Comment by robotkdick | Hacker News Reader

Comment by robotkdick | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Originally known as ARPA, Advanced Research Projects Agency, the agency helped create the internet: In 1973, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiated a research program to investigate techniques and technologies for interlinking packet networks of various kinds. The objective was to develop communication protocols which would allow networked computers to communicate transparently across multiple, linked packet networks. This was called the Internetting project and the system of networks which emerged from the research was known as the “Internet.” The system of protocols which was developed over the course of this research effort became known as the TCP/IP Protocol Suite, after the two initial protocols developed: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and Internet Protocol (IP). Source: www.internetsociety.org

The motivations for this new initiative could be numerous, including a step back toward the ARPA days, a way to outdo the Chinese in defense applications, and/or a way to make a political claim for the next election.

I'd be curious to hear what more informed people think the motivation might be. Regardless, it seems to be a positive step towards electronics innovation.

One would expect the competition between the US and China to get ferocious over the next 20 years. The US hasn't had a serious direct competitor across the board (military + economic + political) in 70 years. My personal opinion as an American, is that the US has gotten lackadaisical about its formerly overwhelming superpower position, its focus, and the need to compete at a high level. That isn't surprising of course, one would almost expect that to always occur, and China has come on extremely fast. Hopefully China's rapid rise forces a reawakening of an older can-do spirit, across all spheres of US life (perhaps most especially in regards to the invaluable contributions a better functioning government can bring, as in the past). If not, then China will de facto rule Asia and half of Europe.

A great book on the subject of the decline of Western superiority is “Has the West Lost it?” by Mahbubani [1]. He gives a fantastic overview of the stalling of the West following the confirmation of the allegeded superiority of the West’s “rational governance” following the breakup of the USSR.

He discusses the concurrent rise of Asia’s economic prowess and that the west must internalize that they have “lost it” before they can beat strategize for the coming decades.

My favorite portion of the book states that the most important event that happened in 2001 was not the terrorist attacks on 9/11, but China joining the WTO.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Has-West-Lost-Kishore-Mahbubani-ebook...

That assumes the competition is inevitable. Hopefully, China can become a democracy, set free its people, and then the competition will be no more ferocious than the U.S.'s with Europe, Japan, India, Brazil, or any other democracy. The 'competition' is a massive waste of money and possibly of blood that benefits very few people at the expense of billions of others. Compare the competition to the relationships among democracies; what is gained by it?

China is 6000 years old and it had never been anything even remotely resembling a democracy. It’s going to remain a bureaucratic autocracy just as it always has been. And that’s fine, it’s worked very well for the Han.

Just a reminder that Taiwan, a country deeply steeped in traditional Chinese culture, is a functioning multi-party democracy.

Perhaps Mainland China is too big, or too poor, to become a stable democracy at this time, but Chinese culture should not by itself be a reason for China to remain a "bureaucratic autocracy".

And that's why the PRC (= Mainland) is trying everything it can to take over Taiwan, and subvert / destroy this democracy. After all the Chinese Communist Party's convenient narrative that justifies it's 'eternal' rule is just this, that the Chinese people neither want, nor need multi-party democracy.

(See also: Iran vs Saudi-Arabia. The former -- despite all the imperfections of its current mode of government -- is a living proof that Muslims don't need the iron fist of a hereditory ruling family.)

China has an amazing history, but has been rife with war and tumult. It has not been a continuous well run autocratic state for 6000 years. Take the Han dynasty:

After 92 AD, the palace eunuchs increasingly involved themselves in court politics, engaging in violent power struggles between the various consort clans of the empresses and empresses dowager, causing the Han's ultimate downfall. Imperial authority was also seriously challenged by large Daoist religious societies which instigated the Yellow Turban Rebellion and the Five Pecks of Rice Rebellion. Following the death of Emperor Ling (r. 168–189 AD), the palace eunuchs suffered wholesale massacre by military officers, allowing members of the aristocracy and military governors to become warlords and divide the empire. When Cao Pi, King of Wei, usurped the throne from Emperor Xian, the Han dynasty would eventually collapse and ceased to exist.

I can't help but wonder if it's worked out very well for the non-Han.

It definitely hasn't worked well for the Uyghurs and the Tibetans.

Perhaps China never dominated on the world stage because autocracy makes for a low-dynamism society/economy/tech sector. Perhaps China will come to appreciate and adopt enlightenment values, then roar past the U.S. on every mark.

China is currently busily roaring past the US on every mark mostly without adopting western values.

Made possible only by massive US assistance, both intentional and unintentional. China’s trajectory is probably self sustaining at this point, but who knows for how long.

As an American, I can assure you this is certainly not the case. We always go that extra mile for that special something that makes us shine. Don’t worry. You’re in good hands.

> The motivations for this new initiative could be numerous, including a step back toward the ARPA days, a way to outdo the Chinese in defense applications, and/or a way to make a political claim for the next election.

DARPA has been carrying out bleeding-edge R&D continuously for decades; as I understand it, that's their mission. How are these programs a step back? What is special about these programs, as opposed to other DARPA programs, that you think the motivations above would apply?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com