On 10/02/2015 12:08 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 11:54:40 -0500, wrote:

On 10/02/2015 10:20 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
...

I was simply pointing out that much of what countries like China do
isn't nearly so much in the spirit of trade/countertrade as it is simply
overt industrial espionage--if we've got the manufacturing on our soil
it's now quite simple (relatively, anyway) to now move that technology
to other fields. Russian PWRs somehow looked essentially identical to
the W design built in France--in fact it turned out that engineering
drawings in some cases even still had some circle-W stamps on them that
hadn't gotten covered over on copies or yet redrawn...despite, of
course, in those days USSR being on the "no-fly" zone for the technology.

Well, it's both, but I wouldn't call this industrial espionage. In
these big trade deals it's common for the buying country to demand
some domestic production, and it's just as common for them to specify
technology transfers. These are negotiable points but they're a common
part of trade at that level.

And if you think the mainland Chinese are bothered at all by whatever
restrictions there are on that "technology transfer"...

I think you misunderstand how that kind of trade works. ...

I understand _very_ well how it works, thank you...

As noted, I've observed first hand "technology transfer" at work. And
yes, it's primarily the manufacturing capabilities that are picked up
that can be transferred to other areas besides those of the initial
application.

And, also, yes, materials are often the limiting item; while essentially
all of the centrifuge program was deemed classified (while the US still
_had_ an enrichment program), it was the rotor material and fabrication
that was unique and the crown jewel around which all the other was
designed such that it was intended that what that material was couldn't
be inferred by a clever group of others based on other components
sizing, types, etc., etc., etc., ...

--