Slashdot Mirror
75% of Russia's Satellite Electronics Come From US
schwit1 writes: One Russian aerospace industry expert noted today that three-quarters of all their satellite electronics comes from the United States: "According to [Nikolay Testoyedov], up to 75 percent of the electronic components for Russian satellites come from the US. Consequently, if it retaliates should Moscow refuse to sell RD-180 rocket motors to Washington — which Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin has threatened — Russia's satellite program would be frozen for at least two years. "The imported electronic components in our satellites represent 25 to 75 percent of the total in communications; in military ones, somewhat less; in commercial ones, more," Testoyedov says. Of these imported components, approximately 83-87 percent come from the United States thus giving Washington the whip hand." If we stop providing these electronics he estimates that after their present stock runs out in about a year it would take at least two years before Russia could replace these American-made parts. As the above linked article at The Interpreter mentions, this is relevant in part because of recent talks about U.S. sanctions which could affect this kind of commerce.
Or buy it direct from China, where it's actually made.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Why? Manufacturing goes overseas because it's cheaper, but when you automate the process or require skilled labor it's not really any cheaper to offshore it. In fact, according to Wikipedia the US has more chip fabs than any other country. Significantly so. In fact in general the US is third in the world (behind China and the EU) in total manufacturing output. It just doesn't have very many manufacturing jobs anymore, because most of the plants went hi-tech.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Why can't Russia just switch to Chinese-made electronics? Certain, components may be inferior to what Russia gets from the west, but it's not like Russian space or military programs would grind to halt only because of Chinese-made components.
In terms of economic and trade wars, I suspect Russia could in theory afford to shut down all of trade with USA, all of it completely, because USA is a relatively minor partner for Russia. The EU on the other hand is much more important. Lots of Russian manufactured good imports could from EU, while Russian gas and oil are exported there.
Also, Russia probably could shut down all trade and be self-sufficient. It has pretty much all naturally occurring elements and energy sources (oil, gas, coal, nuclear), so if they really wanted, they could just manufacture everything locally.
hmmm... they are and are not. It is complicated.
We have strong business interests and the chinese NEED the western markets. The chinese also have ZERO experience with modern warfare so they don't want to fight the sole remaining super power even in limited engagements. Anything capable of firing back won't be touched.
The US of course doesn't want a problem with china either. Our concern is the sea lanes. The free movement of trade goods by sea is a center piece of US strategic policy. What US strategic policy even is often not understood by most people. Most people don't understand that there is a design in the US's over all agenda.
Free trade is critical. It cannot be allowed to be threatened. The exception obviously being if it serves our interests but it rarely does.
We're generally okay with whatever china wants to do so long as they don't invade any country we're allied with, invade a country that changes our strategic posture via our allies, or interferes with trade.
If China doesn't do these things then we're going to just do business with them.
Their actions in the South China sea have been troubling because it threatens trade, upsets maritime law, and makes the US and her allies by proxy appear weak. The US is therefore going to be interested in shutting that down to protect trade lanes, preserve the maritime status quo that has existed since the Victorians, and because to not act would cost the US "face" which is quite important in diplomacy.
If you respect me and I tell you "do that and there is going to be trouble" this has a different effect than if you don't respect me and I say "there will be trouble." Do you see? A lack of respect means the US will have to prove itself by force more often. But if the US is respected then this is not necessary. The US can simply say "stop doing that" and the situation is resolved.
The dynamics of US, Chinese, and the various pacific partners of the US is complicated. The US is currently engaging in a "shift to china" policy where we're stepping down involvement in the middle east and focusing on East Asia.
Our allies in the region are asking for this change and China does not want it. So you see... there will be trouble. But China's policy has been thus far to do what it can get away with and to not do what it cannot get away with.
The problem China is going to run into is that the US is a very complex culture. We are like an onion of personalities and interests. And in different contexts, different layers of our cultural onion are preeminent. Most cultures that try to best us in something get used to the way we act in one context and then get surprised when we act a very different way in what is to us a very different context.
Take for example the attack on US embassies. Osama bin ladin believed that because the US reacted one way to attacks on their embassies that the US would act the same way if he blew up a building in Manhattan. Now from the outside, this seems logical. The US had many attacks against it by terrorists and generally didn't do anything. In one case we fired some cruise missiles at a terrorist camp which could have been abandoned for all we knew. But the attack on the trade center buildings triggered a massive response.
This is typical of American interactions with various powers that try to anticipate our reactions without understanding our culture.
Another example was the attack on Pearl Harbor by the imperial japanese. The imperial japanese had been doing things to US shipping and interests in the pacific for years. We ignored it. The japanese assumed that because we didn't react to those provocations that they could sink our pacific fleet in a surprise attack and the worst that would happen is we'd send them a strongly worded letter. Yamamoto who had gone to college in the US and had a better grasp of US culture knew that the attack would trigger a massive response. He tried to tell his peers this but they didn't believe him. So instead he did his best to make the atta
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
China is not as complex. China has a highly centralized autocratic power structure. Their commander of their military is largely the head of the country. Not the president. You can tell because in times of crisis such as TIanaman Square, the people in charge of different branches will start changing hats. And person ultimately in control will be the commander of the military. Which is again, not the president.
The ways in which china is actually simplified via its power structure are many.
In the US, the political gestalt is relevant. In china it something to be controlled but which does not impose itself on the politicians or bureaucrats.
A simplified way of thinking about the US would be to imagine a group of high school students in a stereotypical horror movie. This is useful because the stereotypes can stand in as abstractions of the political mass.
Now, watch that group of teenagers in various situations. Depending on the situation, different teenagers will be in control of the situation. The brain nerd is going to be queried for his opinion when brainy nerd stuff comes up. The macho jock guy is going to be the most relevant when there is some kind of physical threat to the group. One or some collective of the girls might be relevant in various other situation.
And so on. The point is that the people that make decisions changes based on the circumstances.
Your violent alcoholic uncle is usually a joke. But if someone in your family needs to charge into melee or risk getting a bottle cracked off his head... he's probably going to be the guy that steps up. And no one in the group is going to suppress him in that situation.
In the context of the US, the economic and business people are relevant if there is money to be made. They care about that and will buy access... and on top of that, most people appreciate that they're the best people to send into that situation because they'll know what matters and what doesn't for business.
But the way they think and their priorities are specific to their subculture.
Now if you destroy the economic interests in that situation then the business people will abandon it and you'll probably get some faction of the diplomatic wing showing up to make nice with people.
If that all goes to hell and people start getting killed, then diplomats are going to get suppressed and you'll swing over to the hawks. And the hawks naturally have a very different way of looking at the world than do the other groups. Scare the country or present some sort of credible threat to the nation and these sorts of people that normally don't get a lot of attention or authority... are suddenly the most powerful people in the society.
This rapid shift in mentality confuses other powers because they get used to dealing with one faction and they assume that faction is the whole country or will regardless call the shots in any situation.
As such, the peace and diplomacy crew are often assumed to be the only faction in the US of relevance. Enemy powers get used to the dithering of this group when there are minor hostilities. But what happens when a major incursion happens is that these people lose all power. Literally all. They're dog food. And the often irrelevant hawks step into place... and basically do this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If you don't understand American culture, then you don't grasp that the diplomatic core is the softly spoken words. And confusing that for weakness is a mistake.
The rage, ferocity, and merciless of the American people when this line is crossed is frequently a surprise to rival powers. They don't see it coming.
They get used to in some cases decades of inaction, tolerance, and unconditional forgiveness for various slights or transgressions. But the line is crossed... and things change completely.
We have far more factions than that. Different groups have more credibility in different situations. If you change the conditi
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.