manqiangrexue
Brigadier
They cannot challenge the "led" position because there is no cohesive "they." They are scattered parts being led by the US; they couldn't pull themselves together into coherence with the US gone much less challenge it. Body parts don't challenge the head for leadership; that's just how it goes.The relationship between the US and Europe is leader and led. EU was created for the purpose of consolidating the markets of European countries and making them into a big economic blob. If that blob also gets a massive military, then the US grip will slip further. It doesn't even matter why Europe aligns with the US, it is all about control - no country or group of countries will be content to continue existing in the "led" position when they have enough power to challenge it. And for the US, the "leader - led" is the only acceptable paradigm. Otherwise, they would not be so hysterical about China.
As I understand, Erickkson is twice the size of Qualcomm and all chip manufacturing relies on ASML. You can certainly argue that the US is scientifically ahead of Europe, but not that Europe is inconsequential to American tech or that is is small enough for the US to not care.Well, whether you like it or not, the US > Europe in 5G IP and SEPs. Also, Qualcomm is ahead of both Erikkson & Nokia in 5G routers and smartphone chips.
I repeat: "When the economy gets tight, scientists have trouble getting funding for grants; that's an undebatable fact."Well, yes, as long as the USD is the primary currency, the US can print and buy whatever resources it wants while exporting the inflation - that's how it works and that's why China needs to dismantle this system ASAP. The consumption of resources by scientists is miniscule compared to the value added, especially when we are talking about applied research. Even if you have a shortage of resources, you don't throw away scientists - you find someone less useful to dispose.
That cannot be countered by how you imagine the USD works on the scientific community.
That could also mean that they thought Russia wouldn't dare fight, that Russia could be reigned in by sanctions as its economy would fall apart before Europe's, or that Russia would be so reliant on energy sales that they would keep selling no matter the terms. America does many stupid irrational things like banning sales to China despite the bans always resulting in indigenization; they cannot be analyzed logically.Everyone and their dog were talking about Europe being energy dependent on Russia, even before the war. It was obvious. The fact that they still escalated, means that they don't view recession in Europe as a big problem.
1. You continuously fail to account for the fact that it was unnecessary to bring them to the US in the first place because they were doing fine in Europe using European resources to help Western science.You yourself were talking about racism, culture, economic roots, etc., so it should be clear for you that it is going to be easier to attract European scientists to the US.
2. Racism is prevalent in the population but often less so in the scientific and highly educated community, which are more rational and seeing Chinese advances and top pay, can decide to go there.
In the end, I would agree that it is easier for the US to attract European scientists than China, but it is still a net loss that now, they have to pay for those who come, suffer the lack of productivity from those who don't, and how have to compete with those who go to China. Optimally, as I stated, they would work in the EU for the US on the EU's payroll as they would be in a healthy European economy.
True, and I stand by that assumption. The EU is not a large country; it is a band of small countries with their own identities not nearly cohesive enough to share a common hegemonic dream. Just like a country cannot have 30 kings, and animal cannot have 30 heads, the EU cannot stand as a cohesive independent pole of power.The latter part of your statement rests on the assumption that Europe was going to be forever content with being "led" no matter how big they become in terms of economy, science or military. If that assumption is incorrect, then gaining R&D potential for yourself is better.
Last edited: