preserves carriage returns? EVERY TIME I try to write a nice, carefully structured piece, with logical paragraphs, and it gets vomited up as this single glob of text, like I'm an illiterate troll.

    15. Re:test for free enterprise by dryeo · · Score: 1

      You need to change your posting preferences to "Plain Old Text"

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    16. Re:test for free enterprise by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      If the MLP innitiatives are successful in moving China ahead of the US in the targeted areas of research, it will be the end of the hands-off approach of the US government.

      The Chinese are known for stealing the ideas and intellectual efforts of others, not so much for creating their own. They are followers, not leaders in tech. So far they've managed to close the gap by shamelessly stealing every technology that they can get their hands on, but what have they done themselves that's innovative and wasn't done first in the US or Europe? Nothing that I can remember and that's why they're still second fiddle to the US in research and development.

    17. Re:test for free enterprise by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The default settings expect you to use HTML formatting - enclose your paragraphs between <p> and </p> tags, or put a <br> in for line breaks.

      Or you can just change the settings to use plain text.

    18. Re:test for free enterprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is the US going to lose? It's because its corporations don't give a flying fuckypoos about freedom, free markets and democracy. They care about profits and nothing more.

      That's why they always sell out the US to China.. every time. And that's why China will win.

    19. Re:test for free enterprise by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      PLA "owns" industry like the US banks own industry. The US and China are very close, but love to argue about terminology (well, at least the lower middle class Americans love to argue terminology to explain why they are better than the Chinese).

    20. Re:test for free enterprise by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You can use

      To preserve carriage returns. Extra characters, but more effective open-triangle-bracket "br" close-triangle-bracket. Try it, you can use preview to look, and not actually post it.

  8. Hope one of those megaprojects is to clean the air by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All that great technology and wealth is meaningless if you live in a toxic environment.

  9. And you think it will be China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You so funny. Let's jot down a quick list of things that will likely cripple China within the next 20 years.

    - Slowing economy
    - Massive population
    - The food shortage of the century
    - Fresh water
    - Municipal incompetence
    - Gross amounts of industrial pollution

    And those are just broad points. China's government is so corrupt that it's highly unlikely it will actually serve the people in any measurable manner.

    1. Re:And you think it will be China? by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Funny

      What makes you think they won't just take everyone else's food, money, and water?

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    2. Re:And you think it will be China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Interesting times ahead for China. Their govt will likely collapse within the next decade.
      Most experts agree that without at least a 10% on year growth civil unrest will become unsustainable. There just won't be enough jobs and resources and money to cover the gross inefficiency and lack of real governing ability their form of government affords. (A corrupt dictatorship that pays favor to a privileged few) Most Chinese are aware of the problems in their country. They say they put up with it for the "Greater good", but we all know what happens when there are no jobs and no food to feed your family. .. China's economy has already slowed to less than 10% growth. Change is inevitable, but what kind of change is uncertain.

    3. Re:And you think it will be China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Piss poor military technology engineering.

    4. Re:And you think it will be China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 20 years, global population will reach it's maximum and then begin to decline. We reached an inflection point not too long ago.

    5. Re:And you think it will be China? by triffid_98 · · Score: 1

      ....and single women, since they're still running about 20% short on those

    6. Re:And you think it will be China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 20 years, global population will reach it's maximum and then begin to decline. We reached an inflection point not too long ago.

      I wish that the amount of people who can't tell its from it's would decline too. But that's asking for perpetual motion or the Philosopher's Stone.

    7. Re:And you think it will be China? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Most experts agree that without at least a 10% on year growth civil unrest will become unsustainable.

      Then most experts are full of shit. As long as economic growth is significant greater than population growth, there will be an increase in per capita wealth.

    8. Re:And you think it will be China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a moment there I wasn't sure you were talking about us or them...?

    9. Re:And you think it will be China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      tibet stores the largest fresh water reserves outside the pole's

    10. Re:And you think it will be China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not one of the points you raised is relevant. There's only one major problem for China : it's lack of democracy.
      At one point people will revolt against corruption, there will be bloodshed, and this will be a temporary setback for the economy.
      But it will come no doubt.

      All the points you raise can easily be solved by any developed nation, and China is one of them.
      Food production for 2013 is up 7% worldwide (current estimations) compared to 2012.
      http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/
      Population growth rate is between 1 and 1,5%, so food production grows 5 to 7 times as fast as the population.
      2012 was not a good year to compare with (droughts) but still increases in food production far outweigh population growth long term.
      What's more, most parts of the world still have enormous agricultural growth potential, even just by adapting to western productivity standards. Imagine what further automation and biotech will do.
      So no, there will be no global food shortages in the foreseeable future.
      There will be no energy shortages either (fracking and other new technologies).
      Pollution is taken care of and regulated in every single developed country, the entire population is behind that from the moment they have enough money to care about it, so it happens everywhere.

      That said, there will be economical/political problems, and thus local food shortages in backwards societies, but that's politics.
      Bring in democracy and capitalism, and you won't even have to grow food yourself.
      Imagine Africans, Arabs and Asians writing software and building machines instead of hunting, gathering and god-worshiping !
      Asia has departed, the rest of the developing world will follow or starve/fight themselves to death.
      That's their problem, not ours, they are welcome to join the civilized world and get rid of their backwards religious and socialist theories. It's up to the young generations over there, and they will do it, no doubt !

    11. Re:And you think it will be China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Food production for 2013 is up 7% worldwide (current estimations) compared to 2012. http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/ Population growth rate is between 1 and 1,5%, so food production grows 5 to 7 times as fast as the population.

      Except food production still isn't high enough to feed everyone, so just comparing growth rates is meaningless. Once the underfed all die off, then your comparison will hold merit.

    12. Re:And you think it will be China? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So the best thing we can do to bring about the fall of China is mail order Chinese brides?

    13. Re:And you think it will be China? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      You missed two.
      -Massive population
          a) Demographically most of that population will be old soon, with a small (relatively of course) working base supporting it.
          b) Demographically most of the younger population will be men, with no marriageable prospects, and thus a generation with much less children. (Due to the 1 child policy and the "preference" of families to have a boy child.

      People talk about Japan, and even the West and the baby boomers, aging population, and collapse of any sort of welfare etc... Well China will make that look like nothing I think. I recently heard about a law whereby children were legally obligated to take care of their parents into old age...

  10. Whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as China can keep shipping cheap LiPO batteries, radios, and low cost RC boats and foamy planes, they can imitate the West as much as they like.

  11. And the part that should scare most of you.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is what happens if china funds and develops fusion technology in the next two decades, and using it's plethora of foreign owned companies, patents/trade secrets the technology, thus giving them 30 years of control over cheap ubiquitous energy, while the rest of us fight over the ever dwindling scraps of fossil fuel?

    Hell, they might be able to keep it all in-country and just provide energy services from their borders at just cheap enough to bankrupt the competition rates.

    1. Re:And the part that should scare most of you.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think, given the amount of technology they've presumably acquired through industrial espionage, that it may be fair to "borrow" some of that fusion technology back if needed

    2. Re:And the part that should scare most of you.... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Is what happens if china funds and develops fusion technology in the next two decades, and using it's plethora of foreign owned companies, patents/trade secrets the technology, thus giving them 30 years of control over cheap ubiquitous energy, while the rest of us fight over the ever dwindling scraps of fossil fuel?

      If they keep it all to themselves, then there won't be much impact - the rest of the economy is large enough to keep running on fossil fuels. There is plenty of natural gas around, especially if China's advances spur a competitive race (which would be good).

      If they doll out the technology politically, then it could get *very* interesting.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:And the part that should scare most of you.... by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      If they develop better technology sooner then..... THEY WIN. This is a good argument that if we don't want to LOSE we should put more effort into developing new technology.

      In the 1800's China made the mistake of falling off the technology curve. As a result they were beaten and humiliated by the advanced technology of the western powers. Revenge would be poetic and well deserved, but personally I'd like to not be on the receiving end.

    4. Re:And the part that should scare most of you.... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Is what happens if china funds and develops fusion technology in the next two decades, and using it's plethora of foreign owned companies, patents/trade secrets the technology, thus giving them 30 years of control over cheap ubiquitous energy, while the rest of us fight over the ever dwindling scraps of fossil fuel?

      Hell, they might be able to keep it all in-country and just provide energy services from their borders at just cheap enough to bankrupt the competition rates.

      WTF are you about, AC?

      "Thirty years of cheap, ubiquitous energy" - from fusion? The technology whose demonstrator sites (that don't actually produce power, just consume it) cost tens of billions of dollars? The technology that has yet to create positive amounts of energy in a fashion that doesn't tend to vaporize the surrounding countryside? That 'secret'? Or 'cheap'?

      Not to mention the problem of preventing others from borrowing the technology should it ever actually work out. You realize that a Chinese patent isn't the same as an American (or Euopean or African) patent? Should the Chinese actually manage to create contained fusion that is commericially viable their best bet would be to license it and make a bunch of money off of it. Otherwise, somebody will just out and out steal it.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re: And the part that should scare most of you.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would just have to assume it would only be a few years before someone defected with all the key information necessary to complete out own system. Think atom bomb and how quickly that data was compromised.

    6. Re:And the part that should scare most of you.... by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      Then Russia copies it and sells it for next to nothing.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    7. Re:And the part that should scare most of you.... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      given the amount of technology they've presumably acquired through industrial espionage

      Forget about that - it's swamped by the amount of technology our ever patriotic "American" companies have given them by making a quick buck via "joint ventures" that include a technology sharing requirement. I kind of expect the other team to cheat a bit, but I'd hope we wouldn't make shooting ourselves in the foot a national pastime.

    8. Re:And the part that should scare most of you.... by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      That will never happen because their culture does not reward innovation.

      That explains why they never invented porcelain, the blast furnace, paper, the compass or gunpowder.

    9. Re:And the part that should scare most of you.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The technology whose demonstrator ....

      Yes yes.

      The fact is that fusion research has had sporadic bursts of investments - usually ending up with canned projects that yield minimal experimental data - that don't amount to more than a trickle of money. Back in the mid-70s, there was an investment program analysis that showed where we'd be given various investment levels, and the program we chose was well below "Fusion Never".

      In other words, by the time a researcher with a good idea gets to try it out, they're working for Goldman Sachs and reminiscing about when they tried to do some good in the world..

      We're too stupid to deserve fusion. Don't blame fusion. It's like a test - and we're getting an 'F'.

    10. Re:And the part that should scare most of you.... by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      Your lack of more recent discoveries is telling

    11. Re:And the part that should scare most of you.... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      ...what happens if china funds and develops fusion technology in the next two decades, and using it's plethora of foreign owned companies, patents/trade secrets the technology...

      Then they get to learn that karma is a bitch.

    12. Re:And the part that should scare most of you.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Their culture rewards innovation, but also rewards other things. In the US, profit is rewarded, and innovation is rewarded only as it is profitable. IF "first to market" didn't pay profits, then nobody would value innovation in the US.

  12. As if China's the only 1 who has "secret" projects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Will Sandia lists their secret projects they are working on? WIll Area 51? Yes, it's another day, another CHina bashing article. /. is no better than FAUX news.

  13. Re:Hope one of those megaprojects is to clean the by NettiWelho · · Score: 1

    Hope one of those megaprojects is to clean the air

    Nope, but one of them is a Ringworld. They have figured that at this points its gonna be cheaper to just buy a new one instead of fixing the old one.

  14. The enemy within by Sterculius · · Score: 2

    The Chinese have already succeeded in their main mega-project: Chinese restaurants. While mostly salt, fat, and MSG, Americans gobble it down and feel they are eating healthy because there is a piece of broccoli in there somewhere.

    1. Re:The enemy within by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Bah. For all their popularity, Chinese restaurants have not displaced the mighty hamburger or the ubiquitous pizza. Mexican restaurants are giving them a run for their money too.

    2. Re:The enemy within by Sterculius · · Score: 1

      Most people don't consider those healthy. Doesn't matter, most people probably know that Chinese food isn't really health food either. It just tastes good. Actually, it sounds pretty good right now. Time for lunch!

    3. Re:The enemy within by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Chinese food is health food. The stuff served in the US as Chinese food isn't.

  15. How to screw yourself by ebno-10db · · Score: 0

    FTA:

    Technology transfers, foreign R&D investment, and training of Chinese scientists and engineers at research institutes and corporations overseas are part of China’s “indigenous innovation” drive to identify, digest, absorb, and reinvent select technological capabilities, both in civil and military domains.

    Approaches that the US government happily facilitates. I'm all for competition (in civilian sectors anyway), but I am opposed to us bending over backwards to give our stuff to the other side.

  16. The missed a project by jmcwork · · Score: 1

    Sharktopus!

  17. Re:Hope one of those megaprojects is to clean the by rasmusbr · · Score: 2

    China does not really need to invent anything to clean up its air. They need to absorb technology and regulation from the west.

    Scrubbing exhaust from all coal fired plants and enforcing that all cars must have functioning catalytic converters would probably solve a lot of the air quality problems that they have.

  18. Wrong Focus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They should focus their energy on the "Lift 900 Million people out of $2/day" megaproject, or the "move away from an export and build a consumer economy" megaproject, although I guess they wanted to go for something that's achievable.

    Although to be honest, these projects do fit within China's key areas of concern. Their economy is on shaky ground; they're too reliant on the rest of the world buying their products for cheap; the global recession proved the danger of that. They also have a populace clamoring for more goods and better wages, so they need to move out of cheap manufacturing and instead move to higher quality, more complex goods; thus the advanced CNC and integrated circuit manufacturing technologies. They also have terrible domestic energy resources (their coal is highly sulfuric leading to their terrible air pollution in the cities), hence the nuclear power expansion (they have the world's first AP-1000's online and want to build 70 more) and the expanded natural gas exploration. They have to feed and care for a lot of people and have an aging population, thus the GMO and pharmaceutical research. Basically China grew very quickly without establishing a stable foundation of quality, reliable food sources, energy, and organic natural economic growth; most of these projects are geared towards filling in the gaps they left in their economy and society over the past 30 years.

    1. Re:Wrong Focus by mi · · Score: 1

      They should focus their energy on the "Lift 900 Million people out of $2/day" megaproject, or the "move away from an export and build a consumer economy" megaproject

      Why should China bother with that, if the United States and the rest of the Western world spend their still-considerable energies on those subjects — despite not having any such poor people among their citizenry for decades?

      And when we here aren't thinking of that, we work on disciplines like "Wymen's Issues" and "Social Studies"... It is like our rulers — the decision-makers in education, in particular — want to give China the time to catch-up with us...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Wrong Focus by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

      Do you want a world with 2+ billion middle class citizens greedy and wasteful like western culture?

      I mean its all grand to sit in your 1/2 million dollar home you can't afford, sipping Starbucks while your Tesla beams its charging status to your iPhone and smack your hand down on a table and demand that the Chinese population earn the same kind of living you do, but China is doing what most other Western countries did to establish their "foundations".

      I mean there was a time in US history, not TOO long ago, where the "human rights" violations of a country that needed to grow their industry and economy quickly resulted in a civil war, after which the US entered an era of unprecedented growth and influence on the world stage. You think the US started on a strong foundation of quality and natural economic growth? Or didn't the US start on a foundation of slaves building the infrastructure of the country?

      Not defending that China should just go through the motions of a slave economy just because everyone else has, but I mean a country the size of China can't turn on a dime and have every citizen sitting in houses they can't afford, sipping expensive branded coffee and waiting for the Tesla to finish charging so they can drive their kids to soccer practice at a park 1/4 mile away.

      Hopefully China might do something better this time then create a state of petulant and lazy citizens.

      --
      I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
    3. Re:Wrong Focus by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Or didn't the US start on a foundation of slaves building the infrastructure of the country?

      No, it didn't. Slaves mostly grew cotton and the like. Railroads, canals, etc. were built by free labor, even if not always under the best of conditions.

      Moreover, slavery had little to do with the productive output of the US, and everything to do with the distribution of wealth and income. US cotton production soared after the Civil War (as compared to the antebellum levels). Aside from the obvious immorality of slavery, the economic reality is that free labor is more productive.

    4. Re:Wrong Focus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should focus their energy on the "Lift 900 Million people out of $2/day" megaproject,

      Or alternatively, "feed, clothe and shelter 900 million people on $2/day."

    5. Re:Wrong Focus by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      SkepticalOptimist needs to be more skeptical of the stories and modern myths his teachers taught him. e.g. 1. The 'black man' did not build America, slaves are lousy workers. 2. Smallpox lives 24 hours on a blanket.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:Wrong Focus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Original AC here, although with how much I post on slashdot maybe I should finally register.

      Thanks for making a blatant and BS stereotype about me. You're right that I'm American, however I rent a small 2 bedroom place with my fiancee, drive a fuel efficient and inexpensive newer Honda Civic, and I brew my own fair trade coffee and avoid Starbucks like the plague (all that and a conservative too). I also happen to have a degree in East Asian studies with a focus on Chinese history and culture, and speak some Mandarin. But, hey, does that matter to you. since judging from your response you clearly didn't read my post? You know, the part about where their technological foci are on areas that are inherently weak in the foundation of their economy?

      My point about bringing up the 900 M people out of poverty had absolutely nothing to do with judging China or altruism or some sort of idealistic humanitarian crusade. It's based entirely economics and internal Chinese politics. The Chinese government's legitimacy is based on their economic prosperity; they have used the fact that their economy has grown so much as their reason for a right to rule. Unfortunately they are only partially responsible for that; they took advantage of the Western world's desire for cheap products and produced products with cheap labor. The problem is, the West's appetite for imported products has dried up with the recession, and the Chinese economy has taken a beating, moreso than the rest of the world because it's so export driven. As such, this fundamentally challenges the legitimacy of the government, which inherently creates a internal instability. The problem is, this comes at a time when China has successfully brought about 400 M people out of poverty in the coastal regions who have a good standard of living, and are trying to do the same thing with the interior. The disconnect is that the 400 M people on the coast want the wealth and taxes they pay to go to things they want: more education and better, higher paying jobs, but the 900 M in the interior are still waiting in the wings for China's newfound wealth to come to them.

      Thus, you see in the Chinese newspapers open debate (very rare in a Communist society) about where China should focus; there are factions developing in the Party between the old guard Communists who are trying to move money inland and balance out the wealth and the newer wealthy coastal people who want to keep their money in place. Unfortunately the newer coastal group is winning; the new president Li Keqiang is part of the new rich coastal group whereas his primary challenger Bo Xilai was arrested and imprisoned for questionable corruption charges. That's why you see projects like this, advancing science and putting people on the moon (one of the 16 projects on the list), which hits the right notes of the coastal regions. However it does nothing to help the internal 900 M people gain wealth and new opportunities for themselves. Thus I see several of these projects as extremely wasteful and detrimental to Chinese society; I think projects more like roads, railroads, and canals that create transportation options for the interior generate opportunities for business to grow in those areas, which then create jobs and raise the standard of living for the poorer interior.

      But i wouldn't expect most people to actually follow the Chinese political structure, the open debates going on, nor understand the mechanisms that drive Chinese economy unless you actually study it like I do.

    7. Re:Wrong Focus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice post, AC.
      There's no doubt that China's internal issues are in no way simple to analyze, which makes all those "the chinese only steal stuff!" all the more annoying.
      I tried to follow Bo Xilai's story, because it was clearly a very hard internal struggle. Sadly, as you said, he was arrested on dubious claims and Li Keqiang's (sp?) cronnies seem to have the upper hand.
      It's good to read someone with decent knowledge of the matter at hand.
      And yes, perhaps you should register ;)

      PS: weird human-checking word: educator

  19. Re:As if China's the only 1 who has "secret" proje by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    it's another day, another China bashing article

    Please explain how it's China bashing to point out the large scientific and technological projects in China. Also, if it's China bashing, why does the Chinese government proudly advertise these projects?

  20. Re:Hope one of those megaprojects is to clean the by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    which is why China is investing a lot of money in fusion energy

  21. Re:Hope one of those megaprojects is to clean the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All that great technology and wealth is meaningless if you live in a toxic environment.

    There are more than a billion cinese, and the PLA is most numerous army in the world.
    Vital land can be found up north in russia, to the west in india and to the south.
    Who's going to stop them should they decide to grab some land in the future ?

  22. Re:Hope one of those megaprojects is to clean the by simonbp · · Score: 1

    Well probably the Russians.

    For its bluster, the PLA is better thought of as a large, poorly manged investment company that happens to also have (poorly trained) soldiers and fighter jets. It hasn't really fought a war since 1949, and has very little anti-missile capability. The Russians would not give two chits about launching all the ICBMs at China if the PLA ever invaded.

  23. Re:Hope one of those megaprojects is to clean the by sconeu · · Score: 2

    Soneone's been reading his Tom Clancy, hasn't he....

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  24. It's a thermonuclear weapon design project by mbkennel · · Score: 2


    The NIF is 95% a weapons project, and likely this is as well.

    The complex parts of high-technology nuclear weapons are not nuclear physics, that part is firmly established. The complexity is in the radiative transfer, fluid mechanics and equations of state in extreme conditions.

    These kinds of fusion projects (NIF) simulate the multi-stage (indirect drive) radiation driven compression of nuclear fuel. The goal is to get clean calibration data for the simulation software used to make weapons without full nuclear testing, which is banned by treaty.

    There isn't much energy generation possibility in these.

  25. Say what you will by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 3, Funny

    But while Western governments twiddle their thumbs in their respective senates or congress figuring out how to recover from a devastating decline in the economy with a mounting ecological deficit and can't do anything without gauging public opinion from the largely idiot masses when it comes to any kind of "super-project", China will most likely solve most of the world's problems in energy and climate change.

    Surprisingly the country with past human right violations may actually save humanity, while countries that promote the idea they protect human rights sit and let the world rot while their ineffective politicians quibble in their grand ballrooms of democracy.

    Of course if China's economy collapses under the weight and pressure of these super-projects, the world is fucked.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
    1. Re:Say what you will by eyenot · · Score: 1

      "Surprisingly the country with past human right violations"

      What a cheap statement. That applies equally well to any first rate country in the world, today. Especially America and China.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    2. Re:Say what you will by eyenot · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In case anyone on Slashdot isn't already quite aware of this, the history of the United States of America since its foundation is basically one long, continuous freefall deeper into a hole of human rights violations.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    3. Re:Say what you will by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      can't do anything without gauging public opinion from the largely idiot masses

      A group of which you are not a member, of course.

    4. Re:Say what you will by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freefall? Did you sleep through every history class or even the BS crap on the History Channel? If you think it is such a simple, continuous freefall, you are blind and don't realize how good you have it now. Of course there are a crap ton of problems now and some specific things are much worse than ever. But if you needed to sum things up into a small trite description like you were talking to some grade school child, "continuous freefall" is not even close, and some sort of roller coaster with ups and downs would at least be slightly closer.

    5. Re:Say what you will by eyenot · · Score: 1

      How "good" anyone has it in the United States of America, where even those in poverty are living better than 85% of the rest of the planet (yes, I did pass college level Anthropology with a 4.0) is entirely due to the continent's natural wealth. There is plentiful food because there is fertile soil, and there is plentiful water because there are large bodies of fresh water.

      Our rights and expectations, however, are very low. And our quality of civilization doesn't match our quality of life. The US consistently ranks very low in educational scoring and simultaneously ranks as among the most physiologically unhealthy populations on the planet. I am pretty sure, despite how you might try to catch these facts aside into some other category of data, that these are things that directly impact "quality of life" and "standard of living".

      Meanwhile, all of that is entirely fucking besides the point. All you're trying to do is sideline this into a discussion about what resources the United States has to offer its citizens.

      In reality the United States was founded on human rights violations, it has succeeded throughout history by violating human rights, and it is an international embarrassment in terms of human rights to this day. If you really, really think you can handle the argument, go ahead, test me.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  26. Re:Hope one of those megaprojects is to clean the by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    If one of them is fusion energy, as it appears to be...then yes it is. They'll be able to stop polluting, actively clean their atmosphere and then they'll be all gung-ho about environmental initiatives like carbon trading when they're holding the clean and abundant energy.

    Fusion race tiem?

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  27. Re:As if China's the only 1 who has "secret" proje by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    USA article:
    "Boo USA"

    [another country] article:
    "Well what about USA?"

    Please stop being this obsessive.

  28. Re:As if China's the only 1 who has "secret" proje by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this is "China bashing" then every day on Slashdot is "USA bashing" by your thin-skinned standard.

  29. plus aging population by peter303 · · Score: 2

    24% of China's population will be over 60 in 20 years while just 17% of the US. The US has both a higher birth rate and immigration rate than most other developed or semi-developed countries. Each "only child" in China may be supporting two living parents and up to four living grandparents.

    1. Re:plus aging population by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Each "only child" in China may be supporting two living parents and up to four living grandparents.

      With massive robotization in the process of being introduced in Chinese factories, is that really an issue? Productivity was bound to increase (slightly) even without robotization.

    2. Re:plus aging population by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The increased liklihood of families living together seems to limit the effect of that. The "over 60" will be contributing to the economy by reducing child-care expenses, watching the little ones while the younger people work. People in the US seem less likely to live multi-generational in a single household.

  30. As J.L. Picard Once Said, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The economics of the Future are somewhat different."

    A utopian dream, surely.

  31. The list by CODiNE · · Score: 5, Informative

    The 13 published Megaprojects.

      Core electronic components, high-end general use chips and basic software products
      Large-scale integrated circuit manufacturing equipment and techniques
      New generation broadband wireless mobile communication networks
      Advanced numeric-controlled machinery and basic manufacturing technology
      Large-scale oil and gas exploration
      Large advanced nuclear reactors
      Water pollution control and treatment
      Breeding new varieties of genetically modified organisms
      Pharmaceutical innovation and development
      Control and treatment of AIDS, hepatitis, and other major diseases
      Large aircraft
      High-definition earth observation system
      Manned spaceflight and lunar probe programs

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    1. Re:The list by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      Please add the most important project: The Great Uprooting (massive Urbanization of the Rural population).

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/world/asia/chinas-great-uprooting-moving-250-million-into-cities.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

      Mark Sumner mentioned that there are already prebuilt massive silent cities that he has seen, awaiting the future industrial workers of China.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    2. Re:The list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone else think this is a list of technologies they are looking to steal next?

  32. Penny wise, yuan foolish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still think it's a good idea to have so many Chinese nationals as grad students in American science and engineering universities?

  33. Clean energy by phorm · · Score: 1

    Clean energy might help a bit with the "toxic environment" angle of things. At least it would help reduce further pollution.

    1. Re:Clean energy by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Clean energy might help a bit with the "toxic environment" angle of things. At least it would help reduce further pollution.

      Yeah, but fusion power costs too much to research and we have plenty of engineers to clean up the polluted tiles whenever they pop up.

    2. Re:Clean energy by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Free Energy (if it ever happens) will so fundamentally change thinking that it's hard to conceive of the results. Pollution would be a good thing. You'd then mine the atmosphere for elements, and combine them as you see fit. Yes, with 100% free energy, you could pump trillions of tons of air through cleaners, and make cars out of the pollution (though likely, that wouldn't happen exactly that way, but it'd be at least possible, and with "free energy" economically viable. Cleaning the air is trivial with unlimited free energy. You wouldn't need a space elevator, and space travel would be free. Though free energy says nothing about storage or transport efficiencies. But make a free energy plant on the moon, then use that as a satellite to launch other actions from. Fly to the asteroid belt, shoot asteroids at the moon, and mine the craters. You could shoot them at the earth, but the atmosphere would ablate them, and the risk of injury is higher.

  34. Re:Hope one of those megaprojects is to clean the by khallow · · Score: 1

    Well, I hope China at least is investing in fusion technology that is expected to work inside of a few human lifetimes.

  35. Re:Hope one of those megaprojects is to clean the by Xiaran · · Score: 1

    And on top of that it really wasn't that long ago that Western nations were doing just the same as China is currently. It wasn't really until the 60s-70s that the US friends started passing serious environmental protection laws.

  36. They Were Going to Build The Great Wall by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

    But that was already built in Los Angeles last turn, so the great project was converted to 300 shields instead and promptly lost to corruption because Beijing had neglected to build a courthouse earlier in the game.

  37. nay.... cheaper just to assign it to Unit 61398 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chinese innovation. Call in Unit 61398.

  38. Scare you? by neoshroom · · Score: 1

    I will tell you what would happen in that admittedly unlikely scenario of China discovering cheap fusion power.

    Prices for oil, gas and other energy sources would decrease as China decreased its non-fusion consumption. Neighbors of China may also decrease their non-fusion energy consumption as China could sell them energy over any existing grids.

    So, in the short term things actually improve for non-China economies as if they are still on fossil fuels at this point, they just got cheaper and if they are not then they are unaffected.

    In the long term the technology leaks or is gained via espionage and the rest of the world gets it too. That also assumes China would not just license the tech in the first place and if they do that things work out fine too.

    Sounds win-win to me.

    --
    Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
  39. They can't, really.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    USA has naval superiority, especially considering China's fleet is half a century behind us in technology. Just look at their aircraft carriers. They're a joke.

    They haven't made any serious progress with developing a proper submarine fleet, although they may eventually get there.

    They won't use nuclear weapons, because anybody worth taking anything from also has nukes.

  40. China's Secret Scientific Megaprojects by slash.jit · · Score: 1

    China's Secret Scientific Megaprojects leaked now on Slashdot. Hurry till stocks last!

  41. Yes, but it's dwindling and becoming polluted.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Source: http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2008/world/china-tibet-and-the-strategic-power-of-water/

    Water is still something China will have a dire need for.