Space Shuttle Secrets Stolen For China

Ponca City, We Love You writes "The Department of Justice has announced the indictment of former Boeing engineer Dongfan Chung on charges of economic espionage in the theft of company trade secrets relating to the Space Shuttle, the C-17 military transport aircraft, and the Delta IV rocket. Chung is a native of China and a naturalized US citizen. According to the indictment, Chinese aviation industry representatives began sending Chung 'tasking' letters as early as 1979. Over the years, the letters directed Chung to collect specific technological information, including data related to the Space Shuttle and various military and civilian aircraft. Chung allegedly responded in one letter indicating a desire to contribute to the 'motherland,' the DOJ said. It was not immediately clear how much, if any, damage the alleged espionage did to US national security but DOJ officials said the cases reflect the determination of the Chinese government to penetrate US intelligence and obtain vital national defense secrets. 'Today's prosecution demonstrates that foreign spying remains a serious threat in the post-Cold War world,' said Kenneth L. Wainstein, Assistant Attorney General for National Security"

Comments

too much

[peektwice]

too much privatization, and not enough oversight

Re:too much

[baffled]

Yeah, it's not like the US government employs naturalized citizens.

Re:too much

[mrxak]

I would certainly hope that every worker in our national space and military industries would have to undergo background checks and periodic lie detector tests, just like they use in the CIA.

Re:too much

[peektwice]

I didn't have anything to say about the citizenship, or nationality of the suspect, only that there wasn't enough oversight. Privatization can be a good thing. Without adequate oversight, it's a bad thing, because national security goes out the window, and the only thing left is making money. Espionage just becomes a cost of doing business.

Re:too much

[pesho]

Boeing is not CIA. If they start doing this, instead of an occasional employee spying for China, they will have half of their staff quiting and going to work for someone else (China for example).

Re:too much

[FleaPlus]

> too much privatization, and not enough oversight

Are you suggesting that the U.S. should produce all of its rockets in-house? That hasn't been the case since, like, the 1950s.

Also, what do you think should have been done differently? He apparently had "Secret" level security clearance, which according to Wikipedia involves the following:

A Secret clearance, also known as Ordinary Secret, requires a few months to a year to fully investigate depending on the individual's activities. Some instances where individuals would take longer than normal to be investigated are many past residences, having residences in foreign countries, or have relatives outside the United States. Bankruptcy and unpaid bills as well as criminal charges will more than likely disqualify an applicant for approval. Poor financial history is the number one cause of rejection, and foreign activities and criminal record are also common causes for disqualification. A Secret clearance requires a National Agency Check, A Local Agency Check, Credit investigation and must be reinvestigated every 10 years.

Re:too much

[arth1]

They have lie detector tests in CIA? If you can't lie well enough, you get fired?

Re:too much

[FleaPlus]

> I would certainly hope that every worker in our national space and military industries would have to undergo background checks and periodic lie detector tests, just like they use in the CIA.

As I mentioned in another comment, Chung had Secret-level security clearance, which (if I understand correctly) requires precisely the sort of background checks you describe.

Re:too much

[sconeu]

Secret doesn't require lie detector. TS does. Various riders on Secret may require additional checking.

Re:too much

[hardburn]

Alternatively, espionage could be a great way to pad your margins.

Re:too much

[mrxak]

Well, I know the checks aren't always perfect, but clearly they need some improvement.

Re:too much

[nuzak]

> periodic lie detector tests

Yeah, they should also undergo phrenology and palmistry exams too.

Re:too much

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep seeing "too much privatization, not enough oversight" together as if they're inseparable. What is it that makes a government institution immune to this type of attack? I propose we don't muddle the issue and see it plainly as "not enough oversight".

Re:too much

[HotBBQ]

Background checks, yes, but not necessarily a lie detector test. It depends on the security level you need to be cleared to.

Re:too much

[The One and Only]

It's funny because it's true--you think they're going to send in field agents who will break down under questioning? Lie detectors are the least of what they get trained and tested for--where do you think they got the idea for waterboarding from?

Re:too much

[Len]

Are you suggesting that the U.S. should produce all of its rockets in-house? That hasn't been the case since, like, the 1950s.

And not then, either! America's post-war rocket technology and expertise came from Germany.

Re:too much

[sumdumass]

I think oversight in this case might have been/could have been better. But simple things like monitoring who has access to what terminals, what was accessed, does that person have a need for that access at this particular time and if the logged in person is actually in the room at the time of the access could detect suspicious behavior. And if this type of monitoring and reporting was mandatory with subcontractors and all, this could have been picked up sooner.

And that's just a start, but there isn't anything indicating this isn't done on some levels already and that they haven't been watching it happen for a while. I remember a story about NASA requiring background checks on people not normally required and a case of guards taking souvenir posters from the gift shop. They may have been doing this in a reaction to knowing stuff was being passed without knowing who or where from. Then again, they might have been attempting to feed misinformation in what was being passed too. I guess we will know more when the trial goes forward.

It is strange though, that they have letters talking about this dating back to 1979. Did this guy keep them that long knowing they would implicate him or did we intercept and record them or something. Where did this almost 30 year old evidence all the sudden come from? And was this the guy giving China secrets from the JPL during Clinton's term that everyone was claiming payoff for the Chinese campaign contributions and all that mess that came up? I thought they got that guy. And I would hope that they would have learned from it somehow. Charley Tree xounds familiar but my buzz has kicked in too much to google it.

Re:too much

[MttJocy]

Sure, because lie detectors are foolproof, and you cannot possibly train someone how to fool one ever, that will explain how during the likes of the cold war several soviet agents infiltrating the US successfully passed a lie detector test, sometimes on multiple separate occasions.

Re:too much

[eat here_get gas]

RE:
"...Sure, because lie detectors are foolproof, and you cannot possibly train someone how to fool one ever,..."

what about psychotics, those who believe their own delusions? you can only be lying if you don't believe your answer...

Re:too much

[dontbgay]

To tag onto that a little bit, Secret is usually need to know. I know the security clearance I have doesn't let me look at everything classified Secret. Only things I need to do my job.

Re:too much

[Anonymous Coward]

You should work blood type personality testing in there somewhere, too.

Re:too much

[Anonymous Coward]

Perfect security just isn't possible. And in an R&D environment, security and progress are often at odds with each other. You can lock everything down tight, but then you won't get anything done. If you do get things done, it'll be because your really smart people are bypassing your protections.

That's not to say that you should ignore violations. But as with everything, it's a tradeoff and it must be considered as such. Yes, there are other measures which could be taken, but given the cost both in money and lost productivity, is it actually worth it? The answer may be yes, but the question must be considered rather than simply assuming that anything which increases security must be a good idea.

Re:too much

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... that's such a high bar, no bankruptcy or unpaid bills. So someone with good financial history has an excellent chance of getting Secret clearance? Maybe you didn't think you response all the way through.

Re:too much

[jpvetter]

Excellent point.

Re:too much

[Anonymous Coward]

Lie detector is not required for TS (though if you work for some agencies they may force you too, it is not generally required for most.) It is not even required for many SCI compartments, it is often required for very sensitive compartments or unbounded facility access

Re:too much

[bigdavesmith]

You say that like it's a bad thing, but I bet the Chinese are stoked about it!

Re:too much

[ThePeices]

"where do you think they got the idea for waterboarding from?"

Pol Pot?

Re:too much

[The One and Only]

Indirectly, yes. Part of the SERE training our troops and (probably) CIA field agents go through involves torture resistance training, and one of the techniques they train for is waterboarding. It doesn't really make it better but at least they're familiar with what's going on, in theory. Anyway, the entire torture thing started when a few enterprising folks realized that torture resistance training also functioned as torture training.

Re:too much

[ardle]

America's post-war rocket technology and expertise came from Germany. And that was a pretty good reason to want to keep it secret ;-)

Re:too much

[Dun Malg]

too much privatization, and not enough oversight Not enough oversight, perhaps. Too much privatization? How do you figure? NASA has never built anything itself. NASA has always gotten the systems they need the same way any other government agency has, by 1) releasing a specification, 2) reviewing the submissions made by contractors, then 3) selecting the contractor that best meets their specs. North American Aviation built the CSM for the Apollo Program; Grumman, the lunar module; the Saturn V launch vehicle parts were built by Boeing, North American Aviation, Douglas Aircraft Company, and IBM; the Gemini and Mercury capsules by McDonnell Aircraft. Point is, the government has never built its own stuff, be it spacecraft, aircraft, even trucks. It has always contracted out.

Re:too much

[sgt_doom]

Gee whiz! And who performs those background investigations for the government now that the vast majority of the US intel community has been privatized? It's not SAIC - they are far too busy running the Total Information Awareness Network (through their subsidiary, Hicks & Associates) to manipulate and control the entire (US presidential) election process.

Hmmmm....must be Kroll, Blackwater Worldwide, ManTech International, CACI, OmniPlex World Services Corp, Systems Applications and Technologies, Inc.....oh, why go on.......

Re:too much

[Stone2065]

First of all... to have a "Secret" clearance, you MUST be in the U.S. Military. You can have a similar rating, i.e. "Q" clearance, but to have an honest to god "Secret", it's mandatory to be affiliated in either the U.S. Military, or one of the agents of the government, i.e. NSA, CIA, or pick your alphabet soup organization of the week. So... the idea that this guy got much of anything "Secret", is a load of jetwash. At best, he got into some "Q" clearance data, which is actually situated between "Confidental" and "Secret". It's an odd, and long list of what construes what is "Secret", etc. to which I no longer have access to. When I was in the USAF, I had a "Secret" clearance, as I was in the fire department, and if anyone is wondering why a poor old lineman needed a Secret clearance... just think of this senario... a F-117 goes down. When the fire department shows up, the plane is in decent shape, and the pilot is stuck in the cockpit. Who's going to pull him out? Someone with a damn Secret clearance, that's for sure. No one is allowed to see parts of a LOT of the planes that the USAF have in their inventory even back in the day. Hell, we had a T.O. book, more like a full 3" binder with ALL sorts of fun data regarding ALL the flying critters the USAF had back then, from the T-36s that were apparently flying somewhere, to the Shuttle and the SR-71. Not all of that binder was Secret, but a fair bit of it sure as hell was. Sorry for the rant... it's just the misinformation regarding a Secret clearance was a bit irritating. As far as Chinese nationals working on anything resembling something that requires a clearance... well, what the hell did you expect to happen? I'm not saying ALL of them are going back to Mother China with data... but if ONE does, your secrets are hosed. And you have to admit that the odds are higher that a Chinese national will spill the bean far quicker and easier than a non-Chinese national. Also... the tech that makes up the shuttle IS pretty old... by US standards, but to most of the rest of the world (read China, Korea, Taiwan, etc.) it's pretty hot stuff. Hell, I remember us stopping ALL exportation of 486 CPUs to China because some smart boy figured out how to chain them together and MAYBE get something that would help launch an orbital vehicle. Again, sorry for the long post. Check my record here. I don't post often, but I guess I am just picky as to what to post.

Re:too much

[Dun Malg]

I would certainly hope that every worker in our national space and military industries would have to undergo background checks and periodic lie detector tests, just like they use in the CIA. The CIA only uses polygraphs because it's an agency full of dumbfuck ivy league morons* who conduct themselves based on some weird internally generated self-image, rather than the realistic needs of the country. I swear, the CIA employees I was exposed to came off as intelligent, earnest dopes who had a tendency to act like everything is a James Bond movie. I was a HUMINT and COMINT analyst in the Army for eight years. I worked with some extremely sensitive information and never once had to take a polygraph. Nor did did anyone I worked with. Lie detector tests are a sham, security theater used to trick the guilty into confessing. Nobody uses the polygraph as a serious investigative tool, as anyone with any knowledge of how they work can invalidate the results. Really, all you have to know to realize that polygraphs are complete hogwash is that there are only two possible results: "shows signs of deception", and "inconclusive". It's a scaremonger's tool.

* There are many examples of institutional incompetence in the CIA, but two I think exemplify it:
Exhibit A: failure to predict the fall of the Berlin Wall or the Soviet Union. It was a complete surprise to them.
Exhibit B: yellowcake uranium. 'nuff said.

Re:too much

[Anonymous Coward]

TS does not require (at least not always, since I never had one) a lie detector test. Specific areas of TS may always require it, but not all TS.

Re:too much

[TwoHundredOk]

can't you just require more oversight through regulations? why must an industry be de-privatized?

Re:too much

[Dun Malg]

Wow... that's such a high bar, no bankruptcy or unpaid bills. So someone with good financial history has an excellent chance of getting Secret clearance? Maybe you didn't think you response all the way through. Maybe you didn't read his response all the way through. Financial history is only part of the investigation.

Re:too much

[Anonymous Coward]

Secret = National Agency check

Top Secret = SSBI (Single Scope Background Investigation) - they do an interview of you, your friends, the friends of your friends, etc.

TS/SCI (TS Sensitive Compartmented Information) - Two levels of this. First is CI (CounterIntel) - lie detector to see if you are a spy. The other is lifestyle, they ask more personal questions relating to how you live.

Polygraphs only at SCI level.

Re:too much

[Anonymous Coward]

All security clearance is "need to know". You don't get to go browse the library of Secret files once you get a clearance. It just means that you have been cleared to have that level of information released to you when it is necessary to do so.

Secret clearance is pretty trivial to get, I got mine almost 20 years ago in the Guard (it's now lapsed since I had no need for it after I separated). If you have good credit, a fairly clean criminal record (no felonies or serious misdemeanors) and haven't lived in a questionable country (which can obviously be overcome like this guy did) or openly supported any questionable organizations you're pretty much in.

I don't think it's too difficult for determined espionage to get moles at Secret. Barring naturalized citizens from clearances would make it orders of magnitude more difficult but it's unlikely to be worth that cost.

Re:too much

[Shadowlore]

too much privatization, and not enough oversight

Yeah because nobody ever stole information from government agencies that had tons of oversight.

Re:too much

[Arthur Grumbine]

There's nothing quite like doubling productivity! If only they could double they're productivity in their efforts to find Osama. Now that I think about it, maybe the two are connected...

Re:too much

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I think there was plenty of oversight.

Re:too much

[philwx]

None of these people who sold us out were "field agents", they were all average joes that were American citizens or livedin America most of their lives, that sold us out for simple cash. The tests would (if nothing else) at least deter these people from selling us out, if not prevent it altogether.

Re:too much

[philwx]

Sounds like a great candidate for a policy change - make tests required for Secret information.

"Do you like making $80k a year as a government contractor? Well it's time to earn your pay."

It's not like they're asking them if they'd ever smoked pot, they're asking them if they sold secrets to foreigners. They should be able to pass that test in 5 minutes every month without breaking a sweat. If they don't like it they can feel free to work at Walmart.

Re:too much

[philwx]

Ok, how does a 15 minute lie detector test every month asking if you sold secrets to China sound? Too much to ask? Would it kill your productivity? Just wondering.

Re:too much

[jambox]

Great - excellent plan. Except lie detectors don't work. Never have.

Re:too much

[Anonymous Coward]

Open source all military and space equipment... So we can defeat the aliens!!!
oh no.. too much ufo ai :)

Re:too much

[Prune]

In all seriousness, palm reading is a great trick to use when picking up girls, including strangers on cold approach. It gets in immediate kino and most girls are far from skeptical about these things, and is a good way to get talking about their dreams and passions, which really opens them up very quickly. It's one of the best opener techniques in my experience.

Re:too much

[argiedot]

The idea is, the people who are handling these privatised things are in the game for the money and so, without adequate oversight, they will try to push for the maximum profit. The government, on the other hand, is supposed to act in the interests of the people forming it. That's the idea anyway.

Re:too much

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be useless as lies detectors do not work and are based on pseudo science.

Re:too much

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean it's a good way to select stupid girls. Way to go !

Re:too much

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, wrong. I have a TS/SCI myself, and have never taken a lie detector test. Whether or not you need one depends on who is sponsoring the clearance.

Re:too much

[jimmypw]

Ofcourse they do where else do you get spies!!!

Re:too much

[jotok]

Actually, I think most of the people convicted of spying for other governments or otherwise committing treason have been trusted government employees vice private-sector workers of some kind.

Re:too much

[Jaysyn]

Waterboarding has been around since medieval times.

Re:too much

[Anonymous Coward]

"Are you suggesting that the U.S. should produce all of its rockets in-house?"

So, are you stupid or just really bad at reading?

Re:too much

[Anonymous Coward]

>> too much privatization, and not enough oversight

>Are you suggesting that the U.S. should produce all of its rockets in-house? That hasn't been the case since, like, the 1950s.

Actually much earlier!! NASA was formed on July 29, 1958. The German (V2 etc) rocket scientists such as Wernher von Braun surrendered themselves to the US 13 years earlier in 1945.

And if you scratch further beneath the surface of history you will indeed find many other great non-American people without whose dedicated research it could be said that the US would never have landed on the moon. Some noted examples:

Alessandro Volta (Italian - electric cell!!!)
Georg Ohm (German - Ohms law/Electromagnetism)
André-Marie Ampère (French - AMP/Electromagnetism)
William Hyde Wollaston (English - electric motor/earlier work than Faraday!)
Hans Christian Ørsted (Dutch - electromagnetism)
Michael Faraday (English - electric motor, electromagnetism and electrochemistry)
Nikola Tesla (Serbian - an electrical god who greatly aided Edison)
Charles Batchelor (English - aided Edison)
Guglielmo Marconi (Italian/Irish - radio!)

Sadly though history continues to show that where inventions came gets muddied and some increadible people get over shadowed by the passages of time. We should remember them all not just a select few who often are less modest or due where they are in the world/local politics end up being more in the shadows than others. For example, would the world have ever heard of the amazing extremely talented American engineer/musician Robert Moog, if he hadn't been inspired by the amazing work of Léon Theremin (Russian)?

What history continues to show us is that mankind needs to continue to work together on an international basis to achieve great things. Modern radar for example is thanks to US/English/German work. The same is true of computing... we are were we are now thanks to international achivements.....!!!!

Re:too much

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously don't have a TS clearance.

Re:too much

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in the D.C. area...actually just around the corner from this "spy". I also hold a Top Secret clearance and am very familiar with the process.

He held a TS clearance which requires a comprehensive background investigation. It takes anywhere from 6 months to a few years to complete. Not all Secret or Top Secret clearances require a polygraph. It depends on who is sponsoring the clearance and the type of materials that will be handled.

Re:too much

[MBGMorden]

Lie detector's aren't foolproof, and for someone who's practiced it, can actually be fooled pretty easily. Wouldn't make much sense for China to send over "super spy" who couldn't get through that minor hurdle.

Bottom line is, shit happens. You can't always in hindsight go back and say "A ha! This is the problem and if we did this it would have prevented it!". Nations are gonna war, people are going to kill each other, and chilrden around the world are going to starve. You put a good effort towards preventing the easily avoided cases but then you just have to buck up and accept the rest as unavoidable.

Re:too much

[soulfury]

Do you really think that some OC Slashdotters would want to do kino on some random strangers? The germs, the germs! I must get back inside my bubble!

Re:too much

[khallow]

This makes no sense. You hold them to two different standards. Corporations to what they do and government agencies to what they're supposed to do. As long as you do so, you can't compare relative benefits of chosing between the two.

Re:too much

[IndustrialComplex]

Wanna know how to really mess with the guy conducting a lie detector?
Have an irregular heartbeat.

Examiner: Is your name "so and so"?

Thump Thump Thump.. bdmp Thump Thump Thump.. bdmp Thump Thump Thump.

Examiner: err umm...

Happened to me during a polygraph. Every 4th beat skips. The examiner looked like he didn't know if he should call an ambulance or the men in black.

Re:too much

[argiedot]

My mistake - not my native language. Corporations' motivation: money. Government's motivation: wellbeing. There.

Re:too much

[bjourne]

I don't think it's too difficult for determined espionage to get moles at Secret. Barring naturalized citizens from clearances would make it orders of magnitude more difficult but it's unlikely to be worth that cost. There is no reason to believe that naturalized citizens (aka immigrants) would be more likely to espionage than natives. In fact very few of the agents spying for the Soviet Union were Communists or Socialists, although the belief was a convenient myth for the establishment.

Re:too much

[arth1]

Waterboarding has been around since medieval times.

I believe those that use it still live in medieval times.

Re:too much

[hardburn]

To a company, the security of national secrets is an externality. Leaking classified information won't directly affect their bottom line, and in fact could bolster it if nothing says that can't turn around and sell those secrets to other countries. The solution is for the government to never sign a contract without guarantees about the secrecy of data, vetting people who work on the project, and other such measures, which I'm sure is standard practice.

Re:too much

[khallow]

Still incorrect since that usually isn't government's motivation. That's what it should be, but in practice, there are other motivations like power and status. To be honest, these are often motivations for those who run corporations too.

Re:too much

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wasting money on useless tests (lie detectors don't actually work) which could be spent on real security instead. In other words, by instituting regular lie detector tests, you are decreasing your overall security because they use money which otherwise could have been spent on useful measures. So yes, it is too much to ask.

Re:too much

[softdevs]

It took several long years before they found out....kanati

Re:too much

[Blue23]

It's not like they're asking them if they'd ever smoked pot, they're asking them if they sold secrets to foreigners. They should be able to pass that test in 5 minutes every month without breaking a sweat.

A useful polygraph test requires a good chunk of time, say 80 to 120 minutes of questioning plus the setup time and time to interpret the results. The same questions are come at from different directions, and answers over time to see if you are spoofing.

Of course, everything I know about polygraphs comes from novels and Mythbusters. :)

Cheers,
=Blue(23)

Re:too much

[argiedot]

America is a democracy (we are talking about the US, aren't we?. It's a failed one if the government does not represent the people.

Re:too much

[khallow]

So it is a "failed" government then. My point remains.

Re:too much

[Anonymous Coward]

Historically that was not the case, but in modern espionage it does seem to be. The high profile espionage I can think of has all been carried out by naturalized Americans who were naturals of the country in question (usually China).

Re:too much

[Prune]

Nope. Believers stupid. And despite level of intelligence, with almost all women emotions are stronger than rationality. Unless you communicate to them on an emotional level, you'll not get far without pure luck.

Re:too much

[Prune]

Hmm, angle brackets were removed by the software. I had a not-equal sign between "believer" and "stupid".

Re:too much

[argiedot]

Indeed, in that case, I agree.

Re:too much

[khallow]

Ok, so after some back and forth, I think we've agreed that a properly functioning government agency with adequate oversight would act in the interests of the people forming it. As I see it, it might not act productively or efficiently, but at least it has good intentions. My complaint is that this isn't a realistic assumption. And we're ignoring efficiency considerations. So above, you're comparing real world companies to ideal imaginary government agencies *and* ignoring efficiency considerations too. That's not a useful comparison.

IMHO, it is better to have a business provide a service efficiently, even though their motive is completely mercenary, than have a inefficient government agency provide the same service, perhaps with good motives. Oversight for a company is very straightforward. If a company does wrong, it gets fined or sued. Perhaps employees will be jailed (if crimes occured) or the company go bankrupt. The profit motive will encourage companies to avoid costly fines. Government agencies are immuned to most fines and sometimes lawsuits, so it's harder to apply the same tools. Further, since they need not make a profit, incuring costs on a government agency has a much weaker effect than it would have on a business that needs to make money in order to survive. Government agencies are very resistant to criticism. For example, US Social Security is a very feeble program that has managed to survive more than half a century because it has lock-in. Ie, it gets solid support from people who paid in for decades, even though almost everyone knows the program is ineffective at what it does, provides poor return, increases the cost of employing US workers, and is set to become the largest drain on the US budget in about 10 years.

Re:too much

[argiedot]

In my experience, it doesn't work so well when that happens. The companies pay the fines, or get kicked and the next company that comes in does the same. So you just move from loss to loss, and if they're really good at what they're doing, you won't even catch them. With the government, though, their job is not to make money but to do the job, and considering that if one person in a government tries to do it, other people's job is to catch that guy whereas in the company if there's anything funny going on, everyone who counts is in on it.

Also, I do not see why there cannot be an efficient government. Perhaps it is different in the United States, but even in in a horribly corrupt government like mine, there are some government agencies which are simply superbly done.

duh!

[X0563511]

demonstrates that foreign spying remains a serious threat

Did I miss that memo? Hasn't this always been a serious threat, to all major nations?

Re:duh!

[arth1]

And how is stealing tech from the 60's and early 70's a serious threat? It reads almost like if they stole specs for the V2 rockets...

Re:duh!

[mrxak]

You do realize that rocket technology can be used in ICBMs?

Re:duh!

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize China already has ICBMs right?

Re:duh!

[Anonymous Coward]

China has already had ICBMs since the early 80's. In fact, the DongFeng 5 has been in active service since 1981.

Re:duh!

[anagama]

No need to swipe anything -- China just buys up companies. For example, GM owas producing neodymium magnets which are used in everything from "Smart Bombs" to hard drives. In 1995, it sold the business to Sextant Group (Chinese) although a promise was extracted from the feds (because this was tech important to defense) to leave production here in America. Bush said naught when Sextant packed off everything to China: http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/685/
Excerpt:

U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) appealed to the Bush administration last fall to use powers under the 1988 Exon-Florio Amendment to the defense bill to block the transfer of the Valparaiso plant on national security grounds because the operation supplied 80 percent of magnets needed for smart bombs. The plant's move to China was denounced in lengthy magazine exposés from both the right (Insight) and left (Counterpunch). But the Bush administration did nothing.

Re:duh!

[RobinH]

Did I miss that memo? Hasn't this always been a serious threat, to all major nations?

I figured what they meant was, "this is justification to maintain funding at cold-war levels".

Re:duh!

[mrxak]

You do realize they can't hit anything beyond the Rockies yet, right? The rocket technology they've stolen from us now will certainly help them reach all the way to D.C.

Re:duh!

[TheLink]

1) The tech was stolen in the past
2) China can most certainly hit stuff beyond the Rockies - since they can currently send stuff into orbit and even to the moon. Whether this is because of the tech they stole or from other sources (Russians, in-house) who knows?

But seriously why would China attack the USA? China might attack Taiwan (e.g. due to a cascade of "mustn't lose face" events), and maybe a few other small countries around it, but attack their biggest customer? Why?

The USA is more likely to attack China than the other way round.

So being able to strike back (even if not that effectively) will help discourage the USA from attacking China.

Re:duh!

[MadnessASAP]

I'd be more worried about China repoing USA (Wouldn't that be a hell of an episode of The Repo Man.) Although in reality I think that USA will probably never pay China back nor will China ever demand the money back.

Re:duh!

[Opportunist]

So being able to strike back (even if not that effectively) will help discourage the USA from attacking China.

You don't have to be able to do substancial damage to the US. You don't have to wipe out DC, LA, NY and Philly at the same time to send the country into a fear craze. We've seen a few years ago that blowing up a single building (ok, two plus knocking off a corner of the Pentagon) is far more than enough.

Re:duh!

[Anonymous Coward]

"But the Bush administration did nothing."
Methinks this will become a common ending to encyclopedia articles in the not so distant future.

Not the Space Shuttle!

[Reality Master 101]

I don't know how we can recover from the Chinese gaining the secrets of the 1 MHz computers, and two billion dollar per-launch "reusable" technology. Ah well, the US probably stole that advanced technology from the crashed aliens anyway. It's only fair.

Re:Not the Space Shuttle!

[hyades1]

Actually, they took quite a bit of it as a bribe from a bunch of Nazi rocket scientists to keep them from being tried at Nuremburg as war criminals.

Re:Not the Space Shuttle!

[tonywong]

sheesh, why didn't they just keep feeding him subtley poisoned information to discredit ALL the information he's given them over the years?

Re:Not the Space Shuttle!

[calebt3]

and two billion dollar per-launch "reusable" technology They save billions in getting the tech to that point. Now they have a "working" system that they can use as a model.

Re:Not the Space Shuttle!

[Chris Burke]

Ah well, the US probably stole that advanced technology from the crashed aliens anyway.

The first indication that this was a bad idea should have been that the alien had crashed...

Re:Not the Space Shuttle!

[CheshireCatCO]

I understand the shuttle program, now: it was a massive plan to set the Chinese space agency back 20 years and billions of dollars by copying a crappy piece of technology! And only for the cost of, shit, billions of dollars and about 30 years. Well, it's a good try anyway.

Re:Not the Space Shuttle!

[Chilluhm]

Hmmm. Now it makes sense why that young chinese couple, at my yard sale on saturday, paid $2 for a Revell space shuttle model I built in the eighties.

Excuse me, I have a phone call to make.

Re:Not the Space Shuttle!

[Citizen of Earth]

I think the shuttle secrets were intentionally leaked to lead the Chinese to waste their resources building a fleet of the multi-billion-dollar unsafe-at-any-speed white elephants. Meanwhile, the US will quietly switch back to the 1960's rocket designs.

Re:Not the Space Shuttle!

[iocat]

That's true. Most of the cost of a shuttle launch is amortizing its development. However, since it can only get you into a pretty low orbit (and it doesn't seem to be built very well), I say the Chinese are welcome to it -- especially if they build it to the same standards that most goods from China are built to, I don't think the US has much to worry about.

Re:Not the Space Shuttle!

[WhiplashII]

Well, they did say they were giving them shuttle data...

Re:Not the Space Shuttle!

[Firethorn]

The problem is that even discounting that we have fully operational shuttles and aren't building any more, that they STILL cost more per pound of cargo launched into orbit than straight rocket systems.

That's why I support retiring them as soon as possible. There are many explanations as to why the shuttle is the way it is, from military distorting the demand requirements, wanting to do too much, design compromises to reduce initial construction/development costs, etc...

I'm sure that there are technologies in the shuttle that WOULD be very useful to the Chinese, though. There's the life support systems, power systems, etc...

Re:Not the Space Shuttle!

[MightyYar]

The only thing that the shuttle has going for it is the capability to bring down as much cargo as it can bring up - and we don't use that capability!

So yeah, it's a very expensive way to put stuff up there - but that doesn't make it any less impressive technically... like you said, they don't have to build a shuttle in order to benefit from the tech.

Re:Not the Space Shuttle!

[Dr. Spork]

They save billions in getting the tech to that point. Now they have a "working" system that they can use as a model.

You're calling the space shuttle a "working" system? If we want to make sure the Chinese don't beat us in the space race, we convince them to copy our shuttle. All the fucking around we had to do in our decades of dependance on the shuttle now puts us about 20 years behind where we would be if we just factory-built lots of Titan V's. For fuck's sake, the Russians are launching our satellites, like we we some sort of technological retards. The shuttle is a catastrophe, and if we're scared of the Chinese out-competing us, let's hope that they're trying to copy it. I expect that they'll know better.

Re:Not the Space Shuttle!

[garphik]

could have been a hum~n No, alien error

Re:Not the Space Shuttle!

[Alex Belits]

No, the first indication that it was a bas idea should have been that they crashed on Earth, in 40's or 50's. If you are an alien, what could be a worse place to crash?

Seriously, Shuttle was way too much an imitation of a sci-fi movie prop than a n example of good design and a part of well thought out space program.

Re:Not the Space Shuttle!

[Eunuchswear]

I can see the Chinese space guys using the shuttle info as a checklist of things not to bother trying.

Re:Not the Space Shuttle!

[Anonymous Coward]

1.) There's no such thing as a Titan V. It was proposed but cancelled.

2.) A Titan IV cost almost as much as the per mission incremental costs of a shuttle launch per pound of cargo, but is uncrewed. If you don't need a crew, a Titan IV is fine...or better yet, a Delta IV Heavy, which costs about $50 million less and is still in production. If you need a crew, there is nothing remotely equal to the shuttle's capabilities.

3.) The Russians launching our satellites says nothing about technology. We've been able to launch satellites since 1958. The current Russian launchers were mostly designed in the 70's. They're robust and simple, and they were cheap, but now the costs are catching up with the West again. Also, a large part of the reason costs in Russia are so low is they're using old ICBM's converted to launch most of their satellites. The government already payed the cost of designing and building them. Now they just have to turn a profit on converting and launching them.

4.) Stealing technology is not the same as copying. The Chinese would love to know how to build the SRB's on the shuttle. After the changes made post-Challenger, they're extremely reliable and powerful. They'd be very useful for their manned space program, their commercial launch market, and especially their ballistic missile programs. They'd also love a copy of the design for the space shuttle main engines, which are still one of the highest performance engines in existance. The materials and systems design principles used would probably also be of great interest.

The shuttle has launched more successful missions than any other manned launcher ever. The fact that it works as well as it does (for example, no other spacecraft could accomplish the Hubble servicing missions) despite its frightful complexity is evidence of the technology and engineering behind it. It's got problems, and LEO gets boring after a while (the shuttle was not intended to be our only launcher, BTW), but you won't find anything comparable.

Why is it always China?

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

Why is it always naturalized citizens from china, or American-born citizens who's parents were born in China that are in the news for doing this?

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Don't you remember?

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

because China is our enemy. Our leaders are just too stupid (or getting too rich from good "relations" with them) to realize it.

Re:Why is it always China?

[ScrewMaster]

Um ... perhaps that's because they're the ones doing it. I mean, that's what enemies do. I hope you don't consider China to be a U.S. ally, because they're not and never will be so long as their government is what it is. They don't even qualify as neutral, given the effect they're having on our economy and their ongoing pillage of the U.S. economy and education system.

Besides, I'd be surprised if we aren't doing the same thing to China, at least I'd hope we are. It's a bit more difficult in our case, since we don't have tens of thousands of American engineers and students flooding Chinese companies and schools.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the Israelis are our friends. Espionage from Israel doesn't count.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Robert1]

It's like reverse 1984.

Re:Why is it always China?

[TheLazySci-FiAuthor]

...It's a bit more difficult in our case, since we don't have tens of thousands of American engineers and students flooding Chinese companies and schools...

Just give it time.

Re:Why is it always China?

[ScrewMaster]

Nah ... you only need engineers when you're planning on building and manufacturing things. We're a "service economy" now, haven't you heard. Of course, to some that's pretty much synonymous with "third world economy".

Just give it time. We'll get there.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? China's ongoing pillage of the U.S. education system?

Re:Why is it always China?

[ScrewMaster]

Seriously. I suggest you do some research on what's been going on there, for some time now. For example, a Ph.D. I know was talking about the materials science department at his school. It was flooded with Chinese students, the Dean was Chinese (a Chinese national himself, not a U.S. citizen) who would take months-long sabbaticals to China order to recruit more students for his department. They squeezed all the other students (American as well as from other countries) out. Arrogant about it too, he was telling me: it was their department, basically. He was one of the few U.S. citizens left in that particular graduate program, and this was some years ago. Others tried to get in, but there weren't enough positions left ... the Chinese had filled them all.

They're educating themselves to advance their nation's interests, and their doing at our expense. This is happening all over, so yes, I think "pillage" is a good word. We put limits on legal immigration from different countries, with only so many allowed per year from each. That's not unusual among nations, everyone places controls on immigration. However, I think we should start doing the same thing for foreign students, especially from China since they're abusing the system. At the very least, they should only be allowed to study here if they aren't displacing U.S. citizens. Face it, the Chinese are putting their country first: I have no problem with that. However, we should start doing the same if we want to have a country.

Re:Why is it always China?

[cyfer2000]

"It's a bit more difficult in our case, since we don't have tens of thousands of American engineers and students flooding Chinese companies and schools." Or do you mean it is easier when CIA sends some of those people back.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Trespass]

China screwed the pooch technologically and economically in the early 70s, and this was part of them playing catchup. Spies are cheap. R&D is expensive.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Flavio]

They don't even qualify as neutral, given the effect they're having on our economy and their ongoing pillage of the U.S. economy and education system.

Are you blaming China for your nation's fiscal irresponsibility? China's lending the US hundreds of billions of USD per year so Americans can buy products they can't afford. China not only gets payed for the products, but also gets interest on the loans.

I agree that the Chinese are pillaging your educational system, but it's up to Americans to demand change and provide top notch undergraduates to fill the ranks at graduate school.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Dr. Cody]

Why do they refer to you as a "foreigner" in your own country?

This is not a troll; ask them.

Re:Why is it always China?

[ecavalli]

While your signature already indicates your bias, might I ask you if you had considered the idea that Americans are being shut out simply because they don't work as hard as some of these Chinese students?

Since your evidence is entirely anecdotal, allow me to give an anecdote of my own (ie: one that was not passed onto me by a friend): I finished college 2 years ago and during my 4 years there the Chinese, Japanese and Korean students (1st or 2nd generation) were the ones who were consistently at the top of their classes in fields like math, engineering, science, etc.

Why is that?

In my experience it's the direct result of them spending their free time studying these subjects while the typical American student is taking bong rips or having sex.

Americans value the college experience for its education and social worth (bong rips and sex) while people from Asian cultures value college solely as a learning experience. They aren't there to have fun.

(Yes, these are generalizations and are based on personally experienced anecdotes, but none of what I said here was any more biased than the parent.)

Re:Why is it always China?

[ScrewMaster]

Read my other post in this thread. I'm not blaming China for anything: they're doing what every self-serving totalitarian state since the beginning of civilization has done ... screw everyone else and profit by their loss. Why this is not obvious to more people is a cause for some concern.

So, I'm blaming us for letting it happen, but I would also hope that people would realize that China is not a friendly nation. They are out for themselves, and fundamentally don't grasp the concept of a trading partner: they use their industry and their economy as a weapon (and it's not being used against the U.S. only, Europe is a target as well.) We aren't going to take steps to protect ourselves from them until we wake up and realize what is really going on. It's obvious to me: I've been working in industrial technology for the better part of thirty years, I've seen the devastation of our manufacturing sector firsthand. I saw what was happening back in the seventies, and I'm sad to say our government did it's level best to encourage it.

It amazes me the number of different levels that the American citizen has been sold out by his government and the U.S. private sector, and how little he realizes it. Fact is, the United States is running on inertia now: we're living on our capital not our operating income. That is a recipe for economic disaster.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

...Amen, brother.

Re:Why is it always China?

[CodeBuster]

Besides, I'd be surprised if we aren't doing the same thing to China, at least I'd hope we are. It's a bit more difficult in our case, since we don't have tens of thousands of American engineers and students flooding Chinese companies and schools. The United States has a considerable head start on just about every technological area of either interest or consequence when compared to China and especially in technologies with military applications. In other words, the Chinese don't have much that the Americans don't already know AND would be worthwhile to steal with the possible exception of intelligence on their capabilities which the United States almost certainly already collects. They rip off American movies, music, and even technology, but what have they contributed in the way of worthwhile original research? Apparently not very much compared to the United States.

Re:Why is it always China?

[KudyardRipling]

...because imaging devices (mirrors are no exception) are not fooled by abstractions including but not limited to the Fourteenth Amendment. Why is it that anyone with a J.D. is hellbent on ignoring Dyett v. Turner?

Summary: Blood is thicker than water.

Diversity is suicide.

Downmodding will only serve to prove the veracity of the above beyond question, so don't waste the points.

Re:Why is it always China?

[ScrewMaster]

While your signature already indicates your bias, might I ask you if you had considered the idea that Americans are being shut out simply because they don't work as hard as some of these Chinese students?

My signature indicates nothing relevant to this thread. The fact that you think so means you misunderstood the sig. I'm not going to explain it to you.

No, I think you've closed your mind to the bigger picture, and that is this: China looks at the U.S. as the most concentrated storehouse of scientific and technical skill on the planet, knowledge which they are in the process of transferring to themselves. You seem to think that this flood of students is simply happening "because". It's not ... this is an orchestrated bleeding dry of everything that our Universities have to offer. Eventually they'll pass us up ... but the question still raises it's ugly head: why are we allowing this to happen in the first place?

There's no benefit to us to train a hostile, competitive power.

Re:Why is it always China?

[The One and Only]

Um ... perhaps that's because they're the ones doing it. I mean, that's what enemies do. I hope you don't consider China to be a U.S. ally, because they're not and never will be so long as their government is what it is.

Allies spy on each other all the time. That's how we know we're still allies.

They don't even qualify as neutral, given the effect they're having on our economy and their ongoing pillage of the U.S. economy and education system.

They're stealing our education?

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? China's ongoing pillage of the U.S. education system?

The Federal government underwrites the tuition and stipends for graduate students in math, physical sciences, biology and engineering. A very large number of those awards are now going to Chinese students. I think that if you had any idea about how many of these awards are going to foreign students, you'd object to your tax dollars being spent in this way. These students are normally very smart and have earned places in the best institutions. (i.e. I think they deserve an education.) But it should be payed for by their own government, especially when their government has extensive reserves of debt that we owe them that they could use to pay for it.

Re:Why is it always China?

[KudyardRipling]

I have one for you about that: Jonathan Pollard

Re:Why is it always China?

[Flavio]

Read my other post in this thread. I'm not blaming China for anything: they're doing what every self-serving totalitarian state since the beginning of civilization has done ... screw everyone else and profit by their loss. Why this is not obvious to more people is a cause for some concern.

These things are never obvious to the masses. The majority of the population is moved by their perception of well being, and is concerned only by immediate occurrences (both in time and regarding their social network).

From my perspective, what's changed is that in the last decade the American industrialists (or what was left of them) and bankers/speculators decided to make a lot of money at the expense of everything and everyone. They became so engrossed with immediate profits that they effectively traded long-term stability for short-term growth. In contrast, the Chinese have a long-term game plan, and have secured year-long contracts with essentially all their major suppliers.

I'm a Brazilian citizen, and I'd certainly enjoy living in a peaceful free market society inspired by American principles (as defined by the founding fathers in the US constitution). Instead, we'll have cut-throat oppressive capitalism as perfected by the Chinese, with a backdrop of new world order American war-mongering.

It amazes me the number of different levels that the American citizen has been sold out by his government and the U.S. private sector, and how little he realizes it. Fact is, the United States is running on inertia now: we're living on our capital not our operating income. That is a recipe for economic disaster.

I know, and this will hurt all of us.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Nimey]

Oh yeah. My uni's got a polymer research unit, and /all/ the scientists and GAs there are foreign. They're all from either Eastern Europe (generally the Balkans) or mainland China, I think. Not a single American except among the admin staff.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience it's the direct result of them spending their free time studying these subjects while the typical American student is taking bong rips or having sex.

This is probably more a reflection of your choice in friends or possibly a reflection of the quality of school that you attended. Anyhow, you'll find that more than half of the graduate students in science are, in fact, American born and were very serious as undergrads. Also, why do you think that having sex excludes you from having a serious academic life?

Re:Why is it always China?

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Dude, you do know that it's the managers of U.S. and european companies that outsource jobs and production to China and other cheap countries, right? Over there they cost of a years employment is what an U.S. worker would demand in a week with the added plus that nobody cares about you pumping all that green ooze into their holy river at night. It's all about increasing the already exorbitant profit-margins of big companies just a little bit more. Make the stock price go up and let rich bastards get even richer. Don't blame the chinese for that. Blame greed and... capitalism actually. Funny that.

Re:Why is it always China?

[metamorfoza]

... this is an orchestrated bleeding dry of everything that our Universities have to offer
boo-hoo. cry me a river will ya, and while you at it make me a sandwich... I mean, how this drying out everything that our Universities have to offer differentiates from drying out everything that oil rich nations have to offer .

Don't be such hypocrite. It seem to me that for you it is ok and absolutely normal for U.S. to exploit foreign resources, but it is not ok for someone else exploiting US resources.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dean was Chinese (a Chinese national himself, not a U.S. citizen) who would take months-long sabbaticals to China order to recruit more students for his department. They squeezed all the other students (American as well as from other countries) out. Arrogant about it too, he was telling me: it was their department, basically.

I wish you would just tell us which school it was.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you considered that the Chinese students were more QUALIFIED? Or the fact that most of those students DON'T go back to China? Or are you aware that there ARE still quotas placed on foreign student immigration?
By your reasoning we should ship all immigrants back so that they aren't displacing American jobs too right? (Ron Paul fails pragmatically)

Please let not your false perceptions spread false info to people. Check your facts and reasonings first. And don't tell others to do research when it's apparent you didn't do them yourself.

Re:Why is it always China?

[ne0n]

truth is, anybody with the real name "Dongfan" (FTFA) belongs on the front page of /.
It's just a lucky coincidence this article is related to tech.

Re:Why is it always China?

[rickb928]

You don't have lunch with me during the week, do you?

We (lunch buddy) bemoan the sad state of the US, our willingness to mortgage (figurately AND LITERALLY) our industry, finances, and technology to the Chinese in the name of free markets and commerce, and our failure to maintain an industrial base sufficient to ensure our prosperity.

Think for a moment, we buy nearly everything computerish from China. How long before someone spots a trojan in their motherboard BIOS?

Re:Why is it always China?

[TerranFury]

Other posters have commented on "Why China?" I'll comment on "Why naturalized citizens or American-born?" If your observation that these people are more likely to defect than recent immigrants really is correct, then here are two cents on why that might be:

Expats in my experience are the most vehement nationalists. People who come to the US voluntarily came here for a reason, and though they are proud of the country they came from, they also see its deficiencies* -- otherwise they wouldn't have made the effort to come here. People who have been out of their "homeland" for a long time, however -- say, if they were brought to the US as children -- develop a romanticized memory of "the motherland." More, they have the personal emotional need, much more than "genuine" Chinese/Irish/Iraqis, to assert their national/ethnic identity.

Example 1: Irish nationalists. A great deal of funding for the IRA, etc, came from Irish-Americans. A majority of those actually living in Ireland simply wanted the violence to stop -- they had to live with it -- but Irish-Americans continued to throw money on the fire.

Example 2: Cuba. Some of the most vocal anti-Castro advocates are Florida Cuban-Americans. It was they who agitated for and fought the Bay of Pigs.**

Example 3: Iraq. There are a million reasons for the current war, but one is support from vocal Iraqi expats.

The basic point is that it's easy to love a country you haven't seen since childhood -- hence the vehemence of expats.

_______

*(of course, they see this country's deficiencies too -- but they did make a choice of one set of advantages and disadvantages over another.)

**(and were famously undermined by a lack of air support.)

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. I suggest you do some research on what's been going on there, for some time now.

First I'd like to apologize that since I'm posting as Anonymous Coward (I never bothered to created an account), I am probably the opposite of what you think I am when you were replying my previous post. I happen to be a Chinese national currently studying in a U.S. university as a Ph.D. student.

For example, a Ph.D. I know was talking about the materials science department at his school. It was flooded with Chinese students, the Dean was Chinese (a Chinese national himself, not a U.S. citizen) who would take months-long sabbaticals to China order to recruit more students for his department. They squeezed all the other students (American as well as from other countries) out. Arrogant about it too, he was telling me: it was their department, basically. He was one of the few U.S. citizens left in that particular graduate program, and this was some years ago. Others tried to get in, but there weren't enough positions left ... the Chinese had filled them all.

They're educating themselves to advance their nation's interests, and their doing at our expense. This is happening all over, so yes, I think "pillage" is a good word. We put limits on legal immigration from different countries, with only so many allowed per year from each. That's not unusual among nations, everyone places controls on immigration. However, I think we should start doing the same thing for foreign students, especially from China since they're abusing the system. At the very least, they should only be allowed to study here if they aren't displacing U.S. citizens. Face it, the Chinese are putting their country first: I have no problem with that. However, we should start doing the same if we want to have a country.

And did you ask how many of those Chinese students go back to China after graduation, and how many of them stay in U.S. and get employed by a U.S. company, or the Chinese branch of a U.S. company? From what I've heard and seen, I'd want to guess more than 50% of them stayed in U.S.

In China there is actually some voice concerning that China is losing the top college graduates to U.S. In their opinion, the U.S. universities lured the Chinese students with better programs and better job opportunities, and those students are not coming back to China after graduation. Or, using your words, the U.S. is pillaging China's high school and undergraduate education systems. I'm not saying I agree with this viewpoint, just to let you know there are different interpretations of the same fact.

In my department (also a Materials Science one), there hadn't been much Chinese influence on the professor level (I think we had the first Chinese professor only two years ago), but since I came here six year ago, Chinese students have always been quite a large part, probably more than students from any other countries, including U.S. Why? In my opinion, because there are no competent U.S. applicants.

In the research group I'm in, there hasn't been a single U.S. graduate students or postdoc since I came here. All of them are foreigners, from China, India, Russia, Korea, Iran, etc. I've also seen the graduate program applicants for our department, there aren't that many U.S. students there. I don't know much about the math and science in high school and undergraduate education in U.S., but what I saw and heard confirms my impression that the average U.S. applicant is not as competent as a foreigner. So I think we are indeed studying here without displacing any U.S. citizens. Of course, I've only seen one department in one school, everybody should look more and draw his/her own conclusions.

Of course, theoretically the U.S. can refuse foreign students or apply a hard number/percentage cap like they do for H-1 work visas. Whether that is going to be a good thing or bad thing for U.S. universities and the scientific research in U.S. is a different matter.

Re:Why is it always China?

[oldhack]

You're so damn right. All the TAs and good chunk of professors in math, science, and engineering were Asians (both East and South) and Eastern Europeans (many Jewish), and that was back in the '90s.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

but it's up to Americans to demand change and provide top notch undergraduates to fill the ranks at graduate school.

We do provide top notch undergraduates. What has happened is that the schools keep expanding to make places for all of those who are qualified because the Federal government keeps agreeing to pay their tuition and stipends, without regard to their nationality. They are funding more science and engineering graduates than the market can support.

Also, fuck you and your superior attitude.

Re:Why is it always China?

[splatterboy]

there are several cases but of course you didn't read any of TFAs
"Three individuals have been arrested and charged in the case: a Washington-area U.S. Defense Department official (Gregg William Bergersen), a naturalized U.S. citizen from Taiwan (Tai Shen Kuo), and a Chinese national (Yu Xin Kang). "

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what's gonna be fun? If there's ever a shooting war with China it's going to be really interesting to see just how fast the net backbone and every other telecommunication system goes down.

Messrs Wang and Chung down in the IT department of EVERYWHERE EVER are going to have a field day following their sleeper orders.

Re:Why is it always China?

[RobertinXinyang]

"Besides, I'd be surprised if we aren't doing the same thing to China, at least I'd hope we are. It's a bit more difficult in our case, since we don't have tens of thousands of American engineers and students flooding Chinese companies and schools."

You have two issues in this paragraph. the first is "Besides, I'd be surprised if we aren't doing the same thing to China, at least I'd hope we are."

To that I say, "no way." For one thing, it is so much easier in the US. The Chinese people are fiercely nationalistic, in the US we practically consider being called nationalistic to be an insult. Here in China, shopkeepers and schoolteachers frequently report my location and activities to the police for fear that I may be a spy.

I know men who have gone to the US in order to observe (I hesitate to use the word study only because too many people associate that word with something that is done in school) US methods and practices in various industries. That simple does not happen in China. A visa would not be granted for that purpose, it is called spying and for philosophical purposes (which the Chinese think is proof that we are stupid and weak; thus, thus deserving to become a vassal state)the US encourages others to spy on it, while the Chinese punish it severely.

The second issue that you raise is, "we don't have tens of thousands of American engineers and students flooding Chinese companies and schools."

As far as companies, the reason is twofold. First, it is nearly impossible for a foreigner to get a work permit (They are almost limited to import/export companies and education. Remember, a foreigner can not own a business in China) , remember the fiercely nationalistic part? Even if a foreigner did get a work permit, the racism within China would severely limit the foreigners job opportunities (the racism applies within groups of Chinese and severely limits the non-Han Chinese also).

The second reason is simply that westerners would not work under the Chinese system for long. I know people who have worked at Chinese import/export firms and once their contracts were up they left. While the stories often featured physical and sexual abuse, the biggest single complaint is being treated like property. Which, of course, for the term of the contract, they are.

I have sat through a Chinese business meetings, where management spoke to employees, and just observed (yes, written about somewhere in my blog) The style is simple, management gives orders and workers say, "yes sir" in unison while standing at attention (then the workers later grumble about not having the tools to follow the orders; but, no one says that to the manager). There are very good things to say about the Chinese labor system; however, there are reasons that westerners do not work for Chinese.

As far as not attracting students, the University that I work for has played with this idea; the idea of attracting western students. Not only would it add great prestige to the University; but, it woulds also aid their students in learning about western countries (not to mention that Western students would pay 5-10 times the tuition of a Chinese student).

The trouble with this is both the quality of the instruction and the conditions. I have about 150 computer science and information technology students. They are studying windows 2K. In a lecture on another subject, I pulled up a spreadsheet (open office calc) and asked them what kind of a program it was (I teach English within computer science at a university). The answer they gave me was, "Excel." There was no understanding that Excel was the name of a program, not a type of program (they understand the concept, we had already done several similar lessons).

Even the upperclassmen are hindered by school policies. A simple example is that they have to pay for computer time, even as CS majors. This means that writing and debugging is done on paper and computer time is limited to typing and running. This limits experimentation (as does the entire cul

Re:Why is it always China?

[drpimp]

While I agree the parent post is anecdotal, and I do agree mostly with your comment, the most truth of your statement is the part about Americans valuing college differently. I am currently getting my masters degree in Computer Science. During my undergrad, I'd say the spread of race among the student was pretty diverse and spread equally. Now yes most of the students getting the better grades were in fact foreign students, but it was not always true to that either. A lot of the American national students that were getting the grades where those that thought outside the box, studied more than what was just being taught, and learned new things in their interests in computers. Surprisingly enough, most of that smaller group of people were those who dabbled into Linux (could be entirely unrelated, or is it?). With that said, those American students mostly just wanted to get their B-C grades, and get their degree in Computer Science riding the wave that they would get a high paying programming job once they got their diploma (some of these guys couldn't tell a pointer from an address, or even what dereferencing was for that matter, neither here nor there). Fast forward to masters program. I am 1 of 2 white people in all of my classes, and probably only 4-5 American citizens. Why is this? A large number of Americans don't feel like a masters is worth it? I don't know, but what I do know is that all of the foreign students (Chinese, Korean, Pakistani, Jordanian, Indian, what have you) go to school full time, and that is all they do. Now while I am an A-B student, if I went to school abroad you'd better believe I'd probably have a 4.0 GPA. You also have to factor in a few more things. These guys come here to go to school, so they take classes with people in their same culture. It really helps to study with more people to understand concepts. Final point, even though I do think as well that foreign students should be regulated, it will never happen. Have you seen the price of tuition for foreigners? They are almost triple, so who is making the money? The schools, because of the top of my head, it does not cost anymore to teach a foreigner than it does a national, and schools are somewhat of a business so they must profit to prosper. Now that could be totally wrong as there may be other reasons for that, but I am not the person to ask that.

My two Abe Lincolns

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Why is it always naturalized citizens from china, or American-born citizens who's parents were born in China that are in the news for doing this?

It's difficult (if not, by law, impossible) to get a security clearance without citizenship. So naturalized citizens or second-generation citizens are good targets for spies to recruit.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

Based upon my personal experience teaching (and like hell I'm going to post non-anonymously) Chinese students are not particularly brighter than anybody else - where they stand out is in gaming the system. The myth of the "amazingly smart chinese student" arose before we all understood just how seriously they take this.

They will focus like maniacs on getting every little edge they can to get a few points up (cheating very much included). Once you try to test them to see if they actually *understand* anything, they fall apart pretty rapidly and quite often are well behind other members of the class - when this happens they will often jump straight into the "me no understand the english so well" routine, which is just another game.

I have met some extremely bright Chinese students, but in no higher proportion than from any other group.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

but what I saw and heard confirms my impression that the average U.S. applicant is not as competent as a foreigner.

You probably do not have any American students because you are at a second tier institution. The more troublesome an institution has become, in the quality of education that it offers and in its reputation, the more foreign students and postdocs will show up. American students start avoiding those places.

In my opinion, because there are no competent U.S. applicants.

They are attending better schools than the one you are attending.

Re:Why is it always China?

[khallow]

There's no benefit to us to train a hostile, competitive power. The money's pretty good. Each such student brings a considerable amount in to US universities and the US economy.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I finished college 2 years ago and during my 4 years there the
> Chinese, Japanese and Korean students (1st or 2nd generation) were
> the ones who were consistently at the top of their classes in fields
> like math, engineering, science, etc.
>
> Why is that?

In my experience (via my son at IIT) they CHEAT. Big Time - from texting each other during exams, to cribbing, and even infiltrating the prof's offices to get advance copies of tests. They may not party as much as the native sons, but they don't just do it by studying, either.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The Chinese really aren't pillaging the US economy. I think the US is doing that on its own very well if anyone is doing it at all.

Amazingly, despite the job situation, we still have a good unemployment rate, currently at about 5%. The 2007 GDP was over $13T, and our trade deficit is $800B, small in comparison to the GDP.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

but what I saw and heard confirms my impression that the average U.S. applicant is not as competent as a foreigner.

You probably do not have any American students because you are at a second tier institution.

In my opinion, because there are no competent U.S. applicants.

They are attending better schools than the one you are attending.

Very likely.

However, I seriously doubt the department full of Chinese mentioned in the great-great-grandparent is first tier.

So does U.S. need material science graduate students in second tier universities or not? If yes, why can't they find enough competent applicants?

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

"pillage of the U.S. economy and education system."

Quate some numbers, screw dude

i see the chinese in the education as colonisation of the chinese mind.

its a matter of perspective. this time the coloniser coming to china is not a white rosy cheeked europoid its a Chinese man, with his ideas.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Aardpig]

In my department, we bend over backwards to encourage US students to study graduate-level physics. But they're all too greedy -- they want a high-paying job, which physics isn't. If it wasn't for the Chinese and Indians, we'd have problems meeting our recruitment levels.

This situation persists at the postdoc level. And when a country starts paying more for postdocs than the US, then the US can kiss goodbye to its science lead as all of the productive scientists leave for better pastures.

Never once have I seen a problem with foreign students displacing US citizens. It just doesn't happen -- because the 'natives' are just not interested in doing physics.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

So does U.S. need material science graduate students in second tier universities or not?

There are currently more science and engineering graduates than the U.S. job market can support.

Re:Why is it always China?

[SlashWombat]

It appears that most countries complain of a "Brain Drain". It's much the same here in Australia.

Another side of the coin is that after graduation, many "ethnic" graduates do elect to stay in the "west". Part of this is due to financial reward. If the person goes back home, his earning prospects are very much diminished.

Undoubtedly, this situation will change as the standard of living changes in the "east".

The reason many of the "foreign" students so easily get jobs AFTER graduation is that many westerners perceive them as being better workers. When given a task, they don't complain, just go off and do the required work. This is not often true of their "western" counterparts! (Just watch the newbie westerner's web surfing habits compared to that of his "eastern" counterparts.

There is a lot more to this, but I dont have the time to continue.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me tell you my graduate school experience: The Chinese are incredible memorizers. They find the pattern in exam questions, and memorize the likely answers. This means they can beat any American on formulaic grad school exams (and GREs to get into grad school).

However, once you give them a question that involves critical thinking, they fail miserably. They can't come up with interesting questions to do original research. Typically, they end up doing slight modifications of someone else's paper - much more so than Western students. Thus, they consistently fail to get decent placements in departments without Chinese Chairs.

This is why Americans still consistently win most of the prizes for original research, despite most Americans getting squeezed out of programs because of exams.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Lorean]

I spent a year lecturing at a Chinese university. Almost all students are lazy, unoriginal, and plagiarize - much like their administration. HOWEVER, students who are accepted into western graduate programs are very intelligent and hard working. THEY represent the top 0.0001% of 1.3 billion people. Top dollar in China is peanuts. For example, Microsoft China pays 100,000RMB(~$14K) a year for top CS graduates; most other places offer less than half that salary. That 0.0001% has no intention of returning to China if they can find a job. It's like, somebody offers you $1 million a year to go work in Shanghai - yeah most of us grab it.

Re:Why is it always China?

[superpulpsicle]

This comes down to who is valuing the education more. Most people in America are joining colleges to loyally wear hats and t-shirts of their favorite college sports team. Or mardi gras or parties or frat or sex or free beer. If others want to get some knowledge out of the classroom, let them. We could use more real students in our education system.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Jorgandar]

Ok, if they work so hard and are so much smarter, why do they have to resort to stealing technology?

Re:Why is it always China?

[Tablizer]

I finished college 2 years ago and during my 4 years there the Chinese, Japanese and Korean students (1st or 2nd generation) were the ones who were consistently at the top of their classes in fields like math, engineering, science, etc. Why is that?

The most scholarly American citizens go into law, medicine, or finance. Compared to those, sci/tech/math does not pay as much. Asian students flock to sci/math/tech because those are more universal skills that can be brought back to their home country and pay well there. Plus, sci/tech/math carries prestige in Asian countries that lawyers and doctors are afforded here. Sci/tech/math does NOT get Americans the best girls.

In short, sci/tech/math are simply not the best comparative deal for the top American students. The few that go into it do it because they like the subjects, not because they are driven by money and status, and thus grades mean less to them.

Re:Why is it always China?

[greyhueofdoubt]

Then why don't they start their own super-awesome colleges, where everyone goes to learn while the stupid americans go to Texas U to smoke pot and fuck?

Americans obviously have no fucking clue when it comes to tech and education; if we did, then people would come from around the world to attend our colleges. Oh wait...

The individuals may be intelligent, but why can't their own country put that resource to work by creating their own schools?

I love international collaboration in all colleges (not just u.s.), but I wish that the transaction wasn't so one-sided when it comes to china-u.s. And before the free-marketers chime in, this applies to state colleges, too (read: my tax dollars).

-the b

Re:Why is it always China?

[sgt_doom]

...if you had considered the idea that Americans are being shut out simply because they don't work as hard as some of these Chinese students?

Ah, yes..it's always the lazy American catch-all response. Then why the f**k are they always coming here for their industrial/tech espionage - why the f**k can't they just engineer all this stuff themselves if they are sooooo f**king hard-working? You've made a nonsensical, illogical statement....with no possible follow-through because you are another mindless zombie neoliberal or neocon plugged into the mindless matrix.

They Chinese, East Euros and certain other groups which come from dictatorial/fascist-type governments all to readily embrace such a type of government when they come to the US - or another other (in our case former) democracy. Hardworking my ass....I've never seen so many cheating copycats as those Chinese.....

Re:Why is it always China?

[mechsoph]

We're a "service economy" now, haven't you heard. Of course, to some that's pretty much synonymous with "third world economy".

Tell that to all the starving brokers, bankers, and actuaries working on Wall St. They probably won't even hear you over their perpetual "Ka-Ching."

Re:Why is it always China?

[Tablizer]

Fast forward to masters program. I am 1 of 2 white people in all of my classes, and probably only 4-5 American citizens. Why is this? A large number of Americans don't feel like a masters is worth it? I don't know,

Because it is *not*. US companies generally hire based on work experience relevant to their needs, NOT grades. Asian companies are different for whatever reason.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Dun Malg]

Why is it always naturalized citizens from china, or American-born citizens who's parents were born in China that are in the news for doing this? You mean unlike the "joe schmoe american" Soviet double agents? I suspect the Chinese have found it easier/cheaper to find potential double agents with some sense of Chinese nationalism and work that angle, as the Chinese aren't technically "the enemy". In the "good ol' days" of the Cold War, the Russkies mostly had KGB agents hand over big suitcases full of cash because nobody believed the "workers paradise" crap about the USSR in the post-Stalin years, and it was kinda hard to find anyone in government with any particular liking for Soviet-style communism.

Re:Why is it always China?

[afidel]

That's funny, some of the most well paid people I've known were Phd's in physics. Of course they left the ivory tower and went to work for first the airo/defense industry and then the communications industry. They made significantly more than your average lawyer or doctor (though I'm sure not more then the top earners in those fields) and were extremely intelligent people. But they all received their Phd's back when the shuttle was being designed so I'm not sure what the situation is like today.

Re:Why is it always China?

[unbug]

They're educating themselves to advance their nation's interests, and their doing at our expense. Wow, this is so nicely xenophobic! Do you really think the ultimate goal of an average Chinese student (or any other student, for that matter) is to advance China's interests and not to simply get the best education available to them? And how are they doing it at your expense if they are actually paying for it? Do you realise that many universities make most of their income from foreign students who effectively subsidise local ones? Do you have any idea what an effect a significant drop in the number of foreign students would actually have on the US educational system? If not, you might want to find out how US universities reacted when the number of international students did drop due to various so-called security measures introduced after the WTC attacks. You may perhaps not realise this, but what's actually happening is pure capitalism. Universities compete with other universities for paying students and for good students. Students (yes, Chinese students, too) want to get the best education they have access to in order to be able to make as much money as possible later. Good US universities are still pretty good and the US is an English-speaking country (this is important, too) so studying in the US isn't a bad choice. Everything else follows from that. There is no commy plot to subvert the US education system. If anything, it's the US that's benefiting from the influx of brainpower into the country.

Re:Why is it always China?

[syousef]

Americans value the college experience for its education and social worth (bong rips and sex) while people from Asian cultures value college solely as a learning experience. They aren't there to have fun.

Disclaimer: I'm not an American. I'm an Australian by birth and citizenship. I've never taken drugs, I don't smoke and I don't do alcohol at all solely because I can't stand the taste. Sex isn't the focus of my life either but I won't claim I don't enjoy it.

I don't want to live in a world where in order to compete you have to completely give up all things fun and social right at the time when your health and youth makes these things about as good as they get. Studying right through your teens and twenties might make for a better more competitive engineer, but I bet they don't make for a better person. I don't think western countries should be glorifying or trying to emulate cultures which condone working oneself into an early grave. If we claim to value freedom, that's a stupid thing to do. In other words lets find a way to compete without killing off the very things that make our society worthwhile.

Re:Why is it always China?

[mochan_s]

a Chinese national himself, not a U.S. citizen

Just to nitpick - a US green card holder is not a US citizen but can be a citizen of another country. US citizen is the next step up from green card. It also requires holding a green card for 5 years before you can apply for a citizenship. Green card is same as permanent resident.

A lot of top scientists and researchers are Chinese. If you didn't let them into the US, do you think they'll just sit back and do nothing in China? They'd create their own MIT and Princeton in China. Most of the Chinese students who study in the US do not go back to China and stay in the US. I'd think that China would probably feel like it's the one being "pillaged" out of their best minds.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Orion Blastar]

Why?

Why is it that most terrorists are Radical Muslims from the middle-east?

Why is it that every 9/11 suicide bomber was a Radical Muslim from Saudi Arabia using diplomatic Visas that the Clinton administration had released in 1994 that didn't require background checks, yet Bush gets blamed for the 9/11 attacks instead?

The Chinese government wants US space and airplane and technology secrets, so they send some of their citizens over to the USA to get naturalized and then they get into secret level security clearance jobs in technology companies and get access to the US technology and send it overseas. Not for sabotage mind you, but because China wants to have access to the same technology that the USA has exclusively and no other nation has access to. China also has a lot of their citizens get high paying jobs in the USA and send a majority of the money back to China to boost their economy and drain the US economy. Nothing we can do about that either. China does not believe in intellectual property rights, and do not feel that they are doing anything wrong.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Shadowlore]

Besides, I'd be surprised if we aren't doing the same thing to China, at least I'd hope we are.

Yeah because man they've got some seriously advanced space technology. I hear they have long range rockets too. We'd better steal us some of that if we want to keep up!

Oh wait, they got it from us.

But yes, China and Russia both are still "enemies". We need to remember that. Note I didn't say "The Chinese and Russians". Nor did I advocate "regime change" just now either.

Maybe they found it to hard to steal Russia's shuttle info?

Re:Why is it always China?

[Shadowlore]

Because the Russians already had the technology/information.

Re:Why is it always China?

[khallow]

Eh, I think the sloth of US students is exaggerated. Instead, it appears to me that US students are poorly prepared for college in many ways. Public schools often give a poor education, they have low expectations of work, poor communication skills, and little experience with money or chicanery. Some of this you just have to learn on your own, but it strikes me that in the past, students have had similar priorities yet somehow managed to get a good education in the process.

Re:Why is it always China?

[3aPo]

Are you even considering the good work done by the chineese, and other migrants for the scientific community in USA? Start from the Manhattan project: Einstein, Fermi, Bohr, Chandrashekar...and none were actually born in US.

Your post not only reveals a bias, but also shows that you nothing about academic persuits in the research community.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

And how are they doing it at your expense if they are actually paying for it?

I don't think you understand. The federal government literally pays the tuition and stipend of all graduate students in many disciplines. They do this even if you are a foreign national. Jesus, would you develop some sort of clue about what you are talking about before you post.

Re:Why is it always China?

[iserlohn]

You are spot on. There is even a term for this. It is called the "brain drain" and has happened to many countries, not just ones in East Asia.

People here are worried about the wrong thing. What they should be worried about is the reverse brain drain. That is when the country of where these immigrants are from are economically to the stage where these engineers and scientists are better off to go back to them (ie. ease of migration due to nationality at birth).

The simple fact that engineers and scientists are being undervalued in many western (mostly anglo) economies compounds this problem.

Re:Why is it always China?

[wall0159]

Jeez man - enough of the blatant racism. There are dickheads in China. There government sucks. There are dickheads in the US too. The US government sucks. There are dickheads in most countries, and governments in general suck.Your one-eyed assessment of the situation is so naive it's laughable. Even if this particular anecdote is true, it doesn't imply a government scale program to displace US students from US universities.

"They don't even qualify as neutral" - WTF? In the last half-century the US has covertly funded coups, assasinations, invaded multiple countries, etc. You're whinging about someone stealing technology? I personally think this spying isn't so great. At the same time I wonder if more international technological parity would be a stabilizer.

"the effect they're having on our economy" - what about the affect that endless wars and corruption are having on the US economy? Or is it simpler to just find a scapegoat?

"since we don't have tens of thousands of American engineers and students flooding Chinese companies and schools." - that could be because we still consider ourselves to be inherently better than other races, and don't accept that they can be just as smart and enterprising as we can be.

"I think we should start doing the same thing for foreign students," - this shows that you have no idea of the contribution that foreign students and academics make to the US. The number of asian students that come to the US, and decide to stay there is large. This is especially true in an age when Western schooling is falling apart (I recently read that ~60% of British schoolchildren want to be celebrities when they grow up).

Seriously, chill out. Yes, this espionage is fairly dodgy, but nobody's clean there. Some of China's economic activity is definitely designed to bring the US down a peg or two - but it wouldn't be so effective if the US's economy wasn't so badly mismanaged in the first place. If you're a US citizen, I suggest you get your own house in order, before you advocate burning down someone else's.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to all the starving brokers, bankers, and actuaries working on Wall St. They probably won't even hear you over their perpetual "Ka-Ching."

Most third world countries have rich elites and an overwhelming majority of desperately poor people. The U.S. is definitely heading in that direction.

Re:Why is it always China?

[philwx]

It's also more difficult because more Chinese people are taught English, than Americans are taught Chinese, due to the simple economics of the language. So the pool from which we can send people there is very tiny. And then add that fact that it's not an open society.

Re:Why is it always China?

[philwx]

When the hive mind comes for you, I'm sure they'll appreciate your balanced perspective.

Re:Why is it always China?

[philwx]

While the espionage from Israel does "count", it's just simply not as damaging as espionage from a 1.3 billion person strong country bent on overtaking our place in the world. Israel is not that, and despite their crime their intentions were to build nuclear weapons to gain an advantage against their neighbors. Not to gain an advantage on us.

You can compare apples to oranges in a sardonic and edgy way, but it doesn't make them the same.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Eunuchswear]

Dunno. Go ask Wernher von Braun.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Eunuchswear]

"Diplomatic visas"?

No, just ordinary nonimmigrant visas, for example an "F-1 student visa" for Hani Hanjoor.

"Background checks"?

No background checks needed - just the consular officers doing their jobs, like actually reading the forms.

"Clinton Administration"?

Well, in the technical sense that all state department employees are part of the administration, but if you have any proof that the applications got to Washington I'd like to hear it.

When I think of the blood I've sweated filling out those fucking forms it pisses me off (and been refused once, having to explain to some stupid consular officer that although I did lurve the USA I didn't actually want to live there).

Re:Why is it always China?

[Corporate Troll]

Hmmmmm..... Do realise that a average lawyer makes more than a average physicist. Most people do realise that they are not and will never be the "top earner" in the field they chose. So, you compare the top-earners (a.k.a. the best in their field) with the average lawyer or doctor. Be fair, and compare the top-earners in physics with the top earners in law or medicine.

Sometimes I kick myself because I'm a average computer scientist. I should have become a average lawyer. I would have my own large house instead of paying rent for a two bedroom apartment.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Deflatamouse!]

Your anecdotes are typical and similar to my experiences. However, one must note that these CJK international students are a self selective group (or even government selected). They are usually top students in their country. So comparing them to a typical American (and even Asian American) domestic students (even in a top selective school) is not comparing apples to apples.

As for Americans being shut out of education. Some are for sure. And I think that is more due to 1. culture (as you said) and 2. our own education system. And there are probably more reasons. I'd just like to elaborate on these two:

1. American pop culture generally looks down on good students. If you do well in school, you're labeled a nerd or geek, and generally shunned by other kids in school. Unless you have other skills (namely athletics) you're usually not popular. This is not true in general in other cultures. In many other cultures around the world you are respected in school if you are smart. The American culture gives no incentive to do well in school. This is hard for adolescents that are academically inclined (but maybe not socially).

The international students coming in to college either have no idea that such a anti-academic culture exist in the general American population or they are not affected by it since they are not brought up here.

Our culture is turning up generations and generations of people who are not interested (or are afraid to be interested) in math and science.

2. Our college educational system is one of the best in the world. That's why students across the world are flocking here. When there is something good, there will be competition for it. If our high schools and primary schools do a better job of educating our kids to raise their competitiveness then American students can better compete for the seats in college. There will always be top students that will be competitive, but we need to raise the bar for everyone and turn out quality students (and people) in quantity. Of course more schools and cheaper schools won't hurt.

Re:Why is it always China?

[BeanThere]

Yes, well, it's not PC to say, but a minimum wage economy will always be at a competitive disadvantage to an economy without minimum wage. (Of course there are other variables, but this is a huge one.) Minimum wage is evil. It doesn't make people wealthier, not even at the lowest ends of the earning spectrum (as it makes every single product more expensive) ... e.g. consider Malaysia, no minimum wage, 3% unemployment, yet even the poorest of the poor have cellphones. The trick is to demand heavy competition in every nook and cranny of the economy.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

They will focus like maniacs on getting every little edge they can to get a few points up (cheating very much included). Once you try to test them to see if they actually *understand* anything, they fall apart pretty rapidly and quite often are well behind other members of the class Yes, I am Chinese. Yes, I have studied in the US post-graduate program. And yes, I was among the top of the class in the program.

If you actually have a way to "test them to see if they actually *understand* anything", why don't you use that test for giving grades to begin with? I hear this kind of crap all the time from USians, and usually what they really mean by their so-called "actual test" that can distinguish that mythical "real understanding" is actually a culturally-loaded questions that only native born USian can answer.

For example:

"You can calculate the area of that complex surface in that 3D figure? Well, can you tell me the area of city block? No? What do you mean you don't know what a city block is? WTF! Don't give me that "me no understand the english so well" routine!" (Note to USian who has never been to other countries: many countries around the world do NOT uses "a city block" as kind measure, and are thus quite ignorant on it uses.)

"You can work complex engineering calculations? Well, how many fluid ounce is there in a [insert your favourite beer brand] can (Note to USian who has never been to other countries: many countries around the world uses the metric system, and no longer uses ounces for measuring anything, and are thus quite ignorant on it uses.)

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's time to expel all the Chinese from this country.

Re:Why is it always China?

[afidel]

They were smart but I'm not sure they are top in their field, top earners sure, but the problem with physics from a greed perspective is that many physicists value prestige over earnings and so the perception is that you have to become a modestly paid academic in order to stay a physicist.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Khisanth Magus]

Wow, you have obviously never been in Japan before. The Japanese educational system can be summarized by the following: Grades 1-12: Relatively tough curriculums with very difficult(but still standardized) entrance exams at each new level of education, with the hardest one being in grade 12 to get into college. College+: Its now party time. Sex, parties, and general social life ahoy. You've done the hard part of getting into college, and no longer have parent's breathing down your neck to succeed(they still do it, just at a distance where it isn't as effective). So why would these Japanese students be doing better at colleges over here? Well, for one, we probably get MOSTLY students from Japan who are actually interested in working hard in college. They also spent their past 12 years learning how to take tests to make our most difficult college test look like it was from grade school.

Re:Why is it always China?

[jamar0303]

This is why I buy Panasonic. Their computers are not made in China. Plus, their extended warranty covers water, fire, and impact damage (actually, the fine print says that the only things not covered are war, animal, and earthquake-related damage. Same with cellphones (minus the warranty).

Re:Why is it always China?

[dwye]

Most people in America are joining colleges to loyally wear hats and t-shirts of their favorite college sports team. Or mardi gras or parties or frat or sex or free beer.

I have never met anyone in a science or engineering major who went into that major for the sex and free beer, let alone silly hats and t-shirts. The Ag and Liberal Arts majors don't count in this discussion, and Business majors don't count in any discussion worth having.

Re:Why is it always China?

[jamar0303]

I am currently a high school senior in Shanghai. You have summed up every reason why I am not staying in China for college despite my mom's insistence that I do so (why is she insisting this? Who knows- I was born and raised in the States and only go to school in China because she got sick while on summer vacation last year and is still recuperating- no need to go any further with my autobiography there). And I honestly thought I was crazy at first to think so because part of my grade is planning to go to college in China and like the idea (mostly white and Hispanic people, not the ethnic Chinese).

Re:Why is it always China?

[segfault_0]

Some points to ponder..

1) Since they have a population 4 times that of America that they would have 4 times as many students that are at least somewhat exceptional?
2) If they are so exceptional; why do they come here to be educated and to steal trade secrets/ideas?
3) If you travel halfway around the world to a country as different from your own as America is from China - I think most of those people would have to be pretty serious about education to start with, you dont send the losers around the world for education.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, to some that's pretty much synonymous with "third world economy".

My boss actually told me the other day that some of our company's components that were a couple years ago out-sourced to factories in China, are now be re-sourced back to US factories because costs in the US had dropped so far and prices in China had risen so much. We're talking heavy industry stuff like metal casting. We've become a "low cost country" in some markets.

Of course, that sounds like a bad thing because the US is losing ground economically, but I have a hard time seeing more skilled production jobs being held in country as a bad thing, especially when one of our problems is a huge trade deficit. It's more like the start of a reversal of fortunes.

Re:Why is it always China?

[EveryNickIsTaken]

So, you're complaining that US colleges/universities don't cater *enough* to international students? Sweet jesus.

Oh, and for what it's worth, we always used the metric system at my engineering school. So, not too sure where the hell you're going with that one.

Re:Why is it always China?

[jafac]

Service?

Who the fuck are we going to serve?

When the baby boomers age, retire, and die, there will be no more Americans who can afford service (because we'll all be serv-ANTS) - and American serv-ANTS have the LOWEST rate of foreign language adoption of any nation in the world. So wealthy Chinese will be happy to pay Americans $2 a day to answer phone banks, IN ENGLISH? Yeah, right.

We may be a service economy now.

In half a generation, we're going to be the "emigrate to Canada" economy.

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had this confirmed in more or less the same terms to me by a Chinese national in my department. His exact words, however, were that Chinese students were very good problem-solvers, but not very good at actual research, because they did not know how to think creatively.

In other words, if you gave them a problem they had solved before, they were faster than anyone else. If you gave them an unseen problem, they would be something else (average? above average? below average?)

In light of this, I think it's scary that the Chinese education system *is* starting to emphasize creative thinking. I don't think it will be long before they put out more truly brilliant students than the US, if for no other reason, then there are three times as many of them.

Actually, do you know where this Chinese national friend of mine wants to go? Back to China, to teach. But apparently the competition is so strong back in China now that they may not be able *to go back*, and will have to *stay in the US.* Personally, I am interested in making contacts and friends who are going all over the place, because I'm uncertain that US science will hold on to its lead in the future.

The times have changed. ...

Re:Why is it always China?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they are the only superpower still spying the old fashion way. All our other competitors invest in media companies and use DRM as a pretense to root systems with access to critical information. (Sony root kits for example)

Re:Why is it always China?

[lastklim]

You rednecks never learn. Don't you just forget the high profile case of Wen Ho Lee? Use your brain to google some information out of it and get yourself educated. Chinese spy stories just another example of massive destructive weapons in Iraq kind of political lie. Politicians use this kind of lies to brainwash your naive rednecks, provoking your anger, and then getting permissions to buy more weapons from arm dealers and to send your fathers and brothers into another non-sense of war.

As a matter of fact, "the number of Asian-Americans convicted of spying appears to be ZERO. You might find this hard to believe, given all the political hype about Chinese-American spies, but that's all the evidence that seems to exist, in contrast to the vast history of known spies from the former Soviet Union, Europe, Israel, and many other places."

Tere is an article named "Scapegoat of the century? " by some educated Americans from johnshopkins.edu: I cannot post the URL but you can easily google it

This is really bad!

[Anonymous Coward]

Up to now, China was finding it very difficult to get their vehicles to explode.

These secrets will put them decades ahead in this area.

No Problemo

[DigiShaman]

Should the Chinese develop warpdrive technology, we'll be sure to pass along the info to the USA.

Tit for Tat.

Uhm

[moosesocks]

Are the designs to the Space Shuttle even worth stealing? It's thus far proven to be an expensive and unreliable launch platform.

If anything, China would serve itself better by looking to the North, and copying Soyuz. Hell... I'm sure the Russians would be willing to sell the designs/equipment for most of their spacecraft for a very reasonable price, given their perpetual funding woes.

Even ignoring all that, it's still 1970s technology.

Re:Uhm

[Penguinisto]

It might serve 'em better to try and buy one of these from Russia instead...

/P

Re:Uhm

[CohibaVancouver]

Even ignoring all that, it's still 1970s technology.

I'm tired of hearing this generalization repeated over and over again.

The "Space Shuttle" system was, and remains, one of the most complex and sophisticated 'machines that moves' ever designed and built.

Re:Uhm

[FleaPlus]

> Are the designs to the Space Shuttle even worth stealing? It's thus far proven to be an expensive and unreliable launch platform.

It seems from the article that the espionage started in the early 80s. Back then the technology was probably somewhat more worth stealing.

Re:Uhm

[Adambomb]

Copying? Improving is more the bent I'm guessing. It is a lot easier to take an existing design and go "what in the hell were they thinking?" than to sit around a table coming up with everything from scratch.

Re:Uhm

[afabbro]

The "Space Shuttle" system was, and remains, one of the most complex and sophisticated 'machines that moves' ever designed and built.

And hopefully the Chinese will now go off and waste 30 years on it like we did.

Re:Uhm

[moosesocks]

Do we even know that those plans even still exist?

Buran/Energia was certainly a cool platform, although it very well may have had its own set of faults apart from the Shuttle. It does make me sad that it only flew a single time.

As it stands, Russia's next-gen vehicle, Kliper, offers the closest thing to a "best of both worlds" solution, and stands a good chance of becoming operational before Orion.

Re:Uhm

[moosesocks]

The "Space Shuttle" system was, and remains, one of the most complex and sophisticated 'machines that moves' ever designed and built. This doesn't strike me as necessarily being a good thing. Quite the opposite -- with the space shuttle, there are literally billions of things that can go wrong. Challenger failed because a few bits of rubber had slightly different thermal properties than were originally anticipated.

A capsule-based launch system offers far greater simplicity, and also offers numerous modes of recovery in the event of a failure. Apollo 13 was nearly torn to shreds, and managed to orbit the moon and land safely. The presence of a Launch-Escape-System also adds a very significant layer of safety against booster failure and launchpad incidents.

Re:Uhm

[ScrewMaster]

Nonsense. Nobody says that they have to copy the design intact. Whatever problems the Shuttle may be as a complete system, the fact is that there's decades of useful R&D in the underlying technologies that make it work, and that's incredibly valuable stuff any foreign power wanting a leg up into space. Hell, the materials science alone would be worthwhile. The software, too, while it runs on archaic S360 equipment is also pretty remarkable for what it does, and you can bet your bottom dollar the Chinese would love to get their hands on it. Any step we took, any research we did, and knowledge we have that advances the Chinese space development timetable is worth keeping to ourselves.

Never let the enemy have anything for free.

Re:Uhm

[Darfeld]

Too much complex I would say. Too expensive, too difficult to maintain... It's a great piece of technology, but the NASA need something more exploitable.

That said, there might be some interesting technologies to see on those plans, that can be redone with modern ways... Still faster to do that than beginning from scratch.

Re:Uhm

[kegger64]

While I agree with the rest of your comment, the Challenger failed when the o-rings exceeded their their thermal design limit. The engineers understood this risk, but the mgmt system in place at the time let the launch proceed.

Re:Uhm

[Anonymous Coward]

... for 1970s tech.

You can retrofit it and upgrade it, but fundamentally the Shuttle's design is 30-40 years old.

Something needs to replace it. Perhaps a scramjet-based vehicle that can hold a similar payload as the Shuttle, but take off and land like a plane (however this is sort of infeasible because of the mass of rocket juice needed for escape velocity.) Perhaps an old fashioned rocket with a lot of propellant to shove lots of payload into space. Maybe even get a working space elevator designed and operational, which would end the need for large rocket boosters just to get out of Earth's gravitational well.

As for China, why not let them make the next Shuttles for us? They virtually make everything else for us.

Re:Uhm

[mikael]

A capsule-based launch system offers far greater simplicity, and also offers numerous modes of recovery in the event of a failure.

I always wondered why the control cabin of the space shuttle wasn't designed as a detachable capsule or mini-shuttle that could fall back to the surface.

Re:Uhm

[Y-Crate]

A capsule-based launch system offers far greater simplicity, and also offers numerous modes of recovery in the event of a failure.

I always wondered why the control cabin of the space shuttle wasn't designed as a detachable capsule or mini-shuttle that could fall back to the surface. They thought about this, but the weight issue kept them from pursuing it. That being said, it might have been worked into the design if the shuttle hadn't been designed to meet all kinds of esoteric mission profiles (the major one involving a Soviet satellite snatch and return in a single orbit) that were never used.

Re:Uhm

[dbIII]

Forget the shuttle in Xenu's name - what if they got the DC9 plans!

Re:Uhm

[dbIII]

To make things even more clear the polymer was operating below it's glass transition temperature - something that EVERY engineer of every discipline should know about since it was part of introductory first year materials science everywhere. Most of the public knew of it as well because a childeren educational TV favourite trick is to soak something made of rubber in liquid nitrogen and then hit it with a hammer.

Re:Uhm

[dwater]

I was thinking the same thing.

Why are American's so afraid of China? Is it a hangover from the anti-communism era of the '70s or what - a hang over by association with the USSR?

When have China ever been aggressive? As far as I can tell, they've only been defensive.

They've done plenty against their own people, but not to other countries, as far as I can tell.

What's this all about? The feeling is so strong, there must be some reason for it. Someone please provide some evidence?
 
...or is it purely an economic issue?

Re:Uhm

[OldFish]

It is a large population with a growing appetite for resources. Viewing them as anything but competitors is foolish in the extreme.

Re:Uhm

[Epistax]

Exactly. Technology can be invaluable, but it will eventually be leaked on one way or another. The best thing to do is trade it while it's at its highest value. If we give them enough technologies, they might even give us a city. A quick culture bomb might be on the horizon and that great wall would do wonders for our southern border.

Re:Uhm

[Zebra_X]

Are the designs to the Space Shuttle even worth stealing? It's thus far proven to be an expensive and unreliable launch platform.

You tell me... is the only working aircraft capable of atmospheric flight at 17,000 mph worth taking a look at?

Re:Uhm

[Fjandr]

When have China ever been aggressive? As far as I can tell, they've only been defensive.

Tibet. China invaded and conquered it in 1950. The same Chinese government that is in power today (the PRC).

While they have not yet invaded and conquered Taiwan, they will eventually.

Re:Uhm

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing is more Slashdot than to be downmodded for telling the truth.

Re:Uhm

[Anonymous Coward]

Whose space tech do you think the Chins used for their space program (remember they already successfully launched a colonel monkey into space a few years back)? The bearded drunk Russian cosmo who had a tableful of Bruskis from the Armaggedon movie must have sold the Russian space tech to the Chins?! It's all made it Taiwan, right?

Re:Uhm

[DerekLyons]

Are the designs to the Space Shuttle even worth stealing? It's thus far proven to be an expensive and unreliable launch platform.

Expensive, yes. Unreliable? No better and no worse than any other launcher.
 
 

Even ignoring all that, it's still 1970s technology.

Except of course, for all the parts that aren't - which is virtually every piece of major electronics on the Shuttle, most of which dates from about the mid 1990's. Now, this sounds horribly old to the typical American consumer, but in the real world hardware remains in service and completely functional for decades.
 
Even something that is obselescent here (if not obsolete) can be valuable elsewhere. Firmly in the former category is the MK5 Guidance Computer and associated firmware for the recently retired Trident I missile (which I worked with in the Navy). It's 1970's technology - but you won't be finding pallet loads of these sitting around to be auctioned off along with other DoD surplus. The stellar navigation algorithms, the MIRV algorithms, the 'gold registers'[1]... All quite valuable to the Chinese or anyone else developing an ICBM.
 
[1] An official, unclassified, term for a classified portion of the hardware.

Re:Uhm

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think the Chinese did copy the Soyuz for their manned launches, though they won't come out and say that of course.

Re:Uhm

[Caseyscrib]

This is a really good article on the amount of planning and design work put into the software that runs the space shuttle: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/06/writestuff.html

Re:Uhm

[dwater]

My understanding is that both the regions you mention have been Chinese for a long time, and only gained the independance they have had due to western interference at various points in time. Of course, these two are significantly debatable issues; just looking over the wikipedia articles tells me that.

I can't believe these are the only two issues that you can use to justify fear and hate of China. I mean, they're not related to the USA's security, being at least a third of the way around the world.

Please tell me there's something else.

Re:Uhm

[Yvanhoe]

Weren't these designs financed by public funds ? Why could they not be public ?

Re:Uhm

[AceJohnny]

Weren't these designs financed by public funds ? Why could they not be public ? Because it is considered a military secret?
It's not because it's a civilian application that it can't still be a military secret (can it?).

Re:Uhm

[Eunuchswear]

Nah, there are a few slashdot readers who, unlike you and the previous poster have a tiny glimmer of a clue about economics.

Re:Uhm

[matt me]

China would serve itself better by looking to the North, and copying Soyuz China *did* copy Soyuz, certainly with some help from the the Russians, but they also made some improvements on it, the Shenzhou re-entry capsule is larger than that of Soyuz. The real interest in the similarity of the designs is that the Chinese spacecraft has a similar docking module to Soyuz, meaning that it is technically capable of docking with the ISS. Now the Americans won't be sending invitations yet, but Russians wouldn't have a problem.

Re:Uhm

[NMerriam]

Please tell me there's something else.

Well, there was also the minor issue of them being the largest ally of the Soviet Union, they now are the US's single largest ideological opponent on Earth, as well as the largest economic rival.

There's also the minor issue of China's direct and indirect military action against the US in both Korea and Vietnam, and their periodic military threats against both Taiwan and Japan.

Their ongoing sponsorship of the government of North Korea certainly doesn't win them many friends in the western world.

Re:Uhm

[sydneyfong]

> ideological opponent
Right. Somehow I find it interesting that most people coming from the USA has a predisposition that anybody who doesn't agree with their ideology is automatically an enemy. What happened to diversity? Let me tell you that most Chinese wouldn't automatically label as an "enemy" people who doesn't agree with them.

> largest economic rival
Confusing economic rivalry with military rivalry is why the USA sticks its nose in the Middle East and kills people for oil.

Re:Uhm

[dwater]

Well, I've already commented on Taiwan - it's (debatably) part of China, so I'll skip that.

USSR is somewhat defunct, though the US seem to be doing a good job of making Russia adopt the same stance on it's own.

WRT Korea and Vietnam, the Chinese were just helping the other side - probably their main motivation was because the agressive US (and UN) were interfering so close to their own borders. Notice how many Chinese military bases there are in North Korea compared to how many US ones there are in South Korea? How many Chinese military bases are there in Vietnam, for that matter...heck, that's even becoming some kind of democracy. Not that I (or many people) know for sure, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Japan? Well, the Chinese are still reeling over their mistreatment in the 2nd world war at the hand of the Japanese, along with subsequent attempts to rewrite/deny/etc a lot of what (the Chinese say) happened. However, I think things are gradually getting better - I keep hearing VIPs from both countries saying how they've got to educate their respective youth to not have such a negative opinion of each other. Perhaps that sort of thing could be taught in the US too wrt attitudes to countries that decide they want to try it a different way?

Nope, haven't heard anything new yet to explain the fear.

It all sounds like the US has a severe insecurity complex.

Re:Uhm

[sydneyfong]

Reminds me of a joke at bash.org. Preemptive action against the "enemy" really.

Re:Uhm

[Yvanhoe]

The Shuttle has always been considered a civilian program. In fact my question was more rhetorical, I had an answer in mind : it is not military secrets but commercial secrets from Boeing that were stolen. I was merely pointing to the fact that the NASA didn't require its contractors to publish its specs, transforming public research funding into corporate private R&D funding. I think this is abnormal.

Re:Uhm

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as people are publishing stuff like this, being paranoid isn't a bad thing.

Re:Uhm

[Anonymous Coward]

The enemy? They finance your living.

Re:Uhm

[Anonymous Coward]

"They've done plenty against their own people, but not to other countries, as far as I can tell."

Usually people aren't so willing to admit what they don't know. What you don't know on this subject fills volumes.

Re:Uhm

[Fjandr]

I never said anything about justifying fear and hate of China. I was simply citing two examples of aggression since they were asked about.

Re:Uhm

[Fjandr]

It all sounds like the US has a severe insecurity complex.

I'd wholeheartedly agree with that. Given US aggression in most parts of the world, there's good reason for it too.

Re:Uhm

[NMerriam]

Nope, haven't heard anything new yet to explain the fear.

Well, you haven't heard anything you agree with, but it's been explained. I'm sorry that everyone else on earth doesn't find it necessary to seek your approval before forming their own judgements.

Re:Uhm

[dwater]

Well, that's a fair enough comment, I suppose.

Still, I'm amazed that is all people have to explain it.

Re:Uhm

[NMerriam]

Still, I'm amazed that is all people have to explain it.

Well, a lot of people would be amazed that you don't understand how and why rivalries form. The US and USSR were the two biggest kids on the block, inevitably a rivalry happened and each tried to shore up support and allies for their "team". The USSR collapsed, now the US and China are the big kids and will inevitably find that sometimes what is in the best interest of one is not in the best interest of the other.

Are you similarly baffled why China and Japan mistrust each other? Why France and England "fight" over so much when they are very close allies and have negligible ideological and economic differences? They haven't fought on opposite sides of a conflict for a century and a half, while Chinese soldiers have killed Americans (and vice-versa) within our lifetimes.

I don't know why you expect the US should be the first country in human history to collectively sit down and document explicitly logical reasons to distrust and act wary of another powerful nation with vast resources and some significant differences in how they think world politics should play out.

Re:Uhm

[dwater]

Well, fair enough, I suppose, though, like I said, I thought there must be something else since the feeling seems so strong...

Re:Uhm

[NMerriam]

I'm not sure if you're in the US or not (I've assumed not), but I don't get a sense that there's any particularly strong feeling in the US about China. Sure, we're wary of their economic, political and military potential, but they're also one of our largest trading partners and we have totally normal relations with them.

Nobody on the street mentions China other than in economic discussions about losing factory jobs and getting lead-painted toys at Wal*Mart. It's nothing like our relationship was with the Soviet Union -- we're honestly still much more wary of Russia on a daily basis than we are of China, due to Russia's instability and our highly symbiotic economic relationship with China. Neither the US nor China could really afford to be at odds in any significant way.

That doesn't mean anyone's tolerant of espionage, particularly regarding aerospace technology which has pretty direct military applications. But even our closest allies spy on us (and us on them). There was a large scandal years back about Airbus supposedly stealing secrets from Boeing, and we certainly don't have any issues with the European Airbus countries other than normal economic competition and bragging rights.

Re:Uhm

[dwater]

> ... I don't get a sense that there's any particularly strong feeling in the US about China ...

Well, that's good to hear, er, read :)

I guess my impression is based on a lot of comments in /. over time, but specifically in this case based on a tag 'nukechina' on this story.

> ... But even our closest allies spy on us (and us on them). ...

Indeed. This was my thought too.

Anyway...

I wonder?

[Anonymous Coward]

Steal our tech secrets and send us poisoned food and things. Coincidence?

Re:I wonder?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

... and steal our jobs.

The whole China thing is a bad thing for our country. It is a good thing to have a relationship with China but not at the cost of our country.

Re:I wonder?

[Swampash]

Surely China can think of a better way of solving its overpopulation than putting people on the Space Shuttle? I mean, it only kills seven people at a time.

Re:I wonder?

[Monkey]

I thought they did that by moving to Vancouver.

Re:I wonder?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely China can think of a better way of solving its overpopulation than putting people on the Space Shuttle?

They do, and their solution is chock full of human rights violations: the "One Child policy". This state-sponsored Chinese policy has widespread infanticide, forced abortions, forced sterilizations, etc. it goes on and on. The lack of accountability in China just makes it worse.

And at what point do we close the doors on them.

[LoadWB]

Seriously. At what point do we consider a country so dangerous that we will not longer do business with it? When do we finally say "go screw yourself" to dangerous governments?

Continuing to do business with China is like having a Gremlin as a pet. Or having a stuffed clown in your bedroom. Anyone growing up in the 80s will tell you those are two VERY big no-nos.

Haha!

[owlnation]

I knew the West Wing was correct. There IS a Military Shuttle!

It's a bad sign

[tsotha]

Apparently the Chinese have stolen all the information they want on how to do things. Now they're down to stealing information on how not to do a space program.

CND (chinese national) news report

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is an interview with NASA researcher Dr. Drong with Chinese Natianaol News: http://my.cnd.org/modules/wfsection/

Re:CND (chinese national) news report

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the commentary in the interview were very interesting. For example, it was mentioned that PRC (chinese government) can revoke Chung's visa. That is, not let him re-enter china to visit his elderly mother. Also mentioned that chinese government can make trouble for members of family that still live in china if he doesn't send chinese government top secret US strategic information. This is a common practice for PRC goverment to do to chinese nationals living abroad. Blackmail them into spying on their new host countries.

Secret Rockets

[QuantumG]

The engineering of rockets is so far behind where it could be because of national security issues.

How was he caught?

[Samir Gupta]

The article doesn't say anything about how they found out about this espionage. Anyone have more info on this?

Re:How was he caught?

[mrxak]

I'm sure a lot of those details will be kept secret for a while in some FBI file. You don't want your enemies to know how you got their spy. For all we know we could have somebody over in China giving us information on Chinese spies.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[Anonymous Coward]

When they begin to bomb us.

Right now we are getting loads of cheap and almost okay quality products.

It's a tradeoff. I don't like it mind you. Shipping slavery to another continent is not something I approve of.

Well, at least now...

[Penguinisto]

They can write some code that doesn't need a shedload of debugging...

Okay, on a serious note, this is 1976(?) tech here. I can understand wanting it real bad in 1979, but, err, 32 year-old-stuff is kinda dated when you consider that we routinely give China techonology that's a whole Hell of a lot newer.

Besides, weren't they going to retire the Shuttle anyway? If China wants one so bad, why not sell 'em a used one for a decent markup?

As someone who has worked in and around certain aircraft projects a very long time ago, I can say for certain that this guy would've never even hoped to get near, say, an F-117 or B-2 project... there's too much compartmentalization (especially between NASA and the USAF/USN, for Hell's sakes...)

Given all of that - unless the guy started hacking mainframes and whatnot @ Boeing, I guess I just don't see where there would be a really huge dent in US national security at this point. He wouldn't have had the clearance, for starters.

/P

Re:Well, at least now...

[DerekLyons]

As someone who has worked in and around certain aircraft projects a very long time ago, I can say for certain that this guy would've never even hoped to get near, say, an F-117 or B-2 project... there's too much compartmentalization (especially between NASA and the USAF/USN, for Hell's sakes...)

Guaranteed the USAF has it's John Walker or Aldrich Ames - they just haven't caught him yet.
 
 

Okay, on a serious note, this is 1976(?) tech here. I can understand wanting it real bad in 1979, but, err, 32 year-old-stuff is kinda dated when you consider that we routinely give China techonology that's a whole Hell of a lot newer.

 
I discuss the potential value of 1970's era technology in another comment.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[mrbcs]

And how would you fill up your WalMarts? Americans don't manufacture anything anymore... who's gonna make yer shit? I'd say that you're kinda fucked. (America that is, not you personally)

Who's also holding like $1 trillion of your money? They start dumping that and you're really fucked.

Vaguely OT: Sibel Edmonds

[mpapet]

This story is peanuts compared to the Sibel Edmonds saga.

http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_28/article1.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-giraldi/sibel-edmonds-must-be-hea_b_84781.html

Re:Vaguely OT: Sibel Edmonds

[MagikSlinger]

The Edmonds case is fascinating, but the latest stuff she's been saying sounds a tad ludicrous. But considering the FBI has gone to an __awful__ lot of trouble to silence her, it may just be as bad as she says.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[mrxak]

By being involved with China, we have an opportunity to influence them. Do you seriously think that just ignoring the problem makes it go away? For decades we've not had relations with various countries around the world, and it's done nothing at all. When we are in there, spreading our Wal-Marts, McDonalds, rock and roll, and blue jeans, we can subvert other nations so the people start to like us even if their government doesn't. Propaganda and censorship doesn't work so well when we're in there giving a different story. All those chinese students coming over here is also important, since we can show them a better way while they're here and free. When they go back, they take those ideas with them. Now sure, some of them will end up being spies, and we need to do more about stopping that, but breaking off all economic and political relations with China will be bad for us and them.

Um, just for the record...

[bhmit1]

Is the CIA willing to raise their right hand and swear that they haven't tried to steal any secrets from other countries? If we are going to do these sorts of things, it's a little hypocritical to go off the deep end when another country does the same.

Re:Um, just for the record...

[FishWithAHammer]

Espionage is a way of life amongst governments.

If American-backed spies stole Chinese plans, the Chinese would be up in arms, milking it for all it's worth. That's what everyone does.

Re:Um, just for the record...

[ScrewMaster]

Enough with this "fairness" crap. There's no hypocrisy here whatsoever: everybody tries to steal from everyone else, even allies (maybe especially allies.) Was the Cold War "fair"? Like it not, we're in another Cold War right now, with China. So this isn't about the Chinese being bad guys for stealing from us, or us being bad guys for stealing from anyone else. That is entirely expected behavior on all sides, so forget about any ideas you have that we're somehow "wrong" because we spied on somebody. Please. Your sense of fairness is misplaced.

This is about the people that we pay to keep our investments in military technology secure having failed miserably. Personally I'm not mad at the Chinese, like I said, we know this is one of their objectives. I'm torqued off at our government's "security professionals" falling asleep at the wheel once again.

Re:Um, just for the record...

[Tablizer]

Is the CIA willing to raise their right hand and swear that they haven't tried to steal any secrets from other countries? If we are going to do these sorts of things, it's a little hypocritical to go off the deep end when another country does the same.

Yes, but the target countries wise up to it and kick our companies and students out.

Re:Um, just for the record...

[jeremiahbell]

Is the CIA willing to raise their right hand and swear that they haven't tried to steal any secrets from other countries? If we are going to do these sorts of things, it's a little hypocritical to go off the deep end when another country does the same.

Without anarchy states are the only sovereign entities left making them the only possible true participants in a laissez-faire state on state market battle. Us stealing from China and China not being able to steal from us benefits me, and we damn well should push for it. We're all hypocrites, to the core, sometimes we need to accept it and forge ahead.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[mrxak]

Dumping their investments in the US is as bad for them, if not worse, than it would be for the US. Ideologically our two nations are incompatible, but we both have a lot to gain from our relationship and a lot to lose if it ends.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[Anonymous Coward]

At the point we are willing to crash the dollar.

chung?

[microbee]

I didn't read TFA (apparently), but this last name sounds like Taiwanese. In mainland it should be chang, chuang, etc, but not chung.

Apparently, only in such cases is Taiwan part of China.

Re:chung?

[lxt518052]

Both Chung and Chang are common spelling adopted in Taiwan. In mainland China and Singapore, where people use Hanyu Pinyin, Chung is spelt as Zhong and Chang as Zhang.

These so-called espionage cases are often used as a political tool to shift focus from domestic issues. Generally the truth doesn't matter. People will lose their interest quickly before the case reaches court. Few ever cared Wen Ho Lee was innocent, because he's a Chinese American (from Taiwan as well).

Re:chung?

[Anonymous Coward]

microbee might want to bring his thinking skills up to speed with his urge to speak:
the spy is 72 years old. hanyupinyin wasn't even invented then, it was only standardized in 79.

and to the other guy who replied: most chinese singaporeans have names that are based on native tongues, ie. the name's not even mandarin, how do u pinyin it at all, dope?

me with brain the size of a planet, why do i bother at all...

Re:chung?

[p0tat03]

Like other posters have said, the spelling of his name means nothing. Not to mention the fact that Taiwan has *no* space program, and I'd question why they'd go through the trouble of spying on the US for tech they don't even need.

I hope he stole the part where...

[CFD339]

..they used rubber o-rings to connect the liquid fuel lines.

Re:I hope he stole the part where...

[wjsteele]

I guess your comment would have been more funny if you had said, " I hope he stole the part where they used rubber o-rings to connect the SOLID FUEL BOOSTER SEGMENTS."

Bill

Re:I hope he stole the part where...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Do you have a better idea? It's worked for year. It still works to this day. It would have worked for STS-51-L had the managers listened to the engineers at several critical decision junctures.

And by the way, it was O-rings joining solid rocket booster segments, not liquid fuel lines. But just so you know, the liquid fuel lines in your car use rubber o-rings.

Homeland Motherland

[Anonymous Coward]

Contributing to the "Motherland" is for wimpy mama's boys! Ha ha, I laugh at your effeminate metaphor, you simpering chinese spy.

Real men work for the security of the Homeland!

Let the US confirm this fact

[bogaboga]

I would like the USA to confirm or deny the fact that it too, has a number of spies operating in these countries.

What bothers me most is the fact that my president's term is quickly coming to an end but I am yet to see any good to remind me of his legacy. What am I missing about my president's record?

It is all been incompetence, poor judgment, corruption and cronyism. The sooner this administration goes, the better.

Re:Let the US confirm this fact

[FishWithAHammer]

I would like the USA to confirm or deny the fact that it too, has a number of spies operating in these countries.

Irrelevant. If ours are caught there, then they'll freak out just as much as we are.

What bothers me most is the fact that my president's term is quickly coming to an end but I am yet to see any good to remind me of his legacy. What am I missing about my president's record?

Wow, people like you can drag Bush into anything...

It is all been incompetence, poor judgment, corruption and cronyism. The sooner this administration goes, the better.

Entirely irrelevant to this topic. Go back to DU.

Re:Let the US confirm this fact

[bogaboga]

Entirely irrelevant to this topic. Go back to DU.

Let me remind you that this very piece quotes in part...

"According to the indictment, Chinese aviation industry representatives began sending Chung 'tasking' letters as early as 1979. Over the years, the letters directed Chung to collect specific technological information, including data related to the Space Shuttle and various military and civilian aircraft...."

Now if the fact that nothing was done is not incompetence I wonder what is. On the above quote, emphasis is mine.

Anyone remember Wen Ho Lee?

[amasiancrasian]

It seems to me that FUD and Orwellian Emmanuel Goldstein propaganda is being spouted again. It's a classic example of the "us vs. them" mentality, with a high assumption and negative bias to the Chinese engineer as a spy for the PRC. Before September 11, the US was looking for an enemy; that enemy was China. There has been a great amount of discrimination towards the Chinese (even Taiwanese-Chinese) since then. It turns on Wen Ho Lee's case was the result of the collective laziness of scientists at the national laboratory, and in any other condition, would simply have been overlooked. Was "naturalized" a necessary article in the description of the Chinese scientist? Whether we are naturalized or not, a US citizen is a US citizen, just as most people in the US have their roots from the Old World. I am not against an investigation that could save us from disaster. But what I am against is the preponderance of guilt in public channels by people that represent our justice system: that the Chinese engineer is more likely to have stolen secrets for the PRC than to not have. Attorney Generals should refrain from making public statements.

Re:Anyone remember Wen Ho Lee?

[lxt518052]

They simply don't.

The American public is forgetful enough when the truth comes out. As long as the headlines are sensational, it makes not difference whether the whole thing makes sense or not.

Well, after all, China is THE ENEMY. Americans just need AN ENEMY, don't they?

Re:Anyone remember Wen Ho Lee?

[ScrewMaster]

No, actually we don't, and yes, China is. One of many, as it happens, but they're about the biggest threat we have to our sovereignty at the moment (we're way too dependent upon China, which means we are neither a free nor an independent nation.) Hell, they're the biggest threat we have to just being able to clothe ourselves and keep the lights on.

Now, our government may need enemies in order to justify increasing levels of control over the U.S. population, but to make a sweeping statement that "Americans just need AN ENEMY" is ridiculous, and just a tad bigoted.

Keep trying for that +5 Insightful, though.

Re:Anyone remember Wen Ho Lee?

[KudyardRipling]

Was "naturalized" a necessary article in the description of the Chinese scientist? Whether we are naturalized or not, a US citizen is a US citizen, just as most people in the US have their roots from the Old World. Bullshark! The Fourteenth Amendment (the wellspring for all naturalizaion jurisprudence in the USA) was not properly ratified: see (Dyett v. Turner, 439 P2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403 [1968]). Also, see YANKEE-WHITE security clearance.

Too many attorneys would rather risk becoming carbon-rich plasma than to risk their bar license to push the above issue.

Downmodding proves the veracity of the above beyond question.

Since the stone age

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Industrial espoinage has always been part of doing business since Ugg hid behind a bush to watch Ogg's special way of cracking rocks to make a sharp cutting edge. Since then we've had the bronze age, etc etc, the west thieving silk, gunpowder and porcelain from the east and pretty much everyone stealing everyone else's IP. Nothing new here.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[larry bagina]

I find it easier to buy American goods at Walmart than many other stores. I make an effort to buy American (or European) products even if it is more expensive. Imported third world shit has no value to me, so it's overpriced at any cost. Of course, I make enough money that paying a premium for premium quality is worth it to me.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[phantomcircuit]

When they stop lending us money we are never going to pay back.

launching spy satellites- and another space "race"

[SuperBanana]

Even ignoring all that, it's still 1970s technology.

...which was used mostly to launch spy satellites.

That's probably not as much of a concern as keeping *any* space related information out of their hands these days. We're apparently in another space race- and just like before, it's purely for political, military, and military industry reasons. Bush getting to leave some sort of "legacy" is just a side bonus.

US Is A Sleepy Gulliver

[chromozone]

The only time many of the politicians, lobbyists and contractors seem to work together is to make as much money off China as they can while pretending to be concerned about security. Who can be surprised about all the Chinese spys when mysterious money men with Chinese connections always seem to turn up in campaigns? I just got done reading about China having penetrated US and Australian (UK too I think) databases:

"China has penetrated U.S. databases: 'They are already in and we have to find them'

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2008/ea_china_02_08.asp

There was also the Chinese purchase of 3Com (maintains firewalls to the Pentagon) to a Chinese concern

"Congress members cite 'growing apprehension,' security risks in 3Com sale to Bain, China firm"
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/01/business/NA-FIN-US-3Com-Congressional-Review.php

It all seems sort of psychotic to spend to have national security and then let the the lobbyists, politicians and contractors sell them off out the backdoor to anyone ready to pay. So many things are broken (FDA, borders, transportation, US cities declaring "independence" from the government etc) but these issues hardly even get into the media when it focuses on the election.

What was stolen

[k4_pacific]

I'm posting this anonymously because I'm covered by an NDA, but here are some of what the Chinese have taken:

* A complete inventory of spare parts for the onboard computer system, as well as a list of eBay sellers who specialize in NOS vacuum tubes.
* Atlantis' in-dash stereo has had a Supertramp 8-track tape stuck in it now for over a decade.
* The exact formulation of Bakelite used in the heat-resistant surface tiles.
* Documentation on cross-compound air pumps, lifting injectors, feedwater heaters, and various types of valve gear arrangements.
* Plans for a proposal to convert the shuttle into a parade float.
* Copies of a catalog and an order form from a company called "Estes Models".
* A bootleg copy of the film "October Sky".

Re:What was stolen

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it's a joke, but you forgot to check "Post Anonymously".

Oh man

[gerddie]

Bribing someone to get information - that's so last millennium. Real man just seize laptops at the immigration check point and ask politely for all the passwords.

I say let 'em have it

[jollyreaper]

It'll just put 'em 30 years behind us. Given the current state of NASA, we can use every edge we can get.

If the tables were turned

[tompaulco]

If the guy was discovered spying in China and sending secrets to the U.S., he wouldn't have to suffer the indignities of an indictment. But his family would be billed for the bullet.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[jollyreaper]

Seriously. At what point do we consider a country so dangerous that we will not longer do business with it? When do we finally say "go screw yourself" to dangerous governments?

Continuing to do business with China is like having a Gremlin as a pet. Or having a stuffed clown in your bedroom. Anyone growing up in the 80s will tell you those are two VERY big no-nos. Naw, I'd say doing business with China is like signing on as a henchman with the Joker, you're just going to get poisoned with some crazy chemical shit that has no purpose inside a human body and if you survive that, the cheap joy buzzer probably has a wiring short and will electrocute you. Just imagine Chairman Mao in white facepaint with a bright red clown grin.

Open source all of this stuff

[jessecurry]

If we were to "open source" all of this super secret technology I don't think that anything bad would happen. Many of the other nations in the world simply don't have the resources to really pursue constructing technology to do things like enter space, those that do could probably drive innovation; besides, being open about these things would probably do wonders for the perception of the US abroad.

Re:Open source all of this stuff

[diablovision]

This is pretty naive. The space program and the ICBM programs were so tightly intertwined that making it to the Moon was as much about national prestige as it was cover for developing ICBMs that could hit their targets (and demonstrating to the Russians that we could). Openly publishing the space shuttle secrets might not be quite as completely and utterly irresponsible as publishing nuclear weapon designs, but damn it, it be close. The potential military applications are enormous.

Re:Open source all of this stuff

[Wildclaw]

And in the same line of thoughts. Why does everyone keep repeating the word stealing. All the chinese did was copy the information. It isn't like the US no longer have the information. China just aquired a copy so they didn't have to waste resources recreating the same information that had already been created by someone.

Copying doesn't equal stealing (although copying certain information such as credit card numbers can be used for stealing and other crimes).

Re:Open source all of this stuff

[jessecurry]

Nuclear weapon designs are pretty freely available, hiding them simply eliminates the chance for regular people to see how simple the weapons really are. Unfortunately, academia loves to wrap simple concepts in jargon and complex explanations, so simple ideas such as nuclear weapons are built-up to the public at large. The average college student could build a nuclear weapon given time and the money to develop the support systems needed to produce the raw materials. Hiding the instructions isn't going to stop a determined individual, let alone a determined government. This should be obvious when one sees the number of countries that have nuclear arms.

Re:Open source all of this stuff

[karl marx is my hero]

...except our civilian space program works closely with the military. Almost everything NASA works on has direct military application. This is why China is spying on NASA programs. If all countries had NASA's information, it would make it that much harder to gain a strategic advantage vis-a-vis military.

Re:Open source all of this stuff

[KudyardRipling]

One name for you: John Aristotle Phillips.

Re:Open source all of this stuff

[Dr. Spork]

Well said! It's interesting how the Slashdot mob doesn't quickly remembers this point in some cases and not in others.

Re:Open source all of this stuff

[Dr. Spork]

No, good bomb designs are not freely available. Designs for compact devices with high yields are most definitely not available, take a great deal of work and inspiration, and would be coveted by many countries around the world. The most significant row about Chinese espionage involved the alleged theft of one of these modern designs.

As much as I'm a fan of open source things, I don't want the W88 thermonuclear warhead design to be posted to the internet. That thing is surely easier to build than it is to design, and I think too many have been built already.

Re:Open source all of this stuff

[kellyb9]

If we were to "open source" all of this super secret technology I don't think that anything bad would happen. Is that you Stallman?

Re:Open source all of this stuff

[madseal]

Should we also be "Open source" about our nuclear program?!? ... A lot of countrires don't have the recourses precicely becouse the R&D is so expensive. Like it or not all this technology has military applications, and as such give one country an tactical advantage over another.

We do not want to be giving our rivals/competitors that advantage.

Re:Open source all of this stuff

[lawpoop]

It would still shift the balance of power. There are tons of little countries who can't muster the resources and organization to put together a threat ( either military or economic ) to the US. But if the secrets were revealed, there might be an 'Andean Union' of Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela, perhaps Ecuador, who form their own joint defense program. We've been fucking over South America for better than 50 years now. Combine that with the resurgence of Indigenous identity, it means no more cheap food from South America for us anymore.

Re:Open source all of this stuff

[Etcetera]

"Troll?"

Nice moderation, Slashdot community...

Re:Open source all of this stuff

[ScrewMaster]

All the chinese did was copy the information.

Unbelievable. Here's someone trying to compare, say, an illegally downloaded Madonna tune to, for example, the technology used to build a solid fuel booster, or a Space Shuttle fuel pump. I might add that you've a remarkably uninformed and downright dangerous attitude regarding industrial and military secrets. You're naivete is almost endearing, but I'm really glad you're not in charge of security at any important government facility.

China just aquired a copy so they didn't have to waste resources recreating the same information that had already been created by someone.

That "someone" was the citizens of the United States. We spent an incredible amount of money developing our space program and its military applications (the two are really inextricable.) We spent it so that we would have more on the ball than anyone else: if China (or anyone else) wants to be equal to us in that regard, let them spend their own money. Our government does not have the right to give that data away, nor does it have the right to treat it so casually that anyone that wants it can take it. That's irresponsible to a criminal degree, and I'm having a hard time accepting the fact that, well ... we're just accepting it. There should be long prison terms involved here. On the other hand, if your attitude is prevalent, I can see why nobody cares. Mark my words, the day will come when you will care.

See, when it comes to information about hard-won military technology and strategic assets, copying does equal stealing ... this is not a goddamn copyright issue! Actually, in that case, such copying can mean that people die. Honestly, what are you smoking? You need to educate yourself on the history of warfare, and more importantly what is required to maintain peace. Giving your enemies everything you've learned about how to defend yourself is just bloody stupid! It's also a good way to get you and yours killed, or enslaved.

What those "copies" do represent is billions, if not trillions, of hard-earned U.S. dollars, money that was spent to maintain military superiority over our enemies, not mere parity. Face it, all through the ages the societies least likely to suffer armed attack have been the ones that carried the biggest stick, which had the greatest military advantage over any potential enemies. Unless you are completely insane you don't attack a country when you know it will casually blow you to bits in return. Consequently, we don't want the Chinese to be merely equal to us ... we want them to be behind, and as far behind as possible (but they're coming up fast.) That's pretty basic strategy when it comes to being a superpower, and facing a foreign power that wants to take from you what you've built.

You may not realize it, or are maybe emotionally unequipped to accept it, but an eventual armed conflict with China is far from unlikely. They have the manpower advantage, they're a totalitarian government answerable only to itself ... the only possible way we can survive such an exchange is to maintain industrial and technological superiority. Keep in mind, though, that we've already lost the first, and are rapidly losing the second. I see no reason to accelerate the process.

Furthermore, as an American citizen whose earnings were taxed and spent to acquire that knowledge and technology, I not only bitterly resent it when it's freely given away to hostile countries, but consider it no less than treason. Those responsible should be lined up in front of a military firing squad and shot dead. Prison is way too good for them.

Re:Open source all of this stuff

[Wildclaw]

Here's someone trying to compare, say, an illegally downloaded Madonna tune to, for example, the technology used to build a solid fuel booster

When it comes to difference between copying and stealing it is the same. They are very different in size though, but still not stealing.

. I might add that you've a remarkably uninformed and downright dangerous attitude regarding industrial and military secrets

Not really. I am fully aware that secrets is one of the best ways to control the world. I understand why the ones at the top likes to keep them. And the US being the top military bully in the world of course wants to remain there by keeping their secrets.

You're naivete is almost endearing, but I'm really glad you're not in charge of security at any important government facility.

I would be more afraid that you are in charge of one. Someone who don't understand the difference between copying and stealing really shouldn't be.

That "someone" was the citizens of the United States. We spent an incredible amount of money developing our space program and its military applications (the two are really inextricable.) We spent it so that we would have more on the ball than anyone else: if China (or anyone else) wants to be equal to us in that regard, let them spend their own money.

Oh yeah, do the same research someone else has done. What an excellent waste of money and resources. Any reasonably intelligent being would try to copy first. Of course, you are fully free to try to prevent the copying. Of course, if you try to hard to prevent the copying, noone will be able to access it and future advances may be stalled.

There should be long prison terms involved here

Sure, can't disagree with that. It is in the US best interest to have long prison terms for copying your precious secrets.

Mark my words, the day will come when you will care.

Why would I regret that the biggest bully in the world becomes less able to use its power to bully others.

See, when it comes to information about hard-won military technology and strategic assets, copying does equal stealing ..

No it doesn't. It is copying. Oh, it is heavy duty copying allright, but it is copying. If it was stealing the US would have just lost all its ability to build space shuttles. If that had happened you would really be in a position to be upset. And what it actually is, is an espionage issue. Which neither falls under copyright nor stealing.

Honestly, what are you smoking? You need to educate yourself on the history of warfare, and more importantly what is required to maintain peace. Giving your enemies everything you've learned about how to defend yourself is just bloody stupid! It's also a good way to get you and yours killed, or enslaved.

Maintaining peace? I thought we were talking about the US here. One of the most aggressive countries in the second part of the 20th century and continuing into the 21st. And I never said it was good for the US. But then again, I couldn't care less about the superiority of a war mongering country like the US. You seem to manage to kill yourself off pretty good without anyone else interfering.

What those "copies" do represent is billions, if not trillions, of hard-earned U.S. dollars, money that was spent to maintain military superiority over our enemies, not mere parity. Face it, all through the ages the societies least likely to suffer armed attack have been the ones that carried the biggest stick

Which is a very good reason to copy the US military secrets. Right now the US have the biggest stick, and by getting your hand on it, you are less likely to get invaded by the US as you can actually fight back. Just be happy that the stick wasn't stolen but just copied.

. Consequently, we don't want the Chinese to be merely equal to us ... we want t

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[Anonymous Coward]

Strangely, the world is still doing business with the US.

soft china policy

[sentientbrendan]

>Besides, I'd be surprised if we aren't doing the same thing to China, at least I'd hope we are.

I don't know. Our policy towards China has been very soft. Part of that may be the China lobby
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_lobby

it's sad but true that American politicians aren't always working for the American people. Foreign interests can spread money around pretty easily, although they have to use a few levels of indirection.

Our policy, especially our trade policy, towards China has gotten ridiculous. We offer extremely low tariffs on Chinese imports, while Chinese tariffs are high. We ask them to put some effort in stopping the pirating of US products, and they respond by banning various US movies.

Also, it's distinctly *not* in America's interest to be propping up China's communist regime by keeping China profitable. In the short term we have some economic ties to China that are hard to break. In the long term, it's almost guaranteed that there will be some military conflict with China, a country that possesses a number of thermonuclear weapons mounted on ICBM's, as long as the communist party runs the country since they depend on ultra-nationalist and anti-american rhetoric to maintain political control of the country.

Even though the communist party knows that war with America would be a bad idea, they've relied so heavily on nationalist rhetoric, that position western powers and especially America as China's enemy, that they would have no choice but to go to war with us in a number of situations. For instance, whenever Taiwan gets around to declaring independence the Chinese government will be compelled by popular mandate to enter into war to occupy the island. The Chinese don't perceive Taiwan as an independent country and formal secession would be perceived as some kind of western aggression against Chinese territory.

I think that war with China would be a very bad idea for the US as well. We have them thoroughly outclassed in terms of naval and air forces, but that isn't all that helpful while they still have ICBM's. However, we need to negotiate more strongly and less naively, and put some effort into hamstringing China's long term economic growth, probably by cutting them off from oil supplies and imposing some prohibitive tariffs. China's growth is largely what sustains the communist party, and a strong economic downturn over a few years would probably result in a change of government.

Re:soft china policy

[ScrewMaster]

One of the better Slashdot analyses I've read on the subject, unnerving though it is. But you're right ... our government is way too accessible to foreign and corporate influence at all levels. How to correct what has become nothing less than institutionalized corruption is beyond me.

Oh noes, China iz spyingz

[OrangeTimer]

I don't know why this is causing such a big ruckus, spying just seems commonplace for any country that holds power. And anyways, last time I checked the US were A-Okay with spying on China.

Yeah... I remember this documentary...

[denzacar]

...About how they've, back in the '80s, sent a pilot to USSR to steal this super-secret new airplane and fly it to US.
This thing was like... WHOA! SUPERFAST!
And it also had this super-secret mind reading helmet that you could use to fire rockets and stuff.
Only thing is... you had to think in Russian.
Can't remember the name of the documentary though...

Also... there was this another documentary where bunch of Russians stole a super-secret nuclear submarine and defected with it to USA...

Now, those were some heroic deeds. Not like these Chinese thieves, stealing space shuttles and Mickey Mouse.

Re:Yeah... I remember this documentary...

[ScrewMaster]

About how they've, back in the '80s, sent a pilot to USSR to steal this super-secret new airplane and fly it to US. This thing was like... WHOA! SUPERFAST!

Yeah, and the cool thing is the tech ended up being used in a Web browser!

Re:Uhm -Nukes are older than 1970's Tech!

[Zymergy]

Nuclear Weapons are also 1970's Technology. (Actually late 1940's through present).
As a US citizen, I am very concerned over their security and protection from espionage despite their design age! http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&q=Chinese+espionage+US+nuclear+weapon+design&btnG=Search

-The worst (disclosed) US theft I have heard of, was when China stole our *1970's vintage design* for the W-88 miniature thermonuclear warhead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W88
What possible needs and wants would the Chinese ever have from our very successful 1970's US missile and rocket designs and technologies? What about now that they have the very modern W88 MIRV warhead design? Hummm, what could it be???
Hint: It is abbreviated "I.C.B.M."

Parallel to Al-queda but instead espionage.

[zymano]

There was that Chinese man that got tried for stealing hbomb nukes on the west coast.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=8ej&q=chinese++spy+stealing++nuclear+&btnG=Search

Not a one time thing. Get smart Gov.

because...

[brian.glanz]

You're right to imply there is heightened sensitivity toward Chinese offenses in the media; of course, that's for good reason. Some of the answer is human nature, and some of it is cultural.

If it's "always China" now, it is instructive to remember that it always used to be Japan. Honest Japanese Americans and all Asian Americans mistaken as vaguely Japanese struggled for decades against FUD per what their forefathers had done in World War II. In the 80s it was more about competitive concerns, but the under toe of fear was still strong. Only with the rise of China, a common rival if not opponent for Japan and the U.S., and as well with Japan's economic setbacks, did heightened reporting of Japanese espionage recede, whether governmental or IP theft. It's instructive to remember because: some of it is just about the human need for an opponent.

Much of the answer is also, really just about China or rather Chinese culture, if not Asian versus European sensitivities. When I say it's for "good reason" that the U.S. media is especially sensitive to Chinese espionage, I observe not only from ample public evidence of organized governmental and corporate infiltration, but also from personal experience. I've had too many acquaintances from Singapore, Taiwan, and Hong Kong as well as China who I knew were tasked to steal IP. It was a regular part of their experience where I studied (Cornell, Harvard) and later worked -- should they steal? Was it wrong? Often, family back in Asia were recruited to send tasking letters, putting all the more pressure on. It was almost never governmental at all in my experience, just corporate espionage such as theft of code, designs, chemical formulae and processes, kitchen sinks ...

I've heard less of it but similarly in Korean, Japanese, Filipino, and other East Asian circles. I'm born and raised American, and married to a citizen of India and working in software --> I have a lot of exposure to Indian culture --> IP theft is much less prevalent in South Asia than in the farther East. Anecdotally and from some academic reading when I majored in political science, it seems to be broadly East Asian but especially Chinese. I'm not saying the Chinese are less ethical, except from an especially American perspective; rather, it is the sense among Chinese that corporate espionage and spying in general is a fair competitive practice.

In the United States especially but all throughout the West, we have a fundamental cultural difference with the Chinese on this note. Oh sure, we do a lot of spying and stealing, but we generally think it's a moral wrong to do so. This doesn't mean we don't spy, but it means that when we do it, is always against a static coefficient of cultural friction; we are starting from a position that spying and IP theft are wrong.

In China and broadly Asia, IP is almost a misnomer -- ideas are not so much property at all, as part of the more general philosophical difference in which individual ownership and property are fundamentally weaker concepts over there. The degree to which Chinese spy is altogether different because the general assumption is that nearly everyone is doing it and to the greatest extent they can. They hide their spying of course, but not so much because they feel it is wrong, more simply because it is more effective when hidden. Because the Chinese execute against a kinetic coefficient of cultural friction, they enjoy a basic competitive advantage against Western entities.

In the U.S. therefore, we are not only afraid that the Chinese are spying. We are even more afraid that they don't think it's wrong, that they're effectively doing it every chance they get, that we have been largely ignorant of this basic cultural difference for decades, and frankly, that they are better at it than we are.

Expect it to be "always China" for a long time to come, and expect culturally American, ethnically Chinese, and good honest engineers and professionals in the U.S. to suffer the prejudicial consequences. BG

Re:because...

[Anonymous Coward]

When America tanks, whereto shall you flee? If the name serves me right the Law of Return is set to expire in 2023. You have fifteen years to decide, unless you have already converted to another religion. My family tried that in Germany and it did not help.

Re:because...

[iserlohn]

You post raises many good points, but the fundamental premise that the cultural bias that these cultures have towards the legal protection of idea is unwarranted. IP is a constructed concept from different legal areas. That is come naturally in cultures is a bit of a stretch. The most likely explanation on why some countries have a high rate of IP violations that others is most likely directly related to the amount of enforcement that acts as a deterrent.

There are many people in developed countries that wouldn't even blink at copy a piece of software for their own personal use, but would never do it in a commercial setting. The reason is simple, because the possible penalty acts as an effective deterrent to this practice. The fact that they do it in private speaks volumes about the nature of IP.

The Chinese are not misunderstood, they are just using espionage like any other country (ie. Israel and Russia). And your argument stands. If you look at the big picture, the damage that this espionage does is minimal. This is just another political tool to jack up xenophobia for political gain.

Re:because...

[khallow]

If you look at the big picture, the damage that this espionage does is minimal.

There are several notable historical examples to the contrary. Hittites lost their military edge once their neighbors figured out the secret of ironworking (last I heard, that came about through industrial espionage). Second, when the USSR made their own nuclear bomb using information gleaned from the US. And as I hear it, developed world companies are burned by industrial espionage all the time. That's why they're generally so paranoid about it.

Re:because...

[xhrit]

> it is the sense among Chinese that corporate espionage and spying in general is a fair competitive practice.

US corporate culture is based on 'The prince', Chinese on 'The art ov war'.

Re:because...

[jamar0303]

What's the "Law of Return"?

Re:because...

[lawpoop]

Your post reminds me of a party I went to once with Chinese grad students in America. We played a Chinese version of 'murderer'. In the US, there is one murderer who kills by winking at a person. The non-murderers try to guess who the murderer is. If they guess correctly, the game ends; if they guess incorrectly, they die. (There is a ref who chooses the murderer and arbitrates accusations). Ultimately the goal is justice. The ref simply says "You guessed the murderer", or "You have falsely accused the innocent. You're dead."

However, in the Chinese version, the accused simply defends themselves verbally "I can't be the murderer! I was looking at you when Stacy was killed!". It's a game of treachery, and you use your wits to stay alive. I don't recall all of the details, but to me, is was markedly different from the American version. A lot depended on how well you could defend yourself.

Re:because...

[iserlohn]

If you look back, one reason the US gained the edge in atomic bomb development is not because of espionage, but the wholesale immigration of scientists escaping from prosecution. This is ultimately far more productive than any espionage conducted due to the interjection of expertise rather than just information or insight.

Espionage is real, and it is legitimate to defend against it, but the reality is that the mystery and fear that surrounds espionage greatly exaggerates the amount of risk it poses, especially in this case.

Re:because...

[jandersen]

In China and broadly Asia, IP is almost a misnomer No, it is definitely a misnomer - we have to remember that IP is a relatively new idea, even in the West; I don't think it actually came in to common use until some time into the 20th century. In China, perhaps more than here, copying the work of great masters has been the main way of learning - in Chinese calligraphy the goal for the student is to be able to write exactly as the famous master calligraphers; only then can you start developing your own style. This used to be common in Europe too - an apprentice painter learned to paint as his master by copying his work.

I think this is because art used to be considered simply a craft - art as something lofty and ethereal is a fairly new concept too. And the idea that any intellectual work, even just a trivial memo or source code, is somehow in the same sphere, is an even newer concept - and a rather preposterous one at that. Copyright legislation is still based on the assumption that the subject matter is somehow an expression of true creativity - like eg. novels - but in practise this is almost never the case.

You use words like 'stealing' and 'spying', which may be justified from an American viewpoint, but not necessarily from a Chinese one. Perhaps from their viewpoint it is morally wrong to keep knowledge secret when it could benefit society; perhaps they are not 'spying', but 'exercising the right of the people'?

Re:because...

[brian.glanz]

You use words like 'stealing' and 'spying', which may be justified from an American viewpoint, but not necessarily from a Chinese one. Perhaps from their viewpoint it is morally wrong to keep knowledge secret when it could benefit society; perhaps they are not 'spying', but 'exercising the right of the people'?

Yes, and that was my point. I'm sorry if I wrote too much and perhaps hid that I think exactly as much.

We almost completely agree, except that it seems to me you overstate (or over-imply) the current state of Chinese culture and society with respect to IP. IP and kin are growing stronger in the Chinese world alongside individualism and the increasing appetite for personal wealth. I call it the new Opium War, only this time, the dealers are hooked, too.

I'll fight to move "The American Dream" away from individualism, as the world loses sleep and its mind trying to achieve it.

Re:Uhm -Nukes are older than 1970's Tech!

[moosesocks]

A MIRV is a whole lot scarier than an ICBM.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[Tablizer]

And how would you fill up your WalMarts? Americans don't manufacture anything anymore... who's gonna make yer [stuff]?

India, Mexico, Taiwan, South Korea, Brazil, Columbia, etc. There are plenty of democracies or semi-democracies that would love to have our business.

And/or, we could put our own rust-belt back to work so maybe their crime and poverty will go down. The "evils" of protectionism are exaggerated by business lobbyists.

this is abusing a rule of thumb

[Quadraginta]

Even ignoring all that, it's still 1970s technology.

Yeesh, this canard again. Look, when we really think about it, don't you think it's only an occasionally useful rule of thumb that the age of a technology has some correlation to its quality and cleverness? Why should it? Is it really reasonable to assume that every technological problem has an infinite number of solutions, which will always be discovered in ascending order of cleverness?

I mean, do we argue that astronauts shouldn't use ball-point pens in orbit because that's 1960s technology, and surely there must be something better now? That they shouldn't use handkerchiefs to blow their nose because that's 16th century technology? NASA shouldn't use wheels on the design of a moon rover because wheels were invented 5000 years ago? They should use something other than calculus to calculate orbits because it was invented in the 1620s and hasn't changed a bit since? Sometimes the best solution to a problem is an old and well-known one. Newer isn't automatically better.

It seems to me that the Space Shuttle was designed at the end of the golden age of rocketry: in the 50s and 60s clever youngsters went into aerospace the way they went into computers and the Internet in the 80s and 90s. It was exciting, it was way out on the frontier, and it paid decently. NASA and their contractors collected most of the best, and they did pretty impressive engineering work. Yes, they didn't have some of the fancy electronics parts their descendants have now, but avionics is only part of the spacecraft -- and when you're talking about a spacecraft that has to survive two very high-energy events (launch and re-entry) -- the quality and coolness of the avionics is probably not the key criterion for design success. Something like airframe design, system robustness, and a canny use of materials is probably way more important.

Since the 1980s, however, aerospace engineering talent in the US has aged and shrunk, and far fewer of the best and brightest go into the field. Furthermore, the excitement and potential glory of a real frontier-type mission is missing. Designing reliable electric bus connectors for solar-power panels on the ISS isn't quite the same as trying to squeeze an extra 5 ounces out of the weight of the first manned Mars lander. It doesn't attract the very best young talent.

So it may very well be that the "1970s technology" design of the SS is as good or better than what could be done today, avionics aside. Certainly the difficulty which private aerospace has had recently in trying to duplicate, essentially, the circa 1965 Saturn 1B medium-lift launch vehicle should make one pause thoughtfully before concluding that it's just a piece of cake to design a combination heavy-lift vehicle and re-usable manned spaceplane seating 10 that leaves the SS in the dust. I mean, if it were easy to do better -- wouldn't someone have done so, already? It's not like there isn't a fortune to be made by the first organization that can get 50 tons of cargo and a crew of 10 to LEO for 10% of the price of a SS launch.

Re:this is abusing a rule of thumb

[TubeSteak]

Certainly the difficulty which private aerospace has had recently in trying to duplicate, essentially, the circa 1965 Saturn 1B medium-lift launch vehicle should make one pause thoughtfully before concluding that it's just a piece of cake to design a combination heavy-lift vehicle and re-usable manned spaceplane seating 10 that leaves the SS in the dust. The problem isn't that building those rockets was amazingly difficult, not even that "aerospace engineering talent in the US has aged and shrunk", the problem is that everyone who built those rockets either died or moved on. Not to mention that documentation back then was shit and the molds used to produce the parts are all gone.

The Feds threw a lot of money at NASA to develop pre-shuttle rocket science and the knowledge was never institutionalized & passed down.

Re:this is abusing a rule of thumb

[martyros]

The Feds threw a lot of money at NASA to develop pre-shuttle rocket science and the knowledge was never institutionalized & passed down.

Can you give a reference? Or are you speaking from personal observation?

Re:this is abusing a rule of thumb

[Shadowlore]

I agree generally with what you said and certain;y the spirit behind it. However:

Certainly the difficulty which private aerospace has had recently in trying to duplicate, essentially, the circa 1965 Saturn 1B medium-lift launch vehicle should make one pause thoughtfully before concluding that it's just a piece of cake to design a combination heavy-lift vehicle and re-usable manned spaceplane seating 10 that leaves the SS in the dust. I mean, if it were easy to do better -- wouldn't someone have done so, already? It's not like there isn't a fortune to be made by the first organization that can get 50 tons of cargo and a crew of 10 to LEO for 10% of the price of a SS launch.

That's not quite true. It isn't so much about the engineering but the design choices, demand, and non-technical costs. Where do yo launch from? Who wants a Saturn 1b when we have Deltas? The Delta IV puts more mass to LEO than the Sat1b did. The only failure was a partial failure of a Delta IV-Heavy. Saturn 1b had 9 launches. Yes all were successes. The Delta IV (non-heavy) has had six out of six successful launches. And it can put MORE into orbit than the Sat1b. One can not honestly say that we haven't been able to replicate the Sat1b's capability.

As far as a spaceplane, I think that's a fundamentally flawed idea and know that many aerospace engineers agree. The shuttle is essentially "a bad design engineered to perfection". As long as we are using reaction-mass rockets, a straight-up stack is the way to go (i.e. Sat V).

The regulations and insurance costs are a very big driver in startups. This is in part due to the high cost of launches. High cost means you don't want to spend 100M bucks to put a $150,000 satellite in orbit. Do you have any idea what it takes to insure a 60M dollar satellite (and the "loss of use" damages)? Land space is pretty limited in inhabited parts of the world (if your rocket fails it comes down over NY? No, you aren't going to be launching. Period.).

That isn't to say the engineering part is a breeze, just not the deciding factor.

Some of it is chicken and egg. How can you get funding (private/public/whatever) to build a launch system if you don't have a market? Sorry but launching a dozen people to space for a joyride isn't profitable and probably won't be for a very long time.

Perception is the root of all space travel stagnation.

Re:this is abusing a rule of thumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Beg to differ, but Calculus was NOT invented in the 1620 like you claim ...
Its origins are a bit lost in time, but one thing is sure : it is definitely NOT an European invention ... pioneered somewhere between Arab countries, India, China, or maybe even 4th Millenium BC's Mesopotamia (you know, the place that pretty much covered Iraq, Iran, and some parts of Afghanistan ... at the very least, the first skyscrapers & irrigation systems we know were built by them ...)
Btw, it sounds strange to me that old Mesopotamia is the target for either Bushes ...

Re:this is abusing a rule of thumb

[Quadraginta]

Well...thank you for the comments. This is certainly not something that can easily be settled, as the comments section in many an alt.space blog will tell you. The debate about how and why LEO access remains so fabulously expensive, despite all expectations 50 years ago, seems endless, although we might hope that sooner or later some development will put a stop to it by demonstrating the right way to go.

Does the right way involve social changes, as you suggest? Is it like trans-Atlantic travel in the 1600s, where it's really just a question of the home countries getting rich enough to be able to afford the cost routinely instead of only on special occasion? Sure, could be.

Or is it like personal computing, which was utterly impossible in the days of discrete components, because the labor cost involved in building (and maintaining) a computer built out of tubes or discrete transistors would ensure that the price of a computer would never come within reach of the average individual? In that case, a breakthrough technology -- the integrated circuit -- changed the whole dynamics of the situation by making it possible to robotically build incredibly complex circuits incredibly cheaply at the margin, and poof, we have personal computers that cost less than what teenagers spend on their senior prom, and the revolution that has wrought.

Perhaps that is what will finally bring the cost of space access into the same category as the price of overnight package delivery, and revolutionize society. That would, indeed, be an engineering advance of some kind. Of what kind, I can't imagine, or else I'd be keeping my mouth shut and filing patent applications and raising seed money. But it's a possible resolution of the problem, assuming any resolution is possible.

Re:this is abusing a rule of thumb

[Quadraginta]

Go look up Sir Isaac Newton and Gottfried Liebniz.

Or, if your point is that the historical record has been massively fudged by some evil patriarchal European conspiracy, then you can go fuck yourself as a clueless post-modernist nutjob.

Free Ride..

[SueAnnSueAnn]

With another Clinton in the White House the Chinese will be able to just ask for what they want.

Thanks Bill and
Loral Corp.
Hope you both burn in hell.

SueSue

Re:Free Ride..

[WgT2]

I say try him, the engineer, for treason.

Re:Free Ride..

[SETIGuy]

I say try him, the engineer, for treason.

U.S. Constitution, Article III: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

I think it quite likely he would be acquitted if such charges were brought.

Re:Free Ride..

[KudyardRipling]

The prosecution had better do a good job in [ convincing | scaring | coercing ] such a jury/panel about "becoming carbon-rich plasma" if they acquit as well as every federal judge up to Roberts of the Nine. Those black robes are not made of tungsten and carbon nanotubes, you know.

Downmodding proves the veracity of the above statement beyond question.

Re:Free Ride..

[Arthur Grumbine]

How is this not giving them "aid"?!? Or were you just saying that the Chinese aren't our enemies?

Re:Free Ride..

[philwx]

The funny thing is, despite reassurances from our business people here in the US, the Chinese have affirmed time and again that they are a competitor to us and do intend to overtake us. This flies directly in the face of what any person with a business degree will tell you, but it's straight from the horses mouth. I do not know how quoting Adam Smith can contradict these very obvious facts.

Re:Free Ride..

[WgT2]

I guess I should have RTC before leaving opinions related to it.

Re:Free Ride..

[SETIGuy]

I was pointing out that treason usually requires war or significant threat of war and an avowed enemy rather than an economic competitor.

Espionage charges are much easier to bring and to prove than treason charges, and the punishments are usually sufficient.

The Soviet Union had a winner...

[AragornSonOfArathorn]

They should have bought the Buran shuttle plans from the Russians. It was technically superior to the US shuttle (at least on paper), but the project was canceled after the USSR collapsed. Its one unmanned orbital test flight went flawlessly. Hell, the US should have bought the plans after the collapse. I'm sure they would have yielded some insights on improvements we could have made to our shuttle program...

Send them Bogus plans

[Tablizer]

Send them bogus plans so that they create an upside-down floppity flippity loop-dee-dooper shuttle on their national TV. The US once fudged up some oil processing software stolen by the Soviets. (There are rumors it caused an explosion, but most likely the explosion was from lack of equipment maintenance.)

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[Nimey]

More to the point, when they start cashing in our debts.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[jaxtherat]

And how would you fill up your WalMarts? Americans don't manufacture anything anymore... who's gonna make yer shit? Mexico.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[KudyardRipling]

We are dealing with a society that allows complete economic freedom but exercises total political control. This is a culture that has been in the making for perhaps all of human history. The Tianamen students and the Falung Dafa offered alternatives to the political control and that is what the CCP fear the most and thus the crackdown.

Unless you know for certain that the PRC's ICBM's and/or the blast/fallout cannot reach you hometown, remember one of the their offical's comment about "Los Angeles" in the 1990's concerning USA coming to Taiwan's aid should war arise.

Downmodding proves veracity of the above beyond question.

Because it makes for a good headline?

[golodh]

Honestly, industrial espionage in the US has been proven to be committed by: France (NATO ally), Israel (special ally) , Russia (ex-enemy), China (competitor).

Nothing new there. Besides, I'd be amazed if e.g. India, Pakistan, Brazil, South Korea, Japan, South Africa, and Iran weren't also active (or trying to be active) in this field.

Why then do we hear often about Chinese espionage? Is it just that Chinese espionage makes good headlines?

Well ... perhaps it has something to do with the fact that there are so many (very good) ethnically Chinese engineers and scientists in the US, in all walks of life. Due to do Americans not being interested in an arduous career in Engineering or the Sciences when they can instead aim at Management, Legal services, or brokerage I'm told. Well, admittedly the Chinese government is quite organised about industrial espionage, and it's easier to get a rapport with an ethnic countryman than with some foreigner.

So ... if we assume a fixed promillage of the population open to espionage proposals, we must expect Chinese to be over-represented. Besides which ... it's not as if the US doesn't commit industrial espionage of itself (primarily in the EU; see e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/mar/31/ianblack).

Lets just save our righteous indignation for a more worthy cause and simply shore up security on projects and firms that are attractive targets, shall we?

Re:Because it makes for a good headline?

[grumpyman]

Why then do we hear often about Chinese espionage? Is it just that Chinese espionage makes good headlines?

Coz this is slashdot?

Re:Because it makes for a good headline?

[Eunuchswear]

Besides, I'd be amazed if e.g. India, Pakistan, Brazil, South Korea, Japan, South Africa, and Iran weren't also active (or trying to be active) in this field.

Better ask Sibel Edmonds about that.

Clearance

[LinDVD]

As a military employee working for the USCG, we have two types of security clearances. The first level of security is "secret", which is what I have, and you fill out a number of questions on an electronic format and then it takes between 3-6 months on average to get clearance. "Secret" clearance gives you access to semi-restricted assets, like server rooms. The second level of security is "top secret", and it's a very thorough check of your background, but by having it you gain access to buildings that have additional electronic locking mechanisms and other privileges, including a secured data network. Having a security clearance is of course very valuable, because you can basically work for more branches of the federal government if you have one. Also, websites like www.clearancejobs.com can show you additional jobs...to check on your security clearance status, you need to know, or talk to someone who deals with security (such as a Command Security Officer) clearance-related topics.

Top Secret != Polygraph Interview

[sciop101]

Top Secret Clearance does not require a polygraph (lie detector) interview. Security Accesses within Top Secret (Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI)) may require a polygraph interview. I knew a man whose job qualificaton required he and his wife both get polygraphed.

Security Clearance investigations are expensive. Polygraph test add to the expense.

Re:Top Secret != Polygraph Interview

[rabbit994]

Not to mention that aren't as effective as movies or TV Shows make them out to be. A good background investigation can generally find out alot more but background investigations are much more expensive and take up more time so now the polygraph is used to discover where a background should start.

Re:Top Secret != Polygraph Interview

[Zisudra]

I acquired a DCID Top Secret security clearance in the Air Force and it, indeed, did not require a polygraph. The extent of it was nothing more than harrassment by AFOSI and DIS with ceaseless interrogations. It ended when I sought help from the free lawyers on base. After which they gave me the clearance. However, I will say that good cop and bad cop shenanigans do exist outside of movies...

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[andy314159pi]

They start dumping that and you're really fucked.

If they dumped all of their holdings of U.S. dollars, then the first effect would be that the currency would fall on exchange markets. This would actually help the competitiveness of American industries abroad and might devalue it to the extent that the pegged exchange rate against the yuan would be a more reasonable evaluation of the currencies. That would abruptly end the shift of labor to China.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[Anonymous Coward]

And the truth of it is, the US does not need China.

Hint hint, who is your greatest trading partner?
And who next door has an insanely high unemployment rate and you have free-trade with?
And who has a population of 1 billion, with enough people outside of the hightech domains?
And who builds, or at least designs, your computer components?

I say we (Americans and Europeans, the entirety of both continents) simply ignore the "People's" Republic of China from now on, if they're going to act like this.

It isn't funny, and I really doubt they're prepared for the boom they have to handle. I might be considered a nazi by some of you for hating the thought of the PRC as a powerful force, but they are not going to get anywhere if they act like that.

(captcha: ideology)

Manifest Destiny

[catmistake]

Eventually, we'll be needing more land, resources, whatever. Sooner or later, we'll be annexing China, that li'l gem of the Orient. I say, let them have what ever tech they want, so that by the time we get around to moving them all out of their homes and pushing them all westward, we won't have to deal with some crazy learning curve.... Those damn Chinese are all so smart, or at least absurdly ambitious... can you imagine how screwed we'd be if they actually developed their own technology?

Re:Manifest Destiny

[sethstorm]

Why not just level the nation first, and annex what's left that's clean? It'll make for less objections when we march in.

Re:Manifest Destiny

[catmistake]

Not a terrible idea... but to make sure we get it right, we should start with Mexico, work out the remainder of the bugs on Canada, and then steamroller ourselves right into their hearts.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[repapetilto]

so do you check every label, or is there somewhere that lists products manufactured in the U.S. (not companies just headquartered here).

israel

[ezwip]

I see you deleted my comment. Interesting...

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[Anonymous Coward]

Their government probably thinks the same thing about us, too. And yet, we keep trading enormous amounts of things. Why is this? Because, ultimately, both sides realize that they're better off together than apart.

Suck-O-Meter: 10

[WED Fan]

Yeah, it has got to suck really bad when you are looking at life in prison for stealing stuff that could have been developed from information gathered on the old internet.

Are the chinese overrepresented as spies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting question for some statistics guru.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[dbIII]

About the time they invade another almost defenceless country for no paticularly good reason? All the leading nations have done it and trade still goes on. At the moment China is financing the Iraq war so any attempt at sanctions would have immediate military as well as economic repercusions.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[juan2074]

Look at your shirts. Many are made in Egypt, Pakistan, the Philippines, Costa Rica, and Hungary.

My jackets come from Honduras and Taiwan.

My shoes come from Italy, Vietnam, and the US.

Not everything is made in China, you know?

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's also holding like $1 trillion of your money? They start dumping that and you're really fucked.

No, you stupid douche, who is holding one trillion of our debt.

They can dump all they like.. they'll go right down with us. The dollar will devalue so quickly that their vaunted one trillion bucks will look like six euros.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[OldFish]

Very good question. Perhaps the issue is how we go about shutting the doors. Passing laws that directly shut the doors would be a very hostile and bumbling sort of thing to do. Almost Bush-like you might say.

I heard the figure that the total cost to put each US citizen with a BA or BS through any graduate program to which they were accepted would cost about USD30B/year. That sounds pretty damn cheap to me.

I suggest we fund education in this country and make the number of available spaces for non-citizens very small. Preferably those open spaces will be reduced to near zero in the sciences and engineering. No hostile laws will be required and the long-term effect will be to our benefit.

This is only my suggestion for one small part of the issue but similar, indirect and self-beneficial approaches could be found for other aspects of the problem. China is a large population and we should never view them as anything but competitors.

No...

[Jane Q. Public]

No, let's encourage more people to be techies, engineers, and scientists, and pay them better than dumbass MBAs for a change.

And let's take away China's "Most Favored" trading status, if they keep up this shit. Why not? I do not feel obligated to help other nations that then turn around and dump on us.

Re:No...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately due to supply and demand, if you want MBAs to be paid less and engineers to be paid more, you would actually need fewer people to enter technical fields, not more. Alternatively, you could get more people to become MBAs, or forget the supply side of things and try to affect demand. But what do I know? I'm just a dumbass (soon to be) MBA. Although, give me some credit as a former engineer.

Oblig

[Laxori666]

You mean we've always been at war with Eurasia.

Re:Oblig

[rush242]

And the chocolate ration has been raised to 20 grams!!

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[jaxtherat]

Well, personally in my case, my clothes are either made in India or Australia, being Australian myself. So yes, I understand your point completely, I was merely being facetious.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Above downmod appropriate. Need new tag: Antisemite

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[El_Oscuro]

I do. I just spent 10 minutes at a grocery store finding apple juice which is not made in China (hint, avoid most concentrates, even those with American flags on them). I routinely check the labels, and do base my purchase on that. I prefer the U.S., but any decent democracy will do.

"only" 30 years behind the times.....

[budword]

Getting to "only" 30 years behind our tech puts them ahead of where they are right now. They have just popped a guy into orbit for a little while. They are somewhere in the late 50's or early 60's. Getting up to 1976 tech is quite a jump for them.

Re:Why [ was | is | will be ] it always China?

[KudyardRipling]

Why does this sort of 'ethnionage' (a portmanteau of 'ethnic' and 'espionage' and not a lisp) work? 'Tis because the mirror does not recognize naturalization. When laws compel people against their better instincts, trouble invariably results.

Some jobs were just not meant for some people. To disagree is suicide.

Downmodding proves the veracity of the above statement beyond question.

Somehow, Iran is to blame...

[tjstork]

Look, I know the guy was Chinese, and was working for China, but he has these links to Iran, like, China spies on us and doesn't like us, and this guy was Chinese, so therefor, we should bomb Iran.

INFRAGARD is working out well

[myspace-cn]

Hey infragard is working out well here isn't it.

Oh wait...

It's just a program for corporations to become nazi's. This administration doesn't give a fuck about homeland security, they care about corporate profits and maintaining power for AIPAC/PNAC/CFR.

This is the same pattern of bullshit. As long as we got someone to blame other than ourselves, then we have an enemy that we can use to remove civil rights from the American citizen.
The only way that our rights are going to be restored is when this current Administration of corruption is removed from power. They are well embedded now. We need to get all these fuckers from back in the 1970's out of our government. (You remember them, Oliver North, the Central American death squads, Negroponte, Kissinger) Oh that's right you've forgot because the fascist corporate media won't shine a light on them.

Whatever America is right now, it is NO LONGER a Constitutional Republic.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[Anonymous Coward]

plenty of democracies or semi-democracies that would love to have our business.

Correction: they would love to have your dollars. Except that right now, your dollars aren't worth that much.

Why steal, just ask the Russians for copies

[GodfatherofSoul]

Burn copies of the Buran.

http://TeamInfinity.com/writings/MAO.shtml

[posys]

http://teaminfinity.com/writings/MAO.shtml

To be fair

[WindBourne]

When I had a steady GF and loads of sex is when I was doing the most studying. It was when I did not have a GF and not getting sex, that I spent all my time at the bars. I would guess that is true for the average American (this being /., your milage may very).

it's not a cost issue, and they're more frequent

[Bored MPA]

Polygraphs are done for a wide range of reasons--even city police dispatchers from CA to NC get them...as to the feds, they are ridiculously anal. Even _non-sensitive_ internships and volunteer work with federal agencies have to deal with a full FBI background, reference and credit checks--Just for being in the building. And being in a sensitive position (not secret or top secret) requires full medical disclosure of all records and a more thorough FBI check and interviews (sometimes a polygraph).

There are two or three different overall investigation programs at the federal level for security procedures, perhaps some of them are more lax (or enlightened), but I doubt polygraph is avoided for the cost. If anything, it probably produces false positives that single out minorities: "Have you ever done anything that might be considered amoral?" Right after sex practice questions. Asked to a lesbian police applicant. They told her she did "bad" on the test, made her take it three times, in an unventilated room. Noone bothered to explain to her that social anxiety and leading questions were probably impacting the results...

Re:FROSTY PISS

[ardle]

And you got FROSTY PISS - lucky you!

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[ScrewMaster]

That's arguably the stupidest thing I've heard all week. Geez, America-bashing has reached new lows today. Look, business is business, my friend. Saying "our dollars aren't worth that much" doesn't mean squat. China is still happily taking those dollars, and you can bet your bottom dollar that any or all of the countries the GP mentioned would be happy to as well. The difference is, we'd be helping to make friends in the world, not feed the maw of a monster that will eventually devour us all.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[Leo76]

Answer: We never tell dangerous foreign governments to go screw themselves, especially if they're economically important to us

History shows that even when Hitler declared war on the United States, business transactions with Germany were not illegal. It was only six days after the attack on Pearl Harbor that President Roosevelt signed the Trading With the Enemy Act, ie only after a public outcry that U.S. companies were doing business with a declared enemy. More recently, the USA continued to buy oil from Saddam Hussein all the way up to the invasion of Iraq, and then switched over asap to buying from the next administration. The USA needed the oil more than it needed to cut off all ties with Saddam.

The decision to buy or sell a product to/from a competitor is strategic, not emotional. Whether a country is friendly or not is secondary. The question is: Will it give the USA competitive advantage in the long term? Trade with China has brought the US economy huge profits (eg: Wal-Mart). Stopping all trade with China would make the $500 Billion subprime write-down look like an appetizer.

In reality, US companies NEED to work with China (or the next cheap country), and they're constantly selling patents to China in order to get things made. They gotta keep inventing to stay ahead, and why would they want to buy badly outdated products? Those spies were simply trying to get ahead of the curve, but the USA is still miles ahead of China in R&D.

So basically it's business as usual with China, and it would take an event on the scale of Pearl Harbour to push the US Govt to legislate. This latest spying scandal is not it.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[Tablizer]

You reply was not clear to me. "America bashing" was NOT the main point. Your whole reply almost seems like it belongs to another parent. I cannot match it cleanly to anything I've wrote. There is a failure to communicate somewhere.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[gandhi_2]

It's a funny sign of the times when you feel like a Patriotic American for buying "Made in Mexico".

Well, just as long as ....

[PPH]

... they don't get our secret formula for lead-free paint.

Well ... let's think that one through first, ok?

[golodh]

No, let's encourage more people to be techies, engineers, and scientists, and pay them better than dumbass MBAs for a change.

I'd love it if that were somehow possible. I really mean that.

However ... I do see a few probl... err ... I mean of course "Opportunities" here.

The first one being the opportunity to convince management in the US to pay engineers and scientists more and/or MBA's less.

The second one would be to convince them to stop seeing the engineering and R&D departments as regrettable cost centers to be outsourced and/or off-shored at the first opportunity.

The third opportunity would be to convince industry to offer Ph.D's opportunities (and to some extent academic entry-level positions) that make it less of a financial risk to do a Ph.D.

Prospects for Ph.D's (depending on discipline of course) can be so awful that you have to basically tell students: "Don't do a Ph.D. unless you (a) really derive fulfillment from doing research / teaching even if you're paid half to 1/3 of what you'd get in industry and (b) you are in the top 5% of your class, or you won't be able to get tenured".

And let's take away China's "Most Favored" trading status, if they keep up this shit. Why not? I do not feel obligated to help other nations that then turn around and dump on us.

Well ... industrial espionage is part of doing business. Between companies as much as between countries. Besides, trade is a two-way street. It's not as if the US are providing China with development aid. The US are benefiting from cheap Chinese products too. Have you ever considered what the impact on the US would be if there were to be say, 30% import tariffs on Chinese goods?

All those PC's, printers, T-shirts, hand tools, shoes, toys, and what not? First you'd kick off a vicious round of inflation if you did ... plus you'd be seriously hurting the bottom line of such all-American companies that have off-shored their manufactoring operations to China (just think of HP).

Generally speaking, you'd saddle lots of US companies with higher costs which would make them vulnerable in the current economic downturn *and* make them less competitive with e.g. EU-based companies.

Sure ... it would hurt China. They might even have riots. But it would hurt the US too. Very much so I'd say. So let's just be very sure about the cost-benefit ratio of such measures before we seriously propose them, ok? Like it or not, the US is as much networked into the global economy as China, the EU, and OPEC.

It's not to say that the US can't rescind China's "most favoured nation" state. Of course it can! The question is: what are the costs and what are the benefits. And I submit that the costs just might be a bit steep for the satisfaction of making our displeasure about industrial espionage known.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[larry bagina]

I check labels when I'm at the store and also search the internet beforehand. There are some sites with a list of American made products, but they have a tendency to be out of date. Manufacturer web sites sometimes mention if a product is US made.

No thanks, they make enough deathtraps & bugs.

[sethstorm]

As for China, why not let them make the next Shuttles for us? They virtually make everything else for us. Not with their lack of quality control. On top of that, that shuttle would be suspect from the start for anything related to national security.

next, the Pakleds

[b0nafide]

"We look for things that make us go." The Next Generation- 'Samaritan Snare' (Episode Number 217)

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[Telvin_3d]

Actually, it might be more accurate to say that the Chinese are happily buying up US debt, not dollars. And there is nothing wrong with credit, whether you are talking people or countries. But when you sign that mortgage, you had better be damn sure you can handle the payments.

Wrong forum to expect a defense of that guy.

[sethstorm]

Entirely irrelevant to this topic. Go back to DU. Go back to Pajamas Media, the home of the oft-misfired insult and even more closed minded discussions.

Thankfully he'll be remembered for being a miserable failure.

Re:Wrong forum to expect a defense of that guy.

[FishWithAHammer]

Go back to Pajamas Media, the home of the oft-misfired insult and even more closed minded discussions.

Thankfully he'll be remembered for being a miserable failure.

I didn't vote for him. It's simply irrelevant to the discussion.

Parent is LGF Shill, mod down to oblivion

[Anonymous Coward]

Then we can tag the above "LGF Shill" or "Troofer".

If it can level Peking, sure.

[sethstorm]

No better way to hit two birds with one stone than to have something that can cause a nice, large disaster over their country. First, you send them the modified designs, then do so in a way that guarantees mass casualties that are hard to cover up.

Re:If it can level Peking, sure.

[Tablizer]

Taken too far, it don't think it is a good thing.

War will end up being the only option.

[sethstorm]

I think that war with China would be a very bad idea for the US as well. We have them thoroughly outclassed in terms of naval and air forces, but that isn't all that helpful while they still have ICBM's. However, we need to negotiate more strongly and less naively, and put some effort into hamstringing China's long term economic growth, probably by cutting them off from oil supplies and imposing some prohibitive tariffs. China's growth is largely what sustains the communist party, and a strong economic downturn over a few years would probably result in a change of government. Well, levelling enough of their country means that they won't be coming back anytime soon. This would also leave a nice, large reminder to other nations to back off. Economics just means it'll be temporary unless you can keep those measures in line permanently. There are too many apologists for Asia that would gladly sell out our national sovereignty that call it globalization.

Re:War will end up being the only option.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, levelling enough of their country means that they won't be coming back anytime soon. This would also leave a nice, large reminder to other nations to back off.

How exactly are you going to do this "levelling"? All your aircraft carriers located off China's coast will be sunk in the first day of conflict. So forget bombing China from said carriers. Taiwan's and Japan's airfields will also be rubble after the first few minutes of conflict. You could launch bombers from India, but they would have to fly 3000 miles before reaching any worthwhile targets -- good luck doing much damage with the few bombs that you could lug that far. So how exactly do you plan to "level" China?

You could of course go nuclear, but China has nukes too, even SSBNs. There is little doubt that you could nuke China off the map -- but at the cost of losing 90% of your population. You would no longer be a superpower. Hell, after such a war you wouldn't even be the strongest country in North America; Mexico and Canada would be wealthier and more powerful. Do you think such a price would be worth paying merely to satisfy your psychotic macho fantasies?

Still doesn't seem like a big deal

[Hojima]

Am I the only one that sees space travel as a bit over-rated? And also, we don't need to send a manned flight to carry out experiments in space. We can have robots perform the same tasks people can. It's not like transferring fluids for pharmaceutical research in space requires that much dexterity when you can use tubes. Besides it's not like china will spend the billions that can be spent on other research.

yeah well

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd just like to clarify here, if you're AMERICAN china is your enemy, every other country realises it's bloody good idea to ally with the next superpower, trust a nation of boorish pigheaded slobs to throw hissy fits instead of thinking ahead.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[laejoh]

There are plenty of democracies or semi-democracies that would love to have our business.

You silly Americans with your silly idea of democracy! Democracy != business, you shouldn't link both ideas... Only gets you in a terrible mess. You're screwing up!

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know it do you? China has a choking grip on USA, if China wanted US economy to die they simply need to make one call and all your economy will die.

Stealing U.S. Technology is Express Policy

[Phoenix666]

There's a Congressional whitepaper that gets put out every year or so on assessment of China as a rival/potential threat. This is a link to the 2005 version that Google found:

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/china.html

So yes, China is actively seeking U.S. military secrets. It's official policy. I've read in past versions before 2000 that Chinese govt. policy was also to employ all the means to deter U.S. intervention in armed conflict with Taiwan, among which was to use anti-satellite missiles to neutralize U.S. surveillance capabilities, cyberwarfare to bog down the U.S. military and country in general, and also to use economic warfare to make the United States too frightened of losing its standard of living to bother about a small island in the South China Sea.

Given China's recent successful test of Anti-Satellite weapons and forays into cyberwarfare, the level of U.S. debt China holds, and the Bush administration's willingness to sell it to them, is particularly alarming.

Interestingly enough, many of the U.S. military secrets they acquire they get via Israel, our good friends, who steal them from us at will and get a free pass from the U.S. Congress because they're our good friends. (NPR story on the leaders of AIPAC, spying on the U.S. and passing secrets to Israel: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4802479)

Yes, this submission to Slashdot refers to space shuttle technology. Maybe that technology is valuable, maybe it isn't. But if we don't shut this activity down, it will bite us in the ass more than it already has.

For instance, Clinton authorized the sale of sensitive satellite technology back in the late 90's that allowed the Chinese to significantly upgrade their long-range targeting capability. Now, the Chinese don't have that many long-range missiles, so being able to target more effectively works wonders for their nuclear capability.

Not more than a few months after the Chinese got the tech from Clinton, India, which has fought border wars with China and lost ( http://www.fas.org/irp/world/india/threat/china.htm ), suddenly declared itself a nuclear power. Pakistan, of course was right on their heels, being eager to let India know they can play too.

So Chinese espionage, and foolish U.S. administration policy, has already directly caused a nuclear standoff in South Asia and given the Chinese the ability to reach and hit cities on the western U.S. mainland.

Defense contractors

[Anonymous Coward]

About 15 years ago I applied for a job at General Electric's M&DS (defense systems division, now Lockheed Martin.) The shiney black shoe background checkers, who took themselves way too seriously and wouldn't divulge who they were, stalled the whole process on me because I wasn't sure where my paternal grandmother was born. I have ancestry dating back to the Mayflower on both parent's sides, I just wasn't sure and needed to check. It turns out she was born in the US, but her parents came from Germany in the 1890s or so.

The kicker here- my dad was working at the very same GE and had a very high clearance (not sure how high- wasn't allowed to know- probaby the highest) and it was HIS mother I wasn't sure about. I kept telling them to just check his records- it was his mother I was talking about and I just didn't know.

So instead of hiring me and extreme patriots like me, the brilliant US govt. allows Chinese nationals, Russians, and many others to know really serious and critical stuff.

The inmates are truly in charge of the asylum.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[Anonymous Coward]

A big helping of this.

People are so stuck on the "it's too late to bring manufacturing back to the US" thing that they don't see the trees when it comes to third world countries that are on our side (or at worst not a threat to us)and could use a helping hand.

Don't buy Made in China doesn't mean buy only made in USA. It means buy made in India, made in Pakistan, I would buy something made in Iran if I had the choice (You bet your ass I would. Iran will never ever be a threat to us). People in the US need to be educated about this threat. Suit and tie businessmen have been feeding us lines of shit for years about China's intentions because it makes their pockets fat.

The way business school teaches them to think: "I'm making money, therefore all is well."

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[philwx]

Check.Every.Label.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[philwx]

"And how would you fill up your WalMarts? Americans don't manufacture anything anymore... " I didn't know America was the only country on the planet other than China? India, Taiwan (for the win), Pakistan, Vietnam, Mexico, South America *.*.. etc etc. It's this kind of thinking that is holding the public back from taking action, stop spreading this nonsense around. Not buying Made in China =/= Only buying Made in USA.

its actually good for economy

[goga_russian]

whats to worry? Chinese will make millions of shuttles at $1000 a pop even you can get one! theyre getting pretty good at copying stuff... but in general the chinese culture and upbringing educates all to do good for their country... China. NOT US. remember that little dynasty? yeah that one. -Ling Tao? -Me no Ling Tao, but for five dolla i'll make you holla !

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent - you are a dumb@ss. That is all.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[philwx]

Oops I had posted this in the wrong section, but I feel it's worth reposting here.

"And how would you fill up your WalMarts? Americans don't manufacture anything anymore... "

I didn't know America was the only country on the planet other than China?

It's this kind of thinking that is holding the public back from taking action, stop spreading this nonsense around. Not buying Made in China =/= Only buying Made in USA.

India (for the win), Taiwan (for the win), Pakistan, Mexico, South America *.*, South Korea, Singapore, even Vietnam.. etc etc.

I'll buy from any "turrist" state, before I will buy from from China.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[philwx]

I bet this guy is the same guy who said that "America doesn't manufacture anymore", when asked what we were going to do other than buying made in china. Duh - buy from other more deserving nations. He got made a fool out of, and is now posting anonymously with a grudge attack on American currency. Tada.

Civilian clearances

[joebob2000]

I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say, but whatever you want to call it, many civilians working for DoD contractors have compartmentalized clearances which give them access to highly sensitive information, way more sensitive than secret.

For example, I am sure that the almost entirely civilian staff of engineers that work at the contractors that design the numerous classified weapons systems in the military would be surprised that those 5 and 10 year background checks, polygraphs, debriefings, etc. are for a clearance somewhere between "confidential" and "secret".

If you know one of these people, you know they don't talk about it. You find out about it 10 years later in a book after its all declassified, or maybe never if there is no book.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[grumpyman]

India, Mexico, Taiwan, South Korea, Brazil, Columbia, etc. There are plenty of democracies or semi-democracies that would love to have our business.

Then I wonder why these countries aren't getting much of US business compare to China... the matter of fact is in supporting the current way of life in the US, it requires wack loads of stuff from China, period. Anybody would love to have everybody's businesses, only if you can do it.

Pot, kettle, black.

[Eunuchswear]

the cases reflect the determination of the Chinese government to penetrate US intelligence and obtain vital national defense secrets.

Whereas the US couldn't give a damn about Chinese national defense secrets.

Nah.

[jd]

The Americans stole the Shuttle from the French. The blueprints were hidden inside the Statue of Liberty's torch. The Chinese probably stole the Shuttle from the Russians. They're far more rivals. Their competing ideologies are far more a threat to each other than the Americans.

The point of spying

[identity0]

A lot of people here seem to have misconceptions about why you spy on people, especially for industrial purposes.

You don't spy on people because you hate them, you spy on them because they have something you want to know.

The top 3 countries for spying on the U.S. are usually estimated to be France, Israel and China. The reason for the majority of that is because their defence industries compete with ours, and they want the latest technologies for themselves and their customers. Now, China does also have hostile intentions towards Taiwan and other U.S. allies, but this is far less dangerous than the cold war showdown with the USSR.

information wants to be free

[doti]

.. right?

It is just outsourcing

[Anonymous Coward]

Move along, nothing to see

30 years to crack the case? Re:too much

[rhyre417]

Why DID it take 30 years to find and indict the guy?

It's as if the FBI were still using 30-year old technology, like paper files, or something.

I say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Kill Dongfan Chung for his transgressions on the US and be done with it.

I would also like to add...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would also like to add that ANNOUNCING your clearance level in a public forum is a big no-no.

China can not take credit for any technological

[a1mint]

...advances. They take and steal and reverse engineer anything.

Re:China can not take credit for any technological

[lastklim]

How did you know? Did CNN or FOX or Bush propaganda it to your tiny brain? Those sources have a fame of telling lies like massive destructive weapons in Iraq and taking your tax dollars to arm dealers. You brainwashed redneck with groundless hatred to 1/5 population of human being would not get yourself any good! Wake up!

Great news!

[Eternauta3k]

This is great news! Now that the shuttle program is coming to an end, China can pick up were the US left off!

Re:Well ... let's think that one through first, ok

[everphilski]

However ... I do see a few probl... err ... I mean of course "Opportunities" here. The first one being the opportunity to convince management in the US to pay engineers and scientists more and/or MBA's less.

I don't know how much a MBA makes, but as someone who worked for an Army contractor building missile simulations and now NASA doing heat transfer work on Ares, I think I can say with some certainty that engineers do all right. I started fresh out of by bachelors making over 50k and in under three years have increased my earnings by 25%. I have friends that are EE's and other forms of engineers who have followed similar paths, so I know I am not an abnormal case.

The second one would be to convince them to stop seeing the engineering and R&D departments as regrettable cost centers to be outsourced and/or off-shored at the first opportunity.

If you get into the right aspect of engineering, it is difficult to outsource (see: the above two examples. Having a job requiring a security clearance helps :) ) I know of a lot of IT work and call-center type work that has been outsourced, really familiar with it having worked in those environments in high school and college, but I am aware of very little outsourced engineering work. Engineering work is a lot harder to outsource.

The third opportunity would be to convince industry to offer Ph.D's opportunities (and to some extent academic entry-level positions) that make it less of a financial risk to do a Ph.D.

I haven't paid a nickle for either my Master's or PhD coursework/books/etc. Both employers paid tuition and provided a flexible work schedule around classes. Both guaranteed good on-the-spot raises upon the completion of either. There is no financial risk in doing a PhD along with work in engineering, in fact it is encouraged. The only risk you take is taking away some of your own free time.

I completed my master's in 18 months. I'm a year and a half into my PhD, all coursework completed, starting on my research. So you can't say that industry will slow down your progress, either.

Wrong target, China...

[Zerbey]

If I was a developing country wanting to get into space I'd be offering the Russians money for the blueprints to their Buran program rather than stealing information on the Shuttle from the United States. I'd be willing to bet they'd happily give them up if the price was right. Sure it was an unproven technology (at least in manned flight) but it'd be a LOT cheaper.

Re:Wrong target, China...

[Anonymous Coward]

didn't the chinese invent rocketry???
who's stealing from who?
an that Von Braun guy, wasn't he a german?

Cruelest thing we could do to them!

[elrous0]

PLEASE China, do feel free to waste billions of $ of YOUR money with nothing to show for it but a half-assed low-orbit space station, 14 dead astronauts, and a study proving that ants can be taught to sort screws in space! Knock yourself out.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[DJ_Veni]

I think, they are the biggest copycat in the world, and they aren't feeling bad to admit it. This whole scenario is complicated. Im going back to playing Starcraft and send some Ghost's to nuke some enemies :DDDD

Farming spies!

[reconrookie]

First they farm our gold...now they farm our NASA...bastards. I'm guessing the investigators found the culprits by google-ing the term 'sprace shuttle'.

Enjoy the 40 year old technology China!

[DanCentury]

The Space Shuttle tech is essentially 40 years old (if not older -- we've been using they same Nazi rocket designs since Nasa began). That said, they're China: why couldn't they build their own Space Shuttle faster, cheaper, etc?

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[Tablizer]

You silly Americans with your silly idea of democracy! Democracy != business, you shouldn't link both ideas

I did not link them. I am only saying there are friendly governments to trade with. Some democracies might not want to trade with us, and that is fine.

give it away

[ico2]

What is the point in keeping these things secret? the knowledge can be used for the good of all. Several different governments working to develop the same tech is just wasteful.

Where were theses secrets?

[cc.Scotty]

The article is a little ambiguous about the nature of the information that was stolen. However, I used to work on the Space Shuttle program at Rockwell in the early 90's, so I think I can read between the lines a little here. When I worked on the Shuttle, it was, and probably still is, and entirely declassified program. I was not aware of any part of the Shuttle that would be considered even secret, let alone top secret or higher. I'll reiterate, that I was not "aware". However, I worked in a central data management department. I had access to almost the entire design documentation of the shuttle. I had a secret clearance so I could work on other space programs. Therefore I think that if there were any secret documentation related the Shuttle I would have at least known about its existence. Back to the ambiguity of the article... I can easily see how Boeing could be the one harmed here, not the Federal Govt., as there was a lot of proprietary design in the Shuttle. If that was the sort of information that was being stolen then this is not a matter of national security, its a matter of stealing competitive business methods and information. That is an entirely different issue. Anything that was designed and built by a company without the use of tax dollars, including the design of a light bulb, could have been considered proprietary in the context of the Space Shuttle program.
If this is in fact a matter of national security, then I think it is far more likely the secrets stolen, if any, had to do with the payloads the Shuttle has carried. Prior to the Challenger accident, the Air Force used to use the Space Shuttle to boost classified payloads into orbit. Most of those payloads and the associated missions were classified.

Not a question of "why China", but "why US"

[Anonymous Coward]

Here it's ironic that some Americans are indignant over the "pillaging" of their precious nation by foreign (especially non-white) competitors. China is no stranger to being pillaged by foreigners, I assure you. The question you should be asking yourselves is not why the world's most populous nation is leveraging its weight against you, because the answer to that is obvious; the question is why your nation, once the undisputed leader of the world, is in such a position that it can be pillaged by what most accounts would consider a third-world nation. Is China becoming a greater threat or is the US simply becoming a smaller one? Hint: what's taking so long in Iraq/Afghanistan? What's this nonsense in Korea and Vietnam? America is not what it was since WWII. Europe has recovered from the ravages of that time, and so has China. They're not becoming "threats" so much as the world is getting back to an economically level field -- something that no American has had to contend with for some 60+ years. If you're not significantly older than that, it's a new and frightening proposition for you. You might even have to perform work proportionally to your income. Deal with it.

waste

[tacokill]

You keep using this word, "waste".

I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:"The Enemy"?

[sabt-pestnu]

So china is "The Enemy" now?

I think, rather, "competitor". Face it, most of the time, we don't think of England, Australia, Japan as competitors, even. China and Russia could give us a run for our money.

And even with our "friends", we spy on them, they spy on us all the time. There are just fewer secrets that we keep from them, or that they are apparently interested in. And we have a greater interest vested in keeping such things quiet, than we do with countries that we feel are more inimical.

Note your real enmity mileage will vary.

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[thomas.galvin]

Seriously. At what point do we consider a country so dangerous that we will not longer do business with it? When do we finally say "go screw yourself" to dangerous governments? As soon as those countries don't have the ability to say "oh, that's regrettable. By the way, we're cashing in all of your debt, right now. Have fun with your economic collapse."

Secrets of unemployment

[heroine]

With NASA set to lay off millions of space shuttle workers, who wouldn't give secrets to China?

Wow, I have nothing against O-Rings.

[CFD339]

I love o-rings. Some of my best friends are O-Rings.

The design they used had a flaw. The shuttle blew up. I hope the copy the spy stole contained the same flaw. End of Joke. Sorry it was the wrong kind of booster. I didn't look it up. I couldn't imagine how solid fuel would flow through something with an o-ring so I guessed liquid.

Next time, I'll raise a flag indicating a joke so you know.

Re:it's not a cost issue, and they're more frequen

[ultranova]

If anything, it probably produces false positives that single out minorities: "Have you ever done anything that might be considered amoral?" Right after sex practice questions.

Well, since absolutely everything might be considered immoral by someone, the answer is obviously "yes".

Stupid question...

Dongfan Chung

[Dretep]

This isn't a case of economic espionage in the theft of company trade secrets. It appears more like he is the foudner of the Open Source movement. He was ahead of his time!

Chinese nationals equal security risk

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever became of the old policy of governments concerning possible enemy aliens or relatives of the same in critical or sensitive government jobs? What imbecile hired this man, and what traitor cleared him for this work...or was it the other way around? I remember when first enlisting in the Air Force many years ago that the security clearers quailed at approving a security clearance for me because I had relatives in West Germany! And they were an ally! Of US!!? Now we are giving all our industry to the Chinks, all our secrets to the same chinks, and all our jobs to the chinks! If we have to go to war...scratch that..WHEN we find ourselves in a war with them (they slyly nuke us with suitcases while we are looking at arabs and not chinks), we will have to fight them shoeless and butt naked. And our only defensive gear will be rocks! This old fart has seen a lot, but this is the most unecessary security breach that I have ever seen. I do not care if this sounds 'racist'. Enough of the so called 'political correctness' self censorship that may well cost us all our lives.
Those people are our enemies. They are lying to us now. They lied to us thirty years ago when they said they had no troops in Cambodia when they plainly did. The sooner we realize that the better. The sooner we take back our jobs, our IP, and our factory production, the better.

NO!!!

[Jane Q. Public]

You have NOT been working in the private sector, so you do NOT know what it is like. Not even a little. Stop comparing apples and oranges.

It is not my intent to be condescending, but the context almost demands it: we, who actually work hard for a living, have not had it so well. Please tell us all about your hardship, AFTER you actually experience some. In the meantime, enjoy your easy ride on taxpayer dollars.

Re:NO!!!

[everphilski]

Stop comparing apples and oranges.

I've worked in the private sector. I have a number of friends from Wisconsin to Alabama who still do, both as entrepreneurs and as employees. The same benefits abound.

we, who actually work hard for a living, have not had it so well.

Thanks. Like I said, I have worked in the private sector. In fact, the company I used to work for did as much private contracting as government contracting. They started out as a private contractor before expanding into government work, and offered the same damn benefits. I worked on the government side because I enjoy the work. There just aren't that many private companies doing the level of modeling and simulation, especially the cutting-edge stuff, not using canned codes, that the government is interested in.

I can understand the hostility if you are stuck in a crappy job. I feel you. Been there, done that. Do a little research. There are plenty of companies, in all sectors of work, that realize that keeping an employee happy is the best method of business, and that paying for tuition is one of the cheapest forms of employee education.

Re:NO!!!

[Jane Q. Public]

I am not stuck in a crappy job. I have a pretty good one. But you really do have to realize that very few people in this world -- or this country today, that is for sure -- manage to get advanced degrees without spending a penny (your words). Regardless of the fact that you might have worked in the private sector (and I think it is questionable to call a company that does most or even much of its work for the government "private sector"), the simple fact is that you have described a working (and college) world that very few people see.

I was not trying to be rude, much less hostile. I was simply trying to point out to you the reality that the picture you paint is a lot rosier than a lot of other people ever see. For whatever reason, it is NOT typical.

Clarification

[Jane Q. Public]

Your education was paid for by others. Isn't that nice? Others might take 3 times as long to complete their Master's... because they actually have to WORK FOR A LIVING to make the money to afford it... and seldom have the opportunity to do both at the same time.

Really, really sorry, dude. But from one who had to struggle for every college dollar to get through anything at all, it is pretty damned difficult to sympathize. And then to have to turn around to pay tax dollars to pay to put smug assholes like you ("Oh! It's so easy!") for a free ride, when by your own statements you obviously don't even have a remote clue what the other side is like, really just pisses me off.



Enjoy my tax dollars. They are paying for your beer, while I am working weekends.

Understand this: I do not blame you for the way the system works. I do blame you for your obvious ignorance -- and smugness -- about the rest of the people around you, some of whom may have earned it a lot more than you. ( I am NOT referring to myself... but I know plenty of people who do. )

Re:it's not a cost issue, and they're more frequen

[Bored MPA]

agreed, which singles out anyone that understands morality and actually thinks about it. it will "catch" anyone with morals and anyone that associates it with the preceding sex question.

it effectively helps screen out the exact opposite of what they are looking for :)

Re:And at what point do we close the doors on them

[jesterzog]

Seriously. At what point do we consider a country so dangerous that we will not longer do business with it? When do we finally say "go screw yourself" to dangerous governments?

Well however abhorrent it might seem when you consider alleged working conditions and underhanded spying tactics from both governments, continuing business relations with a country like China makes sure that there are less incentives for those on either side to want to start attacking and killing the other. Cutting China off from the western world would probably result in another cold war sort of scenario, and I doubt the US (or anyone) wants that.

like I said

[sentientbrendan]

I think that war would be a bad idea for everyone involved.

>This would also leave a nice, large reminder to other nations to back off.

I don't know what you hope to gain aside from stoking egos. Making us look like an aggressor is *not* going to increase our national security.

Also, as I pointed out, in a major war would probably sustain significant damage from thermonuclear ICBM's. China doesn't have as many as Russia does, but they have enough.

What I was trying to point out is that economic warfare could be as effective as actual warfare given China's internal troubles, and a lot less risky.

uh, spare the politics

[tjstork]

too much privatization, and not enough oversight

Um, the best anti-US moles in history worked for the government. This guy is a piker. Aldrich Ames worked for the CIA. He forked over the names of a lot of CIA moles to the Russians, resulting in their untimely demise. But, that's just a more recent example of a long stream of Soviet infiltrators. At one point in time, the Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, was in fact, a Soviet spy. Doesn't get much more government work than that!