Reverse Engineering by the Chinese

Originally posted by chinawhite
Im claiming the concepts have remained stagnant. Talk about interpretation. And if you read about the W-88 warhead, it wasn't vastly improved technology that allowed it to be better but a different arrgament the radiation case had. I think it was called a watermelon and it allowed the warhead to be much smaller since it did not ahve to have a clyinder shape.

LOL finally, you understabnd the difference between concept and design. Which is what I've ebeing saying all along, the Chinese stole whole or parts of designs for advanced warheads.

Unless you claim that chinese engineers would be stagnant or be unaware of ways to improve a warhead than arent you bias?

Never said they were, but they don't have enough data to mkae warheads as advanced as the AMericans or Russians. They have over 2000 tests between them and an enourmous amount of data to design better warheads, whilst the Cinese have a tiny percentage of this. The more real test data you have as well the more accurate models you can use when deeloping new warhheads now there is a tewt ban. The CHinese simply don't possess this without espinage.

Your the one to talk about maturity, Anyone just looks at your profile will see the level you work on. two red boxs show how much maturity you ahve. Wolf, cries wolf?

lol, whatever you say

We both know I informed you about the concept

As for spelling so what, you've found one tiny mistake I made, lol.

You love claiming BS dont you?. Here are some facts you can swallow,

You were spelling the name wrong for the past 2 days while you claim you educated me about it. If it was a small mistake, you would have fixed it quickly. You actualy thought you were right. At least you admitted to it here.

LMAO. right so using an a instead of an e, makes the facts unrelaible in your mind. What bizarre logic. I seem to remeber you couldn't spell teh name of a province in CHina, and only corrected your mstake when I pointed it out. I guess you're not CHinese then

And like i have said for the third time, i already knew about that since i had a discussion with some indian members about the H-bomb. Why dont you try to deny that?

LOL, yes of course, I am aware of what you claim, but unitl I mentioned it you had no idea what I was talking about. Lucky there is google

Says who? you?

20ish armchair general selling shoes in china?

LOL, what's with all the shoe talk, this must be the 4th or 5th time you've mentioned it. Is this a kind of fetish.
Also anyone whoi comments on teh military and doesn't work in the industry or who has served is an " armchair " general. So by definition so are you. Unfrtunately you ar eonly a schoolkid who doersn't even live in China which is the funniest thing. Also you live in country Australia, in government housing

Claiming how unknowledgable people are while you have no creditbility to speak of considering your a shoe salesman?

A shoe salesman, where on earth do you get this ? I'm confused, this is a most bizarre rant you are on.

Considering the changes in technology at that time, its more than pausible. One thing you simply bypass is the fact that NO CHINESE WARHEAD HAS BEEN PROVEN TO USE THE SAME TECHNIQUE AS THE AMERICANS.

OK so now the CHinese don't use the Teller-Ulam radiation implosion technique. Another contradictory post of yours.

do the russians use the same technique, or did they also steal an american design to make their warheads

Actually the Russians discovered the Teller-Ulam concept at about the same time. But had used a different concept and far less inefficient ( The Layer Cake ) before that.

[edit on 13-9-2006 by rogue1]

Originally posted by rogue1
the Chinese stole whole or parts of designs for advanced warheads.

PROVE IT

It was claimed to have stolen the designs (like we have been saying) . The fact that the CIA thinks that a PRC agent gave them the documents about the W-88 tells us that nothing important was given.

And you can find a quote from the Cox Report in chapter two which sums up their edvidence.

China had a warhead on the JL-1 missile in 1977 which weighed between 600kg and had a yield of 250-500kt

The american W-78 of a similar era had a weight of 7-800 pounds and had a yield of 335-350kt

Yet in the time china designed this warhead. It had no access to american data.

but they don't have enough data to mkae warheads as advanced as the AMericans or Russians.

The W-88 wasn't the result of many testings, it was the result of a new technique. Better known as the warmelon or peanut shaped radiation cone

And the majority of those test had no purpose in designing smaller warheads. People do not explode nuclear bombs anymore because they can simmulate its expolsion with computers. Since the US and russia tested them in an era where there were very little computers and china tested them in a time where there were. Its safe to assume that the percentage of test to find better warheads.

I seem to remeber you couldn't spell teh name of a province in CHina, and only corrected your mstake when I pointed it out.

I miss typed on letter wrong ONCE. You were typing the same wrong name for a whole two days. And you like to claim BS to. I never once asked you for a name. I dont need to ask you since your asnwer will be either mis-spelt or wrong

but unitl I mentioned it you had no idea what I was talking about.

Because your post are badly written. I did not ahve a clue what you were trying to say until you finally came out with a wrongly spelt name. Yeah, real education

So by definition so are you.

So?. I have never try to claim I am more knowledgable in a field when i had no education in that field. And unlike you, you claim to even be a shoes salesman, yet i still believe your in china on a economy class holiday to some remote and undeveloped part of china. The reason i tell people who i am is because im not trying to pretend to be a "military" man like you.

OK so now the CHinese don't use the Teller-Ulam radiation implosion technique. Another contradictory post of yours.

There is no Teller-Ulam radiation implosion technique, its the way the radiation cone is shaped

Do you know why the W-88 is different from other warheads?. Maybe you should educate yourself about the W-88 than claim you know something

Originally posted by chinawhite
China had a warhead on the JL-1 missile in 1977 which weighed between 600kg and had a yield of 250-500kt

This is suppsed to prove what ? A you can see you like to use specualtion when it suits you. A warhead between 250-500kt is a big variance If I used this same information you would critisize me for not having any proof, which you don't stating this.

Also a 600kg even with a maximum supposed yield of 500kt still has less than 1kt per kg efficeiency and at 250 kt it's twice as dismal. this is far shrt of the 4-5kt the US has.

but they don't have enough data to mkae warheads as advanced as the AMericans or Russians.

The W-88 wasn't the result of many testings, it was the result of a new technique. Better known as the warmelon or peanut shaped radiation cone

Erm what do you mean, the primary was proof tested, they don't hvae to test the same device over and over again. However it was the culmination of almost 50 years of testing that allowed the W-88 to be built.

And the majority of those test had no purpose in designing smaller warheads.

Oh lol, right....so what was the purpose of the tests ? Lets just explode some bombs for the heck of it.

People do not explode nuclear bombs anymore because they can simmulate its expolsion with computers. Since the US and russia tested them in an era where there were very little computers and china tested them in a time where there were. Its safe to assume that the percentage of test to find better warheads.

Erm no, any cmputer simulation isonly as accurate as the informtaion fed into them. The US and Russia have the benefit of well over 2000 tests between them, making their simulations far more accurate than anything that teh PRC could manage.

I miss typed on letter wrong ONCE. You were typing the same wrong name for a whole two days. And you like to claim BS to. I never once asked you for a name. I dont need to ask you since your asnwer will be either mis-spelt or wrong

HAHA, good for you I spelt Teller with an a, wow so what. You see you had to google to find out I'd mispelled it, I was just using my memory - hardly something for you to get so excited over But hey you know what they say about small things and small minds.

Because your post are badly written. I did not ahve a clue what you were trying to say until you finally came out with a wrongly spelt name. Yeah, real education

OK, good to see you finally admitted you knew nothing about Teller-Ulam before I mentioned it and my posts are written well enough that everyone else can understand, maybe they are just too complex for you - I noticed you had some trouble understanding basic concepts. Hopefully I have taught you something

So by definition so are you.

So?. I have never try to claim I am more knowledgable in a field when i had no education in that field. And unlike you, you claim to even be a shoes salesman, yet i still believe your in china on a economy class holiday to some remote and undeveloped part of china. The reason i tell people who i am is because im not trying to pretend to be a "military" man like you.

LOL, ok. You claim knowlege all the time when talking about the military, so ......
I claim to eb a shoe salesman ? when, where ? I think you have some type of fetish about shoes.
LOL an economy holiday - is that an insult ? I am deeply hurt Don't be jealous one day you may be able to afford to move out of the trailer.
You don't tell people anything about yourself, I doubt many people know you're a schoolkid, who doesn't even live in China which makes your nationalistic views laughable especially when you're benefitting from teh Australian wellfare system. I probably pay for your foodstamps with my taxes So don't bite the hand that feeds you.

OK so now the CHinese don't use the Teller-Ulam radiation implosion technique. Another contradictory post of yours.

There is no Teller-Ulam radiation implosion technique, its the way the radiation cone is shaped

LMAO, it's a concept as I've said and you still lack understanding of it. It is a radiation implosion device, using a primary's X-Rays to compress and ignite the thermonuclear fuel of the secondary. ANd what pre tell is a radiation cone ?

Do you know why the W-88 is different from other warheads?. Maybe you should educate yourself about the W-88 than claim you know something

Oh oh, you are privvy to the Top Secret Q-CLearance design data of the W-88, please share.

IN the meantime why don't you educate yourself and read this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 14-9-2006 by rogue1]

Your personal attack has been report and will hopefully see another warning added to your name

Originally posted by rogue1
This is suppsed to prove what ? A you can see you like to use specualtion when it suits you. A warhead between 250-500kt is a big variance

These figures are based on chinese nuclear explosions. And the actual figures varies from 1mt. I put these figures as a rough amount. Unlike your post. Mine are done though educated guesses not "pulling BS out of thin air"

And its not speculation since a lot of non-connected sites have the same basic figures

this is far shrt of the 4-5kt the US has.

Which american warhead?

The W-88 is 360 kg and 475 kt

The chinese JL-1 warhead is comparable to the same generation american warhead. If your trying to mix up figures with difference generations. And if your going to claim something like the davy crocket, remember we are not talking about portable missiles

Lets just explode some bombs for the heck of it.

You can check them out for yourself. There are nuerous articles and books published about the gun-ho use of nuclear bombs. One example is the nuclear cars and trains as well as a nuclear powered missile

Your a wizz bang google machine considering you cant buy books and only read when you need to read

Erm no, any cmputer simulation isonly as accurate as the informtaion fed into them.

You do multiple(millions) calculations before you explode a nuclear device. Once you found the best one that works in theory than you explode the device. The US and russia simply exploded hundreds of bombs without the slightest reason.

You dont test a warhead with 3.5 kilos of uranium then try to use 3.6 kilos. That era was full of irresponsilbe test in populated reagions as well. Nuclear testing and radiation weren't of big concerns thats why they were tested so freely.

Not to mention there were no computers of any significance to work with.

You see you had to google to find out I'd mispelled it,

Yeah, from your memory

good to see you finally admitted you knew nothing about Teller-Ulam

You only see what you want to see

Back to your fariy tales, I didn't say anything. Nor would i admit to something that never happened. Unless your unfamilar with sarcasm, i was actually saying the opposite of what you wanted and hoped was true

it's a concept as I've said and you still lack understanding of it

For the one hundredth time. All H-bombs are of the teller-Ulam confirguration. The different is the way the radiation cone is designed to give maximum efficency. The americans first poineered the use of a watermelon shaped one which allowed the W-88 to use its space more effectively and allowed it to be better suited for MIRV missles

The Cox report outlines the advantages of the W-88 quite clearly. For one who hasn't read it, your mouth seems to talk a lot

The Red square is the trigger
The blue square is the shape of the fuel.

Notice the difference between the two


Here is the best example

Originally posted by chinawhite
Your personal attack has been report and will hopefully see another warning added to your name

LOl, your like a little kid going to tell mummy

Originally posted by rogue1
This is suppsed to prove what ? A you can see you like to use specualtion when it suits you. A warhead between 250-500kt is a big variance

These figures are based on chinese nuclear explosions. And the actual figures varies from 1mt. I put these figures as a rough amount. Unlike your post. Mine are done though educated guesses not "pulling BS out of thin air"

Oh right right, so now the warhead is anywhere from 250kt-1MT, yep you're really credible. Oh so now your an armchair general an expert able to make educated guesses LOL. you know what the definition of a guess is ..... right

And its not speculation since a lot of non-connected sites have the same basic figures

LOL, you'll find that the information probably came from only one or 2 sources.

this is far shrt of the 4-5kt the US has.

Which american warhead?

The W-88 is 360 kg and 475 kt

You see once again a lack of understanding, the 360kg is including the reeentry vehicle which makes up more than half its weight.

Lets just explode some bombs for the heck of it.

You can check them out for yourself. There are nuerous articles and books published about the gun-ho use of nuclear bombs. One example is the nuclear cars and trains as well as a nuclear powered missile

And this has what to do with the test in the late 1980's and early 1990's ? Smokscreen ?

Erm no, any cmputer simulation isonly as accurate as the informtaion fed into them.

You do multiple(millions) calculations before you explode a nuclear device. Once you found the best one that works in theory than you explode the device. The US and russia simply exploded hundreds of bombs without the slightest reason.

LOL, ^^^ need I say more, I believe your lack of knowlege is self evident once again.

You dont test a warhead with 3.5 kilos of uranium then try to use 3.6 kilos. That era was full of irresponsilbe test in populated reagions as well. Nuclear testing and radiation weren't of big concerns thats why they were tested so freely.

ERM, wtf are you ranting about ?

Not to mention there were no computers of any significance to work with.

For the one hundredth time. All H-bombs are of the teller-Ulam confirguration. The different is the way the radiation cone is designed to give maximum efficency. The americans first poineered the use of a watermelon shaped one which allowed the W-88 to use its space more effectively and allowed it to be better suited for MIRV missles

Well actuall teh Soviets nuder Sakharov invented another thermonuclear design called the layer cake - you can google that as well

The Cox report outlines the advantages of the W-88 quite clearly. For one who hasn't read it, your mouth seems to talk a lot

And what ? What are you tryingto prove here ?

All countries steal or "borrow" technology from other countries. The Chinese have done more than their share to try to catch up with Russian and American military technology. To deny this is laughable.

I have to agree with Sbob on this.

I know this because we ..as Americans are in the intelligence gathering buisness....big time. We spy on our friends as well as on our enemys. NO bias here..we spy on all we can. With and without prejudice. No problems here.

This also means we spy on what other nations are producing and inventing. We will steal and reproduce their plans if necessary.
This is not a new phenomonon. The more undeveloped nations must do this with more urgency to overcome obstacles to their progress. This is done by diplomacy/economics or outright theft.

To think that other nations do not do this too is absolute folly.

Thanks,
Orangetom

why ppl always say that all the high tech stuff china has are stolen.....

like china has universities too that does researches on nuclear physics and all that complicated crazy stuff

china had always been a world leading country on fields like nuclear, rockets designs, optics, and magnetism etc.

it shouldn't be suprising to see china develops its own stuff.


but keep one thing in mind, science is the same everywhere.

If rockets in the western world shaped somewhat like a pencil, it is unlikely that china will build a flat rocket. Its rocket will look something like a pencil too, inorder to fit the laws of physics and other science stuff.

if you go study in universities in china, u'll still see all the same type of questions u see the western unitersities, and the ways to solve those questions are pretty much the same too. because sciense in the same everywhere, if 1+2=3 in the USA, 1+2 will still =3 in china, don't except things to be different there.

there isn't a "chinese" way to make weapons, there is only a scientific way to make weapons.

[edit on 15-9-2006 by warset]

Originally posted by rogue1
LOl, your like a little kid going to tell mummy

"Never argue with an idiot - he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience!"

What do you want me to do?. yell at you back?

Jesus.....typical behaviour. Im not going to just pick up where you left off.

Oh right right, so now the warhead is anywhere from 250kt-1MT,

You can take the medium figure if you want

Its called a specturm. It ranges in between these figures because it hard to tell which was the actual yield of of the warhead. That means it has to be in between 250Kt - 1Mt. Is that so simply you cant understand

You see once again a lack of understanding, the 360kg is including the reeentry vehicle which makes up more than half its weight.

If you read the Cox report, it clearly states 800 pounds for the WARHEAD

and the reentry vehicle is the warhead. And to make assurd statement like that highlights your lack of your and your effort to divert the subject.


And if you refering to some other BS, than i would like to remind you that chinese warheads are based on the payload capabbilities of the missiles

And this has what to do with the test in the late 1980's and early 1990's ? Smokscreen ?

Dont use the word smokescreen. I coined it to describe you

And the comment was a reference to this
"However it was the culmination of almost 50 years of testing that allowed the W-88 to be built.
"

LOL, ^^^ need I say more, ERM, wtf are you ranting about ?

When you try to avoid answering something. You could make it a little less obvious like these two comments for two quotes. Considering the level of comment and edvidence in it is zero its another example of how you avoid answering the question and putting smokescreens up

And what ? What are you tryingto prove here ?

The Cox Report is the cradle of life for these reports,

It was the first government report and the report who made these accusations first. When your trying to argue about chiense reverse engineering claims and haven't even read the Cox report.

Yet all you come up with is breif discriptions from other less educated sources

You posted:

"why ppl always say that all the high tech stuff china has are stolen..... "


Do you need a makeover as a consolation prize???
Public schooling right???

I dont think the implication was that "all" the high tech stuff China has are stolen.
The debate is that "certain" high tech stuff is stolen..not "all."

For public schooling you can substitute the phrase... emotional television education.


Alot of emotional television education goes on here in the United States too. It is just that some of us managed to overcome most of it.

Thanks,
Keep posting,
Orangetom

Originally posted by sbobTo deny this is laughable.

No one is denying it.

Im debating what and how much

Originally posted by orangetom1999

I guess the University of Toronto is a public school, and I am not planning on attending any private American skus.

but the thing I want to point out is that in general, N American ppl's response to chinese technology they see is that "they have copied from us",
and that attitude is incorrect.

ex. when talking about magnetic trains, ppl'll think it must have been made in germany or japan. but if china has made those, i'd think they stole or copied the tech from germany or japan, instead of having studied it themselves. When ppl see the chinese rockets sending it ppl into space, the first impression to most N americian ppl is that it must have been made in russia or something close to that. Indeed, china did have cooperated with russia on space tech, but if you go to the detail designs of the rocket and equipments, you'll see they are actually very original chinese designs. Only the general concept of rocket might be borrow from other countries (this is pretty much like saying cars have four wheels. and one engine in the front).

but believe me or not, most N americans have the "they have copied it" attitude towards the made in china stuff. I actually saw a lot of youtube user make comments like chinese weapons are copied form europe, but little do they know that there is a weapon ban between china and europe to make sure there is absolutly no weaponary related cooperations between EU and PRC, and the ban has been around ever since the late 80's

[edit on 15-9-2006 by warset]

About a mile up the road from me is a research facility called NASA Langley Research Center. Lots of moon rocks to be found around this town. Sharing the runway with NASA is the Langley Air Force Base complex where they are daily getting the new F22 aircraft from the manufacturers.

I work in a factory which builds nuclear aircraft carriers and also nuclear submarines...and have myself worked on both. Including the Virginia class submarines discussed in the thread on littorial combat ships.

Lots of engineers around here ...a dime a dozen who will tell you lots of things about the trade and the stealing/spying. Indusrtial espionage...both national and international.

Now...what do you need to tell me about any college or to impress me with public schooling in order to broaden my horizons??

THe rocket types you posted on page three of this thread..the American type and then the Chinese type. THe USA has used both types ..particularly launching satellites from Vandenburg Air Force base out in California. Not all of our satellites are launched from the same place where they launch the space shuttles in Florida. Lots of those types of pictures..both types ..especially out at the local NASA Research Facility ...the visitors center. Also at the local air and space museum.

Have you ever wondered why the Russian Space shuttle looks like ours...because they know it works. How many times have they sent it up into space?? Think on this one!!!

Hughs Aerospace...you should check up on this company..and what they have been up to.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by orangetom1999

About a mile up the road from me is a research facility called NASA Langley Research Center. Lots of moon rocks to be found around this town. Sharing the runway with NASA is the Langley Air Force Base complex where they are daily getting the new F22 aircraft from the manufacturers.

I work in a factory which builds nuclear aircraft carriers and also nuclear submarines...and have myself worked on both. Including the Virginia class submarines discussed in the thread on littorial combat ships.

Lots of engineers around here ...a dime a dozen who will tell you lots of things about the trade and the stealing/spying. Indusrtial espionage...both national and international.

Now...what do you need to tell me about any college or to impress me with public schooling in order to broaden my horizons??

THe rocket types you posted on page three of this thread..the American type and then the Chinese type. THe USA has used both types ..particularly launching satellites from Vandenburg Air Force base out in California. Not all of our satellites are launched from the same place where they launch the space shuttles in Florida. Lots of those types of pictures..both types ..especially out at the local NASA Research Facility ...the visitors center. Also at the local air and space museum.

Have you ever wondered why the Russian Space shuttle looks like ours...because they know it works. How many times have they sent it up into space?? Think on this one!!!

Hughs Aerospace...you should check up on this company..and what they have been up to.

Thanks,
Orangetom

the russian one looks like yours? lol
I thought your rockets look like russians....
perhaps NASA has borrowed the idea from them

and why do american planes have back swept wings? I thought that's german style? awwww that's so not original~ US should have their own designes... perhapes a plane with no wing but five legs or sumthin... be more creative, instead of borrowing the idea form WWII germans

anyways, stop joking around, science is the same everywhere, you can't make a air plane without wings or tanks without wheels. and that's not a matter of who copied it form who. everycountry makes his own knowledge, and the knowledge ended being the same everywhere. because science holds the truth everywhere in the world

PS. If you are really that impressed by NASA, then go to its russian or chinese counter parts, you'll be equally impressed by seeing hundreds of thounsands of engineers working on huge projects, and tons of complicated research equipments.

[edit on 16-9-2006 by warset]

Who is joking here.?? Not me.!!

I literally put my backside on the line several times a year..for my moneys. I have to take many things seriously for my safety and the safety of my team mates. I do not stop thinking this way because I put my hard hat in my locker at the end of the day. And this is "not " a semantic exercise!!!

These are not classroom exercises directed to some foregone conclusion or bias by some college professor. This is the real deal. Things go wrong out here as well as sometimes right.
THis does not make me or others better than other peoples..it makes those of us who know... very very different.

Your point about the rocket/jet aircraft technology having its early progress based on German know how is correct. Werner Von Braun lived here for years and was often a guest here at the Langley NASA Research Facility up the road from me. This is true of both the Russians and us here in the USA. THe point is ..this know how has been taken further ..much further. This is the know how for which other nations desire. Accuracy and capability in payload delivery. This is the arena where huge progress has been made beyond the early days..even under German Design and know how.
The same with Avaition....built on early German designs..and taken further ..much further. Same with aircraft engine design. Further..much further than early German designs.
Submarine technology has been taken much further than the German Fleet type boats....much much further. Lots of other nations would like to have this know how and will do almost anything to acquire it. This is known.

I dont know what your professors are teaching you at the University of Toronto..but you need to think outside the blocks or arenas of which they are programming you.

If all science is the same...why does espionage take place. Are they teaching you about espionage??

YOu dont downplay these concepts to people who know the difference and put their lives on the line to make it happen. This is what a politician does and myself and others in these rooms dont have much respect for this type of political technique. If this is in fact the case..I would suggest that college professors are now part of the body politic too. No wonder I dropped out.

One more thing..I am not that impressed with NASA. They shot themselves in the foot with me way back with the Challanger Disaster. Right there...they became politicians ..not scientists. Hack politicians and bean counters had obviouisly taken over.

Ive also worked with engineers...closely on these shipbuilding projects. Many of them are very smart and gifted...some of them are total airheads..with educations. Dont ever give such an airhead a wrench and a job to do outside of the drafting board or computer. These people will get you killed or hurt. Quickly.

Almost all of the attempts to work and utilize outer space is for control mechanisms down here on earth. Intelligence gathering...ie..spying. On anyone and anything. As I have said before..I know that we ..as America..spy on our friends as well as our enemys. We spy on our own people too. Have been doing so since WW2. Amazing how dumb most Americans are about this. You can also include ...finding the earths natural resources and then the politics of keeping them in the ground and others away from them until you need to use them.

My point in this thread is and has been that everyone is doing it..every chance they get. You didnt understand that??? There are no good people here in this ...even us here in America. None!! Do they teach that to you in college???
They dont teach that much here in American colleges anymore...if they ever did. They teach mostly America Bashing and Amereica is Gulity classes.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Cool I go to U of T as well

It's true China copies a lot back in the old days, nobody can deny that. Although piracy still exist in China on a large scale today (much, much more in civilian tech than military tech now), it is starting to move away from that trend (although more so in military than in civilian). This is because China used to be a pure developing country and now it is halfway between developing and developed. That's the thing with developing countries, they have less technological experience and they don't have enough money to import everything they could not produce. So that leaves two choices: be honest stay poor/weak, or be not so honest and get rich/strong.

Also, for civilian technology, poverty is an issue. Pirated goods are much cheaper, and -- to a large portion of the population in China -- are the only affordable goods.

Mao's cultural revolution have done significant damage to China's technological advancement and thus played a big role in delaying China's trend away from piracy and towards domestic innovation.

[edit on 16-9-2006 by Taishyou]

Well said...Well spoken...

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by Taishyou
Cool I go to U of T as well

It's true China copies a lot back in the old days, nobody can deny that. Although piracy still exist in China on a large scale today (much, much more in civilian tech than military tech now), it is starting to move away from that trend (although more so in military than in civilian). This is because China used to be a pure developing country and now it is halfway between developing and developed. That's the thing with developing countries, they have less technological experience and they don't have enough money to import everything they could not produce. So that leaves two choices: be honest stay poor/weak, or be not so honest and get rich/strong.

Also, for civilian technology, poverty is an issue. Pirated goods are much cheaper, and -- to a large portion of the population in China -- are the only affordable goods.

Mao's cultural revolution have done significant damage to China's technological advancement and thus played a big role in delaying China's trend away from piracy and towards domestic innovation.

[edit on 16-9-2006 by Taishyou]

well said, well said
that's pretty much what I was trying to say. thanks a lot for making things clear

PS. UofT rules~ No.1 sku in canada for all those years and years to come