4 ms·

> An Indian equivalent to Huawei would be unlikely to face the same sort of concerns. Learn history. When Japan's semiconductor industry did extremely well bac

> An Indian equivalent to Huawei would be unlikely to face the same sort of concerns. Learn history. When Japan's semiconductor industry did extremely well back in the 80s, it forced US to take actions under the name of national security [1]. Do you seriously believe that india's relationship with the west is better than the one enjoyed by Japan back in the 80s? [1] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3014531/lessons-old-trade-war-china-can-learn-japan-experience https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3014531/le...

skissane 7y ago
Japan was an economic competitor to the United States, but not an ideological or military competitor. China is all three. Even at the height of US-Japan economic competition, they remained military allies, and Japan and the US both had democratic political systems. China and the US view each other as military competitors, and China's state ideology (that democracy is unnecessary for economic development, maybe even an obstacle to it) is diametrically opposed to that of the US. By contrast, while India may in the future become a serious economic competitor to the United States, it shows no signs of being (or becoming) an ideological or military competitor. While the US and India don't have a formal military alliance like the US and Japan have, the US is very much interested in selling military equipment to India [1]. Unlike China, India is a democracy like the US, and while the US and India do sometimes have ideological disagreements (especially with BJP governments on the issue of religious freedom), those ideological disagreements are minor compared to those between the US and China. [1] https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2018-09/news-briefs/us-elevates-india’s-defense-trade-status https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2018-09/news-briefs/us-eleva...
- dis-sys 7y ago
  > Japan was an economic competitor to the United States, but not an ideological or military competitor. That is my exact point - As one of the closest allies of the US, when Japan challenged the US with its rising semiconductor sector, US responded heavily under the name of national security. > By contrast, while India may in the future become a serious economic competitor to the United States, it shows no signs of being (or becoming) an ideological or military competitor. So you are trying to convince me that US is going to hand over its dominance of the world to another democracy.
  - skissane 7y ago
    > So you are trying to convince me that US is going to hand over its dominance of the world to another democracy. No, what I'm saying is that no matter how big a threat to the US economy Japan was, or India may become, the US is always going to take a harder line against China than against either Japan or India, because China is perceived by the US to be a strategic threat, not just in an economic capacity, but also in an ideological and military capacity, whereas neither Japan nor India are seen as strategic threats in an ideological or military sense
    - dis-sys 7y ago
      > because China is perceived by the US to be a strategic threat for the exact same logic, I am 100% sure that Mongolia and Kazakhstan are never perceived by the US to be a strategic threat, they undisputedly lack such ideological and military capacity. is that suddenly an advantage?
      - skissane 7y ago
        I think the main reason why the US doesn't perceive Mongolia or Kazakhstan as being a strategic threat, is their small population – Mongolia's is only 3.25 million, and Kazakhstan's is only 18.4 million. They lack the necessary population to be an economic or military great power (unlike China, India and Japan). (The only way the US could ever perceive Mongolia or Kazakhstan as a significant threat, would be if they started building nuclear weapons or funding international terrorism; neither country has demonstrated any interest in doing that.)
        dis-sys 7y ago
        > I think the main reason why the US doesn't perceive Mongolia or Kazakhstan as being a strategic threat, is their small population It has nothing to do with the population itself. Back in the 80s, when China had >1 billion population at the time, US didn't consider China as a strategic threat, it even offered to sell China all kinds of techs & military hardware. It all happened when China was far less open to the world and far more focused on its communist ideology stuff.

skissane 7y ago

Japan was an economic competitor to the United States, but not an ideological or military competitor. China is all three. Even at the height of US-Japan economic competition, they remained military allies, and Japan and the US both had democratic political systems. China and the US view each other as military competitors, and China's state ideology (that democracy is unnecessary for economic development, maybe even an obstacle to it) is diametrically opposed to that of the US. By contrast, while India may in the future become a serious economic competitor to the United States, it shows no signs of being (or becoming) an ideological or military competitor. While the US and India don't have a formal military alliance like the US and Japan have, the US is very much interested in selling military equipment to India [1]. Unlike China, India is a democracy like the US, and while the US and India do sometimes have ideological disagreements (especially with BJP governments on the issue of religious freedom), those ideological disagreements are minor compared to those between the US and China. [1] https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2018-09/news-briefs/us-elevates-india’s-defense-trade-status https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2018-09/news-briefs/us-eleva...

dis-sys 7y ago
> Japan was an economic competitor to the United States, but not an ideological or military competitor. That is my exact point - As one of the closest allies of the US, when Japan challenged the US with its rising semiconductor sector, US responded heavily under the name of national security. > By contrast, while India may in the future become a serious economic competitor to the United States, it shows no signs of being (or becoming) an ideological or military competitor. So you are trying to convince me that US is going to hand over its dominance of the world to another democracy.
- skissane 7y ago
  > So you are trying to convince me that US is going to hand over its dominance of the world to another democracy. No, what I'm saying is that no matter how big a threat to the US economy Japan was, or India may become, the US is always going to take a harder line against China than against either Japan or India, because China is perceived by the US to be a strategic threat, not just in an economic capacity, but also in an ideological and military capacity, whereas neither Japan nor India are seen as strategic threats in an ideological or military sense
  - dis-sys 7y ago
    > because China is perceived by the US to be a strategic threat for the exact same logic, I am 100% sure that Mongolia and Kazakhstan are never perceived by the US to be a strategic threat, they undisputedly lack such ideological and military capacity. is that suddenly an advantage?
    - skissane 7y ago
      I think the main reason why the US doesn't perceive Mongolia or Kazakhstan as being a strategic threat, is their small population – Mongolia's is only 3.25 million, and Kazakhstan's is only 18.4 million. They lack the necessary population to be an economic or military great power (unlike China, India and Japan). (The only way the US could ever perceive Mongolia or Kazakhstan as a significant threat, would be if they started building nuclear weapons or funding international terrorism; neither country has demonstrated any interest in doing that.)
      - dis-sys 7y ago
        > I think the main reason why the US doesn't perceive Mongolia or Kazakhstan as being a strategic threat, is their small population It has nothing to do with the population itself. Back in the 80s, when China had >1 billion population at the time, US didn't consider China as a strategic threat, it even offered to sell China all kinds of techs & military hardware. It all happened when China was far less open to the world and far more focused on its communist ideology stuff.