Slashdot Mirror
US Tech Giants Increasingly Partner With Military-Connected Chinese Companies
theodp writes: The New York Times reports that analysts and officials in the American military community are increasingly examining a recent trend among U.S. tech companies of forming new partnerships with Chinese firms that have ties to the Chinese military. Critics are concerned that the growing number of such deals could inadvertently improve the fundamental technology capabilities of the Chinese military — or worse, harm United States national security. "One Chinese technology company receives crucial technical guidance from a former People's Liberation Army rear admiral," notes the Times. "Another company developed the electronics on China's first atomic bomb. A third sells technology to China's air-to-air missile research academy. Their ties to the Chinese military run deep, and they all have something else in common: Each Chinese company counts one of America's tech giants — IBM, Cisco Systems or Microsoft — as a partner." A blurring of the lines among many companies that supply military and commercial technology makes it difficult to know what cooperation might result in technology ultimately being used by China's military. "The Chinese companies are required to do the best for their government. American companies say they are only answerable to their shareholders," said James McGregor of the consulting firm Apco Worldwide. "So who is looking out for the United States?"
The belief is that people do in fact generally tend to try to take care of themselves and their families, to "be selfish". Since that isn't going to change, when making decisions about economic systems it's wise to recognize that fact and use it to your advantage. A simple example:
A successful system requires that people work.
People want to have money.
Therefore, a system in which people get money by working is more likely to be successful.
That's technically not a -capitalist- view, it's a liberty view. Strictly speaking, capitalism is something very specific and not actually that closely related. Capitalism recognizes that:
A successful economy requires investment (ships, factories, etc). This is called CAPITAL.
Capital invested may be lost, and in any event it's unavailable for other use so long as it is invested.
Therefore, whomever puts aside their own money and rather thean spending it, invests it into capital (401k) fairly should share in the rewards generated by their investment.
That's capitalism, very simple. The opposite view is that the elite class should forcefully take your money to invest in capital, take the rewards of investment themselves, then spread those out as they see fit. That's communism. Then you have the option to mix the two, whuch is called socialism.
Unfortunately it's about as likely as solving global warming by switching power generation to clean abundant fairy dust.
Why is it unlikely? There are almost no significant disagreements between China and America. There is a dispute over some uninhabited rocks that are claimed by both China and Japan. There is also a dispute between China and the Philippines over Scarborough Shoal, which is also uninhabited. Since we have mutual defense treaties with both Japan and the Philippines, these disputes involve us. But that's it: a handful of rocks.
China has territorial disputes with India, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc. But none of those countries are American allies, so it isn't our problem.
Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, etc. are also not in dispute. America recognizes them all as part of China.
China violates the rights of Chinese citizens, but that is not something that we can control, or even significantly influence. Besides, they are no worse than many other countries that are our allies.
So why is it inevitable that America and China be adversaries? I think the main reason is that Russia is not longer a big threat, and we need a boogey man to justify the MIC. Since China has it's own MIC to appease, this mutual scare mongering works out well for everyone.
That is why I believe we should have term limits. I don't mean that one can only serve two terms like POTUS, I mean a person can serve one term in any given office. That should contain the corruption somewhat.
An inevitable retort, "What of a politician that is really good at his/her job?" Then they can run for a different office. If you do the math someone can serve a series of public offices, from school board to US senator, an stay in public office for 20 years. If you add in things like VPOTUS and POTUS, it's 30 years or so. Add in appointed offices like ambassadors, flag officers (generals and admirals), judges/justices, and cabinet positions then a person could be a public employee for their entire adult life.
Nobody is that good that we cannot find someone to replace them given the entire US population to draw from. Politicians, like diapers, needs to be changed often and for the same reason. We should not have senators who, once in office, only leave it feet first.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.