That's not really true. Look how innovative Nazi Germany was. This is one myth that is perpetuated by the conservative right wing and it is simply not true. The Soviet Union was in fact quite innovative, and it beat the US in a number of firsts. In fact, I find the SU weapons systems to be rather surprisingly innovative, and they're certainly not afraid to pursue bold concepts.
A good example is the US vs. SU sub projects. The SU sub projects are in fact, more innovative. They got subs that are built with titanium and dive deeper, and more willing to experiment in designs which you can see with the sheer variety, like the Alfa, Typhoon and Oscar classes.
The US sub program on the other hand is the one described by the Russians themselves to be "authoritarian" and "Stalinist" because of Admiral Rickover. But then there was nothing wrong with that approach either. It was because of Rickover's "Stalinist" rule over the US sub program that there is strict rationalization and standards. Rather than trying out every design under the sun, the US sub program was conservative and very rational. But it payed off in the end by saving lives and proving the technology.
This also underlines the fact that just because your government is authoritarian, does not mean that your military development programs run the same way. And just because your government is a democracy does not meant that your military development runs the same way either.
As for the dual use technologies, what makes you think they are all American in the first place. Americans do not have monopolies in dual use technologies, far from it, especially when you are now depending on microcircuits imported from all over Asia. China developed its technologies not just from the Americans, but from the Europeans as well as from Japan, S. Korea, and not the least of all, Taiwan.
The Communist Party of China will not share the same fate as the Soviet Union did. The CCP is Communist by name only. In reality, it works like a national super corporation. It is in fact, an ultra capitalist state, where even the government is out to make money. LOL it rents out the People's Hall in Beijing to Ford or Volkswagen for them to introduce new car models. Why don't you try that with the US Congress building?
Now I wonder if you actually work in a company, because companies themselves are not democratic. From top to bottom, the Communist Party has in fact become China Inc. The Party members become the Stockholders, the People's Congress becomes the stockholder's meeting, and the board of directors becomes the CCCP or CMC. And China's president is in fact, either the Chairman or the CEO. As for the mayors, governors, etc,. they have become midlevel managers or vice presidents of departments. Each becomes accountable for their bottomline. Do you know that a mayor of a Chinese city is actually accountable for the direct economic progress of the city, like its GDP?
So in one hand, you have a US Congress and governent that is all out to tax and spend money, and so by doing faces yearly deficits. On the other hand, you have a government that is out to make money by all means possible and are full of tech savy technocrats. Who do you think will last in the end? Sometimes I wonder in fact, if its Capitalism itself as well as the social consequences of information technology may sound the death knell of democracy, leading to the rise of the Super-Corporate states like so many envisioned in Science Fiction.
Probably the most important event that took place in China in 2007 isn't the ASAT test, or showing those sub boomers. The PPP GDP revision means nothing, given that it is actually sponsored and acted in cooperation with the Chinese authorities, you wonder if there is an ulterior motive for it (China still wants to get the third world underdog symphathy and don't want to look too rich). The real big event, and quite symbolic is the birth of the trillion dollar corporation (Petro-China?), even though its all stock paper value. But all that may still even rise some more. The collusion of ultra-mega corporations + authoritarian state means eventually mean in the long term, the formation of super corporate states.
I am sorry for talking politics. But I am a cynic and rather Darwinian.
A good example is the US vs. SU sub projects. The SU sub projects are in fact, more innovative. They got subs that are built with titanium and dive deeper, and more willing to experiment in designs which you can see with the sheer variety, like the Alfa, Typhoon and Oscar classes.
The US sub program on the other hand is the one described by the Russians themselves to be "authoritarian" and "Stalinist" because of Admiral Rickover. But then there was nothing wrong with that approach either. It was because of Rickover's "Stalinist" rule over the US sub program that there is strict rationalization and standards. Rather than trying out every design under the sun, the US sub program was conservative and very rational. But it payed off in the end by saving lives and proving the technology.
This also underlines the fact that just because your government is authoritarian, does not mean that your military development programs run the same way. And just because your government is a democracy does not meant that your military development runs the same way either.
As for the dual use technologies, what makes you think they are all American in the first place. Americans do not have monopolies in dual use technologies, far from it, especially when you are now depending on microcircuits imported from all over Asia. China developed its technologies not just from the Americans, but from the Europeans as well as from Japan, S. Korea, and not the least of all, Taiwan.
The Communist Party of China will not share the same fate as the Soviet Union did. The CCP is Communist by name only. In reality, it works like a national super corporation. It is in fact, an ultra capitalist state, where even the government is out to make money. LOL it rents out the People's Hall in Beijing to Ford or Volkswagen for them to introduce new car models. Why don't you try that with the US Congress building?
Now I wonder if you actually work in a company, because companies themselves are not democratic. From top to bottom, the Communist Party has in fact become China Inc. The Party members become the Stockholders, the People's Congress becomes the stockholder's meeting, and the board of directors becomes the CCCP or CMC. And China's president is in fact, either the Chairman or the CEO. As for the mayors, governors, etc,. they have become midlevel managers or vice presidents of departments. Each becomes accountable for their bottomline. Do you know that a mayor of a Chinese city is actually accountable for the direct economic progress of the city, like its GDP?
So in one hand, you have a US Congress and governent that is all out to tax and spend money, and so by doing faces yearly deficits. On the other hand, you have a government that is out to make money by all means possible and are full of tech savy technocrats. Who do you think will last in the end? Sometimes I wonder in fact, if its Capitalism itself as well as the social consequences of information technology may sound the death knell of democracy, leading to the rise of the Super-Corporate states like so many envisioned in Science Fiction.
Probably the most important event that took place in China in 2007 isn't the ASAT test, or showing those sub boomers. The PPP GDP revision means nothing, given that it is actually sponsored and acted in cooperation with the Chinese authorities, you wonder if there is an ulterior motive for it (China still wants to get the third world underdog symphathy and don't want to look too rich). The real big event, and quite symbolic is the birth of the trillion dollar corporation (Petro-China?), even though its all stock paper value. But all that may still even rise some more. The collusion of ultra-mega corporations + authoritarian state means eventually mean in the long term, the formation of super corporate states.
I am sorry for talking politics. But I am a cynic and rather Darwinian.
