This is only true if you naively believe that being compromised by the US carries even remotely similar risk to being compromised by the CCP.
One key difference: China is an adversary to the US and UK. The US is not an adversary to the UK. This strategic relativism is tired and indefensible in any version of reality.
Not generally, but there are cases where they are. Ask Assange, for example. Surely the UK has information they would rather not share with the US in some cases.
Not tactically aligned 100% of the time != an adversary.
To act otherwise - or to act like China ought to enjoy a similar relationship - is downright dangerous in the face of escalating geopolitical tensions.
I don’t believe I proposed that the UK “blindly follow” the US, nor did I even say it’s a-okay that the US might engage in espionage against allies. I said that the US-UK relationship is absolutely nothing like the UK-CCP relationship, and therefore US efforts to project power are in no way comparable to Chinese efforts (as far as the UK is concerned).
However, if you really want an answer, there are two reasons that the UK ought to align itself with the US (and vice versa). Those two reasons are Russia and China. We are fortunate to be living in an era of widespread peace, but that is not guaranteed indefinitely. Should, god forbid, widespread warfare break out once again (as it has since tribal days up until the last 80 years or so), any westerner with a modicum of understanding of Putin’s or Xi’s ideal world ought to be on the side of the US/UK.
> US efforts to project power are in no way comparable to Chinese efforts (as far as the UK is concerned).
The UK conducts extensive trade with both the US and China, so the potential for trade disputes with either country is there. At the moment, I think it's fair to say that a major trade dispute with the US is more likely than a trade dispute with China.
> Should, god forbid, widespread warfare break out once again (as it has since tribal days up until the last 80 years or so), any westerner with a modicum of understanding of Putin’s or Xi’s ideal world ought to be on the side of the US/UK.
Whatever you think of China, you can't claim that it's been more belligerent than the US in the past several decades. Blindly backing the US and giving in to its demands (backed by sanctions against its own allies, as in the case of Germany) to cut off ties with China and Russia might not be the best way to promote global peace.
It seems like you’re missing my point. A trade dispute with China (or the US) is not the primary risk we should have in mind when thinking about this.
Becoming technologically dependent upon China puts the western world at strategic risk, which we have every reason to believe China will eventually cash in on when the time is right. When they cash in on it, it will not be for the advancement of liberal democracy or basic human dignity. As reckless and shameful as American policy has been of late, it continues to be the most powerful benefactor of liberal democracy the world over. I do not believe that China is belligerent. I know that it is ideologically opposed to liberal democracy. It’s apparently hard for many westerners to believe that there are those who truly do not believe in democratic ideals, but there are and they are growing in power and ambition.
It is naive to believe that our current state of affairs is guaranteed and one need only worry about maximizing the economic prosperity of a society that they see as guaranteed to be democratic. Do you think that millions of people died in WW2 in the name of trade regimes? Or was there a more substantial threat that was being addressed? Is that threat wholly eradicated, and will it always be so?
> When they cash in on it, it will not be for the advancement of liberal democracy or basic human dignity. As reckless and shameful as American policy has been of late, it continues to be the most powerful benefactor of liberal democracy the world over.
I don't see any evidence of that.
> I know that it is ideologically opposed to liberal democracy.
The Chinese government doesn't care about the existence or nonexistence of liberal democracy in the UK, US, or really anywhere other than in China itself. They're not out to destroy democracy in the UK. They care about their interests, which in regards to the UK are mostly economic.
> Do you think that millions of people died in WW2 in the name of trade regimes?
The CCP fought on the same side as the US and UK in WWII.
> Is that threat wholly eradicated, and will it always be so?
It was largely eradicated for a long time, though the far right is making a comeback in many countries. The major threat I see now, however, is the increasing conflict between the US and China, and the extreme recklessness of American foreign policy.
Sure, you didn't explicitly say either. Apologies for that. But from my point of view, you implied it. I recognize it's a fuzzy area. But using 100% US gear does imply some acceptance of blindness. We (US govt) are pretty up front about our manipulation.
No apologies necessary, just trying to clarify - that was an unintentional implication.
I do not even want the UK to use 100% US gear, never mind think they strategically should use 100% US gear. My argument is only that becoming reliant (whether defined as a critical 1% of the network or the entire 100% of the network) upon the US is not analogous to the same level of reliance upon the CCP - at least from the perspective of the UK.
One key difference: China is an adversary to the US and UK. The US is not an adversary to the UK. This strategic relativism is tired and indefensible in any version of reality.