The internet is the creation of a US-government defense project, using US-developed computer tech, fostered by US industry. The internet is a digital ocean which other people and nations surf about in.
Now pirates (Russian pirates in particular) are sailing about, attacking different countries on this ocean. As with the physical ocean, nations can either ally together to defend themselves, or try to do it piecemeal. It would be best if an allied response was presented in the cyber realm.
This ties back into the title of the thread. The USA is independent in most major things, but not all. We are presently dependent on foreign countries to produce semiconductors, and digital devices like cell phones. If you think these are not necessary, consider that most of the American population under age thirty would die within a week if deprived of their cell phones .
The same Achilles heel is true for our allies. Which may inform the question as to why the Taiwan Strait has been frequently patrolled by NATO ships lately, and why the G7 began talking about the issue. Taiwan is a major source of semiconductor and digital device production.
The physical and digital realms are interdependent. The USA will need a strong USN to protect the sea lanes in order to ensure access to the digital ocean America created. Everyone enjoys that ocean, and everyone is equally at threat from piracy and war on it. Therefore, nations allied with the USA should pay their fair share of protecting that ocean, or go it alone financially.
(MInd you, I am not one that takes all NATO countries to task over not paying more for their own military. The UK is doing a great job, for instance.)
The US is only dependent on foreign production capacity due to profit margins and cheap labor. Ingenuity and invention are fostered by western democracies where ideas can flourish. Recent times are dictating a recalibration, but we are not beholden to anyone or any party to the point of absolute dependence. It’s a matter of convenience over necessity which is a choice. Not many countries have the option to choose. The bets are already being hedged by building semiconductor capacity in the US due to the recent shortage, but this will be measured for a reason. The train of thought that a free market will benefit all parties and change attitudes as living conditions improve did not translate to regimes. This experiment is pretty much over, the quantitative data has been analyzed, and the conclusion is evident. There is a theory that Taiwan’s role as a democracy far out ways any technical expertise in terms of semiconductors. In other words, there is a political benefit to having the scales tipped toward some technical dependence on Taiwan’s industries for no other reason than to consolidate support for the democracy - not because of cell phones.
The matter to me seems to be purely of one of money. I’m all for semiconductor manufacture being resurrected in America. But for that to happen, it will take subsidies, and ‘subsidies’ is a bad word to many Americans.
It will always be cheaper to manufacture semiconductors and digital devices overseas. The only way to overcome this price disadvantage is subsidies funded by taxes. I’m all for it, if that’s what it takes. But how many people here are going to beg to be taxed more, for subsidies for an industry they are not a part of?
The same thing holds true for the merchant marine. Every six months here someone gets on a high-horse about how the U.S. merchant marine is dying, and how important it is, yadda, yadda, yadda. What they should be doing is finding a way to convince the majority of senators to subsidize the USMM.
The nasty truth is that the glory days of the USMM depended on operational and construction subsidies. No one wants to talk about that skeleton in the closet. Similarly, if we want to talk about resurrecting the semiconductor industry in the USA we need to talk first about government subsidies for that vital industry, funded by taxation.
Taiwan Semiconductor is building a big new plant in the US to diversify production outside the grasp of China.
We all know it’s just a question of time (next year, next decade, next century) before China takes Taiwan and there won’t be much that we can do about it. Nor should we.
Maybe we need to stop subsiding virtually every foreign country by providing them with a super expensive to us, but free to them, defense.
We should stop subsidizing China by providing them free access to the Worlds best consumer market. Cut them off. The Chinese military would run out of funding to build the Worlds largest navy pretty quickly.
All the Chinese spies posing as students, researchers, businessmen, etc., need to be sent home.
The US needs robust domestically produced , US only chips, computers, phones, and software, that is never exported. That would go a long way toward defeating most foreign hacking and ransomware.
History repeats its self, we have had Pax USA for the last 76 years and before that we Pax Britannica prior to the Second World War for 100 years during which time the US prospered.
It was news to me that we import so much of our food to New Zealand. Maybe if we stop importing exotic ingredients the population will have to go back to meat and three vegatables.
Which is great. From Reuters [June 1, 2021], here’s how it’s being paid for: TSMC is expected to be one of several companies, including Intel Corp and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, competing for some of the $54 billion in subsides for the chip industry that advanced in the United States Senate last week.
Like I said, I’m all for subsidizing the semiconductor industry. I just want to be up front that it will cost taxpayers. An aircraft carrier costs $12.5 billion make, and then $200 million to $400 million a year to operate. If we have our own SC industry at $54 billion worth of subsidies, are we going to downsize the USN? I’d vote No. So we may be paying for both the SC industry and the Navy. We can save a little money, I agree, by not protecting Saudi Arabia,
Ok by me, but what do we tell the senators from the Great State of BigAg? The corporations they represent will lose about 17% of their earnings if we suddenly stop buying Chinese goods, because China will retaliate by reducing the buying of American agricultural products. The Chinese will switch to Brazil and Australia and Canada for rice, wheat and pork.
Whatever we do re: China trade, China will retaliate. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be doing something, but we need to be realistic about the consequences. Trade wars aren’t easy. They take time, and there will be casualties (i.e. farmers losing business). Anything we gain in manufacturing production will be offset to some degree by loss of agricultural exports, at least in the short term. Will the senators from the Great State of BigAg vote for their constituents to take it in the shorts in order for the manufacturing sector to prosper?
Observer status and protecting the rights of allies is a well-positioned strategy for the time being. Until these multilateral dog and pony shows actually turn into signatories adhering to stated principles, it will be hard to get a 2/3rd Senate majority to sign on to it.
Not gonna happen. As anchorman says it requires a super majority in the Senate.
People think we don’t sign treaties like this or the Paris accord because we are arrogant or because The Republicans and Democrats love to fight.
There might be some modicum of truth in both those statements but it has nothing to do with the reluctance to sign treaties.
The truth is the system is designed by our founding fathers to keep us out of International entanglements. And not just international affairs but any progressive issues. The real political power in my country is concentrated in the senate and While each individual senator does not have much power to do anything constructive alone, Just one (or a handful of senators) do have the power to kill bills and treaties. So you really need a lot more than 3/4 buy in.
Again this was by design by our founding fathers And our system different from that of almost every other country. The reasoning behind it was to put a break on radical new ideas.
The last time they actually got things done was during the Kennedy administration when Lyndon Johnson was running the Senate… but then he pissed away all his power by entangling us in Vietnam.
Looks like someone decided to try and prove me wrong:
That said I’m sticking to my original theory. They are just using the term to justify action against one specific country, not to secure global shipping lanes.
South China Sea is getting crowded with warships lately. I see even the Indian navy is getting in the act…
“to expand security ties with friendly countries…[later] the Indian ships will take part in annual joint war drills involving the United States, Japan, and Australia off the coast of Guam.The four countries make up the Quad, an informal group that U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration is promoting as a way to counter an assertive China."
Also interested to read the the Royal Navy won’t just be passing through. At least right now they’re thinking of keeping two ships in “Asian waters” permanently. When was the last time that happened? 1999?
British withdrawal from “East if Suez” was in 1971. They did have some presence in HK, but that ended in 1997 with the handback of their colony to China.
PS> We arrived from East Indonesia through Riau Strait, seeing the last British vessel (HMS Mermaid) leaving from Sembawang Naval Base coming past Johor Buoy ahead of us, flying the “paying off” pennant.
HMS Mermaid:
The United States also had significantly more presence in The South China Sea but that ended in 1991 when mount Pinatubo exploded we closed Subic Bay naval base and Clark air base in 1992.
Naval Station Subic Bay and Clark were the number 1 and 2 largest overseas defense facilities before the explosion.
The highly acclaimed british Author Simon Winchester devotes a chapter to each in his must read book Pacific:
You are aware that the Empire’s lease on HK expired and it was a peaceful handover that both parties agreed to in 97 right? Not even close to comparable to the PRC trying to force the ROC back into their domain by force.
.
