Technological Aspect of US-China Competition

The international system is undergoing a power shift in the 21st Century. An understanding of the effects of emerging powers on the current world order can be derived through a mathematical analysis of power. When calculating the distribution of power, the ‘Powermetrics Approach’ considers power in economic, military, and geopolitical terms. ‘Economic power’ also encompasses ‘military power’, and economic and military power combined define the ‘geopolitical power’ of a country.

Over the past few years, global power competition between the United States (US) and China has been a centre of all debates related to power. Applying the ‘Powermetrics Approach’ to such issues, it has been predicted that China is ahead of the US towards becoming the world’s most powerful economy, and in military and geopolitical domains, it is also making huge progress, according to a Powermetric Research Network Assessment from 2020. This assessment ranked countries according to their power status – superpower, global, great, or regional power. It ranked the US as a ‘superpower’ in military and geopolitical dominance, but it was ranked second in economic dominance.

One area in which competition between the two countries is intense, and superiority of a specific state, is uncertain is technological dominance. If we look at the broad contours of the competition specifically in this domain, we can discuss technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), robotics, cyber and space, and assess where competition between these two major states is coming to a head.

There is a rising competition between the US and China in critical technologies, such as AI, machine learning, robotics, and autonomous weapons. According to a report, the US doubled its investment in critical technologies from USD 60.7 billion in FY 2017 to USD117.2 billion in FY2021. However, ‘despite these efforts, moving fast enough to beat China remains a pernicious challenge.’ On the other side, in China, there is great potential for AI growth and, by 2030, it will add up to USD 600 billion to its economy. Similarly, in robotics, China became a global leader with a 43% share in patents issued in 2019, and the US comes fourth after Japan and South Korea. Even though China appears to be ahead of the US in critical technologies, however, keeping in view the huge investments the latter is making, it may become a leader in this domain.

Similarly, inthe cyber sphere, competition is getting complex as a result of China’s ascent to significant world power status in this area. The nation boasts the largest internet user population in the world, which is one of its primary advantages in utilising this potential to grow its economy. In 2018, President Xi Jinping expressed the Chinese ambition of becoming a cyber great power by 2049. On the other hand, in the US, when it comes to cyber, the key feature is ‘deterrence’. There are deliberations about the current cyber strategy, whether it is a substitute to deterrence or its complement. In this context, the US has gathered policy inputs, resources and created an operational environment to support its Defend Forward efforts, however, it is yet ambiguous what future US cyber security policy would look like considering its enhanced security requirements and need to protect its interests at home and with its allies.

In the field of space, great power competition is intensifying as space militarisation is growing. The US Defense Intelligence Agency cautioned that since 2019, China and Russia have increased their in-orbit space assets by 70%. Additionally, their ambitions to explore celestial bodies such as the moon and Mars are viewed as a critical security concern for the US.

Keeping in view the nuances of their competition in the technological domain, it is believed that if the US and China get into the battle of technological dominance, both will fail obstructing global technology advancement and economic expansion. However, in matters relating to national security, there are zero-sum rules. With increased reliance during conflict, technologies that are used for military and security purposes, will need to be isolated from what is otherwise a reasonably open global technological race to encourage healthy competition.

To conclude, both countries are aspiring to dominate each other in the tech domain. For any country, long-term technological dominance is improbable due to continuous innovation. Hence, both should adopt a pragmatic approach that is realistic and advantageous to their economic growth as well. For instance, if the US approach is not to lag behind China, and China’s approach to catch up in areas where it trails, both states should consider the cost that their economies have to pay in case they fail to achieve their objectives. In this respect, they can cooperate with each other by making significant investments in science and technology adding an element of strategic cooperation to their strategic competition.

Etfa Khurshid Mirza is a Researcher at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. Her area of interest is warfare and emerging technologies. She can be reached at [email protected]

Image Credit: Online Sources


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »