Project Socrates: Debating Two Ways Of Crypto App Development

[grarpamp]

China Threat Grows As Beijing's 'Tech-Based' Plans Dominate
Washington's 'Finances-First' Approach

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Socrates
http://www.michaelsekora.com/
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/asking-questions-about-china/
Authored by John Mac Ghlionn

During the Reagan administration, Michael Sekora helped establish
Project Socrates, a classified U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency
program. The aim of the program was twofold: first, to identify the
reasons why the U.S. was struggling to maintain its economic
advantage; and second, to remedy the situation as quickly as possible.
(Romsvetnik/Shutterstock)

In 1979, two years before Reagan became the 40th president of the
United States, Sekora had been recruited by the CIA. He worked as an
intelligence officer within the Office of Technical Services. He was a
physicist by training, having entered the University of Michigan at
the age of 15 and then attended Miami University for graduate studies.
In 1983, Sekora transferred from the CIA to the Defense Intelligence
Agency, and Project Socrates was born.

Although he and his colleagues at Project Socrates had identified the
China threat for Reagan, Sekora told me, and were working on
strategies to contain that threat, when President Bush came into
office, his administration “abolished Socrates to appease certain
allies.”

Sekora agreed to answer a few of my questions, and presented his view
that the United States is mistakenly focused on finance-based rather
than technology-based planning and strategy in addressing the
challenge posed by China. Our conversation is presented in an edited
form for the sake of length and clarity.

The China threat has only grown. Today, Sekora said, China is winning
because it is putting strategic technologies first.

    [It] is executing an offensive/defensive adroit game of worldwide
technology exploitation chess. As a result, China will continue to out
maneuver the U.S. R&D no matter how much money we spend. That is what
has enabled China to become a superpower faster than any country in
the history of the world. China’s rise to power is not based on cheap
labor, currency manipulation and a little theft of U.S. technology as
all the experts maintain. If that was all that China was doing, China
would still be only producing hand assembled trinkets, as they did in
the 1950s, instead of beating the U.S. in quantum, AI, biotech, et
cetera.

While he has dealings with Congress, the Department of Defense, and
the intelligence community, Sekora said he is deeply frustrated by
what he sees and hears, because “none of what is being executed or
proposed by these organizations has any chance of countering China.”

In some cases, he said, the responses proposed will “actually
accelerate the decline of the U.S. and the rise of China.” I asked
why.

    Because they are based on some very faulty core assumptions. One
is that the U.S. is in an R&D footrace with China. Both sides hunker
down in their respective labs to address the “key” technologies and
whoever gets to the R&D breakthrough finish line first has the
competitive advantage and wins!

American leadership believes the way to beat China to the finish line
is to spend more money than the opponent, Sekora said. “In actuality,
increasing U.S. spending on R&D will increase not decrease or reverse
the rate of U.S. decline,” he explained.

Of course, that seems rather counterintuitive; I pressed Sekora to clarify.

    If the U.S. continues to execute its present approach to
rebuilding U.S. economic health and military might to remain a
superpower and counter China, the U.S. will be a poor debtor nation in
a world where China is the sole world superpower, and this will occur
in much less than 10 years. The underlying cause is that at the end of
WWII, the U.S. began shifting from technology-based planning to
finance-based planning.

Today, he went on to say, finance-based planning is still pervasive
throughout the entire U.S. economy and military ecosystem, from
private industry to the Department of Defense and the White House.

The difference between the two is that in finance-based planning, “the
foundation of all decision making is the optimization of the funds,”
or how to manipulate money to achieve a financial objective, such as
staying within budget.

Meanwhile, in technology-based planning, “the foundation of all
decision making is exploiting the technology more effectively than the
competition/adversaries to generate a true competitive advantage in
the marketplace or on the battlefield.”

Technology-based planning helped the U.S. became a superpower before
WWII, Sekora said, and was also what Japan used after WWII to
transform itself into an industrial giant in 20 short years. Our
rivals use it, too.

“[It’s] what the Soviets used in the Cold War to match the U.S.
militarily from a much smaller economic base,” he said. And China, not
surprisingly, “has been using it for decades to become a superpower
faster than any country in history.”

Today, Sekora said, the U.S. uses finance-based planning for economic
strength and military might, which forms the basis of our political
actions and strength. China, on the other hand, uses technology-based
planning. Because of this, he argues, “China will continue on its
rise, and the U.S. will continue in its rapid decline.”

As is already obvious, Sekora is not optimistic about the chances of
success of America’s current strategy. What is the current
administration doing wrong? I asked.

“A better question is, ‘What is the current administration doing
right?'” Sekora said. “Everything that this administration and
Congress are doing and proposing is based on finance-based planning.”

By focusing on the financial system, the current administration is
further enabling China at the expense of the United States.

“China can literally neutralize a U.S. multi-billion-dollar R&D
initiative for pennies on the dollar,” Sekora said, “while ensuring
that they have the competitive advantage on the battlefield or in the
marketplace.”

Sekora and his colleagues are currently working for the
reestablishment of Project Socrates.

John Mac Ghlionn is a researcher and essayist. His work has been
published by the likes of National Review, New York Post, South China
Morning Post, and the Sydney Morning Herald. He can be found on
Twitter at @ghlionn.