China's nanotech revolution ("rivaling even the capacities of the United States")

AsianResearch.org ^ | Alexandr Nemets

[BringBackMyHUAC]

China's nanotech revolution Alexandr Nemets 8/23/2004

Prior to 2000, the Chinese media made practically no mention of the concept of "nanotechnology" (nami jishu) or its potential for revolutionizing China's high tech industry. Today, however, dozens of major Chinese research centers and hundreds of enterprises engage in the production of nanotechnologies, which has quickly become a multibillion-Yuan industry. Concentrated in China's major economic centers such as Beijing, Shenyang, Shanghai, Hangzhou and Hong Kong, these urban hubs account for some 90 percent of all nanotech Research and Development.

The rapid development of China's nanotech industry is due in large part to the intervention of the central government. Apparently added to a list of priority technologies at the end of the 1990s, nanotech has enjoyed state funding since then through National 863 Hi-Tech R&D Plan. The plan provided huge investments for nanotech projects from both the central and local governments. It seems that the Chinese leadership had plans to transform their nanotech industry by 2010 – with the hope of making it comparable to China's microelectronics, telecom, and other high-tech industries.

Remarkably, developments within the industry have been both civilian and military in purpose, though the latter has, of course, enjoyed a higher degree of priority. Strategists within China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) understand perfectly well the significance of nanotechnologies in military reforms within the United States over the last twelve years. With this in mind, China has actively cooperated with leading nanotech companies in the United States and Europe. It seems reasonable to assume, also, that such cooperation is well underway with the Russian Federation.

Major Nanotech Complexes

In July 2001, Shanghai Nanotech Promotion Center (SNPC) was established to focus on R&D and the industrialization of tools needed for nanotech research. (Shanghai had already started work on a $217 million Stone Nanotechnology Port in May of that year.) [1] Also in July, the Shanghai city government announced that it would soon open a nanotech base, uniting three, state-level research centers, several laboratories focusing on nano-materials, and eleven additional companies specializing in the commercialization of R&D products.

The first phase of construction, near East China Science and Technology (S&T) University, was finished within the month, and 76,000 square meters immediately became available for nanotech firms. Plans had been made for an additional 200,000 square meter facility at the same location, but in August, the Shanghai Municipal S&T Commission announced the city would concentrate its resources to focus on research and industrialization over the next four years (2001 to 2005). The intent of the project was to dramatically improve China's nanotech R&D and commercialization, particularly in nano-materials, nano-electronic components and nano-biological/medical technologies. The Shanghai S&T Commission stated that it would also set up a nanotech incubator program. At that time (July 2001), there were already twenty institutions engaged in nanotech development in Shanghai. [2]

Less than a year later, in May 2002, the Shanghai S&T Commission announced its intent to provide further investment opportunities and preferential treatment to nanotech-related companies. Zhu Jiping, Director of the Commission, was quoted as saying: "In 2001, Shanghai government invested 30 million Yuan in nanotech – nano-biology, nano-medicine and nano-electronics; this laid solid foundation for nano-sector. We are now pushing nanotech development to 2nd stage – nanotech products industrialization. Shanghai's government will accelerate the application of nanotech in different industries, especially automotive products."

This push to accelerate Shanghai's nanotech production was echoed by Shanghai Nanotech Promotion Center's (SNPC) new director Niu Xiaoming: "At this second stage, SNPC will help companies in the nano-sector to improve their advanced technologies. SNPC strives to establish an information network linking all professionals in the sector. Currently six nanotech R&D centers – built in such leading Shanghai universities as Jiaotong University, Fudan University, East China University, East China Normal University, Shanghai University and East China S&T University – are exchanging their latest nanotech results through this network." [3] By mid-2002, Shanghai had developed an extensive nanotech infrastructure, which led to the rapid development of nanotechnologies throughout 2003 and 2004.

At the same time as Shanghai was experiencing its nanotech boom, Beijing was also investing heavily in this new industry. The Center for Nanotechnologies at the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) in Beijing opened in 2000. Uniting over a dozen CAS institutes and several university laboratories, the aim of the center was to upgrade scientific cooperation while accelerating nanotech industrial development in Beijing. Just one year later, in December 2001, Beijing's Tsinghua University announced a new approach to the production of carbon nano-tubes at a rate of 15 kilograms per hour, 60 times faster than the speed at which they had originally been produced. [4]

In November 2002, CAS launched a joint project with the U.S. company, Veeco Instruments Inc. The CAS Institute of Chemistry and Veeco agreed to cooperate in the running of a nanometer technology center aimed at providing access to Veeco-made nanotech instruments to Chinese researchers, including atomic force and scanning-tunneling microscopes. The center would also provide the Institute of Chemistry's molecular nanotech R&D division with "super-advanced" measuring and controlling devices. The Institute's chief researcher, Chen Wang, has worked closely with CAS vice president Bai Chunli to ensure support for his work on molecular nanotechnologies.

The partnership between CAS and Veeco came amidst great optimism regarding China's nanotech potential. "China will gain the leadership position in nanotech," remarked Veeco President Don Kania at the opening ceremony. This bold statement of confidence in Chinese nanotech superiority was affirmed by Bai Chunli, CAS vice-president and chief scientist of the National Coordinating Committee for Nanotech, who stated simply: "China enjoys the advantage in research of nanometer materials." By the time the center opened, China had more than 300 enterprises in the nanotech sector, with some 7,000 scientists engaged in nanotech R&D.

The CAS-Veeco center was just one part of China's plan to establish a national nanotech infrastructure. At the end of March 2003, CAS, Peking University and Tsinghua University announced a joint National Center for the nation's long-term nanotech development. Approved by the State Council, the Center will enjoy an early-stage state investment of 250 million Yuan ($30 million). The Central government has budgeted two billion Yuan (about $240 million) for nanotech projects between 2003 and 2007; another 2 to 3 billion Yuan is due from local governments. [5]

This heightened investment in nanotech has not been limited to Beijing, however. At the end of June 2001, CAS and China's Ministry of Science and Technology unveiled the Shenyang National Laboratory for Materials Science (SYNL). The newly established laboratory is expected to compete with its counterparts in the United States, Japan and Germany. [6] And, in November 2003, a Nanotech Park was established in Xian. Hong Kong has also developed a large complex of nanotech industries, while Zhejiang University in Hangzhou became the center of nanotech R&D and industrialization in the prosperous Zhejiang province.

At the present time, some thirty institutions are engaged in basic nanotech research. These include CAS Physical Institute, CAS Chemical Institute, CAS Solid Physics Institute (Hefei), Tsinghua University (Beijing), Beijing University, Hangzhou University, Nanjing University, and several universities in Shanghai. In addition, Shanghai, Beijing, and Shenzhen have each created their own Nanotech Centers, uniting local R&D structures. In terms of basic nanotech R&D, China has reached the most advanced levels in the world, rivaling even the capacities of the United States.

Dr. Alexandr Nemets is a specialist in PLA development and Sino-Russian relations. He is the author of several books and articles on a wide variety of topics relating to China.

Notes: 1. Asiaport Daily News (www.smalltimes.com), Shanghai, July 19, 2001 2. Xinhua Agency, Shanghai, Aug. 7, 2001 3. China Daily, Beijing, May 13 2002, p.3 4. (Asiaport Daily News (www.smalltimes.com) HK, Dec 17, 2001 5. Renmin Ribao, November 21 2002 6. Renmin Ribao, June 29 2001

[BringBackMyHUAC]

News of the activities of the Eurasian Alliance, built on the back of Free Trade, is becoming more alarming with each passing day:

"Strategists within China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) understand perfectly well the significance of nanotechnologies in military reforms within the United States over the last twelve years. With this in mind, China has actively cooperated with leading nanotech companies in the United States and Europe. It seems reasonable to assume, also, that such cooperation is well underway with the Russian Federation."

[BringBackMyHUAC]

Eurasian Alliance/Nanotech ping

[angkor]

I'm remaining sceptical and unimpressed by the hysteria about China, Inc.

[Egon]

Ping.

[DoughtyOne]

It was only a matter of time before R & D took off in China. You don't manufacture without doing some R & D. Now that China has a steady stream of expendable funds, it's going to begin to make major strides in R & D.

The problem comes about, when one of these R & D developments impacts military readiness. If China's R & D developes state of the art weapons systems, we're going to rue the day we got them off and running.

We are ignoring so many warning signs in relation to China. One day our leaders will simply say, "We never thought they'd resort to this", and our populace will think that makes sense.

Our leaders are messing with fire when it comes to China. We are going to pay heavily for this. I probably won't, but my children and grandchildren most certainly will.

[ProudVet77]

angkor is right on.
China manufacturing is a joke. Part of the Boeing contract is to have GE build engines in China to teach them how.
China wants to buidl 20 nukes to handle their energy needs. So who do they turn to? The US.
China is a paper tiger.
Btu I'd like to stop the nukes and the engine plant as well as Intel's plants in China.

[Lexinom]

[mark for later read]

[King Prout]

oh, bloody hell...

[Gunslingr3]

If China's R & D developes state of the art weapons systems, we're going to rue the day we got them off and running.

This presumes that we could have kept them from getting 'off and running'. That started over 20 years ago when they gave up on pure communism and started opening their economy to investment and trade.

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all...

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

[familyop]

Yes, with enough of an economy and information (education) for its PLA and future PLA people (incl. exchange students), China's leaders can try to do what they want to do. There are many interests involved from all sides of the oceans, though (including our own), and they will disseminate what they wish others to believe. It's been building for almost 40 years, and consequences are now on the horizon.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Now I am worry about the 'gray-goo' effect. China might be crazy enough to create a nano-weapon.

[ProudVet77]

It was only a matter of time before R & D took off in China. You don't manufacture without doing some R & D. Now that China has a steady stream of expendable funds, it's going to begin to make major strides in R & D.

Simply put almost every major ChiCom weapon system has come from another country. Their best two ships are from Russia. China has no R&D. They make lousy copies of imported weapon systems, mostly from Russia. They still have no aircraft carriers. Their subs are at best mid 80s technology and will survive about 1 hour in a war.
Half their airforce is based on the MiG-21 which is a 1970's aircraft. Stealth is beyond them. They have no AWACS or any kind of integrated systems like Aegis or ForceNet.

[DoughtyOne]

So what you're saying is that nothing could be learned by trade with Germany and Japan in the decade prior to WWII.

Ah, nice one...

BTW, it's a little difficult to say we couldn't have stopped China, when we're the only nation that practices trade deficits with it, and probably eclipse the trade of all other nations combined by double.

I don't know the excact figures on the latter, and may be off. That's my basic understanding.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the comments.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

News of the activities of the Eurasian Alliance, built on the back of Free Trade, is becoming more alarming with each passing day:

On the other hand, America leads the world in the number of personal injury lawyers, homosexual psychological Societies, and actors. Soon we will have the means to send armies of lawyers to confuse the enemy, hordes of psychologists to convince the enemy to get sex change operations, and all of our actors to amuse them.

[BringBackMyHUAC]

LOL! (or am I crying)...well, either way, you brought tears to my eyes :o)

[bayareablues]

This was one of Drudge's topics tonight. The ChiComs just launched 18 new submarines and 23 amphibious vehicles.

The concern is for the safety of Taiwan, and alarm at the Pentagon about the military buildup and the bid for Unocal. All financed, of course, using the revenue from the goods that they're selling to Walmart and others.

[itsahoot]

China is a paper tiger

Maybe, but I use that paper to buy groceries. What do you use?

[NZerFromHK]

A Chinese responded by the talks of China-leading-the-world in Western MSMs like Fareed Zakaria's Newsweek article in May: "Well, the author probably doesn't speak Chinese. He believs all the glossy brochures printed in Beijing!"

[bobdsmith]

A chinese nanospokesman announces the nanocreation of a new nanofactory in nanoshanghai which will produce nanonanotechnology.

well thats how the article read to me - far too many nano's

[Tax Government]

Boycott China. Tax Chinese imports prohibitively. Require a very visible red star label on Chinese merchanidse. Require % Chinese content be visibly displayed on labels of anything.

[chariotdriver]

It seems all of your assertions are based upon the ChiComs having equivalent technology to superpowers.

A China Taiwan conflict will have many many more layers of variables.

For instance.. how long do the subs really need to last beyond first launch?
You liken the MiG-21 to outdated technology like a rifle against an assault weapon the 21 has ground attack capability , a rifle will nullify you as good as an assault weapon. The ChiComs got enough people to throw them like 1000's of rifles at us.
So what stealth is beyond them, So what they have no AWACS. In a surprise mass assault they don't need it. They will just overwhelm us with human waves like they did in Korea

They almost beat us in Korea, if Truman and the General had not threatened the nuke they probably would not have ceased operations.

In spite of what all the strategy websites say, we don't really know what all they have. They might have hundreds even thousands J8, J11, H16, JH7 fighter and attack aircraft squirreled away.

If they go nuke in the Taiwan Strait and around Taiwan (but avoid Taiwan mainland) that will nullify US advantage at the same time make it difficult for US to engage nuclear.

I don't know how it will go down and neither do you. Perhaps we can agree on this thread that it WILL GO DOWN

[truemiester]

The Chinese have had a tech-choke point of Turbo-fan engine technologies. GE will give it to them.

[American in Israel]

I'm remaining sceptical and unimpressed by the hysteria about China,

I think that is called Pride.

[jonrick46]

Nano technology is a huge effort in the United States. It will make the invention of the microchip look small compared to what will take place in the near future. I will trust that the United States is light years ahead of anything China has developed.

[Pitt_the_Elder]

BTW, it's a little difficult to say we couldn't have stopped China, when we're the only nation that practices trade deficits with it, and probably eclipse the trade of all other nations combined by double.

No, and no.

The EU, for example, has a $90 billion trade deficit with China (vs. $160 billion for the US). China's total trade (import+export) with the US is $220 billion, which is only about 20% of China's total trade (import+export) of $1150 billion.

Exerting economic influence over China will be more complicated than simply slapping on tariffs.

[ProudVet77]

The Chinese have had a tech-choke point of Turbo-fan engine technologies. GE will give it to them.

You're absolutely right on that. That does worry me, and I gather GE is going to build a plant over there. The only upside is that it's not for "state of the art" engines as used in fighters and cruise missiles.

[ProudVet77]

Not having heard Drudge it's hard to respond.
But there is no indication of them having launched 18 subs recently. The current build rate from everything I've read is about 1-2 subs per year.
Beware of what is called an amphibious ship. These numbers include LCMs and LCUs which are nothing more than landing craft. While not dismissing them, they have small capacity.
For a source I prefer to use globalsecurity.com, whenever I do fact checking their numbers are usually quite accurate. For the PLAN here's their numbers http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/navy.htm feel free to poke around.
They also do a decent job of analysis of the taiwan situation: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/taiwan.htm

[ProudVet77]

It is fair to say that it will go down, probably in 5-15 years. On the plus side we are doing all the right things to be prepared. We have some very exciting capabilites in the pipeline, many of which will be ready on time.
While quantity has a quality of it's own, the truth is that it's going to be a shooting gallery. A MiG-21 without proper radar and ECM/EW electronics amounts to being a target drone for AMRAAMs.
One thing that we have that is crucial is battle management systems. Networking our systems (like Aegis and AWACs) is an incredible force multiplier. It allows us to handle a huge number of threats. If you have time google ForceNet.

[Kelly_2000]

there is lot's of data concerning where their facilities are and how much funding the government is offering Chinese industry. but nothing specific concerning the level their technology has reached? Or what applications are developed for market or Military yet?

Not so informing unfortunately

[Sam's Army]

Read later

[ProudVet77]

Just found this while surfing. This will give you an idea of just one of the current systems in the works.

JANE'S DEFENCE INDUSTRY - JULY 01, 2005


PROGRAMME UPDATE - Northrop Grumman begins J-UCAS construction

James Murphy

Key points:
*Northrop Grumman has begun construction of the X-47B Joint - Unmanned Combat Air Systems (J-UCAS) aircraft.
*The X-47B is competing with Boeing's X-45C under the DARPA-led operational assessment phase of the J-UCAS demonstration programme.

NORTHROP Grumman Corporation of San Diego, California, has started construction of its X-47B Joint - Unmanned Combat Air Systems (J-UCAS) aircraft.

Production will take place at the manufacturing facility of Northrop Grumman's team-mate GKN Aerospace, in St Louis, Missouri. GKN is responsible for the design and fabrication of the X-47B's forward fuselage.

Final assembly of the first aircraft will begin in mid-2005 at Northrop Grumman's facility in Palmdale, California.

The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) awarded Northrop Grumman a contract worth US$1.04 billion in October 2004 to transition the X-47B into the operational assessment and demonstration phase of the programme.

Northrop Grumman has been designing, developing and testing three X-47B air vehicles, three mission-control systems and a common operating system since 2004. This phase is expected to last until 2009.

Boeing is also developing another unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV), called the X-45C, under the same DARPA-led operational assessment phase of the J-UCAS demonstration programme.

The J-UCAS programme is intended to field a stealthy UCAV with integrated sensors, navigation and communications capable of operating in the network-centric battlefield that is expected to emerge in the coming years.

Key missions envisioned for the UCAVs include suppression of enemy air defences, the ability to conduct surveillance deep into an enemy's denied airspace, and precision strike.

The vehicles, capable of operating from land bases or aircraft carriers, will have a combat radius of 1,500 n miles, a weapons payload of 2,025 kg, an electronic warning system and integrated synthetic-aperture radar.

[Happy2BMe]

Remarkably, developments within the industry have been both civilian and military in purpose, though the latter has, of course, enjoyed a higher degree of priority.

=====================

We can't blame this on the Dems anymore. We still feed China all the technology they want or ask for.

Their's is a dual-purpose society. They reserve every technology for military use.

Plus, they aren't undergoing a mesmerizing and crippling invasion undermining their infrastructure as is the United States.

They must be very, very happy with the way things are turning out.

[A. Pole]

76,000 square meters immediately became available for nanotech firms. Plans had been made for an additional 200,000 square meter facility

Another buggy whip industry to be get rid of!

American taxpayers should spend more money on education and development of new technologies.

[swampfox98]

Our leaders are messing with fire when it comes to China. We are going to pay heavily for this. I probably won't, but my children and grandchildren most certainly will.

I agree and I believe you will live to see it. America is becoming weaker by the year, socially, politicially and economically. China knows this, as many spies have come across our open borders, and report back to their leaders, and they have to be seeing the rotting of America.

[Paul Ross]

This presumes that we could have kept them from getting 'off and running'. That started over 20 years ago when they gave up on pure communism and started opening their economy to investment and trade.

We could...and should have. At this point, the worst genie is likely out of the bottle, with their grad students at our universities technical departments by the legions, still manifestly fire-breathing Marxist Chinese warmongers.

They never "gave up" on "pure communism". Instead, they perceived a short-cut to catching up...and if we were foolish enough...surpassing the U.S. Their doctrine taught that communism is the final stage of capitalist evolution. And since their society had no capital to speak of, they needed to sucker in Western capitalists to give them modern technological/industrial capital...which would jump start their own. They would fully control these capital aggregates by setting up communist party front-operations, "companies" -requirng the Westerners "Partner" with... which they would later co-opt in a second (or third) revolution.

A grandiose new version of Lenin's New Economic Program...when he declared his communist experiment over, and would no longer be doctrrinaire and would open up to Western investment. Even sucked ardent anti-communist Henry Ford in.

Deng Xiouping made clear to his fellow hardliner purists in the Party that in fact they were not giving up on their Communist objectives and ultimate control of everything...when he explained: "Whether you call the cat black or white is not important. What matters is if it still catches mice." This blood-curdling metaphor is faithfully enacted in the most current version of the Chinese Constitution, which makes clear that the Party/State rules in every aspect, even in the 'reformed' zones.

I believe that in order to protect our national security and sovereignty we can withdraw from the Chinese economy, and expel all Chinese students who do not publicly renounce their country's communism, and make their goods prohibitive. All of this will have tremendous cost on us. But also marvelous opportunities to restore American primacy and economic power which is slipping fast.

Anyways, for the last 35 years clearly, since Nixon went to China, we have been under an illusion as to who and what we are dealing with in China. And given them every benefit of the doubt and every break. Up to and inclusive of granting them MFN status, WTO entry, etc. Ignoring their civil rights violations, and systemmic oppressions and subjugations of neigbors and even their direct warmongering against us.

It is a policy of unadulterated and sickening appeasement. To take your George Washington text's proper meaning and apply it to that reality (see below for his FULL context which is clearly against your slant), that we are behaving in a delusory fashion to China, treating them as a friend, when they are not:

"The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.

Yes, the phony free traders...i.e., "Foreign Intersts"... and the communist/globalists in our own Fifth Column have indeed led us astray, and we have inherited a hell of a mess.

First order of business, is to clearly understand however that the enemy was not completely defeated. Not at all here in the U.S. campuses, NPCs and Foundations, or the media...or in the People's Republic of China. It just went into camouflage and is biding its time while using our own hubris against us. And all wings of these communists conjoin together for their common purposes. U.S. communists apparently differ whether the capital of the world socialist government should be in New York...or Brussels...or Bejing. Bejing's communists are not squeamish about their choice.

When your quote from George Washington's Farewell Address was uttered...Sept. 17, 1796... there was not an implacable communist menace. But there has been in most of the last century, and it persists and waxes still today. I have no doubt George Washington would have never denied the need for "habitual" opposition to the grand conspiracy in order to preserve liberty in our own land. Here is his FULL TEXT:

Farewell Address, President George Washington

September 17, 1796

"Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the Public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop."

[Paul Ross]

He apparently missed this part of George Washington's Farewell Address:

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government!

[Gunslingr3]

"The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.

Yes, the phony free traders...i.e., "Foreign Intersts"... and the communist/globalists in our own Fifth Column have indeed led us astray, and we have inherited a hell of a mess.

The 'habitual fondness' is the category that erstwhile allies like Israel and other beneficiaries of American military equipment at U.S. taxpayer expense represent.

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."

You oppose the commercial relations, whereas Washington and I see them as the best path to lasting peace. I don't presume, perhaps as you do, that the Chinese government can forever keep the lid on its people's liberty, particularly as they get a taste of ours.

[Paul Ross]

I will grant you that the unwise executive order letting Israel have access to the candy store, so to speak, has proven unwise. But, I see you ignore the relevant points of George Washington, as applied to China, still. You make this amazing claim:

I don't presume, perhaps as you do, that the Chinese government can forever keep the lid on its people's liberty, particularly as they get a taste of ours.

They can...and will... if we don't help those people. The Soviet Union did not fall of its own accord. They were pushed. It's internal dissidents were enabled by a policy of CONFRONTATION by the U.S.

President Ronald Reagan operated a broad multi-faceted four-point attack on the Soviets.

Military (countering at strategic and tactical technology and deployment levels. And Marxist geopolitical insurgencies in our Hemisphere...and in the Middle East neutralized).
Economic (isolation of Soviets from all mature Western advanced and new technology, and Western capital sources, as well as oil and energy resources, from their grasp).
Political. (Renewed and fresh alliances both military and economic...Thatcher, NATO, etc.)
Idealogical/Spiritual/Moral. (The beacon of liberty...hope was held high. The enemy was properly named as evil, and his deeds held to account. And those of like understanding embraced. Dissidents, religious and civil. The Pope, etc.)

Nothing similar is in place today to topple the Chinese Communist Party. Have you read Constantine Menge's new book? The hope that the Chinese Communist party will soften just out of trade, of its own accord, is vanity. And the hope that the people of China will someday successfully revolt has been disappointed. Again and again. The degree of error by the West (most explicitly, GHWB) during the Tiannamen Square disaster has still not been properly appreciated by most conservatives yet.

You preach indefinite waiting. To what end? It took 70 years of slavery in Russia before Ronald Reagan came along to help them. The Maoists and successors have been in power now for over 50+ years. Don't assume if we let the PRC become a military/economic super power that it will become benign...or any less communist-minded. That flies in the face of actual history. Mark Steyn previously noted this same disconnect by the apologists.

Deng Xiouping: "What does it matter if you call the cat black or white. So long as it catches mice."

[Paul Ross]

You oppose the commercial relations, whereas Washington and I see them as the best path to lasting peace

Who says I oppose commercial relations? However, they need to be used to topple the communists. Not us. And you mistakenly assume again that George Washington is in your camp. I am in his. George Washington, in fact, was a firm believer in and advocate for protective tariffs...to promote U.S. manufactures and independence from foreign sources. Alexander Hamilton was his architect for them.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"They might have hundreds even thousands J8, J11, H16, JH7 fighter and attack aircraft squirreled away."

Never mind the aircraft: what about the pilots?

Chinese pilots get about as many flight hours in one year as their American counterparts get in one month. If they're hauling equipment out of storage, they're doing the same with pilots. They'd probably lose over 10% per sortie just to accidents.

"If they go nuke in the Taiwan Strait and around Taiwan (but avoid Taiwan mainland) that will nullify US advantage at the same time make it difficult for US to engage nuclear."

But would the Chinese national leadership be willing to bet their personal survival on that assumption? US nuclear forces would most likely be targeted on known and suspected relocation sites for the Chinese government.

[chariotdriver]

what about the pilots? They'd probably lose over 10% per sortie just to accidents.

Most likely true, in a mass blitzkrieg type assault they are willing to absorb these losses(based on past ChiCom response)

These are good questions.

If the ChiComs don't nuke any US territory or US mainland, will the the US be able politically to respond nuclear in the Taiwan theater?

[Gunslingr3]

Who says I oppose commercial relations?

You did in post #36:

"I believe that in order to protect our national security and sovereignty we can withdraw from the Chinese economy... and make their goods prohibitive."

[Paul Ross]

Who says I oppose commercial relations? You did in post #36: "I believe that in order to protect our national security and sovereignty we can withdraw from the Chinese economy... and make their goods prohibitive."

Withdrawing U.S. foreign investment...and redressing...balancing their artificial trade advantage... does not mean a complete ban on "commercial relations." It means trade may carry forward, but without U.S. subsidies of FDI, no OPIC insurance, no Ex-Im Bank loans, no World Bank loans, and the Chinese imports to the U.S. will be under the restrictions of the lawful Smoot-Hawley tariff, which is the legal regimen in place when Permanent Most Favored Nation Status is revoked. This 50% tariff rate applies, and makes their goods more prohbitive. But not banned.

We will be sending a message to China and its oppressed people. "We are against your evil communist government, which has been profiting off your exploitation." Hence, I do not "oppose commercial relations." They are free to buy us much, or more, commodities from us as now, with no taxes whatsoever.

[Gunslingr3]

Withdrawing U.S. foreign investment...and redressing...balancing their artificial trade advantage... does not mean a complete ban on "commercial relations."

Do you intend to attack private U.S. foreign investment in China? What 'artificial advantage' trade advantage do you percieve? Their lower wage rates aren't artificial. Furthermore, their currency manipulation is no better or worse than ours. In fact, they tied their currency to ours to avoid harm by our manipulation. If our currency was tied to real assets instead of a tacit promise from the Federal Reserve to not run the printing presses at Weimar speeds you might have a point there.

It means trade may carry forward, but without U.S. subsidies of FDI, no OPIC insurance, no Ex-Im Bank loans, no World Bank loans,

I'd happily jettison all U.S. government trade intervention, with all countries.

and the Chinese imports to the U.S. will be under the restrictions of the lawful Smoot-Hawley tariff, which is the legal regimen in place when Permanent Most Favored Nation Status is revoked. This 50% tariff rate applies, and makes their goods more prohbitive. But not banned.

And you think hammering American consumers for 50% higher taxes on goods they purchase is a good idea? Have you considered what that will do to their standard of living? Free trade is a process of mutual advantage, which you seem hellbent on placing Washington, D.C. in the midst of.

We will be sending a message to China and its oppressed people. "We are against your evil communist government, which has been profiting off your exploitation."

I rather spend my energy freeing oppressed U.S. citizens from the evil government that profits by extracting 5 months in taxes for every year's labor. But politicians benefit most from pointing to external threats, real and imagined.

Hence, I do not "oppose commercial relations." They are free to buy us much, or more, commodities from us as now, with no taxes whatsoever.

Have some respect for yourself. Don't say "I do not oppose commercial relations" and then propose a 50% tariff. That's disengenuous at best.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"Most likely true, in a mass blitzkrieg type assault they are willing to absorb these losses(based on past ChiCom response)"

Lose 10% per sortie due to accidents, plus combat losses, plus coping with the inevitable counter-air campaign that attacks your airfields and aviation infrastructure, and you will very quickly lose your air force.

"If the ChiComs don't nuke any US territory or US mainland, will the the US be able politically to respond nuclear in the Taiwan theater?"

Yes. Once the nukes come out, everyone will decide that the ChiComs are stone-f***ing-crazy, and they'll treat China as a mad dog. You handle a mad dog by killing it.

[Paul Ross]

I do not oppose commercial relations. And let's talk about "disengenousness". Free trade, is mis-claimed by your China apologist side. Free trade is not what we have currently. China refuses to import any industrially competing products from us whatsoever. Only factory-closed machine tool auctions, and technology they don't yet have, or raw materials and foodstuffs. Their trade pattern with us is that of the First World Nation (them) versus a Third World Nation (us). We are treated as their economic colony...because we have allowed their GOVERNMENT to dictate all the terms of trade and all the players. Hence we have artificial trade constructs. The wage level of China is an artificial construct of the Chinese government, designed to abet their black hole sucking in U.S. firms willy-nilly. Look at the wage differential between Hong Kong and Taiwan versus mainland China.

Now the next item of yours is priceless:

And you think hammering American consumers for 50% higher taxes on goods they purchase is a good idea?

Oh, "they purchase" them? What about the middle-men who don't give the "consumers" a choice? So you don't think they will somehow find a cheaper alternative to Chinese goods over at WalMart or Target? I do. You must not think very highly of their managements.

Have you considered what that will do to their standard of living?

You guys should have thought of that before you tried to make the U.S. dependent on an enemy nation. Best to shut them down now before the currency is totally debauched and our last industry destroyed. I suspect that it is really YOUR standard of living you are worrying about, not some selfless concern for your fellow American...if indeed you really are one. In any event, I would surmise you likely make your living by importing from China. IF so, then you are a part of the problem, and have proceeded in this conversation under cover of anonymity to advance a duplicitous position.

Free trade is a process of mutual advantage, which you seem hellbent on placing Washington, D.C. in the midst of.

I reiterate. We don't currently have free trade. Note, China has massive tariffs against us right now. They are in violation of virtually all their WTO requirements. From recognizing and protecting intellectual property law, tariff phase-outs, de-pegging and floating their currency, eliminating partner joint venture requirements, allowing employee freedoms of movement and defending their wages. Etc. China does not currently permit unprotected trade...

Trade requires that they honor and respect property rights. Newsflash: They are still communist. I bet you haven't read their "Constitution."

[chariotdriver]

everyone will decide that the ChiComs are stone-f***ing-crazy, and they'll treat China as a mad dog.

My gut feeling is everyone already knows that.
This whole Taiwan thing could break in completely unexpected ways for the ChiComs. Taiwan and HongKong now sovereign and the China mainland fractured.

[Gunslingr3]

I do not oppose commercial relations.

And at the same time advocate policies to make trade prohibitively expensive. Do you know what prohibit means?

Free trade, is mis-claimed by your China apologist side.

Stick to what I say, don't construct strawmen and then argue against them.

Free trade is not what we have currently.

Agreed, our government can only ensure it doesn't interfere with us.

we have allowed their GOVERNMENT to dictate all the terms of trade and all the players. Hence we have artificial trade constructs.

How other people are restricted in their ability to trade is beyond the purview of our government.

Look at the wage differential between Hong Kong and Taiwan versus mainland China.

Do you think Hong Kong achieved it's wage power by restricting trade with the world?

Oh, "they purchase" them? What about the middle-men who don't give the "consumers" a choice?

Consumers decide whether to purchase anything. The middle-men look the world over for goods that consumers will decide help improve their living standards. You want to cut off a source for those goods, or at least make them 'prohibitively expensive'.

So you don't think they will somehow find a cheaper alternative to Chinese goods over at WalMart or Target? I do. You must not think very highly of their managements.

Economic adjustments are not automatic, and while you squander billions of dollars of investment in productive facilities by government fiat it's the American consumers and the companies they invest their savings in who will feel the pinch.

You guys should have thought of that before you tried to make the U.S. dependent on an enemy nation.

You guys? You missed the most important aspect of Washington's address - the desire on the part of some to constantly create enemies as justification for enlarging the sphere of the state. Already in this thread you want to prop up China as an enemy in order to exert control from Washington, D.C. over the rights of Americans to trade as they see fit.

Best to shut them down now before the currency is totally debauched and our last industry destroyed.

The debasement of the U.S. currency is a function of government debt. China is powerless to debase our currency, it's because of the GOP controlled Congress's profligacy that our currency is made worth less and less. I wish the GOP was honest about smaller government.

I suspect that it is really YOUR standard of living you are worrying about, not some selfless concern for your fellow American.

My living standard is tied to the cost of goods as any other American.

if indeed you really are one.

Oh boy, already moved into baseless personal attacks. This is going downhill fast. I wish you didn't feel the need to distract from the subject of what the policies you propose would do to American's standard of living.

In any event, I would surmise you likely make your living by importing from China.

You're wrong.

I reiterate. We don't currently have free trade.

I know that, I just don't share your assumption that creating more trade barriers will make trade more free.

Trade requires that they honor and respect property rights. Newsflash: They are still communist. I bet you haven't read their "Constitution."

Does it protect property rights like our Constitution did for the citizens of New London, Connecticut? I'm honestly not interested in how their government, or any other government, treats it's citizens and observes their rights. I'd rather keep the U.S. a free place for the lovers of liberty to flee the repression in the rest of the world.

Let me distill the difference in our positions, as I see it. You think we can achieve a better standard of living for Americans by letting the U.S. government manage our trade, erecting barriers as seen fit by politicians who are flooded with money and perks by lobbyists each looking to carve advantages for themselves at the expense of 300 million American consumers. You think the communist Chinese planners who can't figure out how many shoes to make have the knowledge and foresight to properly manage their nation's production via subsidy and trade restrictions to outperform free market economies in generating wealth. You probably also confuse the number of people employed in a particular economic sector as indicative of that sector's productive capacity. You probably don't realize that manufacturing as a portion of the labor force is shrinking globally (even in China), while the amount of goods produced is increasing (particularly in the U.S.). I fear that you percieve the employment of labor as a game of musical chairs, and feel like tomorrow a chinaman might be sitting in yours. In my view the number and type of labors consumers seek are unlimited, and it is the process of the market to determine who will fill which roles and at what rates.

[GOP_1900AD]

The saddest thing is, ChiCOM H1Bs work in US government labs who are doing nano research. So even whatever efforts we are doing are being heavily compromised.