LOL.

I remember looking into research on Network Centric Warfare when I was doing my MS thesis around 2000. I had a ton of ideas for cheap counters to traditional weapons systems, but the funders only wanted multi-billion-dollar solutions. They said our next wars would be asymmetric, and that they wanted expensive solutions so our enemies could not copy them.

I said we would eventually fight a symmetric war against an enemy that could out produce our industry and who designed cheaper systems.

I also said (prophetically) that the next symmetric war would be won by whoever designed and modified the best autonomous systems on the front lines and who produced the most of them. This seems to be partly happening in Ukraine.

It’s funny how people are focused on “deterring china” than fixing problems at home. For a developed country our labor protections are poor, public transport is laughable and universal healthcare system is just non-existent. US has invaded more countries than china ever did. It gets me angry when $800 billions are spent on military(Raytheon/lockheed Martin), Apple is stashing their money horde outside US for avoiding taxes and we ask teachers and poor people in general to just pick up by their bootstraps. China has definitely done bad things but definitely not as much as US. How about we take a page from their rapid infrastructure development and improving quality of life for most citizens rather than dumping money into arms dealers under the disguise of fighting “communism/socialism”.

American businesses literally created this problem in the last two decades by moving significant production to China that concentrated the supply chain in that country. The CCP now wants to use the economic wealth to bite the hand that fed it. The solution is not a military solution. The economic engine that is driving this should be cut off and there are various strategies that can be employed here. US and EU imports several non essential labor intensive products that do not contribute to better lives. For example toys. Banning these imports (bad for the environment) will cause labor unrest in China and will tie down the CCP to deal with it. Currently they are focusing on building chip fabrication, the next step will be force Apple to use these chips.

I initially wrote a fairly long piece about why this particular article is wrong, but then I went and looked into who the Hoover Institute is. Its a conservative think tank that has Kissinger as a fellow, so the hawkish attitude, anti-socialism, and mildly misleading statements of political nature all make sense.

The assumption that the US will end up in direct conflict with China is, in my opinion, contradicted by the the Chinese tendency to stay away from wars and focus on economics. They have had only minor border skirmishes and small roles in counterinsurgency in their past 50 years of existence.

I also think that we are too far in for economic warfare to be effective. Any attempt to cut off China from the US will harm the US more than China. The Hoover Institute is partially responsible for the position we are in now, as many of the US politicians that acted to encourage manufacturing abroad were fellows. They are big on free markets, and the hands of the free market determined that low cost manufacturing abroad is of greater importance than US unipolarity.

I think another major point that the article ignores is that the transition towards a market economy from a planned economy was disastrous for the USSR. The Era of Stagnation came right after market reforms, and all of the ex-Soviet countries economies tanked after the fall of the USSR

The House of Kissinger says we should be afraid of China, and the best way to assuage those fears is to spend money on the military? Quelle surprise.

[pdf]