Interesting comparison, given that Firefox was set in the context of the Cold War. The US and China certainly seem to be developing this kind of "frenemy" relationship where they're competitors and at the same time they're commercial partners. How different would the Cold War have been if the U.S.S.R. had done the lion's share of the U.S.'s manufacturing?

US built a lot of factories in USSR before WWII (+ Lend Lease during the war). However, those factories are paid by gold and wheat confiscated or produced by de facto slaves.

It's an interesting premise, however it probably would have been impossible.

China - which has never come even remotely close to doing the lionshare of US manufacturing [1] - required enormous capital to be invested by US (and European) companies to build up their manufacturing base. That capital needed to exist first before it could be invested into Chinese factories. The US got dramatically richer from 1950 to 1970 (GDP went from $280b to $1t, during the strong gold dollar era), while it dominated global manufacturing. The wealth it built up in those decades of manufacturing hegemony is what in part enabled the US to deploy such immense capital into China in the following decades.

The US wouldn't have had the accumulated wealth and consumer base to utilize the USSR as a manufacturing offshore and make the necessary investments, minus the post war domestic manufacturing boom. Unless we're talking about doing that at the very end of the USSR in the late 1980s, after US manufacturing had already peaked and begun to decline. (obviously this is all fantasy, because the USSR's policies would never have allowed for the scenario, but it's an interesting thought experiment regardless)

Also, given the USSR's population ratio with China (~260m people in the USSR versus 980m in China circa 1980), it would have been impossible on a more practical basis, for them to output so much. The USSR's economy was never known for having world-class efficiency and scale of output. They never mastered high quality massive scale manufacturing. I'm skeptical the bureaucracy would have ever made it possible. It's likely they couldn't have output but a modest fraction of US manufacturing needs under any scenario.

[1] US manufacturing output was about ~$2.1 trillion for 2018. Imports from China for 2018 were something like $560 billion. Approximately a 4x difference.

One thing was a movie, the other actually happens. One in the context of a Cold War the world is better off we, the West, won. The other to aid a non democratic regime. Also, we (and the Soviets) should have every right to defend against industrial espionage.

> One thing was a movie, the other actually happens.

Fair point on the comparison, but industrial espionage isn't a one-way street.

So which Soviet industrial secrets did the U.S. steal? Which Chinese industrial secrets did the U.S. steal? It certainly appears to be a one way street.

US DOD reportedly learned quite a bit about jet engine lubrication from a "stolen" MiG-25.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Belenko

The US definitely stole its share of British industrial secrets during the Industrial Revolution and German technology post-WW2, back when the US was behind. The US doesn't need to steal Chinese secrets, we're already ahead.

You should look up the Snowden leaks, and the NSA's activity in the corporate espionage world.

You realize the Snowden leaks only she’d light on our misbehavior and shows little of the shenanigans other powers engage in. You’re getting a very myopic view from Snowden’s leaks.

I think you misunderstood what I said. The comment I replied to expressed the myopic view that stealing trade secrets and corporate espionage is a one-way street.

I'm fully aware that pretty much every nation uses it's capabilities to get an advantage, through any feasible means - that includes corporate espionage. I highlighted the Snowden leaks because they exposed the NSA's activity in that space, in response to a comment that painted the picture of "only the Chinese do this" and "it's a one-way street".