Such actions have a tendency to back fire.

For example read up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qian_Xuesen

This was a scientist who was forced out in the 50ies and he ended up founding modern Chinese rocketry, including their ICBMs. Of course they would have eventually done it anyways, but it would have likely taken longer.

> Of course they would have eventually done it anyways, ut it would have likely taken longer.

why? what was he waiting for?

I'm pretty sure that sentence should be parsed as:

> Of course [China] would have [had an ICBM program] anyways, but it would have likely taken longer.

rather than

> Of course [Qian Xuesen] would have [defected] anyways, but it would have likely taken longer.

Yes I was referring to the ICBM program.

No idea what Xuesen would have done without McCarthyism, but he might have well ended up staying in the US.

People have plans but get comfortable. How many FAANG engineers have grand startup plans but are comfortable with their jobs that they don't go out and pursue those plans?

> Such actions have a tendency to back fire.

So this conclusion was drawn based on speculation that he was complacent person?

> FAANG engineers have grand startup plans but are comfortable with their jobs

In this case he got a job with another govt agency( Chinese ) so equivalent would be FANG engineers getting a job in another FANG company, which they do all the time.

It seems CCP's only defense of their actions is to attack critics as racist, which is kind of like a false dichotomy.

The reality is it's possible to condemn any given government and its actions and its agents in that capacity, while saying nothing about a people.

I agree, their position is so weak as to not withstand debate, so they fear debate and resort to deflections like this.

Racism is the definition of weak thinking. The idea that you can somehow forgo logic if your goals are sufficiently important is even weaker thinking.

The US Government has had a history of targeting (in hindsight) unrelated people in their efforts to "curb foreign influence". See the history of Japanese Internment camps and the McCarthyist Red Scare. This is taught in most US highschools.

We even see the same illogical reasoning being carried out in this comment section (ironically by non-Americans), where any argument against this political culling is dismissed as "CCP Propaganda" and any attempt to point out that the tensions between the US and Russia/Japan/China are unnecessary are met with generic references to past "hostilities" but never specific examples.

I don't see this kind of hostility. China is a commercial competitor. The US is trying to transform commercial competition into a racist war. I think this is despicable.

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. There isn't nearly enough substance in this comment to enhance a good conversation, and we definitely don't need denunciatory rhetoric.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

One typical CCP propaganda tactic is make intellectually dishonest accusations of racism to deflect from CCP malfeasance. The CCP has a long history of using seemingly benign interactions with foreign nations as an opportunity for espionage. Scurtiny of all ties to China, especially hidden ties, is just due diligence at this point.

One typical American propaganda tactic is to suggest that only communist countries that the US doesn't like are conducting espionage, or that espionage is uncommon in geopolitics. This way, the US government can easily justify discriminatory policies that unjustly targets, say Chinese researchers, to its public. The US has a long history of spying on foreign nations and stealing IP to benefit American businesses. US media has a long history of outright lying and otherwise spreading propaganda to manufacture consent for the government. Any accusations by the US government against other countries should be taken with a giant grain of salt, especially without proof.

Sounds reasonable. Lets see those investigations from other nations concerning US actions. Please do link to these occurrences as they will further the discussion of the role of espionage in scientific research.

Perhaps you've heard of the Crypto AG case, where the CIA infiltrated a foreign company and used its resources to spy on countless other countries, usurp intellectual property from foreign businesses, and used their moles in Crypto AG to give American companies an unfair market advantage:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/national-...

This was one of Snowden's big revelations - America had been using Crypto AG (a Swiss company) to infiltrate and usurp countless other foreign businesses, to give American companies a distinct advantage - FOR DECADES, since the 70's!!! (Also, it is quite well known that the CIA runs Germany's BND. Does China's intelligence agency run the intelligence agencies of any other sovereign nation, that you know of?)

This is the pot. And the kettle is also black, btw.

So is your argument that the US spys so it shouldn't look for potential cases of foreign spying in its own country? That seems kind of naive. In light of your argument transparency in research funding becomes even more important BECAUSE the US government spies so readily not in spite of it. The US can only expect countries to try to treat it in the manner its treats them so we should be looking for it. This article highlights the looking for it part.

The point is, the claimed moral authority over China's spying activities is a tribalist fallacy, because after all, when it comes to using the intelligence services of the state to usurp progress in other countries, America leads the way.

If the US were really treated the way it treats other countries, Chicago would be a pile of smoking ruin and a sizeable portion of the American population would be trying to find refuge.

Do you have any evidence of this?

I could not find any mention of secrets being shared with companies in the (very long) article you linked.

Well, you can start your research into this goldmine of details about the USA's many stages of industrial espionage right here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_espionage#Industria...

Find out what Edward Snowden has to say about it:

https://www.bbc.com/news/25907502

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-snowden-germany/...

.. and then, if you're still so interested, investigate what was stolen from Siemens (Germany) and Petrobras (Brasil) and France Telecom ..

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/1995/05/help-wanted-spy...

Careful, though. Its probably illegal for American citizens to find out too much about this.

Most of this information appears to be readily accessable from the US. Let me know when you find that report where a US citizen was arrested or charged for reading any of this.

Sibel Edmonds.

No need. Straight from the horse's mouth:

Secretary of State and former CIA director Mike Pompeo: "we lied, we cheated, we stole..."

So your argument is the government is lying about this so it can target Chinese American researchers who did properly disclose and are doing everything right? And what evidence do you have of Chinese American researchers being unfairly prosecuted or held to different standards?

It seems to be a common frame among those defending China that the US is still the way it was in the 1950s. Which I guess makes sense, given that under Xi China is descending into a type of Neo-Maoism. I imagine Chinese propagandists are dusting off a lot of the old talking points.

At any rate, China's "mistake" from that perspective is that they integrated Capitalism as much as they have over the last 40 years. They are no longer viewed as a "Communist" threat by many Americans, they're viewed (correctly) as a dictatorship. There is no philosophical debate to be had, the Chinese love capitalism just as much as Americans do. No, they're just a straight-up underhanded dictatorship trying to seize as much power as it can. Americans know how to process that sort of threat.

My argument is that certain questions need to be asked instead of taking the headline at face value, given the history of questionable actions by the US government and media when it comes foreign nations. If you've read the article or looked at the linked resources, it's obvious that this campaign is directed towards China, and therefore Chinese or Chinese-American researchers. One question that should be immediately obvious to ask is: how are the targets chosen in this investigation? Is it a blanket investigation of all scientists of a certain seniority in certain fields regardless of nationality or race?

It seems to be a common frame among those attacking China that China is still the way it was in the 1950s. Which I guess makes sense, given that under Trump/Obama, the US is descending back into McCarthyism. I imagine American propagandists are dusting off a lot of the old talking points.

From my experience, the general American public still think China is communist. I agree regarding China and capitalism, but a dictatorship it is not. If you were to compare China's foreign policy with that of the US, it fairly obvious that China is simply trying to build itself up through economic means, but the US feels threatened by the competition so it uses underhanded tactics such as smearing China in every MSM outlet, banning US companies from doing business with Chinese companies, banning Chinese technology, etc. It's almost identical to what it did to Japan back in the days which is why you're running Intel or AMD today instead of Fujitsu, Hitachi, Toshiba.

A dictatorship it is not?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43361276 https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2020/02/asia/xinjiang-ch... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-52765838

If it walks like duck and talks like a duck it must totally not be a dictatorship. /s

Many in the US see China as much more than a commercial competitor, but as an ideological and existential threat.

Many in the US are brainwashed by the American media empire.

What makes it racist exactly? Because Han Chinese are an ethnic minority in the US? By that logic any country that geopolitically competes with a country with different racial makeup is racist.

I guess that means China shouldn't be allowed to geopolitically compete with any nation other than Taiwan and Singapore, given that Han Chinese are an ethnic minority everywhere else. Fine by me if that's your perspective.