Western governments don’t really have a coherent view on how to engage China on trade, and how could they? They vacillate between intimate economic cooperation and antagonistic bluster, depending on the issue and the day, and there is very little in terms of a united front that connects all the various countries that comprise ‘the West’.
Meanwhile, Western businesses are, if anything, worse — and again, how could we expect otherwise? While we’re all quite sick of talking about Elon Musk, the admiration for him in the Western tech world is a perfect example. Consider that an entire defense tech boom built largely around SpaceX alumni and, more broadly, Musk admirers, is being built up in no small part thanks to fear-mongering about Chinese hegemony. Meanwhile, Musk owes the foundation for much of his entire fortune on Chinese manufacturing supply chains.
There’s no way to spin that into a logical position, so everyone more or less just ignores it, and that’s fair enough. The US is involved in a trade war with China while simultaneously dependent on China for the supply of a countless number of strategic goods, so perhaps there’s no need to be logical.
I, for one, think there’s very little difference between the US and China on the world stage, in the sense that China is acting precisely how the US acted when it still had the credibility to dictate terms to the rest of the world. China is simply following that blueprint on a scale that reflects the demographic scale of China, and is working with a toolbox tailored to the cutting-edge of the 21st century. Let’s say you picked out some member of the American governing elite known for having the harshest possible views on China: perhaps I’m mistaken, but I think if that person could snap his or her fingers and instantly transform the US into an American version of China, that is what would happen.
So, when you delve into Western views on China, you are bound to tread in the muddiest of waters. On the other hand, there is mounting evidence that this could be in the process of changing: that a dividing line is being drawn. Interestingly enough, shifting national policies on additive manufacturing (AM) are one of the pieces of evidence of that.
The 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) prohibits DoD from owning or operating 3D printers and 3D printing software from a list of covered countries, the most notable of which is China. DoD also cannot own or operate machines that connect to networks based in those countries. This applies to new contracts entered into a year after the bill’s passage. There are exceptions, including 3D printers used for intelligence purposes, research, training, and electronic warfare, which at least in part seems to be a way to ensure DoD stays apprised of the latest Chinese technology.
However, US defense contractors still aren’t banned from using 3D printing technology from the covered
Western governments don’t really have a coherent view on how to engage China on trade, and how could they? They vacillate between intimate economic cooperation and antagonistic bluster, depending on the issue and the day, and there is very little in terms of a united front that connects all the various countries that comprise ‘the West’.
Meanwhile, Western businesses are, if anything, worse — and again, how could we expect otherwise? While we’re all quite sick of talking about Elon Musk, the admiration for him in the Western tech world is a perfect example. Consider that an entire defense tech boom built largely around SpaceX alumni and, more broadly, Musk admirers, is being built up in no small part thanks to fear-mongering about Chinese hegemony. Meanwhile, Musk owes the foundation for much of his entire fortune on Chinese manufacturing supply chains.
There’s no way to spin that into a logical position, so everyone more or less just ignores it, and that’s fair enough. The US is involved in a trade war with China while simultaneously dependent on China for the supply of a countless number of strategic goods, so perhaps there’s no need to be logical.
I, for one, think there’s very little difference between the US and China on the world stage, in the sense that China is acting precisely how the US acted when it still had the credibility to dictate terms to the rest of the world. China is simply following that blueprint on a scale that reflects the demographic scale of China, and is working with a toolbox tailored to the cutting-edge of the 21st century. Let’s say you picked out some member of the American governing elite known for having the harshest possible views on China: perhaps I’m mistaken, but I think if that person could snap his or her fingers and instantly transform the US into an American version of China, that is what would happen.
So, when you delve into Western views on China, you are bound to tread in the muddiest of waters. On the other hand, there is mounting evidence that this could be in the process of changing: that a dividing line is being drawn. Interestingly enough, shifting national policies on additive manufacturing (AM) are one of the pieces of evidence of that.
The 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) prohibits DoD from owning or operating 3D printers and 3D printing software from a list of covered countries, the most notable of which is China. DoD also cannot own or operate machines that connect to networks based in those countries. This applies to new contracts entered into a year after the bill’s passage. There are exceptions, including 3D printers used for intelligence purposes, research, training, and electronic warfare, which at least in part seems to be a way to ensure DoD stays apprised of the latest Chinese technology.
However, US defense contractors still aren’t banned from using 3D printing technology from the covered