The Global AI Race: A Geopolitical Parallel to the Space Race with U.S.-China Dynamics

Abstract

The race to dominate Artificial Intelligence (AI) mirrors the Cold War space race, with the United States and China as primary contenders vying for technological supremacy. This paper examines the AI race through a comparative lens, analyzing its parallels with the space race in geopolitical competition, innovation, and global implications. Grounded in Realism, Innovation Systems Theory, and Global Justice Theory, the study uses qualitative comparative analysis to assess U.S. and Chinese AI strategies across talent, research, development, adoption, data, and military applications. Data from policy documents, industry reports, and secondary sources reveal the U.S.’s lead in talent and research, China’s strengths in adoption and data, and risks of military escalation and global inequities. The paper proposes multilateral AI governance to ensure safety, equity, and cooperation, contributing to scholarship on technology and geopolitics.

Introduction

In December 1971, Apollo 17 astronaut Ron Evans captivated the world by retrieving film from space, symbolizing U.S. victory in the Cold War space race (Logsdon, 2010). Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson warned that space dominance would grant “control, total control, over the Earth” (ElHalawany, 2020). Nearly six decades later, Russian President Vladimir Putin echoed this sentiment, stating, “Whoever becomes the leader in [AI] will become the ruler of the world” (ElHalawany, 2020). The global race to lead AI development, particularly between the United States and China, has emerged as a defining geopolitical contest, with stakes rivaling those of the space race.

The space race was a bipolar struggle between the U.S. and Soviet Union, driven by military and ideological ambitions (Logsdon, 2010). The AI race, however, is multipolar, involving states, corporations, and academia, with China challenging U.S. dominance through state-driven AI strategies (Ding, 2018). This paper compares the AI race to the space race, focusing on U.S.-China competition across talent, research, development, adoption, data, and military applications. It addresses three research questions: (1) How does the AI race parallel the space race? (2) What are the strategic approaches of the U.S. and China in AI development? (3) What are the implications for global governance, military security, and equity?

Theoretical Framework

This study employs three theoretical lenses to analyze the AI race:

1. Realism: Realism views international relations as a competition for power among states (Morgenthau, 1948). The AI race reflects realist dynamics, with the U.S. and China seeking AI supremacy to secure military, economic, and geopolitical advantages. Realism frames AI as a strategic asset in global rivalry.

2. Innovation Systems Theory: This theory examines how institutions, policies, and networks drive technological innovation (Lundvall, 1992). It explains U.S. and Chinese AI ecosystems, highlighting differences in government-industry collaboration, resource allocation, and innovation strategies.

3. Global Justice Theory: Global Justice Theory critiques inequities in global systems, advocating for fair distribution of benefits (Rawls, 1999). It addresses the marginalization of smaller nations and developing regions in the AI race, emphasizing ethical imperatives for inclusive governance.

These frameworks provide a multidimensional perspective on the AI race’s geopolitical, institutional, and ethical dimensions.

Methodology

This study uses a qualitative comparative analysis to juxtapose the AI race with the space race and evaluate U.S.-China AI strategies. Data were sourced from:

• Primary Sources: Policy documents, including China’s New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan (State Council of China, 2017) and the U.S. Executive Order on Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence (Executive Office of the President, 2019).

• Secondary Sources: Industry reports (e.g., Allen & Chan, 2019), news articles (e.g., Metz, 2020), and academic literature on AI and geopolitics.

• Expert Commentary: Public statements from policymakers, industry leaders, and analysts (e.g., ElHalawany, 2020; Carnegie Moscow Center, 2019).

Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was applied to code data for themes: geopolitical competition, innovation ecosystems, military applications, and global equity. The comparative approach draws on historical space race data (Logsdon, 2010) to contextualize AI race dynamics, ensuring a robust and replicable methodology.

Analysis

Parallels Between the AI Race and Space Race

The AI race shares critical features with the space race, with distinct differences:

• Geopolitical Competition: The space race was a U.S.-Soviet contest for ideological and military dominance (Logsdon, 2010). Similarly, the AI race is a U.S.-China rivalry for technological hegemony, with global influence at stake (Ding, 2018).

• Public and Scientific Impact: The space race inspired public imagination through milestones like Apollo 11 and drove technological advancements (e.g., satellites) (Logsdon, 2010). The AI race shapes public life via applications like autonomous vehicles and surveillance, fueling innovation in machine learning (Allen & Chan, 2019).

• Strategic Narratives: Both races leverage narratives of national pride and security. The space race symbolized democratic triumph; the AI race positions the U.S. as an innovation leader and China as a rising power (ElHalawany, 2020).

Unlike the bipolar space race, the AI race is multipolar, involving the EU, Russia, and private firms (e.g., Google, Baidu), making it more complex and unstable (Bughin et al., 2021).

U.S. and China AI Strategies

The Center for Data Innovation’s report (Allen & Chan, 2019) evaluates AI capabilities across six metrics: talent, research, development, adoption, data, and hardware. The U.S. leads with 44.2 points, China follows with 32.3, and the EU trails with 23.5. Key findings include:

• United States:

  • Strengths: Excels in talent (e.g., MIT, Stanford researchers), research (leading AI publications), development (e.g., Google’s TensorFlow), and hardware (NVIDIA’s dominance). The American AI Initiative (2019) allocates federal funding for R&D, emphasizing private-sector innovation (Executive Office of the President, 2019).

  • Approach: Market-driven, with a conservative stance on Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). Former President Barack Obama noted AGI is “a reasonably long way away” (ElHalawany, 2020), reflecting skepticism about near-term human-level AI.

  • Challenges: Policy fragmentation and slow government-industry alignment hinder strategic coherence (Bughin et al., 2021).

• China:

  • Strengths: Leads in adoption (e.g., AI in smart cities, facial recognition) and data (1.4 billion internet users). The New Generation AI Development Plan (2017) integrates academic, military, and commercial efforts, with Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent as a “national team” focusing on smart cities, computer vision, and medical AI (State Council of China, 2017).

  • Approach: State-driven, with ambitious AGI goals by 2030. Centralized data access enhances algorithm training (Ding, 2018).

  • Challenges: Lags in talent (fewer top-tier researchers) and basic research, relying on applied AI (Allen & Chan, 2019).

China’s rapid adoption and data advantages position it to challenge U.S. dominance, potentially overtaking in specific domains by 2030 (Allen & Chan, 2019).

Military AI Developments

AI’s military applications intensify the race, aligning with Realism’s focus on security (Morgenthau, 1948). The U.S. maintains a lead, with Project Maven integrating AI into intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance for counterterrorism (Metz, 2020). The Department of Defense prioritizes semi-autonomous and autonomous systems, including drones and fighter aircraft, supported by DARPA investments (U.S. Department of Defense, 2020).

China, despite limited combat experience, advances military AI through wargames and augmented reality simulations (Ding, 2018). Baidu’s 2015 language recognition software, surpassing human benchmarks, supports surveillance and military applications, while Tencent’s computer vision enhances targeting systems (ElHalawany, 2020). U.S. military leaders express concerns about China’s progress in specific AI applications, fearing a narrowing gap (Metz, 2020).

Notably, Project Maven’s reliance on Google engineers, including Chinese citizens, highlights U.S.-China interdependencies, suggesting potential for cooperation despite rivalry (Metz, 2020).

Global Equity and Marginalization

Global Justice Theory reveals inequities in the AI race (Rawls, 1999). Smaller nations like Russia lag due to resource constraints, with the Carnegie Moscow Center (2019) noting Moscow’s inability to match U.S. and Chinese capabilities, though it may lead in niche areas. Developing countries in the Global South face infrastructure barriers (e.g., limited computing resources), risking exclusion from AI benefits (UNESCO, 2020). China’s data advantage, enabled by state surveillance, raises privacy concerns, while U.S. dominance in talent marginalizes non-Western researchers (ElHalawany, 2020). These disparities threaten a global “digital divide,” necessitating inclusive governance to ensure equitable access.

Discussion

The AI race parallels the space race in its geopolitical stakes and innovation potential but is more complex due to its multipolar and multisectoral nature (Bughin et al., 2021). Realism explains U.S.-China rivalry, with AI as a tool for military and economic dominance (Morgenthau, 1948). Innovation Systems Theory highlights the U.S.’s academic-driven model versus China’s state-coordinated approach, suggesting complementary strengths could enable collaboration (Lundvall, 1992). Global Justice Theory underscores the ethical imperative to include marginalized regions, preventing a technology divide (Rawls, 1999).

The U.S.’s lead in talent and research is vulnerable to China’s rapid adoption and data advantages (Allen & Chan, 2019). Military AI advancements, like Project Maven and China’s surveillance systems, raise risks of escalation and ethical dilemmas (Floridi, 2021). The U.S.-China interdependence in Project Maven suggests technology could bridge tensions, but without governance, competition may destabilize global security (Metz, 2020).

To address these challenges, a multilateral AI governance framework is proposed, including:

• Global Standards: Harmonized protocols for AI safety and ethics, led by international bodies like the UN (UNESCO, 2020).

• Inclusive Governance: Representation of Global South nations and smaller states in AI policy forums to ensure equitable benefits.

• Public-Private Collaboration: Partnerships between governments, firms, and academia to balance innovation and regulation (Floridi, 2021).

Conclusion

The global AI race, akin to the space race, is a geopolitical contest with transformative implications, driven by U.S.-China competition. Realism, Innovation Systems Theory, and Global Justice Theory illuminate strategic rivalries, institutional dynamics, and ethical challenges. The U.S. leads in talent and research, but China’s adoption and data strengths signal a closing gap. Military AI advancements underscore the urgency of governance to prevent escalation, while global inequities demand inclusive policies. A multilateral framework is essential to ensure AI development is safe, equitable, and cooperative. Future research should explore governance models and their impact on global equity, guiding policy toward a balanced AI future.

References

Allen, G., & Chan, T. (2019). Who is winning the AI race: China, the EU, or the United States? Center for Data Innovation. https://www.datainnovation.org/2019/08/who-is-winning-the-ai-race/

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bughin, J., Seong, J., Manyika, J., Hämäläinen, L., & Windhagen, E. (2021). Transforming business with AI: Perspectives on strategy and policy. McKinsey Global Institute. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/transforming-business-with-ai

Carnegie Moscow Center. (2019). Russia’s AI ambitions: Opportunities and challenges. https://carnegiemoscow.org/2019/10/15/russia-s-ai-ambitions-opportunities-and-challenges-pub-80047

Ding, J. (2018). Deciphering China’s AI dream. Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford. https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/Deciphering_Chinas_AI-Dream.pdf

ElHalawany, R. (2020, December 7). Is the Artificial Intelligence race, the new space race? But this time China plays in. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/artificial-intelligence-race-new-space-but-time-china-raghda-elhalawany/

Executive Office of the President. (2019). Executive order on maintaining American leadership in artificial intelligence. Federal Register, 84(34), 3967–3972. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-14/pdf/2019-02544.pdf

Floridi, L. (2021). The ethics of artificial intelligence: Principles, challenges, and opportunities. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 37(4), 678–695. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grab026

Logsdon, J. M. (2010). John F. Kennedy and the race to the moon. Palgrave Macmillan.

Lundvall, B.-Å. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter Publishers.

Metz, C. (2020, October 25). When A.I. falls into the wrong hands, it’s not just the U.S. that suffers. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/technology/project-maven-google-pentagon-ai.html

Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. Alfred A. Knopf.

Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Rev. ed.). Harvard University Press.

State Council of China. (2017). New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan. (S. J. De La Cruz, Trans.). New America. https://www.newamerica.org/cybersecurity-initiative/digichina/blog/full-translation-chinas-new-generation-artificial-intelligence-development-plan-2017/

U.S. Department of Defense. (2020). DOD adopts ethical principles for artificial intelligence. https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2094085/dod-adopts-ethical-principles-for-artificial-intelligence/

UNESCO. (2020). Artificial intelligence and the digital divide. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374330