Category Archives: defense policy

‘Twarn’t Me

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D), in a backhanded acknowledgment that classified documents in his possession got mishandled as he left office in January 2017, now is blaming his staff for the…error.

One of the things that happened is that what was not done well is, as they packed up my offices to move them, they didn’t do the kind of job that should have been done, to go thoroughly through every single piece of literature that’s there. To the best of my knowledge, the kind of things they picked up are things, they’re from 1974, stray papers. There may be something else, I don’t know.”

Couple things about that. One is that it was Biden’s office, not theirs; it was his responsibility to see that the packing was done properly. That’s not a responsibility he can pass off onto others.

The other thing, the larger thing, is why Biden still had those classified documents still in his possession at that late date? Why hadn’t he already returned them, signed them back into their vault?

And: now he’s saying he might still have classified documents from as far back as 1974? Might? Doesn’t he know?

Whatever. Those will be somebody else’s fault, too.

Aiding an Enemy Nation

Posted on by
Reply

In the present case, it’s technically legal, but it’s strictly wrong.

The People’s Republic of China is a global leader in the development of artificial intelligence, and it’s on the way to becoming the global leader. AI has a number of uses of which the PRC is taking advantage, including surveillance of citizens and fighting battles and entire wars.

Despite this threat to our nation’s security, American businesses and investors have comprised more than 40% of the 400 international investments in PRC AI, and those 400 investments were 17% of total international investment in PRC AI.

Here, per the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown University, are the top 10 American investors in PRC AI—companies that put their lucre acquisition ahead of our nation’s security:

The CSET has reported further that

Collectively, observed transactions involving US investors totaled $40.2 billion invested into 251 Chinese AI companies, which accounts for 37 percent of the $110 billion raised by all Chinese AI companies.

And [emphasis added]

such financial activity, commercial linkages, and the tacit expertise that transfers from US-based funders to target companies in China’s booming AI ecosystem carry implications that extend beyond the business sector. Earlier stage VC investments in particular can provide intangible benefits beyond capital, including mentorship and coaching, name recognition, and networking opportunities. As such, US outbound investment in Chinese technology, and particularly AI, merits additional attention and tracking.

This comes after Google, for instance, infamously refused to continue a contract with the US’ Department of Defense to develop battlefield-capable artificial intelligence packages while continuing actively to support the PRC’s citizen-surveillance and military AI development. Alphabet’s subsequent words and actions concerning its now wholly owned subsidiary now being willing to work with DoD do nothing to mitigate, much less correct, that infamy.

Two Views

Posted on by
Reply

Secretary of State Antony Blinken was planning to discuss the barbarian invasion of Ukraine with PRC functionaries and then to meet with PRC President Xi Jinping. Now, though, the People’s Republic of China has a spy balloon research airship riding the winds over the US, and Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee are demanding that Blinken confront Xi over the PRC balloon. Blinken has decided to postpone that trip.

There are two likely reasons for Blinken’s decision. One is that, as Senator Tom Cotton (R, AR) put it (my paraphrase), Blinken should cancel his trip to demonstrate American displeasure over the balloon.

The other reason is that Blinken is just too chicken to make the trip and publicly call out Xi over the PRC violation; Blinken wants to avoid yet another ass-chewing by PRC functionaries like the one he got in his initial session with PRC personages in Alaska.

Treaty Abrogation

Posted on by
Reply

Russia is actively blocking on-site inspections of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons development facilities and has been doing so at least since last August. This is a stark and deliberate violation of the New START nuclear arms limitation treaty that Russia so solemnly signed with us years ago. Furthermore, Russian government officials are refusing to meet with American government officials even to discuss Russia’s refusal of inspections.

It’s time to recognize that Russia has abrogated New START and to say so out loud.

Then it’s time to resume the arms race we had with the Russian-dominated Soviet Union, a stage in the race that we won decisively those years ago on the basis of our superior economy and technology, advantages we still have. This is an arms race that Russia cannot win, especially given its expenditures and demonstrated technological skills in its barbaric invasion of Ukraine, and the new loss would be especially catastrophic for the barbarian.

Furthermore, the arms race would both spur and provide markets for our weapons production and development industries (which in turn would facilitate our economic growth), which in turn would facilitate supporting Ukraine against the barbarian’s invasion, and it would facilitate helping the Republic of China to arm itself with a range of modern weapons in advance of the President Xi Jinping-threatened invasion by the People’s Republic of China, to the detriment of the PRC.

On top of that, despite the growing and modernization of the PRC’s PLA, the arms race is one that the PRC also cannot win—our economic and technology advantages extend to the PRC’s capability.

Also: the need to engage in the race or fall further behind would force barbarian chieftain Vladimir Putin to reallocate at least some funding away from prosecuting his war against Ukraine and toward the arms race. The same need would force Xi to reallocate at least some of his funding away from prepping the PLA for his threatened invasion and toward the same arms race.

In fine, an arms race, along with its collaterals, would be a win-win-win for us, a loss (again) for Russia, and a net loss for the PRC. And would provide indirect support for both Ukraine and the RoC.

And a win for Ukraine and the RoC and so for Western Civilization generally.

An Easy Solution

Posted on by
Reply

LanzaTech is a “carbon-capture” company with a number of joint ventures with People’s Republic of China-controlled companies around the world. The company also has on its Board of Directors a Managing Director of Sinopec Capital, itself a PRC-domiciled (and so under the control of the PRC’s intelligence community via the PRC’s 2017 National Security Law) company.

LanzaTech even acknowledged in its Form S-4 announcing its decision to become a public, exchange-listed company, filed last March with the SEC, that [section head emphasis in the original]

We may be subject to risks that the Chinese government may intervene or influence our operations at any time.
Because we have employees located in China and conduct some operations in China, including through our China-based joint venture and at the facilities in China operated by our partners using our process technology, we are subject to the risk that the Chinese government may intervene or influence our operations at any time.

Despite that admitted (potential) subordination and Senate Republican objections centered on LanzaTech’s ties to the PRC government, the Biden administration’s Energy Department awarded LanzaTech a $1.6 billion dollar contract to research biofuel production. And with that tie, to pass any discoveries and developments and concepts along to the PRC.

Congress as a whole controls the Federal government’s pocketbook, and spending bills must originate in the House. It’s time to reduce or eliminate altogether funding for the Department of Energy until its unelected and subject to Senate confirmation managers become responsive to Congressional requirements. Start with reducing the Department’s funding by those $1.6 billion and applying the Holman Rule to reduce Secretary Jennifer Granholm’s salary to $1.00 per month. To the extent her intransigence continues, continue reducing Department funding and reduce the salaries of her Deputies to $1.00 per month.

This is straightforward to do, even if it might be politically difficult without the Senate and the White House. But that’s a matter to keep in mind in the fall of 2024.