Business
‘Serious Problem’: America’s Cutting Edge Weaponry Is Dependent On Chinese Tech, Experts Warn
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Jake Smith
American defense startups are far too reliant on Chinese parts — and that poses a serious risk of exploitation by Beijing, experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Business is booming as hundreds of defense startups have joined the growing U.S. military-industrial complex since 2021, according to The Wall Street Journal. But defense contractors are heavily dependent on China for parts for weapons systems, including motors, chips and rare earth minerals, which poses potential avenues for Beijing to exploit or hamper American technologies, experts told the DCNF.
“This is a serious problem for two reasons,” John Lee, senior defense expert at the Hudson Institute, told the DCNF. “First, as we saw during the pandemic, over-reliance on Chinese supply chains for components and inputs leaves countries and economies vulnerable to politically or policy-motivated restrictions being imposed by Beijing.”
“Second, components can have elements inserted into them without the knowledge of the end user. This could be spying equipment, channels for China to disable or damage the component from a distance, or even materials that can weaponize the component,” Lee said.
New defense contractors particularly rely on these parts because they don’t enjoy the same cash reserve that the industry giants do, and China makes and sells the parts for a cheaper price.
But these startups don’t want to be so reliant on China, given that the country is actively trying to undermine the U.S. and would likely be an adversary in a global war scenario, industry executives told the WSJ.
Decoupling from China-based entities proves difficult and expensive, defense startups told the WSJ, though it’s the only option in the long term.
“There’s a lot of lip-flapping about national security resilience manufacturing. But there’s no money for us to do this,” Scott Cololismo, CEO of defense startup LAND Energy, told the WSJ. LAND has some funding grants from the Pentagon, but needs more support to thrive, Colosimo explained.
The rare-earth minerals that China provides U.S. defense contractors — including neodymium, yttrium and samarium — are of particular value, given that they are essential for most high-tech military equipment, including laser and missile systems, jet engines, communications devices and even nuclear propulsion systems.
“Critical minerals are the building blocks for many of the most sensitive products in our defense industry,” Adam Savit, director of the China Policy Initiative at the America First Policy Initiative, told the DCNF. “China can abuse its dominant position in other critical mineral supply chains at any time.”
“The only long-term solution to this is to enact comprehensive permitting reform to approve domestic mining projects, and work with allied nations to develop new production when the U.S. lacks the relevant natural resources,” Savit said.
Savit’s warning that China can upset the supply chain of rare earth minerals also invokes a broader problem — China can cut the supply line for any of the parts needed by U.S. defense contractors, for any time or reason it chooses.
“If your supply chain runs dry, you have nothing to sell,” Ryan Beall, founder of drone manufacturer TILT Autonomy, told the WSJ.
‘It’s Alarming’: US-Funded Research Led To Over 1,000 Patents For China-Based Entitieshttps://t.co/tpr0NSD79X
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) August 30, 2024
Lee warned that the problem exposes the U.S. and West’s gaps in domestic supply chain capabilities for their respective defense industrial bases, which creates a vacuum that other actors like China find ways to exploit.
China supplies over 90% of the magnets used in motors for ships, missiles, satellites and drones, according to the WSJ. Republican Reps. Elise Stefanik and Rob Wittman sent a letter to an Air Force official last week and called the reliance on China “a serious national security threat,” pointing to an example in a report last year that found the Air Force increased its dependence on China for parts by 69%.
The idea to stop relying on China for resources became more popular after the COVID-19 pandemic, which created massive supply chain shortages in various sectors, including healthcare products. But in the defense capacity, it will take years to produce parts domestically, according to the WSJ.
“There has been a hollowing out of manufacturing and industrial capabilities in the West which provides China with an enormous advantage,” Lee told the DCNF. “In the event of a crisis against a country such as China, this will become very dangerous for the U.S. and its allies.”
Unable to wait for domestic capabilities to improve and increasingly wary of buying from China, new defense contractors are turning to other alternatives for parts, according to the WSJ. Sourcing components from Mexico and Southeast Asia, utilizing 3-D printing and buying parts in bulk have been some of the creative ways contractors are solving the problem.
Industry experts also expect that the U.S. government is likely to restrict some Chinese parts used by contractors in a bid to move toward domestic capabilities, according to the WSJ. Some restrictions on items used to produce cameras and radios already exist.
“If the government wants a U.S. supply chain, that’s fine, but they need to be clear about their requirements, and they need to pay for it,” Beall told the WSJ.
Featured Image: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Aaron Lau
By Ken Macon
If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.
Millions of Siri users may receive compensation as Apple addresses claims of unintentional voice recordings and data misuse
Apple has agreed to a $95 million cash settlement to resolve a proposed class action lawsuit accusing the tech giant of breaching user privacy through its Siri voice assistant. The preliminary settlement, filed in a federal court in Oakland, California, awaits approval from US District Judge Jeffrey White.
The lawsuit alleged that Siri recorded private conversations inadvertently activated by users and disclosed these recordings to third parties, including advertisers.
Siri, like other voice assistants, responds to “hot words” such as “Hey, Siri,” which can unintentionally trigger recording. Plaintiffs claimed this led to targeted ads based on private discussions, citing examples such as ads for Air Jordan sneakers after casual mentions of the brands. One plaintiff also reported receiving ads for a surgical treatment brand after a private conversation with their doctor.
The lawsuit covers users of Siri-enabled devices, including iPhones and Apple Watches, from September 17, 2014, when the “Hey, Siri” feature was introduced, to December 31, 2024. Class members, estimated to number in the tens of millions, could receive up to $20 per eligible device.
Apple denied any wrongdoing in agreeing to the settlement and did not immediately comment on the matter.
Similarly, the plaintiffs’ attorneys have yet to issue statements. From the $95 million settlement fund, attorneys may seek up to $28.5 million in legal fees and an additional $1.1 million for expenses.
For Apple, the settlement represents a fraction of its financial might, equivalent to just nine hours of profit. The Cupertino-based company reported a net income of $93.74 billion in its most recent fiscal year.
This lawsuit isn’t the only privacy-related legal battle involving voice assistants. A separate case against Google’s Voice Assistant is ongoing in a federal court in San Jose, California, within the same judicial district. The same law firms represent the plaintiffs in both lawsuits.
More than once in this space I’ve advocated for a comprehensive all-of-government review to find and eliminate waste and corruption. So it’s about time I set finger to keyboard and started mapping out how such a review might unfold.
Why is it just this moment in history that finds me so passionate about reviews?
Canada’s government spends more money than it receives. I know that’s hardly breaking news, but Ottawa’s reckless and frenzied race to max out every credit card in the known universe has driven the federal debt to $1.24 trillion. That’s 42.1 percent of GDP.¹
Among the biggest expenses? Employment growth in the federal civil service. Parliament employed 276,367 people in 2015 but by 2023 that had exploded to 370,368. That 94,001 increase amounts to a jump of 34 percent. For context, Canada’s overall population during that time increased by just 12 percent.
Given that the average weekly earnings for individuals employed in federal government public administration was $1,779 in 2023, just covering salaries for those extra 94,001 workers cost us $8.7 billion through that year.
But workers cost us much more than just their salaries. There are pension and CPP contributions, EI premiums, health and dental benefits, and indirect costs like office accommodations and training. All that could easily add another $50,000 per employee. Multiply that by all the new hires, and the total cost of those extra 94,001 workers has ballooned to $13.4 billion. That would be nearly a quarter of the deficit from the 2024 $61.9 billion fall update.² (Chrystia Freeland may not have been the one to officially announce that number, but she and her boss were the ones who got us there.)
Of course using a lottery to select, say, two out of every five bureaucrats for firing won’t give us the result we’re after. We want to improve government, not cripple it. (Although, to be completely honest, I find the idea of random mass firings way more attractive than I should.)
A successful review will identify programs that aren’t delivering cost-effective value to the people of Canada. Some of those programs will need changes and others should disappear altogether. For some, appropriate next-steps will come to light only through full audits.
But success will also require creating an organizational culture that earns the respect and buy-in of department insiders, stakeholders, and the general public.
The rest of this post will present some foundational principles that can make all that attainable. I should note that this post was greatly enhanced from input using the invaluable experience of a number of The Audit subscribers.
Use Transparent and Well-Defined Goals
Consensus should always be the ideal, but clarity is non-negotiable. Program advocates must be prepared to convincingly explain what they’re trying to achieve, including setting clear metrics for success and failure. Saving taxpayer funds to avoid economic catastrophe is obviously a primary goal. But more effective governance and more professional service delivery also rank pretty high.
Questions to ask and answer before, during, and after review operations:
- Does the program under review fall within the constitutional and operational scope of the federal government?
- Is there overlap with other programs or other levels of government?
- Are the original policy goals that inspired the program still relevant?
- Is the program in its current form the most effective and economical way of achieving those goals?
- Are the changes you’re proposing sustainable or will they sink back into the swamp and disappear as soon as no one’s looking?
Perhaps the most important goal of them all should be getting the job done in our lifetimes. We’ve all seen commissions, working groups, and subcommittees that drag on through multiple years and millions of dollars. You don’t want to make dumb mistakes, but that doesn’t mean you can’t adopt new tools or methodologies (like Agile) to speed things up.
Transparency is a fundamental requirement for public and institutional buy-in. That means publishing program goals and processes along with regular updates. It also means being responsive to reasonable requests for information. Fortunately, someone (Al Gore?) invented the internet, so it should be possible to throw together an interactive browser-based dashboard that keeps the rest of us in the loop and allows for feedback.
Over the years, I’ve personally built nice(ish) websites in minutes, even sites that use pipelines for dynamically pulling data from third-party sources. This isn’t rocket science – especially when you’re not dealing with sensitive private data.
Be Non-Partisan
Going to war against the complexity, toxic politics, incompetence, institutional inertia, NIMBY-ism, and sheer scope of government waste is not for the faint of heart. But setting yourself up as the Righteous Redeemer of only 40 percent of Canadians will make things infinitely more difficult.
Key project positions have to be filled by the most capable individuals from anywhere on the political spectrum. And proposals for cuts should rise above political gamesmanship. It may be unreasonable to expect friendly cross-the-aisle collaboration, but the value of the eventual results should be so self-evident that they’re impossible to oppose in good faith.
Frankly, if you’d ask me, any government that managed to miraculously rise above partisan silliness and genuinely put the country’s needs first would probably guarantee itself reelection for a generation.
Be Efficient
Don’t reinvent the wheel. If internal or external departmental audits already exist, then incorporate their findings. Similarly, make use of any existing best-practice policies, standards, and guidance from bodies like the Office of the Comptroller General and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
It’ll be important to know who really controls the levers of power within government. So make sure you’ve got members of key insider organizations like the Privy Council Office and the Committee of Senior Officials on speed dial.
Also, incorporate forward-thinking elements into new programs by including sunset clauses, real-time monitoring, and ongoing mini reviews. To keep things moving fast, implement promising auditing and analysis ideas early as pilot programs. If they work, great. Expand. If they don’t work, bury ‘em. No harm done.
AI-driven insights can probably speed up early steps of the review process. For instance, before you even book your first meeting with the dreaded Assistant Deputy Minister, feed the department’s program spending and outcomes data to an AI model and tell it to look for evidence-based inefficiencies and redundancy. The results can set the agenda for the conversation you eventually do have.
You can similarly build simple software models that search for optimal spending balances across the whole government. Complex multivariate calculations that once required weeks of hard math can now be done in seconds.
A friend who administrates a private high school recently tasked ChatGPT with calculating the optimal teaching calendar for the coming school year. After a few seconds, the perfect schedule showed up on-screen. The woman who, in previous years, had spent countless hours on the task, literally laughed with excitement. “What are you so happy about?” My friend asked. “This thing just took your job.”
Consult the Civil Service (and the public)
I know exactly what you’re thinking: is there a better way to destroy any process than burying it under endless rounds of public consultations (followed by years of report writing)? Trust me, I feel your pain.
But it’s 2025. Things can be different now. In fact, contrary to the way it might look to many good people inside the public sector, things can be a lot better.
This consultation would be 100 percent digital and its main stage need last no longer than 60 days. Here’s how it’ll go:
- Build a website, make a lot of noise to attract attention, and invite all Canadians – with a particular focus on current and former civil servants.
- Require login that includes a physical address and (perhaps) a government-issued ID. This will prevent interest groups from gaming the system.
- Use AI tools to identify boilerplate cut-and-paste submissions and flag them for reduced relevance.
- Encourage (but don’t require) participants to identify themselves by their background and employment to permit useful data segmentation. This will make it easier to identify expert submissions.
- Provide ongoing full public access to all submissions. Private information would be redacted, of course. And whistle blowers could have specialized, extra-secure access.
- Use traditional software analytics to flag especially interesting submissions and analyze all submissions using AI models to produce deeper summaries and analyses.
- Publish ongoing overviews of the results.
- [Other stuff…]
- Pick out a nice suit/dress for your Order of Canada investiture ceremony.
There’s absolutely nothing revolutionary about any of this (except the Order of Canada bit). The City of Toronto has been doing most of it for years.
The Green Army Will Keep Pushing Unrealistic Energy Transition in 2025 Despite “Reality”
Canada’s Most Impactful Energy Issues in 2024
When Potatoes Become a Luxury: Canada’s Grocery Gouging Can’t Continue
In 2025 Critical Political Choices Will Define Canada’s Future: Clement
-
Economy1 day ago
The Green Army Will Keep Pushing Unrealistic Energy Transition in 2025 Despite “Reality”
-
Economy2 days ago
When Potatoes Become a Luxury: Canada’s Grocery Gouging Can’t Continue
-
Energy1 day ago
Canada’s Most Impactful Energy Issues in 2024
-
espionage24 hours ago
In 2025 Critical Political Choices Will Define Canada’s Future: Clement
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy2 days agoGlobal Warming Predictions of Doom Are Dubious
-
COVID-192 days agoNew Study Finds COVID-19 ‘Vaccination’ Doubles Risk of Post-COVID Death
-
Health2 days agoWellness Revolution
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoHere’s How The Trump Admin Could Help Crush The Censorship Industry