3 ms·

I somehow fail to see the difference between incentivizing a country not to spy and making it “hard as hell” to spy. Isn’t that the same? I’m also, like the gr

by ugh 16y ago

I somehow fail to see the difference between incentivizing a country not to spy and making it “hard as hell” to spy. Isn’t that the same? I’m also, like the grandparent, a bit unsure how this is an appropriate measure. Are scientific collaborations used for espionage? If they are not or seldom used for espionage, how does a ban on collaboration result in less espionage? Which benefits of collaboration does the US relinquish?

Helianthus 16y ago
>Isn’t that the same? No. You can't incentivize a country not to spy because that implies some control, some carrot. Making it "hard as hell" is treating the contest with the adversarial framework it deserves, taking for granted that the opponent will or could attack. >Which benefits of collaboration does the US relinquish? The honest answer is, none, some, or all of them; and it doesn't matter. Being a political action it is just as much a political statement. China openly gets away with espionage (and openly gets away with putting enough spin on its public statements to make a new neutron star.) Congress is openly saying it doesn't like that. Not to mention that your string of questions is dependent on the if statements resolving 'correctly.' Honestly I'd be very surprised if scientific collaborations weren't used for espionage.
- ugh 16y ago
  I'm not sure how incentives and your fabled "adversarial framework" are incompatible. I'm also not sure why you think that incentives have to be carrots. Good detection rates and harsh punishments successfully create an incentive against murder without any carrots in sight. No matter, we're gonna make tons of money by working together with the Chinese, have fun with your protectionism, USA.
  - danssig 16y ago
    Exactly. I think this move is great... for the rest of the world.

3 ms·

I somehow fail to see the difference between incentivizing a country not to spy and making it “hard as hell” to spy. Isn’t that the same? I’m also, like the gr

by ugh 16y ago

Helianthus 16y ago
>Isn’t that the same? No. You can't incentivize a country not to spy because that implies some control, some carrot. Making it "hard as hell" is treating the contest with the adversarial framework it deserves, taking for granted that the opponent will or could attack. >Which benefits of collaboration does the US relinquish? The honest answer is, none, some, or all of them; and it doesn't matter. Being a political action it is just as much a political statement. China openly gets away with espionage (and openly gets away with putting enough spin on its public statements to make a new neutron star.) Congress is openly saying it doesn't like that. Not to mention that your string of questions is dependent on the if statements resolving 'correctly.' Honestly I'd be very surprised if scientific collaborations weren't used for espionage.
- ugh 16y ago
  I'm not sure how incentives and your fabled "adversarial framework" are incompatible. I'm also not sure why you think that incentives have to be carrots. Good detection rates and harsh punishments successfully create an incentive against murder without any carrots in sight. No matter, we're gonna make tons of money by working together with the Chinese, have fun with your protectionism, USA.
  - danssig 16y ago
    Exactly. I think this move is great... for the rest of the world.