Trying to replicate the Houthi strategy in the SCS with US IRBMs on allied territories fundamentally misunderstands the motivations of the actors involved. Houthis have nothing to lose to American bombs and are in it for the love of the game. Japan and even the Philippines have much more to lose and no counter-escalation potential beyond the missiles America has already given them in this hypothetical scenario.
I don't understand the dismissal of Stargate. (1) Yes, it seems clear that DeepSeek showed that one can reach current state of the art with much less computing power plus clever architecture, but presumably this still means that clever architecture plus even more computing power can lead to even better results. In other words, I find it hard to imagine that more computing power is a net negative for anything. (2) Later in the podcast you note that DeepSeek now has a seat at the table with Chinese government planners who will push for greater computational resources. Isn't this the same general idea as Stargate? Either it's a dumb idea for both the US and for China, or for neither. I'm not defending Stargate per se -- I haven't cared enough to actually learn about the details of what's proposed -- but I don't see that dismissing the general idea follows from what you've said / written.
In any case, I enjoyed the first half hour! (I've only had time to listen to ~15 minutes of the rest, and I think I don't have the necessary knowledge of military aircraft to continue.)
Early bubble investors in infrastructure (eg fiber, railroads) lose their money, even though the infrastructure ultimately benefits society. China is more concerned with the latter.
Ofc financial *managers* make money based on AUM (fees) even if investors don't. Hence they have an incentive to pump up bubbles.
What's interesting about this topic is how the US national security state (and its associated technofeudalists) are racing toward ASI - as per Dario's post, it's now treated as the ultimate Wunderwaffen that will overcome the advantages that Huang is talking about.
Great program. I agree about the coping part. I must add that even if we do whole of nation mobilization, it would not work. A big part of this is the missing manufacturing eco-system. Also we are a financial nation with the need to maintain a U.S. dollar. The problems of this nation are deep rooted. A president that could not mobilize the country to fight Covid will not be able to mobilize the nation against a much smaller perceived threat like the sixth gen fighter.
On the bit about modifying the Pershing II and placing it in Japan or the Philippines, you need to look at the entire chessboard. If the Chinese invades Taiwan and we fire our missiles at their ships, even if done from some island off main islands of Japan, they are not just limited to hitting our missile trucks. They can hit all of our bases in East Asia as well as the Philippines. They can do that today with their missiles. With the J-36, H-20, they can do it much better. Once our bases are gone, and Guam is bombed, help would have to come from Hawaii. We risk losing the entire East Asia. People forget that once you fire a missile at the other guy's ship, it is an act of war. The Russians must limit their response as they lack the power. It is not true of the Chinese.
Also TP was talking about most optimistically 8 years for us to fly the first prototype. I think that is very optimistic. Given the de-industrialization that has happened to this country, we may never get one built. We need a plane significantly superior to the J-36 to fight the Chinese. If we just aim to design something that somewhat matches the Chinese sixth gen plane, but 8 years later, given the strong difference in ability to execute between the two nations, we would only wind up with a couple dozen while they will build hundreds. How realistic is our chances to build a plane much superior to theirs? Since our presence in East Asia is limited, in a war, they would quickly damage all our airbases so our version of the J-36 would not be able to be launched and will be sitting ducks. It would be our version of the J-50(carrier born one) against their J-50 and their J-36. Since the J-36 is a much more capable plane, we would lose.
Trying to replicate the Houthi strategy in the SCS with US IRBMs on allied territories fundamentally misunderstands the motivations of the actors involved. Houthis have nothing to lose to American bombs and are in it for the love of the game. Japan and even the Philippines have much more to lose and no counter-escalation potential beyond the missiles America has already given them in this hypothetical scenario.
Relevant to discussion of deterrence in the Pacific: Caspian Report - Why the US military is restoring WWII-era airfields https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PVwt01b6fs
I don't understand the dismissal of Stargate. (1) Yes, it seems clear that DeepSeek showed that one can reach current state of the art with much less computing power plus clever architecture, but presumably this still means that clever architecture plus even more computing power can lead to even better results. In other words, I find it hard to imagine that more computing power is a net negative for anything. (2) Later in the podcast you note that DeepSeek now has a seat at the table with Chinese government planners who will push for greater computational resources. Isn't this the same general idea as Stargate? Either it's a dumb idea for both the US and for China, or for neither. I'm not defending Stargate per se -- I haven't cared enough to actually learn about the details of what's proposed -- but I don't see that dismissing the general idea follows from what you've said / written.
In any case, I enjoyed the first half hour! (I've only had time to listen to ~15 minutes of the rest, and I think I don't have the necessary knowledge of military aircraft to continue.)
Question is whether it makes sense for investors.
Early bubble investors in infrastructure (eg fiber, railroads) lose their money, even though the infrastructure ultimately benefits society. China is more concerned with the latter.
Ofc financial *managers* make money based on AUM (fees) even if investors don't. Hence they have an incentive to pump up bubbles.
What's interesting about this topic is how the US national security state (and its associated technofeudalists) are racing toward ASI - as per Dario's post, it's now treated as the ultimate Wunderwaffen that will overcome the advantages that Huang is talking about.
Great program. I agree about the coping part. I must add that even if we do whole of nation mobilization, it would not work. A big part of this is the missing manufacturing eco-system. Also we are a financial nation with the need to maintain a U.S. dollar. The problems of this nation are deep rooted. A president that could not mobilize the country to fight Covid will not be able to mobilize the nation against a much smaller perceived threat like the sixth gen fighter.
On the bit about modifying the Pershing II and placing it in Japan or the Philippines, you need to look at the entire chessboard. If the Chinese invades Taiwan and we fire our missiles at their ships, even if done from some island off main islands of Japan, they are not just limited to hitting our missile trucks. They can hit all of our bases in East Asia as well as the Philippines. They can do that today with their missiles. With the J-36, H-20, they can do it much better. Once our bases are gone, and Guam is bombed, help would have to come from Hawaii. We risk losing the entire East Asia. People forget that once you fire a missile at the other guy's ship, it is an act of war. The Russians must limit their response as they lack the power. It is not true of the Chinese.
Also TP was talking about most optimistically 8 years for us to fly the first prototype. I think that is very optimistic. Given the de-industrialization that has happened to this country, we may never get one built. We need a plane significantly superior to the J-36 to fight the Chinese. If we just aim to design something that somewhat matches the Chinese sixth gen plane, but 8 years later, given the strong difference in ability to execute between the two nations, we would only wind up with a couple dozen while they will build hundreds. How realistic is our chances to build a plane much superior to theirs? Since our presence in East Asia is limited, in a war, they would quickly damage all our airbases so our version of the J-36 would not be able to be launched and will be sitting ducks. It would be our version of the J-50(carrier born one) against their J-50 and their J-36. Since the J-36 is a much more capable plane, we would lose.
It's great to see you analyzing this extremely important topic!
All wonderful news.