Posted on 06/26/2005 9:28:11 PM PDT by BringBackMyHUAC
China's nanotech revolution Alexandr Nemets 8/23/2004
Prior to 2000, the Chinese media made practically no mention of the concept of "nanotechnology" (nami jishu) or its potential for revolutionizing China's high tech industry. Today, however, dozens of major Chinese research centers and hundreds of enterprises engage in the production of nanotechnologies, which has quickly become a multibillion-Yuan industry. Concentrated in China's major economic centers such as Beijing, Shenyang, Shanghai, Hangzhou and Hong Kong, these urban hubs account for some 90 percent of all nanotech Research and Development.
The rapid development of China's nanotech industry is due in large part to the intervention of the central government. Apparently added to a list of priority technologies at the end of the 1990s, nanotech has enjoyed state funding since then through National 863 Hi-Tech R&D Plan. The plan provided huge investments for nanotech projects from both the central and local governments. It seems that the Chinese leadership had plans to transform their nanotech industry by 2010 – with the hope of making it comparable to China's microelectronics, telecom, and other high-tech industries.
Remarkably, developments within the industry have been both civilian and military in purpose, though the latter has, of course, enjoyed a higher degree of priority. Strategists within China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) understand perfectly well the significance of nanotechnologies in military reforms within the United States over the last twelve years. With this in mind, China has actively cooperated with leading nanotech companies in the United States and Europe. It seems reasonable to assume, also, that such cooperation is well underway with the Russian Federation.
Major Nanotech Complexes
In July 2001, Shanghai Nanotech Promotion Center (SNPC) was established to focus on R&D and the industrialization of tools needed for nanotech research. (Shanghai had already started work on a $217 million Stone Nanotechnology Port in May of that year.) [1] Also in July, the Shanghai city government announced that it would soon open a nanotech base, uniting three, state-level research centers, several laboratories focusing on nano-materials, and eleven additional companies specializing in the commercialization of R&D products.
The first phase of construction, near East China Science and Technology (S&T) University, was finished within the month, and 76,000 square meters immediately became available for nanotech firms. Plans had been made for an additional 200,000 square meter facility at the same location, but in August, the Shanghai Municipal S&T Commission announced the city would concentrate its resources to focus on research and industrialization over the next four years (2001 to 2005). The intent of the project was to dramatically improve China's nanotech R&D and commercialization, particularly in nano-materials, nano-electronic components and nano-biological/medical technologies. The Shanghai S&T Commission stated that it would also set up a nanotech incubator program. At that time (July 2001), there were already twenty institutions engaged in nanotech development in Shanghai. [2]
Less than a year later, in May 2002, the Shanghai S&T Commission announced its intent to provide further investment opportunities and preferential treatment to nanotech-related companies. Zhu Jiping, Director of the Commission, was quoted as saying: "In 2001, Shanghai government invested 30 million Yuan in nanotech – nano-biology, nano-medicine and nano-electronics; this laid solid foundation for nano-sector. We are now pushing nanotech development to 2nd stage – nanotech products industrialization. Shanghai's government will accelerate the application of nanotech in different industries, especially automotive products."
This push to accelerate Shanghai's nanotech production was echoed by Shanghai Nanotech Promotion Center's (SNPC) new director Niu Xiaoming: "At this second stage, SNPC will help companies in the nano-sector to improve their advanced technologies. SNPC strives to establish an information network linking all professionals in the sector. Currently six nanotech R&D centers – built in such leading Shanghai universities as Jiaotong University, Fudan University, East China University, East China Normal University, Shanghai University and East China S&T University – are exchanging their latest nanotech results through this network." [3] By mid-2002, Shanghai had developed an extensive nanotech infrastructure, which led to the rapid development of nanotechnologies throughout 2003 and 2004.
At the same time as Shanghai was experiencing its nanotech boom, Beijing was also investing heavily in this new industry. The Center for Nanotechnologies at the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) in Beijing opened in 2000. Uniting over a dozen CAS institutes and several university laboratories, the aim of the center was to upgrade scientific cooperation while accelerating nanotech industrial development in Beijing. Just one year later, in December 2001, Beijing's Tsinghua University announced a new approach to the production of carbon nano-tubes at a rate of 15 kilograms per hour, 60 times faster than the speed at which they had originally been produced. [4]
In November 2002, CAS launched a joint project with the U.S. company, Veeco Instruments Inc. The CAS Institute of Chemistry and Veeco agreed to cooperate in the running of a nanometer technology center aimed at providing access to Veeco-made nanotech instruments to Chinese researchers, including atomic force and scanning-tunneling microscopes. The center would also provide the Institute of Chemistry's molecular nanotech R&D division with "super-advanced" measuring and controlling devices. The Institute's chief researcher, Chen Wang, has worked closely with CAS vice president Bai Chunli to ensure support for his work on molecular nanotechnologies.
The partnership between CAS and Veeco came amidst great optimism regarding China's nanotech potential. "China will gain the leadership position in nanotech," remarked Veeco President Don Kania at the opening ceremony. This bold statement of confidence in Chinese nanotech superiority was affirmed by Bai Chunli, CAS vice-president and chief scientist of the National Coordinating Committee for Nanotech, who stated simply: "China enjoys the advantage in research of nanometer materials." By the time the center opened, China had more than 300 enterprises in the nanotech sector, with some 7,000 scientists engaged in nanotech R&D.
The CAS-Veeco center was just one part of China's plan to establish a national nanotech infrastructure. At the end of March 2003, CAS, Peking University and Tsinghua University announced a joint National Center for the nation's long-term nanotech development. Approved by the State Council, the Center will enjoy an early-stage state investment of 250 million Yuan ($30 million). The Central government has budgeted two billion Yuan (about $240 million) for nanotech projects between 2003 and 2007; another 2 to 3 billion Yuan is due from local governments. [5]
This heightened investment in nanotech has not been limited to Beijing, however. At the end of June 2001, CAS and China's Ministry of Science and Technology unveiled the Shenyang National Laboratory for Materials Science (SYNL). The newly established laboratory is expected to compete with its counterparts in the United States, Japan and Germany. [6] And, in November 2003, a Nanotech Park was established in Xian. Hong Kong has also developed a large complex of nanotech industries, while Zhejiang University in Hangzhou became the center of nanotech R&D and industrialization in the prosperous Zhejiang province.
At the present time, some thirty institutions are engaged in basic nanotech research. These include CAS Physical Institute, CAS Chemical Institute, CAS Solid Physics Institute (Hefei), Tsinghua University (Beijing), Beijing University, Hangzhou University, Nanjing University, and several universities in Shanghai. In addition, Shanghai, Beijing, and Shenzhen have each created their own Nanotech Centers, uniting local R&D structures. In terms of basic nanotech R&D, China has reached the most advanced levels in the world, rivaling even the capacities of the United States.
Dr. Alexandr Nemets is a specialist in PLA development and Sino-Russian relations. He is the author of several books and articles on a wide variety of topics relating to China.
Notes: 1. Asiaport Daily News (www.smalltimes.com), Shanghai, July 19, 2001 2. Xinhua Agency, Shanghai, Aug. 7, 2001 3. China Daily, Beijing, May 13 2002, p.3 4. (Asiaport Daily News (www.smalltimes.com) HK, Dec 17, 2001 5. Renmin Ribao, November 21 2002 6. Renmin Ribao, June 29 2001
"They might have hundreds even thousands J8, J11, H16, JH7 fighter and attack aircraft squirreled away."
Never mind the aircraft: what about the pilots?
Chinese pilots get about as many flight hours in one year as their American counterparts get in one month. If they're hauling equipment out of storage, they're doing the same with pilots. They'd probably lose over 10% per sortie just to accidents.
"If they go nuke in the Taiwan Strait and around Taiwan (but avoid Taiwan mainland) that will nullify US advantage at the same time make it difficult for US to engage nuclear."
But would the Chinese national leadership be willing to bet their personal survival on that assumption? US nuclear forces would most likely be targeted on known and suspected relocation sites for the Chinese government.
You did in post #36:
"I believe that in order to protect our national security and sovereignty we can withdraw from the Chinese economy... and make their goods prohibitive."
Withdrawing U.S. foreign investment...and redressing...balancing their artificial trade advantage... does not mean a complete ban on "commercial relations." It means trade may carry forward, but without U.S. subsidies of FDI, no OPIC insurance, no Ex-Im Bank loans, no World Bank loans, and the Chinese imports to the U.S. will be under the restrictions of the lawful Smoot-Hawley tariff, which is the legal regimen in place when Permanent Most Favored Nation Status is revoked. This 50% tariff rate applies, and makes their goods more prohbitive. But not banned.
We will be sending a message to China and its oppressed people. "We are against your evil communist government, which has been profiting off your exploitation." Hence, I do not "oppose commercial relations." They are free to buy us much, or more, commodities from us as now, with no taxes whatsoever.
Do you intend to attack private U.S. foreign investment in China? What 'artificial advantage' trade advantage do you percieve? Their lower wage rates aren't artificial. Furthermore, their currency manipulation is no better or worse than ours. In fact, they tied their currency to ours to avoid harm by our manipulation. If our currency was tied to real assets instead of a tacit promise from the Federal Reserve to not run the printing presses at Weimar speeds you might have a point there.
It means trade may carry forward, but without U.S. subsidies of FDI, no OPIC insurance, no Ex-Im Bank loans, no World Bank loans,
I'd happily jettison all U.S. government trade intervention, with all countries.
and the Chinese imports to the U.S. will be under the restrictions of the lawful Smoot-Hawley tariff, which is the legal regimen in place when Permanent Most Favored Nation Status is revoked. This 50% tariff rate applies, and makes their goods more prohbitive. But not banned.
And you think hammering American consumers for 50% higher taxes on goods they purchase is a good idea? Have you considered what that will do to their standard of living? Free trade is a process of mutual advantage, which you seem hellbent on placing Washington, D.C. in the midst of.
We will be sending a message to China and its oppressed people. "We are against your evil communist government, which has been profiting off your exploitation."
I rather spend my energy freeing oppressed U.S. citizens from the evil government that profits by extracting 5 months in taxes for every year's labor. But politicians benefit most from pointing to external threats, real and imagined.
Hence, I do not "oppose commercial relations." They are free to buy us much, or more, commodities from us as now, with no taxes whatsoever.
Have some respect for yourself. Don't say "I do not oppose commercial relations" and then propose a 50% tariff. That's disengenuous at best.
"Most likely true, in a mass blitzkrieg type assault they are willing to absorb these losses(based on past ChiCom response)"
Lose 10% per sortie due to accidents, plus combat losses, plus coping with the inevitable counter-air campaign that attacks your airfields and aviation infrastructure, and you will very quickly lose your air force.
"If the ChiComs don't nuke any US territory or US mainland, will the the US be able politically to respond nuclear in the Taiwan theater?"
Yes. Once the nukes come out, everyone will decide that the ChiComs are stone-f***ing-crazy, and they'll treat China as a mad dog. You handle a mad dog by killing it.
Now the next item of yours is priceless:
And you think hammering American consumers for 50% higher taxes on goods they purchase is a good idea?
Oh, "they purchase" them? What about the middle-men who don't give the "consumers" a choice? So you don't think they will somehow find a cheaper alternative to Chinese goods over at WalMart or Target? I do. You must not think very highly of their managements.
Have you considered what that will do to their standard of living?
You guys should have thought of that before you tried to make the U.S. dependent on an enemy nation. Best to shut them down now before the currency is totally debauched and our last industry destroyed. I suspect that it is really YOUR standard of living you are worrying about, not some selfless concern for your fellow American...if indeed you really are one. In any event, I would surmise you likely make your living by importing from China. IF so, then you are a part of the problem, and have proceeded in this conversation under cover of anonymity to advance a duplicitous position.
Free trade is a process of mutual advantage, which you seem hellbent on placing Washington, D.C. in the midst of.
I reiterate. We don't currently have free trade. Note, China has massive tariffs against us right now. They are in violation of virtually all their WTO requirements. From recognizing and protecting intellectual property law, tariff phase-outs, de-pegging and floating their currency, eliminating partner joint venture requirements, allowing employee freedoms of movement and defending their wages. Etc. China does not currently permit unprotected trade...
Trade requires that they honor and respect property rights. Newsflash: They are still communist. I bet you haven't read their "Constitution."
And at the same time advocate policies to make trade prohibitively expensive. Do you know what prohibit means?
Free trade, is mis-claimed by your China apologist side.
Stick to what I say, don't construct strawmen and then argue against them.
Free trade is not what we have currently.
Agreed, our government can only ensure it doesn't interfere with us.
we have allowed their GOVERNMENT to dictate all the terms of trade and all the players. Hence we have artificial trade constructs.
How other people are restricted in their ability to trade is beyond the purview of our government.
Look at the wage differential between Hong Kong and Taiwan versus mainland China.
Do you think Hong Kong achieved it's wage power by restricting trade with the world?
Oh, "they purchase" them? What about the middle-men who don't give the "consumers" a choice?
Consumers decide whether to purchase anything. The middle-men look the world over for goods that consumers will decide help improve their living standards. You want to cut off a source for those goods, or at least make them 'prohibitively expensive'.
So you don't think they will somehow find a cheaper alternative to Chinese goods over at WalMart or Target? I do. You must not think very highly of their managements.
Economic adjustments are not automatic, and while you squander billions of dollars of investment in productive facilities by government fiat it's the American consumers and the companies they invest their savings in who will feel the pinch.
You guys should have thought of that before you tried to make the U.S. dependent on an enemy nation.
You guys? You missed the most important aspect of Washington's address - the desire on the part of some to constantly create enemies as justification for enlarging the sphere of the state. Already in this thread you want to prop up China as an enemy in order to exert control from Washington, D.C. over the rights of Americans to trade as they see fit.
Best to shut them down now before the currency is totally debauched and our last industry destroyed.
The debasement of the U.S. currency is a function of government debt. China is powerless to debase our currency, it's because of the GOP controlled Congress's profligacy that our currency is made worth less and less. I wish the GOP was honest about smaller government.
I suspect that it is really YOUR standard of living you are worrying about, not some selfless concern for your fellow American.
My living standard is tied to the cost of goods as any other American.
if indeed you really are one.
Oh boy, already moved into baseless personal attacks. This is going downhill fast. I wish you didn't feel the need to distract from the subject of what the policies you propose would do to American's standard of living.
In any event, I would surmise you likely make your living by importing from China.
You're wrong.
I reiterate. We don't currently have free trade.
I know that, I just don't share your assumption that creating more trade barriers will make trade more free.
Trade requires that they honor and respect property rights. Newsflash: They are still communist. I bet you haven't read their "Constitution."
Does it protect property rights like our Constitution did for the citizens of New London, Connecticut? I'm honestly not interested in how their government, or any other government, treats it's citizens and observes their rights. I'd rather keep the U.S. a free place for the lovers of liberty to flee the repression in the rest of the world.
Let me distill the difference in our positions, as I see it. You think we can achieve a better standard of living for Americans by letting the U.S. government manage our trade, erecting barriers as seen fit by politicians who are flooded with money and perks by lobbyists each looking to carve advantages for themselves at the expense of 300 million American consumers. You think the communist Chinese planners who can't figure out how many shoes to make have the knowledge and foresight to properly manage their nation's production via subsidy and trade restrictions to outperform free market economies in generating wealth. You probably also confuse the number of people employed in a particular economic sector as indicative of that sector's productive capacity. You probably don't realize that manufacturing as a portion of the labor force is shrinking globally (even in China), while the amount of goods produced is increasing (particularly in the U.S.). I fear that you percieve the employment of labor as a game of musical chairs, and feel like tomorrow a chinaman might be sitting in yours. In my view the number and type of labors consumers seek are unlimited, and it is the process of the market to determine who will fill which roles and at what rates.
The saddest thing is, ChiCOM H1Bs work in US government labs who are doing nano research. So even whatever efforts we are doing are being heavily compromised.
That's what wishful thinkers said to themselves prior to the rise of the Central Powers, the Axis and the Communist Bloc.
Why bother engaging in such futile activities when we could be selling real estate?
If it's such a joke, then how is it that they've now got their own semiconductor, computer and other high tech companies, who are increasingly competing with Western, Japanese and Taiwanese ones? It's not all reverse engineering either. You may or may not have exposure to this - I read lots of technical journals. Guess who writes the most papers in most of the high tech fields? It ain't us Americans any more. And of the foreigners doing the writing, people in the PRC are in the top 5. In some fields (for example, lasers) they are number 1.
China absolutely has R&D and it is growing exponentially. Your "facts" are years (if not decades) old. Your understanding is based on 1980s conditions. Wake up!
Ping
I would take it further. Prepare for great war with the PRC as well as perhaps, an entire Axis including them and a number of other countries.
In some areas, they have unique technology, driven by their radically different ways of living. Take for example high speed water travel. Due to delayed investment in roads until the late 1980s, they focussed intensely on high speed cats, hydrofoils, hovercraft and the like. The main application has been passenger ferries but military apps have also been pursued. With the handover of HK and Macao, all of that tech got incorporated. There are no places in the West like the Pearl Delta, with its lifestyle of people living in densepack clinging to the water. Their life style has driven regional technology. Considerable additional examples exist. They simply do things differently, and have for thousands of years, and this leads to unique, indigenous tech.
The muck heads at GE are totally blind to geopolitics. They have six sigma up their posteriors and get quasi orgasmic when decribing how they are using sigma to build greenfield sites in the PRC to build jet engines and their parts. To them, hiring locals who are PhDs and who, on the surface, become little GE clones (but may, or may not be, PLA / ErBu / etc on the side) is considered a victory. To them success will be the day when the PRC ops are the largest. No thought whatever has been given to appropiation by the state, or forced sale to a PRC company. Such risks do not exist in their universe. To theirs, and our, peril!
I'm awake.
But if China is so far advanced why do they need the US to build them nuclear reactors? (Clue none of their nuclear subs doesn't leak radaiation)
Why does China need GE to show them how to build a jet airplane engine?
For semi-conductors I'll take American designed chips and fabrication processes. They are making jelly bean chips, not designing state of the art processors or fabs.
Why do they keep buying aircraft from Russia?
Or ships?
And you know this how? Personal inspection of flight logs? Or could it be, that disinformation, portraying lack of training, is fed to the West. "When you are strong, appear to be weak."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.