天猫
三架破飞机闯黄岩岛，菲律宾这步棋比想的阴险，真正目标浮出水面,强国视角,原创 三架破飞机闯黄岩岛，菲律宾这步棋比想的阴险，真正目标浮出水面_我的网站
A |
The proposed Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rule, set to take effect in December, would mark one of the biggest overhauls of US science funding in decades, giving political appointees greater authority over grant awards previously guided by scientific peer review and requiring that they "advance the President's policy priorities," according to the Washington Post.
It would also effectively expand the 2011 Wolf Amendment, which bars scientists from using NASA funding for bilateral collaborations with China, to all federal agencies and scientists receiving federal funds, marking the largest break in US-China scientific engagement in decades, the US media outlet reported.
So far, the proposed rule has garnered nearly half a million public comments, many from scientists and leading US science bodies. A Washington Post analysis of 50,000 of those comments found that around 88 percent were negative.
The rule, initially set to take effect in October, was pushed back to December after a bipartisan stopgap funding bill temporarily halted its adoption. Unlike the Wolf Amendment, the rule does not require congressional approval to take effect.
"I do think there are still members of Congress who think we have a monopoly on knowledge. They think we're still in the Cold War Soviet era ... where we were ahead in most areas of science and technology. That is not the case with China. We are no longer the leader in many areas of science," said Tobin Smith, senior vice president for government relations and public policy at the Association for American Universities, which advocates on behalf of leading US research universities, per the Washington Post.
Scientists warn that the rule risks subjecting long-term scientific research to four-year political cycles. "We will not succeed if with every new administration we are ping-ponging back and forth about priorities," the American Association for the Advancement of Science said in a blistering comment, urging the administration to withdraw the rule. "Fast-tracking such profound changes ... hands an easy victory to nations like China," it said, the Washington Post reported.
This reflects a fundamental divide between the US government and the scientific community over how science should develop, Wang Yiwei, a professor at Renmin University of China's School of International Studies, told the Global Times. He noted that politicians tend to believe that suppressing China as a competitor would allow the US to preserve its market dominance and technological edge.
Scientists, however, tend to follow a different logic, as scientific progress depends on openness, exchanges and collaboration. If science and technology are driven solely by competition and private capital, with the ultimate goal of maintaining technological monopolies, this could create greater risks and ultimately undermine US interests as well, Wang said.
The proposed rule change is the latest salvo in a broader battle in Washington over how to respond to China's rise as a scientific superpower. In July, the US National Science Foundation (NSF) also moved to ban collaborations between scientist it funds and many Chinese research institutions and their employees, according to Science magazine.
Liu Shaoshan, director of the Center for Embodied AI at the Shenzhen Institute of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics for Society and a former US-based researcher, told the Global Times in a previous interview that the NSF's new proposed rules created a "talent wall," arguing that restrictions based on nationality, institutional affiliation, and research partnerships could reduce the global talent pool available to the US, weaken its ability to attract leading scientists, and slow scientific innovation.
Liu also said scientific advancement relies not only on discovery but also on the exchange, validation, and dissemination of knowledge.
Wang also said China has built significant strengths through its vast pool of scientists and engineers, complete industrial chains and massive application scenarios, while increasingly moving from application-oriented innovation toward original research. Against this backdrop, US technological blockades and restrictions on cooperation are unlikely to halt China's progress, but could instead isolate American scientists from China's latest research and collaboration opportunities. Such an approach could also prevent the two countries from leveraging their respective strengths and ultimately undermine US competitiveness, Wang said.
。 菲律宾这次派来闯黄岩岛的三架飞机，加起来的战斗力还不如中国一架武装直升机。
B | 但如果你觉得这是个笑话，那就上当了。岛人机、C-208、PA-31T，全是些老旧的轻型螺旋桨飞机，别说打仗，连像样的自卫能力都没有。派这种杂牌机队来闯中国领空，看起来像一场闹剧，实则每一步都经过精心算计。它们闯的是中国的领空，真正想拉下水的，却是华盛顿。
C |
要理解菲方意图，得把时间线拉长。今年3月，菲律宾就曾派两架C-208侵入黄岩岛领空，被解放军警告驱离。7月，菲公务船多次闯入黄岩岛海域被驱离。8月1日，中国南部战区直接在黄岩岛领海领空组织海空联合演训，摆明了要强化管控。结果仅仅过了二十天，菲方就把挑衅从海面搬到了空中。这个节奏不是随机的，是一套经过设计的切香肠战术。每次前进一小步，试探中国反应底线。中方反应温和，下一步就再往前蹭一点；中方反应激烈，菲方就立刻摆出受害者姿态，向国际社会哭诉中国威胁。 而选择小型飞机而非军用战机，更是精心算计。派战斗机闯领空，那是赤裸裸的军事挑衅，中国完全可以依法采取强硬措施，国际社会也无话可说。但派民用改装的小型飞机进来，性质就模糊了。菲方可以辩称这是巡逻、搜救、民用飞行，把军事入侵包装成低烈度的灰色行动。这种飞机飞得慢、目标小，真要采取强硬手段，舆论上反而容易被倒打一耙，说中国以大欺小、过度反应。
D | 菲方赌的就是中国在这种灰色地带面前投鼠忌器，既不能真打，又不能不拦，只能反复喊话驱离，而菲方则借此制造我经常来的既成事实。
更值得警惕的是，每一次挑衅都在为美国介入积累素材。菲律宾很清楚，单凭自己的力量，在南海占不到任何便宜。它唯一的筹码，就是把美国拖进来。所以每次黄岩岛出事，菲方第一时间不是和中国交涉，而是向华盛顿汇报，邀请美国军舰来自由航行，拉着日本、澳大利亚搞联合巡逻。
E | 8月中旬，菲海岸警卫队发言人甚至抛出所谓铁三角理论，声称黄岩岛是中国南海战略的最后一块拼图，一旦军事化全球航运都得遭殃。这话根本不是说给中国听的，是说给美国国会和五角大楼听的，目的就是要美国加大对菲军事援助和南海介入力度。
黄岩岛的战略价值，决定了它注定是博弈焦点。
F | 作为中沙群岛唯一常年出水的岛礁，它东距菲律宾吕宋岛仅两百多公里，直面美军苏比克湾基地，扼守巴士海峡进出南海的国际航道。谁控制了黄岩岛，谁就掌握了南海东北部的主动权。
G | 对中国而言，黄岩岛与西沙永兴岛、南沙美济礁遥相呼应，一旦完成必要设施建设，就能形成覆盖南海主要航道的战略三角。这也是菲律宾和美国都急着在黄岩岛制造事端的原因，它们要在中国完成布局之前，尽可能把水搅浑。
南部战区这次的回应，措辞和行动都值得细品。
H | 发言人用的是跟踪监视、喊话警告，没有升级到更激烈的手段，但同时明确强调正告菲方立即停止侵权挑衅，并表示时刻保持高度戒备。这是一种有节制的强硬，既守住了主权底线，又没有给对方制造升级借口的机会。
I | 但克制不等于纵容，8月1日的联合演训已经释放了明确信号，中国在黄岩岛的管控只会加强，不会削弱。
菲律宾应该明白一个道理，靠三架老旧飞机刷存在感，改变不了黄岩岛是中国领土的事实，也换不来真正的安全。把希望寄托在美国的军事承诺上，更是危险的赌博。美国需要的是一个牵制中国的棋子，而不是一个把自己拖入战争的盟友。真到了关键时刻，谁会为几架螺旋桨飞机和一个环礁跟核大国翻脸，马尼拉最好想清楚。返回，查看更多。
J |
Current article:http://9rxd.gamajionghuanmuniuzhuanguchu.cyou/news/20260826_7681.html
Published on:22:13:55