5 ms·

I wonder why there is such a push against china now... This post rising to the top like this without points and discussions...

sgift 8y ago
More people start to realize the risk of a dictatorship as a world power compared to ten years ago when it was all "they are such a big market" "You can get things cheap there" "It's a different culture"?
- supergirl 8y ago
  it would be considered a risk no matter what form of government. any rising superpower is a risk to the US.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    History-ironically, I (as an American) would be less worried if Germany were rising at China's pace.
    - repsilat 8y ago
      Similarly, in the 90s everyone thought Japan was going to eclipse the US economically, and (to my recollection) they weren't seen as geopolitical rivals to the US. Maybe it has something to do with population size, but IMO it is more to do with their economic structure and system of government. Japan is a democracy, and they believe in markets. Since War 2 they also seem a little less pushy with their neighbours...
      - supergirl 8y ago
        they can't be a rival to the US when their defense is provided by the US and they host 50k US military units (vs. 250k currently active units in the whole japanese army).
      - changchuming 8y ago
        I don't think your recollection is entirely accurate. The Plaza Accords was signed for a reason.
      - ethbro 8y ago
        Interesting fact. Circa-1910 (from memory) there was major anxiety about immigrant Japanese workers taking low-wage jobs in the US. To the extent that Japan was encouraged and did "voluntarily" limit migration. How the wheel of time turns... different players, same games.
    - supergirl 8y ago
      You say that now but if they had a credible army you'd have the same feeling. Right now Germany is toothless, still in the shadow of US occupation as losers of WW2. They have no independent foreign policy; they're choosing to stay out of it and focus on domestic issues. It is a similar story with Japan. But Japan is actually recently starting to be more active, building their army, with the goal of countering China.
      - sgift 8y ago
        > They have no independent foreign policy Where do you get that idea? Germany is one of the most active countries in diplomacy and is at odds with the US all the time.
chriselles 8y ago
I think it’s because it is a legitimate problem. A problem in the respect that China appears to have an integrated strategy, while the US does not. China’s Government, communist party, and PLA possess deep integration with it’s BATH(Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, and Huawei) superplatforms. The US government is in perpetual conflict with it’s domestic FAANG+(Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google, others) tech leaders. As FAANG+ are in constant conflict with each other. Think of China/BATH and US/FAANG+ akin to respective military services. China’s operate in an integrated “combined arms” fashion, while US’s are in perpetual conflict with each other. Compounding this is the spying issue. During the Cold War, the Soviets and their Warsaw Pact proxies worked hard to steal western tech, with some success. But a few chips can’t be fully exploited without the manufacturing supply chain to go with it. Stealing a semiconductor assembly line is next to impossible. Stealing atoms can be hard, stealing bits is much easier. In 1946 90% of R&D was military. In 1989 50% of R&D was military, 50% commercial In 2019 90%+ of R&D is commercial with duel use potential. The US has been focused almost exclusively for 18 years on enhancing lethality against insurgents at massive expense. Meanwhile, China has been building a global platform. Innovative Strategy > Innovative Technology And Lethality is not Strategy. One Belt, One Road description should be expanded to include One Platform, One Network. I think the US is in a different “war” than what it has been preparing to fight. Platform “warfare”. A battle between geodigital operating systems instead of the battle between ideologies as during the Cold War. The best competing value proposition wins, and the US is not offering a strong value prop at the moment. The Aus has been focused on Clausewitz when it should have been focused on Metcalfe and Zipf. Just a political “scientist” and veteran who knows just enough about computers to be dangerous to myself and others within the blast radius.
- spacecity1971 8y ago
  Platform warfare indeed, and this is completely overlooked as a concept. Bratton (2015) described this new geopolitical architecture in detail, and we ignore it at our peril.
  - chriselles 8y ago
    Thanks for that, I’ll check out the Bratton(2015) reference.
mindslight 8y ago
The power structure in the US is ramping up the messages of division to retake its pre-Internet cold war grip on society's attention. "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked" The campaign to colonize Iraq and Afghanistan was too piecemeal. It produced for a while, but was ultimately too narrow in scope so it ran its course and revealed its outcome. And seemingly only a handful of companies were in on that take, rather than a widespread corporate consensus. They're pushing ISIS to continue that theater, but the topic has become tired. So they ramp up the ominous never ending sources of threats. Is China the bigger threat or is Russia the bigger threat? The Party has been framed, and there is no "if" - pick your team. It might depend on whether you'd rather wear red xor blue. It might depend on whether you prioritize acreage/driving/explosions or density/walking/restaurants. As long as you remember to do your part and assume anyone who doesn't fully agree is on the other team. Fear globally, fight locally. We are indeed being attacked. Not by the actions of China (or Russia, or etc), but by our "leaders" responding in predictable country-destroying ways out of their own self interest. One need to look no further than USG doing precisely what Bin Laden asked for an infuriating example.

sgift 8y ago

More people start to realize the risk of a dictatorship as a world power compared to ten years ago when it was all "they are such a big market" "You can get things cheap there" "It's a different culture"?

supergirl 8y ago
it would be considered a risk no matter what form of government. any rising superpower is a risk to the US.
- ethbro 8y ago
  History-ironically, I (as an American) would be less worried if Germany were rising at China's pace.
  - repsilat 8y ago
    Similarly, in the 90s everyone thought Japan was going to eclipse the US economically, and (to my recollection) they weren't seen as geopolitical rivals to the US. Maybe it has something to do with population size, but IMO it is more to do with their economic structure and system of government. Japan is a democracy, and they believe in markets. Since War 2 they also seem a little less pushy with their neighbours...
    - supergirl 8y ago
      they can't be a rival to the US when their defense is provided by the US and they host 50k US military units (vs. 250k currently active units in the whole japanese army).
    - changchuming 8y ago
      I don't think your recollection is entirely accurate. The Plaza Accords was signed for a reason.
    - ethbro 8y ago
      Interesting fact. Circa-1910 (from memory) there was major anxiety about immigrant Japanese workers taking low-wage jobs in the US. To the extent that Japan was encouraged and did "voluntarily" limit migration. How the wheel of time turns... different players, same games.
  - supergirl 8y ago
    You say that now but if they had a credible army you'd have the same feeling. Right now Germany is toothless, still in the shadow of US occupation as losers of WW2. They have no independent foreign policy; they're choosing to stay out of it and focus on domestic issues. It is a similar story with Japan. But Japan is actually recently starting to be more active, building their army, with the goal of countering China.
    - sgift 8y ago
      > They have no independent foreign policy Where do you get that idea? Germany is one of the most active countries in diplomacy and is at odds with the US all the time.

chriselles 8y ago

I think it’s because it is a legitimate problem. A problem in the respect that China appears to have an integrated strategy, while the US does not. China’s Government, communist party, and PLA possess deep integration with it’s BATH(Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, and Huawei) superplatforms. The US government is in perpetual conflict with it’s domestic FAANG+(Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google, others) tech leaders. As FAANG+ are in constant conflict with each other. Think of China/BATH and US/FAANG+ akin to respective military services. China’s operate in an integrated “combined arms” fashion, while US’s are in perpetual conflict with each other. Compounding this is the spying issue. During the Cold War, the Soviets and their Warsaw Pact proxies worked hard to steal western tech, with some success. But a few chips can’t be fully exploited without the manufacturing supply chain to go with it. Stealing a semiconductor assembly line is next to impossible. Stealing atoms can be hard, stealing bits is much easier. In 1946 90% of R&D was military. In 1989 50% of R&D was military, 50% commercial In 2019 90%+ of R&D is commercial with duel use potential. The US has been focused almost exclusively for 18 years on enhancing lethality against insurgents at massive expense. Meanwhile, China has been building a global platform. Innovative Strategy > Innovative Technology And Lethality is not Strategy. One Belt, One Road description should be expanded to include One Platform, One Network. I think the US is in a different “war” than what it has been preparing to fight. Platform “warfare”. A battle between geodigital operating systems instead of the battle between ideologies as during the Cold War. The best competing value proposition wins, and the US is not offering a strong value prop at the moment. The Aus has been focused on Clausewitz when it should have been focused on Metcalfe and Zipf. Just a political “scientist” and veteran who knows just enough about computers to be dangerous to myself and others within the blast radius.

spacecity1971 8y ago
Platform warfare indeed, and this is completely overlooked as a concept. Bratton (2015) described this new geopolitical architecture in detail, and we ignore it at our peril.
- chriselles 8y ago
  Thanks for that, I’ll check out the Bratton(2015) reference.

mindslight 8y ago

The power structure in the US is ramping up the messages of division to retake its pre-Internet cold war grip on society's attention. "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked" The campaign to colonize Iraq and Afghanistan was too piecemeal. It produced for a while, but was ultimately too narrow in scope so it ran its course and revealed its outcome. And seemingly only a handful of companies were in on that take, rather than a widespread corporate consensus. They're pushing ISIS to continue that theater, but the topic has become tired. So they ramp up the ominous never ending sources of threats. Is China the bigger threat or is Russia the bigger threat? The Party has been framed, and there is no "if" - pick your team. It might depend on whether you'd rather wear red xor blue. It might depend on whether you prioritize acreage/driving/explosions or density/walking/restaurants. As long as you remember to do your part and assume anyone who doesn't fully agree is on the other team. Fear globally, fight locally. We are indeed being attacked. Not by the actions of China (or Russia, or etc), but by our "leaders" responding in predictable country-destroying ways out of their own self interest. One need to look no further than USG doing precisely what Bin Laden asked for an infuriating example.