The past, present and future of China US relations!

Spread the love

Author: Wang Tao source: pure science (id:chunkexue)

1? Dramatic changes in China US relations

The relationship between China and the United States is still one of the focuses of domestic public opinion. The main views are nothing more than these two:

First, “the United States is still very powerful, and China should keep a clear head”.

The other is “the United States is no longer good, China is very strong”.

These two views seem to be contradictory, but they are essentially the same, that is, China US relations are extremely important and should be the core of our attention. Therefore, a large number of domestic media will be busy analyzing any new news in the United States, whether it is the president, Congress or think tanks. The specific words are different, but the performance of “you have to run out and talk about it” is the same. But what I want to say is that these two views and attitudes are very wrong. It is not the right judgment or the wrong one on Sino US relations, but paying too much attention to Sino US relations is wrong in itself.

I have long emphasized that China US relations are no longer the main concern of China, but due to the inertia of history, many Chinese people are still immersed in paying too much attention to China US relations. Therefore, we need to further discuss the essence of China US relations. To sum up, the core idea of this article is that China US relations are changing rapidly, from “extremely important that can’t be overemphasized” in the past to “not so important” now, and will soon become “at best, it doesn’t matter” in the near future (3 to 5 years). Especially as Chinese elites, we need to be particularly clear about what the Chinese people need to care about most today. The view that “the United States is no longer good, China is very powerful” seems to be flattering China on the surface, but in fact it is a “less promising” attitude. Just like a heavyweight boxer with a weight of more than 91kg who constantly says that he should maintain self-confidence in front of a 48kg player and be able to defeat his opponent, this is not only a performance of confidence, but also a mentality of taking the United States as a spiritual sustenance. Although it can’t be said that the heavier the weight, the stronger it must be, is it a matter of honor in any sense for a heavyweight player with a weight of more than 91 kilograms to lie down with a heavyweight player with a weight of 48 kilograms? Moreover, China is more than four times the size of the United States, which is the sum of all developed countries. It is also half more than Europe, which is far greater than the difference between the maximum and minimum heavyweight regulations of international boxing professional competitions. It’s not a matter of pride for China to surpass the United States. That’s not our ideal, but at most a recent phased, small, small “Small goals” of. Do we have any special feelings when China’s economic aggregate surpassed that of Japan in 2010? It seems not. Although not long ago, if someone said that China’s economic aggregate would surpass Japan, many Chinese people would also say that this is delusion. Now China’s economic aggregate is 3.5 times that of Japan, and it will soon become a 4-fold gap. Do we have any special feelings? Basically not. China’s total industrial output value is already the sum of the United States, Germany and Japan, and will soon become the sum of all developed countries. Do you have any special feeling? Still not. This article is to give a clear proof of this general trend with the mentality we should have.

2? The past of China US relations has traversed all States from allies to enemies

The past of China US relations is relatively easy to talk about clearly, because it is already a historical fact, and it is not too far away, and many people still have their own memories. It is just to make people generally understand that a psychological adjustment is needed, because there are too many artificially superimposed chaotic understandings on the issue of China US relations. To sum up in one sentence, China US relations have experienced both extremes and intermediate states, from allies to enemies, in the past century. Of course, in the alliance between China and the United States during World War II, China was still in charge of the Kuomintang, so it is not completely comparable. But even in the early stage of reform and opening up, China and the United States were close to allies, but obviously they did not really become allies of the United States. Later, it was in a state of “fighting without breaking” for a long time, which is also the clear positioning of the Chinese government for Sino US relations. This state is between allies and enemies. In other words, if we look at the time scale of a hundred years, the relationship between China and the United States can be accurately expressed as [enemy, ally] in mathematical terms, and it is (enemy, ally) from the time point of reform and opening up. The difference between square brackets and parentheses is whether they contain or do not contain boundary points. The interval with parentheses at both ends is, in vernacular, “China US relations are no better or worse.”. Where is “where”? The former “where” is “the boundary point that can approach infinitely but will not include allies”, and the latter “where” is “the boundary point that can approach infinitely but will not include enemies”. Why should we clarify these? Because it can be understood from this: many descriptions and understandings of the current Sino US relations are too far off. For example:

Sino US relations can never go back to the past. This judgment is obviously very wrong. No matter how the development of Sino-U.S. relations is in the historical range. Even if we fight again and are in a state of hostility, it is not uncommon. It just changed from (enemy, ally) to [enemy, ally] (note that square brackets are in front of it and parentheses are behind it). From the perspective of a century, it is still a subset of China US relations [enemy, ally] in history. Why should someone say that China US relations can never go back to the past? In fact, we are subconsciously frustrated by a general trend: the United States will no longer be the spiritual sustenance of the Chinese people, and we have not completely found out what our spiritual sustenance really belongs to.

On the decoupling of China US relations. Even if it is decoupled, no matter how far it is decoupled, it is still a subset of previous historical relations. Moreover, now from the Chinese side, no matter how much trouble the United States makes, what China should do or do. Try your best to do what you can, and if you can’t do it, pull it down. From the American side, he cannot leave China. Trade war the United States has increased tariffs on Chinese goods, and now he wants to take the initiative to reduce them, because its domestic inflation is too big to bear. It’s just that the United States wants China to follow its lead. China has been indifferent to the tariffs that the United States has increased to us in the trade war, because it has been proved that more than 90% of the cost of the trade war is borne by the United States. In that case, why should we follow him to reduce it? Therefore, China not only does not reduce taxes with the United States, but also reduces export tax rebates, and in turn increases export tariffs on some products exported to the United States. Therefore, it is not that China cannot afford decoupling, but that the United States cannot afford it. It should be understood that many goods exported to the United States are not necessarily produced by Chinese enterprises, but may be produced by foreign enterprises or even American enterprises. China will reduce tax rebates and increase export tariffs, which is a rebalancing of interests.

At least in the past more than 40 years since the reform and opening up, we have treated China US relations as first-class diplomatic relations. But we all know that listening to the language of diplomatic relations cannot be simply heard from the surface. When China US relations are really extremely important, we do not say that China US relations are the most important every day, but often “strongly protest” against the United States. However, after entering the 21st century, for a period of time, we have been saying that China US relations are very important, extremely important, and important to the extent that “it can’t be overemphasized”. When we say this publicly and frequently in diplomatic occasions, you should understand that it is like a girl saying to a boy: you are really a good, good person. If this man hears it as a girl who really thinks she is good and good, it is only a personal misunderstanding at most. When China’s public importance to Sino-U.S. relations continues to increase verbally, in fact, the importance of Sino-U.S. relations has been declining rapidly. If you don’t understand this kind of diplomatic language, there will be huge and even fundamental deviations in the study of international relations.

It is only because of the inertia of history that many people cannot understand. If China US relations are not very important, the most important and particularly important, what issues should we consider? Scolding the United States is actually another form of expression that cannot be separated from the United States ideologically. I don’t know what to think or do without the United States. Will Chinese people now be keen to scold Spain? Definitely not. Why? Boring! Too boring! But now, whether it’s scolding the United States or praising the United States, many Chinese still feel very interesting. It’s a spiritual sustenance, but the way of sustenance is different. But what I want to tell the Chinese is that no matter praising or scolding the United States, it will soon feel boring. The Chinese people must quickly find something really interesting in the future and find spiritual sustenance that does not depend on the United States. That is, we should think about problems according to our future development needs. What is the biggest challenge that the Chinese people really face? It is not the containment of the United States, but the loss of the spiritual pillar of the United States.

3? The relationship between China and the United States is not so important now

Now we need to recognize one thing in particular: China US relations have changed from “extremely important” to “not so important”. Why? Let’s start with the “great change that hasn’t happened in a century”. This word is really very important, but so far many people have not understood its importance. Many scholars have made various interpretations of “what is the greatest change in a century”, but in fact, it doesn’t matter how the Chinese interpret it. What matters is the timing, expression and occasion of this sentence, and how people in the United States and other countries will understand it. Once viewed from this perspective, its significance is easy to understand.

In the past, China’s expression of its highest goal and ideal was “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation”, which has been constantly put forward in important documents since the third generation of leaders. How will Americans understand it? They may or may not take it seriously. Because no matter which country will say that they are great, to do great things, to become a great country. India is always saying that it wants to become a great country. However, as soon as the new generation of leaders took office, they constantly mentioned the “great changes that have not been seen in a century”, not only within China, but also repeatedly to diplomats and all foreign guests on various diplomatic occasions. At first, some people in the academic circles said it should be “not in 300 years”, and others said it should be “not in 500 years”. It seems more arrogant to say it for a longer time. However, the central government has always been locked in the expression of “none in a century”. Of course, “not in a hundred years” can be understood as “not in a hundred years”, but it is obviously easier to understand as “not in this hundred years or so”. This is not to be modest, but to say too much time will lose its accurate meaning. This will directly bring about a problem: what is the biggest change in the past 100 years, and then we can understand what is bigger than this change today. If you were an American elite, what would you think? It’s been a hundred years since the United States became the world’s leader. But now you, China, want to say “a great change that hasn’t happened in a hundred years”. What do you mean? You taste, you taste. How will politicians and leaders of other countries understand this sentence? You can also taste it carefully. What will they think in their hearts? Will they feel “really interesting” after tasting it.

When I first heard this sentence many years ago, I was shocked to tell the truth, because I instantly tasted the meaning of the above need to be tasted, but I couldn’t say it in public in the past few years. Then why can we say it now? Because I found that the Central Committee has not emphasized this sentence too much, that is, the purpose of saying this sentence has been achieved, and it can even be summarized. Of course, there are many people who have tasted the meaning of this sentence at the beginning, including some well-known people, so some people continue to emphasize that we should “hide our strength and bide our time”. It is no secret that great changes are about to take place in China US relations. How will the United States treat the future China US relations? We don’t hide it. We hope the United States can seriously think about how to develop the “new major country relationship”. China is playing a completely clear card. There is nothing to hide.

However, the trend of Sino-U.S. relations was also very clear: not long after this sentence was mentioned a lot, the United States launched a trade war, a war of science and technology, a war of public opinion, a financial war, a biological war against China… Wave after wave. Even when the United States launched an all-round trade war against China, China was still talking about “great changes”. When China said this sentence, did it not expect these consequences? Of course, I will think that in this case, it also shows that I am prepared to bear it. No matter how you toss and turn in the United States, there is nothing you can do in China.

After the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the situation has entered another stage. Look at the current Sino US relations. Although American politicians are still constantly emphasizing that China is the main opponent, what else can they do to China? There’s nothing to do. At most, it’s just verbal. In terms of action, we will even give up the aforementioned series of offensive actions against China.

On the surface, the United States has been constantly attacking China in the past few years, but looking back today, is it particularly stupid for the United States to launch a comprehensive offensive against China at this historical stage? Sun Tzu’s art of war says: the winner can attack, but not the winner can defend. Attack is insufficient, and the rules are more than enough. If you want to win, you have to take the offensive way. If you want not to be defeated by the enemy, you have to take the defensive way. The same strength comparison may be insufficient for attack, but it may be more than enough for defense. Looking back at the strength comparison between China and the United States in the previous five to 10 years, it is obvious that China’s offensive strength is not enough, but it is more than enough to defend the United States. Moreover, let the United States use all its remaining strength to attack China in an all-round way, can it quickly consume all its strength? The classic tactic of the Chinese people’s army is “encirclement and support”. What is its core idea? It is to transform the campaign action originally realized through offensive operations into defensive operations. Clausewitz said in “on war” that defense is a form of warfare stronger than attack, that is, “attack is insufficient, and there are more rules”. For China, transforming offensive operations into defensive operations greatly increases the odds of victory under the same strength conditions. With just one sentence, the Chinese leaders succeeded in inducing the United States to lose its rationality and launch a rash all-round attack on China, which greatly injured its national strength, and successfully bypassed a very dangerous thucydide trap that China must face.

Therefore, I want to fight. Although the enemy is high and deep, those who have to fight with me will be saved if they attack.

Therefore, after China put forward the statement of “great changes that have not been seen in a century”, former US President Barack Obama and current President Joe Biden both clenched their teeth and shouted, “the United States will never be the second child” and “the United States will lead the world for a hundred years”. If the United States is willing to explore and accept the new type of major country relations, China and the United States can continue to develop relations with the United States on the basis of equality and mutual benefit. If we are not willing, we are equivalent to explaining that we will not accept continuing to play an exploitative role under the American hegemony system in the old world. How destructive is this sentence? That is to increase U.S. government debt by $10trillion in a short time. Now, the U.S. government debt has exceeded 30 trillion, so it is impossible to repay the principal and barely pay the interest. If you add another fire, it will be difficult to repay the interest. Now the world is selling U.S. debt, for fear that the United States will not repay it. The dollar pillar, supported by the largest national strength of the United States, is collapsing.

We all know that the hegemony of the United States is embodied in three aspects: the dollar, military power, science and technology, and soft power. After talking about dollars, let’s look at military power. The military strength of the United States is mainly reflected in the capabilities of Navy, air force and information warfare. At present, the only significant gap between the naval and air forces of China and the United States is mainly reflected in aircraft carriers. In hypersonic, ballistic missile aircraft carrier and other technologies, there are already “I have no beauty” weapons. To say that there is a generational advantage for the U.S. military is to praise the U.S. military. He simply does not have it and cannot develop it in a short time. In a large number of other areas, we have basically equaled the U.S. military, and each has its own merits. Even in the aircraft carrier technology, which is the most backward overall, with the launch of 003, China is also catching up with the US military by a large margin. Academician Ma Weiming has led the United States in the technical level of integrated power system for a generation. Many netizens still have some regrets after launching: there is electromagnetic ejection, why not nuclear power? You know, if we compare technologies, we should not only compare different technology categories and systems, but also compare technology subcategories in one system. We should not only compare steam ejection with electromagnetic ejection, but also compare the level of electromagnetic ejection and the power system of what technology. The power system of 003 is “medium voltage DC integrated power system”. If the Ford class of the United States is the first generation of ship integrated power system, 003 adopts the second generation, which is a leading technology generation. Now 003 chooses gas turbines for power. Obviously, it is not that China believes that gas turbines are better than nuclear power, but that it is still choosing what kind of nuclear power to use. Nuclear power is also different from nuclear power. China is a latecomer, so we should make full use of the advantage of late development.


The latest nuclear powered aircraft carrier Ford of the United States uses A1B nuclear reactor. It is the first generation nuclear reactor designed for ships by Bechtel marine propulsion Corporation. The previous enterprise class mainly used Westinghouse a2w, a4w and other nuclear reactors. Although they all have different technical changes, they basically belong to the second and third generation pressurized water reactors. However, the world is now promoting the fourth generation nuclear reactor technology. China is leading in this technological era. There is an information about nuclear reactor technology that people should pay attention to: Thorium based molten salt reactor nuclear power system (tmsr) is one of the fourth generation nuclear reactor technology. China is the world leader in this field and will take the lead in realizing commercial use in the world. At the end of 2021, China’s first commercial thorium based molten salt reactor was commissioned in Wuwei, Gansu Province. Since the success of the fourth generation nuclear reactor is imminent, why should China choose the second and at most the third generation nuclear reactor? Once we choose thorium based molten salt reactor as the nuclear power of the future Chinese aircraft carrier, we will be one generation ahead of the U.S. military in the nuclear power technology of the aircraft carrier. China is rich in thorium resources, and there is no problem of raw materials getting stuck.

What are the outstanding advantages of thorium based molten salt reactor? In addition to high safety, its outstanding advantage for nuclear power of ships is its strong miniaturization ability. Objectively speaking, this technology was first studied by the United States. The purpose of its initial research was not for ships, but for nuclear powered bombers. From this, we can see how powerful its miniaturization potential is. In the 1950s, the U.S. air force launched the aircraft nuclear propulsion to seek aviation nuclear power for bombers. Oak Ridge National Laboratory undertook the research and development of nuclear engine reactors in this project. In 1954, it built the first 2.5MW molten salt reactor for military space nuclear power research. However, due to the sudden emergence of strategic missiles, nuclear powered bombers became chicken ribs, and molten salt reactors also turned to civilian use. However, during the cold war, the U.S. government favored the sodium cooled fast reactor, which was suitable for the production of plutonium for weapons and had dual-use prospects. Even for civilian use, it also abandoned the molten salt reactor, which was more suitable for thorium uranium fuel cycle..

The fourth generation nuclear power system International Forum (GIF) recommended a total of six advanced nuclear power systems: sodium cooled fast reactor (SFR), ultra high temperature gas cooled reactor (VHTR), supercritical water reactor (SCWR), gas cooled fast reactor (GFR), lead cooled fast reactor (LFR) and molten salt reactor (MSR), as candidates for the fourth generation nuclear power. China has started the field of thorium based molten salt reactors for a long time, and is currently at the leading level. 003 the reason for not using nuclear power is not that many people say that the range of conventional power is enough for China’s current needs, but mainly the following two:

First, according to the requirements of the “small step and fast run” technology development model, the range of technological progress of each generation of products should not be too large, and the number of new technologies should not be too large, which can fully ensure the success rate and greatly shorten the R & D cycle. This model was also used in the development of destroyers and other products before, which was very successful. Liaoning ship was built on the basis of Varyag. Shandong warship is completely built from scratch. It’s good to be able to thoroughly understand Varyag technology and make a little innovation. Fujian changed the ski jump take-off of Liaoning and Shandong ships into an integrated power system and electromagnetic ejection, which has been a great technological leap. Because on this platform, we need to test not only the power system and ejection, but also the ejection fighter, early warning aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, pilots and crew should also adapt to the ejection take-off system, and so on. After the integrated power system, electromagnetic ejection and supporting warplanes and operations are mature on the Fujian, it is natural to add nuclear power on this basis.

Second, since it is the door to the application of the fourth generation nuclear reactor technology, why should we rush to adopt the third generation or even the second generation nuclear power at the same level as the U.S. military, instead of turning around and overtaking directly to the fourth generation nuclear power? Imagine the technical state of 005:

The fourth generation nuclear power system is at least one generation ahead of the U.S. military.

A generation of all electric propulsion system ahead of the U.S. military.

An integrated power system that is a generation ahead of the U.S. military.

Three sets of electromagnetic ejection.

It is a shipborne stealth fighter ahead of the US military.

It is a shipborne large-scale early warning aircraft that is a generation ahead of the U.S. military.

All kinds of large and small stealth unmanned aerial vehicles on ships.

There are more than 120 aircraft carrier based aircraft in total.


At the latest, when there are 5 or 6 such aircraft carriers and a total of more than 12 aircraft carrier battle groups, will you still think that the United States is important? Is it okay for the U.S. military to “freedom of navigation” at the door of China? What’s wrong with your broken ships that have lagged behind the Chinese Navy for more than ten years in technology? Is there any deterrent value and significance other than disgrace?

4? The future of China-U.S. relations – at best, it can’t be said to be irrelevant

Finally, let’s talk about science and technology, because this is the most important factor that determines the future of China US relations. Now in addition to chips, what else can the United States do to block China’s ability? period. However, according to the third law of Sino US relations – the law of containment of contraries, the acupuncture type local sanctions imposed by the United States on chips have led to a sharp drop of 24billion chips in China’s chip imports in the first four months of 2022, with an average reduction of 200million chips per day. In previous years, ASML shipped only 50 lithography machines to China, but in the first quarter of 2022, ASML shipped 23 DUV lithography machines to China. Although we still can’t buy the EUV lithography machine we want to buy, ASML is already developing a new generation of high aperture value EUV lithography machine. Although there are few scheduled buyers, ASML still accelerates the development progress. Even if no one buys the next generation of lithography machine in the future, the old EUV lithography machine can be shipped to China. Therefore, even if China’s EUV lithography machine really can’t be developed, the explosion momentum of China’s chip industry can’t be stopped. Moreover, China is close to achieving national production in the field of 28 nanometer chips. From my personal point of view, I really don’t want the Chinese to rob all their businesses. You have to leave someone a chance to eat! If Chinese companies even work on EUV lithography machines, it’s hard to imagine how European, Japanese and American companies still rely on? However, the United States is trying to force Chinese companies to rob all their businesses. My worry is different from others. I am worried that China has completely returned to its relationship with the West 200 years ago: they can only exchange silver and gold with China for porcelain, tea, silk, iron pots and other goods, and China only exports rather than imports any of the other party’s products. Too many Chinese people are still stuck in the state and mentality of western industrial products crushing China in an all-round way decades ago, but this state has been completely reversed in an instant. We still need to further develop. The added value of China’s industrial production is the sum of the United States, Europe, Japan, South Korea and other countries, which is close at hand.

China’s new energy vehicles have entered the explosive growth stage of three figures again in 2021, and fuel vehicles will be completely eliminated in the new market by 2025. BYD’s new energy vehicle “Han”, which sells 300000 yuan in the Chinese market, has sold 700000 yuan in the Brazilian market. BYD has an absolute monopoly in the global new energy bus market, with a market share of more than 70%. In addition to Tesla, there is no force abroad that can compete with China’s new energy forces. The giants in the era of fuel vehicles will be like the communication field. Once China’s forces rise, Nortel, Alcatel, Lucent, Makeni, Siemens Communications, Nokia, Ericsson, Motorola, etc. will go bankrupt, merge and shrink into two companies, “Nokia alang” and “aimabei”. Miraculously, Motorola was still there. He sold the mobile phone business to Google in 2011 and then reselled it to Lenovo. However, Motorola systems is still a listed company, with sales of $8.171 billion in 2021. But why can’t we hear the voice of this company now? Because he has completely left the public communication field and focused on industrial application fields such as trunking communication. By the end of June 2022, the number of new energy vehicles in China has exceeded 10million. The penetration rate of new energy vehicles in the month was 22.3%. In the early morning of June 29 local time, after long discussions and repeated consultations, the environment ministers of the 27 EU countries finally reached a consensus on the “plan to ban the sale of fuel vehicles”, agreeing to ban the sale of fuel vehicles in the EU from 2035. However, this plan is still opposed by many countries, as well as industry groups such as the European Automobile Manufacturers Association and the European Federation of automobile suppliers. In addition to Tesla, several old auto companies in the United States have also made very slow progress in the field of new energy vehicles. This grinding action has doomed them to decline in the era of new energy vehicle technology. Where will it wait until 2035, the proportion of fuel vehicles in the new market in China will be zero in 2025. BYD completely stopped producing fuel vehicles in April this year, so it won’t wait until 2035! You can imagine Mercedes Benz, BMW, Toyota, Ford Shrink into “Ben Bao Feng Fu…” A company scenario. It may be hard for people to imagine this now, but there is a real case in front of us that has preliminarily shown this scenario. GAC FICO was established on March 9, 2010, and its sales volume reached 223000 in 2017. This should be regarded as the sales level of mainstream car companies. However, then 125000 in 2018, 40500 in 2020 and 20100 in 2021. How much have you sold so far this year? 2! It’s zero. What did he do wrong? Some people say that the launch of his new products is slow. Is that true? Of course not. A Santana has been sold for decades and still sells well. Which traditional fuel vehicle enterprise has launched new products faster? GAC FICO didn’t do anything wrong, it just unfortunately came into the wrong era.

The era of new energy vehicles will not only enable China to quickly occupy the global market in the automotive field, but also lead to a sharp decline in oil demand, which will rapidly reduce China’s external dependence on oil from a high of more than 70% to less than 20%. The global oil demand will therefore be greatly reduced. The success of new energy vehicles will not only enable China to lead the world in a large number of emerging fields, but also bring down the petrodollar completely. When the era of petrodollars ends, will you still think the United States is important?

Why do I think China will surpass the United States in science and technology? My source of evidence is different from that of ordinary people, because I mainly obtain first-hand information:

Over the past ten years, I have been engaged in investment in scientific and technological innovation for a long time. I have a large number of first-hand measurement data on scientific and technological innovation projects in China and the United States. I have read thousands of business plans (BP) of start-ups in the United States, China, Israel and other countries and regions. Ordinary investors can only understand the financial statements, but I am the only person in the world who has a general knowledge structure. I can not only understand the financial statements of different financial systems such as China and the United States, but also understand any innovative products and technologies in any field, and have a technical dialogue with the founders to any degree of depth and detail. I not only study BP for my own business, but also often help other investment institutions’ GP to do technical and market consulting for projects that they can’t understand. I have read all the projects in all fields covered in the guidelines of the science and technology development plan of the Chinese and American governments, and I have also read a large number of projects in fields not covered in these guidelines.

Many of these innovation projects may not be successful in the end. However, through the business plans that I have studied involving almost all innovation fields and the comparison between Chinese and American entrepreneurs, it can be seen that at least ten years ago, Chinese entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs in the United States, Israel and other countries and regions were thinking and studying the same fields and levels. In general, most of the online big V and the media only understand the current situation of scientific and technological innovation in China and the United States from the public mass market information. In addition, I can also directly obtain what is not found in the public information, which is in the minds of the most primitive innovators. If these things succeed, they will be known by the public in ten years. And many unsuccessful innovation projects may never be known by the public and the general network v.

Generally, when making in-depth adjustments to entrepreneurial projects, both parties will sign an NDA agreement (confidentiality agreement) first. Therefore, due to the obligation of confidentiality, I generally do not get the relevant technical information online for discussion. Even if there is no confidentiality agreement, I will not easily disclose these materials out of professional habits. Because of my growing influence, some high-end innovation project leaders often invite me to exchange and visit the corresponding R & D projects. Even for the fourth generation nuclear reactor technology developed in China, I have also visited its laboratory and communicated with core technicians. If there are still skeptical readers, you can find an opportunity to ask people in the science and technology venture capital circle who have invested in the United States and China, whether the above information I introduced is true. Under the premise of not violating the obligation of confidentiality, even people in related fields hope me to make some publicity projects and brief introductions, so that people outside the circle can have some preliminary understanding.

For example, both the United States and Russia are studying the inert electrode technology of electrolytic aluminum, and there are some small experimental lines under test, but they have not been successful. If this technology succeeds, what effect will it have? It will greatly reduce the cost of electrolytic aluminum with carbon electrode. Chinalco, a central enterprise in China, set up a project with the support of the 863 plan and invested hundreds of millions of funds to study this project. Later, it failed and gave up temporarily. Nevertheless, Chinalco’s efforts are highly commendable. This is not to say that central enterprises do not do risky innovation work at all. We should not only see successful projects. In fact, many have not been successful. They are also a necessary process on the road to success in China. However, I know that another innovation team has made promising experimental results with new technical solutions, and is expanding the scale of the experiment with the support of venture capital. I also gave them a lot of suggestions. This project cannot be said to be successful in the end, but at least it shows what efforts and things Chinese science and technology innovators are making.

Many people are not only unable to fully understand what the scientific and technological efforts of China and the United States are, but also unclear about how to accurately evaluate the technical level. For example, someone may claim that their product technology has reached the world’s leading level in some indicators, such as claiming that Bluetooth connection is the farthest away from the world. Does this mean that their technical level is very high? It may be difficult for laymen to make an accurate evaluation. Simply put, as long as you increase the transmission power of Bluetooth, the connection distance can be increased. To some extent, this is a problem of scheme selection of product design, but it does not fully explain its technical level. But doesn’t it mean that it can’t explain a problem at all? Of course not. Because after increasing the transmission power of Bluetooth, the general Bluetooth chip may not be used. You have to develop a new high-power Bluetooth chip suitable for the corresponding technology. It’s great to be able to do this.

What can best reflect the core technology level is the efficiency improvement of the overall system. For example, Shanghai has an innovative project to develop the most efficient civil navigation radar in the world. At the same power, its receiving sensitivity can be about 2 dB higher than that of the best mainstream similar products in Japan and Germany in the past. It is quite remarkable to be able to improve this range. I asked the founder how he did it technically, and he said it involved core technical secrets, which he couldn’t say. Then I will ask from a broader perspective of system technology: is it the better isolation of radar transmission and reception (this is one of the biggest technical problems of radar). He said that you are really knowledgeable, which is indeed one of the main reasons. I roughly understand this. Because to improve the radar detection range, there are only three main technical paths: either increase the transmission power, which is the simplest and crude method, but generally speaking, the cost is definitely higher; Second, improve the sensitivity of the receiver; The third is to reduce the interference of the transmitter to the receiver. The technical level of the latter two technical approaches will generally be higher than that of the first, but it does not mean that increasing the transmission power is nothing. It is also technically difficult to increase the power many times. For example, at least it needs the support of power amplifier devices with better linearity and noise characteristics under higher power.

The reason why I have the above confidence is that my own research achievements in the third generation of science have crushed the entire western academic community. Readers in doubt can find an opportunity to ask any western academic scholars, is there anyone who can be familiar with all disciplines of contemporary human scientific and technological civilization? Can we study problems across all disciplines? At least I haven’t heard it yet. At present, it is not that I am better than all western scholars in this field, but that I have not found a western scholar who can have a comprehensive dialogue with me in this field.

There are many Chinese people and many talents. The number of new college graduates in China each year exceeds the total population of more than half of the countries in the world. Now, more than 2.5 million senior talents studying abroad have returned to China. The domestic research and entrepreneurial environment may not be satisfactory, which makes many top talents studying and researching abroad have concerns. It doesn’t matter. Many talents return to China not to find a job, but to start a business and create a working environment they like. This will fundamentally attract more top talents to return home. With so many talents in China, we can adopt a completely different model of scientific and Technological Development: we can try all solutions and make breakthroughs in every technological innovation. In the era of large screen TV, we worked on the three technical routes of rear projection, plasma and LCD, and finally LCD won. In the 3G era, TD-SCDMA, WCDMA and CDMA2000 are fully dry. In the era of new energy vehicles, the three technical routes of pure electric, hybrid and hydrogen fuel cell are all dry at the same time. All six fourth generation nuclear reactor technologies are being developed in China. In terms of stealth fighter technology, the Chinese military only chose the j-20 of Chengdu airlines, but Shenfei still did not give up its own plan, invested in the j-31, and was likely to succeed in the ship based stealth fighter of J-35 In addition to China, even the United States cannot afford to do this, let alone other countries. When communicating with Professor Li Jinliang and me, some foreign communication experts said: they can’t understand how China can have all three technical standards at the same time in the 3G era? In the 4G era, are TDD and FDD standards all available? I mentioned that China’s market capacity is too large, and it is possible to adopt this method. Unless this technological era itself is not good, China will not be wrong. For example, 3D TV cannot be made by its own technology, otherwise China cannot miss it. China’s ability to choose the direction of scientific and technological development is still relatively poor, but what does it matter? It’s lazy to make no choice at all. All candidate technologies are engaged, and 1.4 billion people can be so arrogant. This way of doing things must be to make others have no way out. Of course, it doesn’t mean that doing so must have good results, but it doesn’t matter. The third generation of science I established is to improve China’s ability to judge the future development of science and technology to a huge level that is beyond the reach of all western countries.

The United States is a nuclear power. The United States should not look down on Russia. It is only the second Russia in the end: because it has a huge nuclear arsenal, we can’t say that the United States doesn’t matter, but at most that’s all.

I really sympathize with the United States. If you can understand why this is the most correct attitude that the Chinese people should adopt towards the United States, you will know what problems China should consider and do now. Chinese people should not waste their time and energy on boring and boring things.

One thought on “The past, present and future of China US relations!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *