it’s been quite a while since I’ve come across any material about Nanopolis, a scientific complex in China devoted to nanotechnology (as described in my September 26, 2014 posting titled, More on Nanopolis in China’s Suzhou Industrial Park). Note: The most recent , prior to now, information about the complex is in my June 1, 2017 posting, which mentions China’s Nanopolis and Nano-X endeavours.

Dr. Mahbube K. Siddiki’s March 12, 2022 article about China’s nanotechnology work in the Small Wars Journal provides a situation overview and an update along with a tidbit about Nanopolis, Note: Footnotes for the article have not been included here,

The Nanotechnology industry in China is moving forward, with substantially high levels of funding, a growing talent pool, and robust international collaborations. The strong state commitment to support this field of science and technology is a key advantage for China to compete with leading forces like US, EU, Japan, and Russia. The Chinese government focuses on increasing competitiveness in nanotechnology by its inclusion as strategic industry in China’s 13th Five-Year Plan, reconfirming state funding, legislative and regulatory support. Research and development (R&D) in Nanoscience and Nanotechnology is a key component of the ambitious ‘Made in China 2025’ initiative aimed at turning China into a high-tech manufacturing powerhouse [1].

…

A bright example of Chinese nanotech success is the world’s largest nanotech industrial zone called ‘Nanopolis’, located in the eastern city of Suzhou. This futuristic city houses several private multinationals and new Chinese startups across different fields of nanotechnology and nanoscience. Needless to say, China leads the world’s nanotech startups. Involvement of private sector opens new and unique pools of funding and talent, focusing on applied research. Thus, private sector is leading in R&D in China, where state-sponsored institutions still dominate in all other sectors of rapid industrialization and modernization. From cloning to cancer research, from sea to space exploration, this massive and highly populated nation is using nanoscience and nanotechnology innovation to drive some of the world’s biggest breakthroughs, which is raising concerns in many other competing countries [3].

…

China has established numerous nanotech research institutions throughout the country over the years. Prominent universities like Peking University, City University of Hong Kong, Nanjing University, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Soochow University, University of Science and Technology of China are the leading institutions that house state of art nanotech research labs to foster study and research of nanoscience and nanotechnology [5]. Chinese Academy of Science (CAS), National Center for Nanoscience and Technology (NCNST) and Suzhou Institute of Nano-Tech and Nano-Bionics (SINANO) are top among the state sponsored specialized nanoscience and nanotechnology research centers, which have numerous labs and prominent researchers to conduct cutting edge research in the area of nanotechnology. Public-Private collaboration along with the above mentioned research institutes gave birth to many nanotechnology companies, most notable of them are Array Nano, Times Nano, Haizisi Nano Technology, Nano Medtech, Sun Nanotech, XP nano etc. [6]. These companies are thriving on the research breakthroughs China achieved recently in this sector. 

Here are some of the notable achievements in this sector by China. In June 2020, an international team of researchers led by Chinese scientists developed a new form of synthetic and  biodegradable nanoparticle [7]. This modifiable lipid nanoparticle is capable of targeting, penetrating, and altering cells by delivering the CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing tool into a cell. This novel nanoparticle can be used in the treatment of some gene related disorders, as well as other diseases including some forms of cancer in the brain, liver, and lungs. At the State Key Laboratory of Robotics in the northeast city of Shenyang, researchers have developed a laser that produces a tiny gas bubble[8]. This bubble can be used as a tiny “robot” to manipulate and move materials on a nanoscale with microscopic precision. The technology termed as “Bubble bot” promises new possibilities in the field of artificial tissue creation and cloning [9].

…

In another report [13] it was shown that China surpassed the U.S. in chemistry in 2018 and now leading the later with a significant gap, which might take years to overcome. In the meantime, the country is approaching the US in Earth & Environmental sciences as well as physical sciences. According to the trend China may take five years or less to surpass US. On the contrary, in life science research China is lagging the US quite significantly, which might be attributed to both countries’ priority of sponsorship, in terms of funding. In fact, in the time of CORONA pandemic, US can use this gap for her strategic gain over China.

Outstanding economic growth and rapid technological advances of China over the last three decades have given her an unprecedented opportunity to play a leading role in contemporary geopolitical competition. The United States, and many of her partners and allies in the west as well as in Asia, have a range of concerns about how the authoritarian leadership in Beijing maneuver [sic] its recently gained power and position on the world stage. They are warily observing this regime’s deployment of sophisticated technology like “Nano” in ways that challenge many of their core interests and values all across the world. Though the U.S. is considered the only superpower in the world and has maintained its position as the dominant power of technological innovation for decades, China has made massive investments and swiftly implemented policies that have contributed significantly to its technological innovation, economic growth, military capability, and global influence. In some areas, China has eclipsed, or is on the verge of eclipsing, the United States — particularly in the rapid deployment of certain technologies, and nanoscience and nanotechnology appears to be the leading one. …

[About Dr. Siddiki]

Dr. Siddiki is an instructor of Robotic and Autonomous System in the Department of Multi-Domain Operations at the [US] Army Management Staff College where he teaches and does research in that area. He was Assistant Teaching Professor of Electrical Engineering at the Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering in the School of Computing and Engineering at University of Missouri Kansas City (UMKC). In UMKC, Dr. Siddiki designed, developed and taught undergraduate and graduate level courses, and supervised research works of Ph.D., Master and undergraduate students. Dr. Siddiki’s research interests lie in the area of nano and quantum tech, Robotic and Autonomous System, Green Energy & Power, and their implications in geopolitics.

As you can see in the article, there are anxieties over China’s rising dominance with regard to scientific research and technology; these anxieties have become more visible since I started this blog in 2008.

I was piqued to see that Dr. Siddiki’s article is in the Small Wars Journal and not in a journal focused on science, research, technology, and/or economics. I found this explanation for the term, ‘small wars’ on the journal’s About page (Note: A link has been removed),

…

Small Wars” is an imperfect term used to describe a broad spectrum of spirited continuation of politics by other means, falling somewhere in the middle bit of the continuum between feisty diplomatic words and global thermonuclear war.  The Small Wars Journal embraces that imperfection.

Just as friendly fire isn’t, there isn’t necessarily anything small about a Small War.

The term “Small War” either encompasses or overlaps with a number of familiar terms such as counterinsurgency, foreign internal defense, support and stability operations, peacemaking, peacekeeping, and many flavors of intervention.  Operations such as noncombatant evacuation, disaster relief, and humanitarian assistance will often either be a part of a Small War, or have a Small Wars feel to them.  Small Wars involve a wide spectrum of specialized tactical, technical, social, and cultural skills and expertise, requiring great ingenuity from their practitioners.  The Small Wars Manual (a wonderful resource, unfortunately more often referred to than read) notes that:

Small Wars demand the highest type of leadership directed by intelligence, resourcefulness, and ingenuity. Small Wars are conceived in uncertainty, are conducted often with precarious responsibility and doubtful authority, under indeterminate orders lacking specific instructions.

The “three block war” construct employed by General Krulak is exceptionally useful in describing the tactical and operational challenges of a Small War and of many urban operations.  Its only shortcoming is that is so useful that it is often mistaken as a definition or as a type of operation.

…

Who Are Those Guys?

Small Wars Journal is NOT a government, official, or big corporate site. It is run by Small Wars Foundation, a non-profit corporation, for the benefit of the Small Wars community of interest. The site principals are Dave Dilegge (Editor-in-Chief) and Bill Nagle (Publisher), and it would not be possible without the support of myriad volunteers as well as authors who care about this field and contribute their original works to the community. We do this in our spare time, because we want to.  McDonald’s pays more.  But we’d rather work to advance our noble profession than watch TV, try to super-size your order, or interest you in a delicious hot apple pie.  If and when you’re not flipping burgers, please join us.

The overview and analysis provided by Dr. Siddiki is very interesting to me and absent any conflicting data, I’m assuming it’s solid work. As for the anxiety that permeates the article, this is standard. All countries are anxious about who’s winning the science and technology race. If memory serves, you can find an example of the anxiety in C.P. Snow’s classic lecture and book, Two Cultures (the book is “The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution”) given/published in 1959. The British scientific establishment was very concerned that it was being eclipsed by the US and by the Russians.