The US cannot win by simply matching China's manufacturing volume in areas like drones. Instead, its cultural strength as an "underdog comeback king" suggests a strategy of being clever and outthinking the enemy, rather than playing a "Me Too" game of mass versus mass.
The reshoring trend isn't about replicating traditional manufacturing. Instead, the U.S. gains a competitive advantage by leveraging automation and robotics, effectively trading labor costs for electricity costs. This strategy directly challenges global regions that rely on exporting cheap human labor.
The US won World War II largely due to its unparalleled manufacturing capacity. Today, that strategic advantage has been ceded to China. In a potential conflict, the US would face an adversary that mirrors its own historical strength, creating a critical national security vulnerability.
The belief that China's manufacturing advantage is cheap labor is dangerously outdated. Its true dominance lies in a 20-year head start on manufacturing autonomy, with production for complex products like the PlayStation 5 being 90% automated. The US outsourced innovation instead of automating domestically.
Instead of matching China's manufacturing output one-for-one, the US should pursue an asymmetric strategy. This involves leveraging American ingenuity to create superior, low-cost countermeasures, like undefeatable missiles, that neutralize a volume advantage.
From a Chinese perspective, its vast manufacturing capacity, supported by world-class infrastructure, is a global utility. The concept of "Made in China" is reframed as "Made for the World." This view suggests the U.S. should focus on its own strengths like innovation ("zero to one") instead of viewing China's manufacturing prowess ("one to 100") as a national security threat.
Faced with China's superior speed and cost in executing known science, the U.S. biotech industry cannot compete by simply iterating faster. Its strategic advantage lies in
In trying to compete, the U.S. is mirroring China's protectionism and industrial policy. This is a strategic error, as the U.S. political system lacks the ability to centrally direct resources and execute long-term industrial strategy as effectively as China's state-controlled economy.
While the West may lead in AI models, China's key strategic advantage is its ability to 'embody' AI in hardware. Decades of de-industrialization in the U.S. have left a gap, while China's manufacturing dominance allows it to integrate AI into cars, drones, and robots at a scale the West cannot currently match.
Attempting to hoard technology like a state secret is counterproductive for the US. The nation's true competitive advantage has always been its open society, which enables broad participation and bottom-up innovation. Competing effectively, especially in AI, means leaning into this openness, not trying to emulate closed, top-down systems.
The US military's 30-year strategy, born from the Gulf War, of relying on small numbers of technologically superior weapons is flawed. The war in Ukraine demonstrates that protracted, industrial-scale conflicts are won by mass and production volume, not just technological sophistication.