华尔街日报 x a16z：未来25年的国防创新

我认为世界已经改变了。

I think the world has changed.

我认为人们意识到我们正处于一个全新的现实之中。

I think people realize that we're in a new reality.

我们的观点是投资于下一个前沿领域。

Our view is investing in sort of ahead of what is the next theater.

未来十年我们需要投资的东西是，下一场战争实际上将在太空中进行。

What is the thing that we need to be investing in in the next ten years is that the next war is actually going to be fought in space.

几年前，如果我说我投资了一家位于硅谷的高超音速武器公司，我想我会被赶出房间。

A couple years ago, if I had said I invested in a hypersonic weapon company in Silicon Valley, I think I would have been kicked out of the room.

但在2023年，当我们投资安德森·霍洛维茨时，没有人对此表示反对。

And in 2023, when we invested in Andreessen Horowitz, there was not a peep out of people thinking that this was terrible.

技术是支撑美国强大、令世界羡慕的根本。

Technology is the backbone of what makes America strong, what is the envy of the world.

如果我们不将这一点应用于国家安全和国家利益，就会失去很多竞争优势。

And if we don't apply that to our national security and our national interest, we lose a lot of that competitive nature.

我认为这将定义未来二十五年硅谷的创新方向。

This is something that I think is going to define the next twenty five years of innovation in Silicon Valley.

1956年，洛克希德·马丁在硅谷的员工数量是惠普防务投资的六倍，后者推动了该地区的发展。

In 1956, Lockheed Martin had six times as many employees in Silicon Valley as HP Defense Investment built the region.

随后趋势转向软件，到2017年，谷歌员工宁愿辞职也不愿为国防部工作。

Then the pendulum swung to software, and by 2017, Google employees were walking out rather than work with the Department of Defense.

2022年1月，六西格玛宣布成立美国活力实践部门三周后，俄罗斯入侵了乌克兰。

Three weeks after a sixty z announced its American dynamism practice in January 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine.

这改变了所有事情。

That changed everything.

SpaceX和Palantir的前员工开始创办专注于国家利益的公司：自主水面舰艇、高超音速武器、低成本且能快速大规模生产的可消耗系统。

SpaceX and Palantir alumni started founding companies focused on the national interest: autonomous surface vessels, hypersonic weapons, attritable systems built cheaply and mass produced quickly.

如今，硅谷的每一家风投公司都在投资国防领域。

Now every venture firm in Silicon Valley is investing in defense.

问题是，这究竟代表了一种持久的创新类别，还是一次性的投资主题。

The question is whether this represents a lasting category of innovation or a one time thesis.

在本期节目中，我们分享了来自《华尔街日报》投资峰会的录音，其中《巴伦周刊》特约编辑安迪·塞韦尔与十六号资本的普通合伙人凯瑟琳·博伊尔对话，探讨为何这一时刻将定义硅谷未来二十五年的创新。

In this episode, we share a recording from WSJ Invest Live, where Barron's editor at large, Andy Serwer, speaks with Catherine Boyle, general partner at a sixteen z, about why this moment will define the next twenty five years of Silicon Valley.

那么请跟我们说说安德森·霍洛维茨的‘美国活力’计划吧，这是全球最知名的风投公司之一，这个计划意味着什么？

So tell us about the American dynamism practice at Andreessen Horowitz, which is one of the world's most prominent VC firms, and what does it mean?

当然。

Sure.

四年前，我加入了安德森·霍洛维茨，当时的想法非常简单。

So four years ago, I joined Andreessen Horowitz, and it was a very simple thesis.

我们没有围绕某种新技术，比如人工智能，或者某个客户群体，比如企业或消费者市场，来建立一个专项团队，而是尝试围绕一个非常简单的使命来组建团队——即支持国家利益的公司。

It was instead of building a practice around a new type of technology, say AI, or around a customer set, a go to market set, enterprise or consumer, what if we built a practice around a very simple mission, which is companies that support the national interest?

当时我们宣布这个计划时，是在2022年1月。

And at the time when we announced it, we announced it actually in January 2022.

在那之前，我们已经在这几个领域投入了很多。

We had been investing a lot in these categories before.

我和我的合伙人大卫·乌洛维奇——他当时已经在公司了——早已投资了安多里尔、Shield AI 和 SpaceX 等公司。

I had been investing my partner David Ulovich, who was already at the firm, had been investing in companies like Andoril and Shield AI and SpaceX.

当我们宣布启动这一项目并投入资金时，硅谷震惊了。

And when we announced that we were starting this practice and actually going to dedicate capital to it, Silicon Valley was really stunned.

我的意思是，这太令人震惊了。

I mean, it was shocking.

而我们公开提到‘美国’这一点，更让人感到震惊。

And the fact that we said America out loud was even more shocking.

我认为人们感到震惊，是因为当时硅谷普遍认为技术始终是全球性的。

I think people were stunned because the view that technology is always global was sort of the dominant view inside of Silicon Valley at the time.

四年后的今天，我们就在这里。

And four years later, here we are.

实际上，我们宣布之后三周，俄罗斯就入侵了乌克兰。

Actually, three weeks after we announced it, Russia invaded Ukraine.

我认为，那一刻彻底改变了人们对国防、航空航天等领域的投资观念，这些领域，如果你身在华盛顿特区，

And I'd say that was the moment that sort of changed everything about investing in defense, investing in aerospace, sort of these categories where, if you're in Washington, D.

或者身在其他国家的其他地方，当你听到‘技术’这个词时，首先想到的就是这些。

C, or if you're in other parts of the country, that's what you think of when you hear the word technology.

但在硅谷，当时并没有人真正这么做。

But in Silicon Valley, that was not something that was really done at the time.

所以我说，四年后的今天，我们就在这里。

And so we say four years later, here we are.

我认为硅谷的每一家风投公司现在都在投资这些领域。

I'd say every venture firm in Silicon Valley is investing in these categories.

他们再也不害怕航空航天了。

They're not afraid of aerospace anymore.

我们昨天有一些关于SpaceX的重大消息，显然现在人们已经对此有所关注。

We had some big SpaceX news yesterday, obviously, that I think people are now attuned to.

但当你回顾过去十年的技术发展时，投资硬件、实体产品以及支持国家利益的技术——这些正是大多数美国人想到关键技术时所联想到的——在硅谷根本不是潮流。

But it really, when you think of the last decade of technology, investing in hardware, investing in physical goods, investing in things that support the national interest that most Americans think of when they think about critical technologies was just not in vogue in Silicon Valley.

在我进入下一个问题之前，我想就A16Z内部的事情再追问一点。

And just before I get on to the next question, a quick follow-up maybe inside baseball a little bit with A16Z.

你有和马克和本讨论过这个吗？

Do you talk to Mark and Ben about this?

这到底是怎么发生的呢？

How does that happen, actually?

是的。

Yeah.

所以，这其实很有趣。

So I mean, it's interesting.

我们联合起来的方式是这样的：我和我的合伙人大卫·乌洛维奇都厌倦了在投资上互相竞争。

The kind of way we came together my partner David Ulovich and I were just tired of competing with each other on investments.

当时投资航空航天、国防和公共安全领域的人非常少。

It was like there were very few people that were investing in aerospace, defense, public safety.

过了一段时间，你们彼此越来越熟悉，就会觉得，也许合作比竞争更好。

And after a while, you just get to know each other, and you're like, Maybe it's better to partner than to compete.

但没错，马克和本，马克总说他一直和U.

But yeah, Mark and Ben Mark always says he had been working with the U.

S.

S.

自90年代以来，政府以不同身份提供咨询，同时也向美国政府销售产品。

Government since the '90s, obviously, advising in different capacities but also selling to the US government.

因此，对他来说，怀有爱国情怀并认为技术是一种爱国的善举，并不新鲜。

And so it was not new to him to be patriotic and to think of technology as a patriotic good.

但过去十五年，我想说，大概从互联网泡沫破裂一直到2017年，我们一直把谷歌拒绝与国防部合作的时刻视为转折点——当时在‘玛文计划’中，员工们罢工抗议，声称‘我们不愿为美国政府工作’。

But it was, you know, the last fifteen years, I'd say, probably after the .com burst all the way up until 2017, we always mark it as the moment when Google refused to work with the department then Department of Defense, but Department of War during Project Maven, when there was a walkout of employees saying, We will not work with the U.

政府。

S.

政府。

Government.

但情况发生了变化，一些有爱国情怀的工程师表示：我们确实希望与国防部合作。

But things changed, where I think patriotic engineers said, We do want to work with the Department of War.

安德罗尔公司就是在那时成立的。

And that's when Androl was founded.

那时，一批专门致力于服务国家利益的公司开始成立。

That's when a number of companies started being founded that are specifically focused on working in the national interest.

是的，我想聊聊Androl的创立，因为正如你提到的，你之前在另一家公司也参与过这件事。

Yeah, I want to talk about the founding of Androl a little bit, because as you mentioned, you were involved in that at another firm previously.

但我想问你一点的是，这在某种程度上是硅谷回归其根源，对吧？

But one thing I wanted to ask you about a little bit is, in a way, this is Silicon Valley going back to its roots, right?

所以人们有时会忘记。

So people sometimes forget.

我的意思是，工业和国防是硅谷历史的一部分。

I mean, industrial and defense are a part of Silicon Valley's history.

事实上，它们是核心中的核心。

They're its core, really, in fact, a core of the core.

是的。

Yes.

不，不是这样的。

No, no.

甚至当我回看50年代和60年代发生的事情时，大家总是认为惠普是那个标志性的公司，它开启了科技浪潮。

And even I when you look back at the history of what was happening in the '50s and the '60s, everyone always thinks of HP as being sort of the iconic company that was founded, It starts sort of the technology wave.

我认为，洛克希德·马丁公司在1956年到60年代期间的员工数量是这些公司的六倍左右。

It's like Lockheed Martin, I think, had something like six times as many employees in 1956 up and through the '60s as those companies did.

所以我们常说，硅谷是建立在国防投资基础上的。

And so we like to say, you know, Silicon Valley was built off of defense investment.

战争部和国防部大量采购这些技术，并与这些早期公司紧密合作，但后来有些东西丢失了。

The Department of War and the Department of Defense was buying so many of these technologies and working hand in hand with these early companies, and then something got lost.

我实际上认为，这与来到硅谷的人才类型变化有关。

I actually think it was sort of the kind of change in sort of the talent that was coming to Silicon Valley.

大家总是想到鲍勃·诺伊斯那一代人。

Everyone always thinks of like the Bob Noyce generation.

这些人成长于农场，亲手劳作，接触的是物理世界。

These are people that grew up on farms working with their hands and working in the physical world.

当一切转向软件时，我总说，像Facebook这样的转折点，也就是Facebook一代，工程师的背景完全不同了。

And then when everything moved to software, I always say like the Facebook sort of turn, the Facebook generation, it's a different profile of engineer.

他们是哈佛的学生，在宿舍里摆弄软件。

It's Harvard kid in their dorm working with software.

我们正看到钟摆回摆，回到像帕尔默·卢奇这样的人身上，他在车库里建造了Oculus，工程师的类型正在回归另一种风格。

And we're seeing the pendulum swing back to the Palmer Lucchies of the world who, you know, was building in his garage, building Oculus, and sort of moving back to a different profile of engineer.

现在你基本上两种类型都有了。

And now you kind of have both.

你看到软件和硬件在这些标志性公司中融合在一起，产生了协同效应。

You have the synergy of software and hardware coming together in these iconic companies.

哦，有意思。

Oh, interesting.

因为我们之前聊过这一点，我和凯瑟琳讨论过，曾经有一段时期，就连自由派人士也对硅谷开发的那些应用感到沮丧，比如关注狗狗的情绪之类的东西。

Because we talked a little bit about this, the two of us, Catherine, that there was this era and I think even progressives were getting frustrated at the apps that were being created in Silicon Valley about things like dogs' feelings.

还记得Web 2.0时代吗？那时钟摆确实摆得有点过头了。

Remember that era when was Web two point zero, it was just a pendulum that really swung a little bit too far.

那么，你们具体在哪些领域看到了最有前景的投资机会呢？

So what are some of the most promising areas that you guys are investing in specifically?

当然。

Certainly.

所以我认为我们可以将其划分为几个时代。

So I'd say that we like to break it up into eras.

第一个所谓的国防1.0时代，是像Anderol这样的公司。

So the first sort of Defense one point zero era is companies like Anderol.

这些公司自视为直接向美国政府销售产品。

It's companies that see themselves as selling directly to the US government.

Anderol，当你听Palmer Luckey讲话时，很明显他谈到他们希望成为下一个伟大的洛克希德·马丁公司。

Anderol, it's no secret when you hear Palmer Luckey talk, he talks about how they want to be the next great Lockheed Martin.

他们希望成为与美国政府合作的下一代主要承包商。

They want to be the next great prime contractor working with USG.

但还有一股全新的浪潮正在兴起。

But there's this whole other wave that's happened.

而且，我们几乎是在2022年这个完美的时机启动了这项业务。

And again, we started the practice almost like the perfect time in 2022.

我说过，俄罗斯入侵了乌克兰。

I said Russia invaded Ukraine.

出现了一大批新的创始人，我认为他们决定为自己的国家打造产品。

There was this host of new founders that I think decided they wanted to build for their country.

其中许多人来自SpaceX、Palantir等公司。

And a lot of them were coming out of companies like SpaceX, like Palantir.

他们已经受过训练，熟悉如何与美国政府合作，但他们开始做一些不同的事情——他们并不一定充当主承包商，对吧？

They had been trained and sort of already knowing how to work with the US government, but they started doing some different things where they're not necessarily priming, right?

比如，他们说：我们会与现有的承包商合作。

Like they're saying, we'll work with the existing contractors.

我们希望重建国防工业基础。

We want to rebuild the defense industrial base.

因此，他们将洛克希德·马丁、雷神公司这些昔日的标志性企业视为潜在的客户和合作伙伴。

So they see Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, these sort of iconic companies of yesterday, as potential customers and partners.

于是，你正看到一种转变：不再必须直接向美国政府销售。

And so you are seeing sort of the shift from we have to sell directly to U.

S.

S.

政府转向现在的企业说：我们可以提前介入。

Government to now companies saying, well, we can shift left.

我们可以成为关键供应商。

We can be the critical supplier.

你知道，我们与许多公司合作，它们通过为所有公司制造关键部件来真正支持国防工业基础，无论这些公司是新兴的国防企业、新兴的航天企业，还是现有的传统主承包商。

You know, we work with many companies that are truly supporting the defense industrial base by building critical parts for all of the companies, whether they're new defense, new space, or sort of the existing legacy prime.

因此，你正看到这个市场的增长，而我认为，也许几年前，人们还曾质疑：我们需要多少个SpaceX这样的公司？

So you are seeing sort of this growth of the market, whereas I think, you know, maybe a few years ago, people looked at it and said, well, how many SpaceXs are we going to need?

或者我们需要多少个Andoril这样的公司？

Or how many, you know, Andorils are we going to need?

但现在你看到，实际上市场能够支撑这些需求，因为许多现有企业迫切需要创新。

And now you see, actually, the market can support that because a lot of the existing players are desperate for innovation.

它们迫切需要人工智能供应商，同时也迫切需要关键零部件。

They're desperate for artificial intelligence, you know, suppliers, but they're also desperate for critical parts.

因此，我们也在见证这一趋势。

And so we are seeing sort of that movement as well.

具体来说，我们这里说的是无人机吗？

Specifically, are we talking about drones here?

这周我看到一则新闻，美国推出了新型坦克M1E3艾布拉姆斯。

And I saw the story this week that The United States has introduced a new tank, the M1E3 Abrams.

然后标题是：这是美国的最后一辆坦克吗？

And then the headline was, is this America's last tank?

所以这是无人机吗？

So is this drones?

全是无人机吗？

Is it all drones?

具体是哪些产品？

What are the products specifically?

我喜欢这个问题，因为这取决于你如何定义无人机，对吧？

Well, I like that question because it depends on how you look at drones, right?

我们总是从作战环境的角度来看待这个问题。

So we always look at it in terms of sort of what is the theater?

是空中吗？

Is it air?

是海上吗？

Is it sea?

是太空吗？

Is it space?

我认为，由硅谷公司或我常说的‘埃隆·马斯克学派’所打造的新技术，其共同点在于……

And I think the commonality of the new technologies that are being built by Silicon Valley companies or by companies that are built in the, I always say, school of Elon Musk, right?

它们正在打造可损耗的系统。

They're building attrutable systems.

它们进行大规模生产，并以最快的速度从生产一个、十个到一万个，而这些系统都是低成本的小型装置。

They're mass producing, and they're producing from one to 10 to 10,000 as quickly as possible is that these are small systems that can be built cheaply.

我们没有投资航空母舰。

So we're not investing in aircraft carriers.

我们也没有投资国防部所谓的‘精致系统’，那些百年老企业懂得如何制造这类装备，但建造一架飞机可能需要十年时间。

We're not investing in what's known as exquisite systems by the Department of War, where the kind of 100 year old companies, they know how to build those, it's going to take ten years to build an aircraft of some kind.

我们投资的是那些成本低十倍、生产速度更快，并且能够以最快速度实现大规模生产的设备，供国防部使用。

We're investing in the products that are 10 times as cheap, they're built as quickly, and they're built in a way where they can be mass produced as quickly as possible for the Department of War.

所以，当你提到无人机时，我们有一家叫Ceronic的公司，正在制造自主水面舰艇。

So things like, when you said drone, we have a company called Ceronic that's building autonomous surface vessels.

这是一种无人机，只不过是在水面上运行。

That is a type of drone, but it's on the water.

它也是一种船。

It's also a boat.

如果你设计一艘船，使其能够从一台、十台快速扩展到一万台，那么它们在制造、生产和将设备交付给前线士兵的速度上，比我们见过的任何公司都快得多。

And if you build a boat and engineer it so that you can go from one to 10 to 10,000 as quickly as possible, they have moved faster than any company that we've ever seen in terms of how quickly they've been able to manufacture and produce and get things in warfighters' hand.

这是一家只有三年历史的公司。

They're a three year old company.

它们已经与国防部紧密合作，但这也是一种无人机。

They're already working very closely with the Department of War, but that's a type of drone.

而且它的设计目标是可损耗的。

And it's manufactured to be attritable.

它被设计为可携带弹药和各种有效载荷。

It's manufactured to potentially carry munitions, carry different types of payloads.

我认为这些公司最有趣的地方在于，它们再次遵循了埃隆·马斯克的思路。

And I think that's the thing that's so interesting about these companies is, again, they've gone to the school of Elon Musk.

重点在于我们能多快地制造，以及能以多低的成本制造。

It's how quickly can we build, how cheaply can we build.

它们正在制造未来战争中不同于那些昂贵系统的另一部分组件，这些昂贵系统可以说是过去的架构。

And they're building a different component of what's next in warfighting that is not these expensive systems that are sort of, I'd say, the architectures of the past.

它们代表了未来的架构，以低成本制造，专为下一个作战领域和战场而设计。

It's the architecture of the future in that they're building cheaply and very much for the next domain and the next theater.

我的意思是，下一代战争——我们在乌克兰和世界其他地区看到的——令人恐惧。

I mean, the next generation of warfare and we're seeing it in Ukraine and other places actually in that part of the world is terrifying.

所有战争都令人恐惧。

All war is.

因为战争看起来如此未来化，这让我觉得更加可怕。

Because it seems futuristic, it's even more terrifying, at least to me.

我的意思是，我们的无人机在攻击你们的无人机。

I mean, our drones attacking your drones.

这最终会成为现实吗？

And is that what it's going to come down to?

一些在空中，一些在海上？

Some of them in the air, some of them on the sea?

是的。

Yeah.

我的意思是，这是个好问题。

I mean, it's a good question.

我有幸大约一年半前随一些美国政府人士前往乌克兰边境，亲眼目睹了我们如何协助那里的行动。

I was fortunate enough to go with some people inside of US government about a year and a half ago to the border of Ukraine and kind of see how we were helping operations there.

我问了许多身处前线的人，什么技术最关键？

And I asked a bunch of people who were, you know, very much in the thick of it, What's the technology that's most critical?

我原本以为他们会说，无人机是这个战场最重要的技术。

And I actually thought they were going to say, Drones are the most important technology for this theater.

但每个回答我的人给出的答案都是Starlink，这让我觉得非常有趣，因为这正是驱动未来战场通信能力的核心架构。

And the answer that every single person gave me was actually Starlink, which I thought was fascinating, how that is sort of the architecture, sort of the most important thing that's driving the ability to communicate on a battlefield of the future.

关于这个战场，还有一个有趣的特点，那就是它非常类似于苏联战争，对吧？

What's also interesting about that theater is that it's very unique to a Soviet war, right?

这简直就是堑壕战。

Like, this is a trench warfare.

他们彼此紧邻着。

They're bordering each other.

从某种程度上看，如果你不考虑Starlink或无人机，只看地面情况，它看起来就像1914年，这非常令人遗憾。

In some ways, if you look at the bottom without thinking about Starlink or thinking of the drones, it looks like 1914, which is very unfortunate.

这是一场极其残酷的战争。

It's a very brutal war.

但当你观察空中和太空中出现的新技术时，就会发现这些技术同样适用于其他战场，也适用于未来可能在太平洋或其他地区发生的冲突。

But then when you look at the new technologies that are sort of in the air and in space, it's very applicable to other theaters and very applicable to what could potentially happen in The Pacific or what could happen elsewhere.

我们的观点是，必须提前投资于下一个战场所需的技术，未来十年我们最该投入的领域是：下一场战争实际上将在太空中打响。

Our view is investing in sort of ahead of what is the next theater, what is the thing that we need to be investing in the next ten years, is that the next war is actually going to be fought in space.

这意味着我们需要考虑太空中可损耗的系统。

And that means that we need to be thinking about attritable systems in space.

我们需要考虑进攻能力。

We need to be thinking about offensive capabilities.

我们需要思考金顶系统如何可能成为其中的一部分。

We need to be thinking about how Golden Dome can potentially be a part of that.

但我认为，我们在太空领域合作的许多公司都认为，太空中支持地面战场的基础设施才是我们最需要投入精力的地方。

But I think a lot of the companies that we're working with on the space side are very much thinking that the infrastructure in space to fight the theaters on the ground is actually where we need to be spending the most time.

我的意思是，从我们美国的角度来看，这方面的最重要人物似乎是埃隆。

I mean, it sounds like there's one most important person on the planet, at least from our standpoint in The United States, when it comes to this, which is Elon.

因为你提到的是SpaceX和Starlink，更不用说xAI了。

Because you're talking about SpaceX and Starlink, never mind x AI.

除了他之外，还有其他人吗？

I mean, there other people out there besides him?

我的意思是，也许杰夫·贝索斯？

I mean, maybe Jeff Bezos?

实际上，我很喜欢这个问题，因为当我提到人们毕业于‘马斯克学校’时，我认为马斯克对这个国家最重要的贡献是培养了两代工程师，让他们重新学会动手实践，这个过程持续了整整二十年。

Well, And I actually love that question because when I say people went to the school of Elon Musk, I think that Elon's most important contribution to this country is training two generations of engineers, really over twenty years, on how to work with their hands again.

我们曾经失去了这种能力。

We had lost that capability in The U.

在美国。

S.

而且，趋势已经完全偏向软件领域，以至于没有人从第一性原理出发思考：如何以最快的速度制造产品，以及如何创造前所未有的新方式和新能力。

And again, the pendulum had moved so far to software that we didn't have someone who was thinking from first principles of how do you actually build as quickly as you possibly can and build in new ways and capabilities that didn't exist before.

你在大学里学不到这些。

You don't learn it at university.

我的意思是，在现有的主要承包商那里，你当然学不到这些——他们只是拿到国防部给出的一份需求清单，然后被要求严格按照指示制造。

I mean, you certainly don't learn it at one of the existing primes where they're given a list of requirements by the Department of War, and they're told, Build it exactly as we say.

而马斯克思考问题的方式——现在已经有大量书籍记录了这一点——但我们每天在我们支持的公司里都能看到：他总是思考如何为生产而设计产品。

Whereas Elon's way of thinking about things and, you know, there's been many books now written about this, but we see it every day in the companies we support is he always thinks about how do you engineer something for production?

如何为制造而设计？

How do you build for manufacturing?

你不能把这两种能力分开。

You don't separate out those two capabilities.

你是个工程师。

You're an engineer.

你想要的最好之处是，没有任何部件是他的首要规则。

You want the best part is no part is sort of his number one rule.

你要尽可能简单、廉价、快速地制造，以便实现大规模生产。

You want to make it as simply and cheaply and as quickly as possible so that you can mass produce something.

当然，这就是星链的能力。

That, of course, is the capability of Starlink.

因此，对于我们旗下的每一家公司，我们都见证了从SpaceX流出的人才。

And so for every single one of our companies, we've watched the diaspora out of SpaceX.

我想说，这些公司里都有SpaceX的人才，他们正在将这种埃隆的知识转化为新的能力，比如我们有一家名为Castellion的公司，正在研发高超音速武器。

I'd say there's SpaceX talent in them that is really taking sort of that Elon knowledge and building for a new capability, whether we have a company called Castellion that's building hypersonic weapons.

这是一个完全由SpaceX前员工组成的团队，他们曾深度参与Star Shield项目并与美国政府合作，现在他们正将从那种严谨、系统化方法中学到的一切，应用到SpaceX尚未涉足的新领域。

It's an all SpaceX team that had worked very, very closely on Star Shield and worked with the US government, and now they're taking everything they've learned from that disciplined sort of methodical approach, and they're bringing it to a new capability that SpaceX isn't working on.

所以，我认为，当你看到像Palantir、SpaceX和Anderil这样的优秀公司出现人才外流时，你所看到的就是这种情况。

So that, I think, is what you're seeing when you see the diasporas out of these great companies like Palantir and SpaceX and Anderil.

他们都从上一代公司中学到了一些东西。

They all know something that they've learned from the previous generation of companies.

但我想，Palmer Lucky也是另一个例子，属于Palantir的人。

But I guess Palmer Lucky is another person I mean, Palantir people.

高超音速武器是那种导弹的另一个叫法吗？

Is hypersonic weapons another name for that missile?

是的。

Yes.

它可以是。

It can be.

高超音速可以指很多种东西。

Hypersonic can mean many things.

但在Castellian的情况下，他们正在研制飞行速度达到五倍音速的高超音速导弹。

But in the case of Castellian, they're building hypersonic missiles that go Mach five, so five times the speed of sound.

这之所以如此重要，我认为更贴切的故事是，几年前，如果我说我投资了一家位于硅谷的高超音速武器公司，我可能会被赶出房间。

And the reason this is so important, I actually think the better story about this is how a couple years ago, if I had said I invested in a hypersonic weapon company in Silicon Valley, I think I would have been kicked out of the room.

真的，我会被骂得一文不值。

Like, really, I would have been called horrible, horrible names.

但在2023年，当我们投资安德森·霍洛维茨时，没有人对此表示任何异议。

And in 2023, when we invested in Andreessen Horowitz, there was not a peep out of people thinking that this was terrible.

这家公司随后加入了进来。

And the company came in.

再次强调，他们曾为埃隆工作过，也在SpaceX工作了多年，他们说，这是一家威慑公司。

Again, they had worked for Elon, and they had worked for SpaceX many years, and they said, This is a deterrence company.

如果我们无法制造高超音速武器——而国防部明确表示，这是他们最急需快速开发的最关键项目——那我们就输掉了下一场战争。

If we cannot build hypersonic weapons, which is the thing that the Department of War is saying is the most critical on their list of things they need to build as quickly as possible, we have lost the next war.

这极其重要。

This is so incredibly important.

我认为，硅谷的文化转变——从认为与这些部门合作是可耻的，转变为我们必须为威慑而建造——发生得如此迅速。

And I think that the shift and the cultural shift that moved from saying, It's horrible to be working with any of these departments, to, We have to build for deterrence, happened so quickly in Silicon Valley.

我甚至不确定人们是否意识到这种翻天覆地的变化发生了。

I'm not even sure that people realized sort of the sea change, the 100 sea change that happened.

所以我认为这些技术真正令人兴奋的地方在于，有人能够将它们制造出来。

So I think that is what's really exciting about these technologies is you have people who are able to build them.

他们曾在埃隆·马斯克的学校受过训练，但现在有了投资者。

They've gone to the school of Elon Musk, but now there's investors.

现在有人开始说，这实际上对国家利益、对美国的安全至关重要，而威慑才是其中最关键的部分。

Now there are people who are saying, This is actually really important for the national interest, for America's security, and deterrence is really the important part about it.

是的。

Yeah.

我的意思是，凯瑟琳，听起来老规矩还是管用的。

Mean, sounds like the old rules still apply, Catherine.

威慑，相互确保威慑，对吧？

Deterrence, mutually assured deterrence, right?

我的意思是，升级会是个问题吗？

I mean, escalation, is that an issue?

规则还是一样的吗？

Are the rules still the same?

嗯，我认为情况已经变了，因为如果我们关注的是太空战争，那就非常不同了。

Well, I'd say that things have changed in that if we're focused on a space war, that's very different.

但我确实认为硅谷曾经经历过很长一段时期。

But I do think that there was a long period of history in Silicon Valley.

帕尔默经常谈到这一点，他说人们以为历史已经终结了，我们再也不会看到一场真正的战争。

Palmer talks a lot about this where he says, people thought it was the end of history, but we are not going to ever see another live war.

我们不会再看到欧洲的土地战争。

We're not going to see a land war in Europe.

那种事情永远不会发生。

That would never happen.

因此，有些人认为，我们只应该专注于软件。

And so you had people who said, Okay, we should only be focused on software.

我们只应该专注于消费技术。

We should only be focused on consumer technology.

这实际上是错误的。

And it's actually wrong.

我们不仅不应该从投资角度专注于此，而且专注于支持国家利益或国防也是错误的。

Not only should we not be focused from an investment perspective, but it's wrong to be focused on supporting the national interests or supporting defense.

我认为乌克兰发生的事情告诉我们，我们必须保卫我们的盟友。

And I think if what happened in Ukraine teaches us anything, it's that we have to defend our allies.

我们必须支持不仅仅是美国。

We have to support not only The U.

S.

S.

的利益，还有世界各地发生的事情，以及美国。

Interests, but the things that are happening around the world and that U.

S.

S.

政府说我们必须做的。

Government says we have to.

我们必须拥有一个已经建成的国防工业基础。

And we have to have a defense industrial base that is already built.

我认为，现任战争部长以及之前的部长们经常提到的一点是，如果你停止生产，产能就会枯竭。

I think one of the things that the current Secretary of War talks a lot about, and previous ones have as well, is that if you stop building for it, it becomes depleted.

所以，如果你有十五年的时间，大家都说‘我们不打算生产这些东西’，那么最好的工程师就不会进入这些公司，最终会导致衰退。

So if you have fifteen years where everyone says, Oh, we're not going to build this, The best engineers are not going to go into these companies, then it ultimately leads to a decay.

最终会导致你没有进行研发，没有为下一个战场做准备，也没有思考未来的发展方向。

It ultimately leads to you haven't done research and development, you're not fighting the next theater, you're not thinking about where things are headed.

因此，我认为这已经发生了根本性的转变：如今，硅谷完全投入了这一使命，并认识到它的重要性。

And so think that has been the sea change, is that now Silicon Valley is all in on this mission and sees how important it is.

别让我听起来像个和平主义者，但说实话，我觉得你说得对。

And not to sound like a peacenik, but, you know, I'm afraid you're right.

我的意思是，每次听到战争的消息，都会发现他们因为长期忽视而严重准备不足，然后又不得不紧急动员。

I mean, every time you hear about a war, it's like, and they were woefully unprepared because of a long period, you know, and then they have to ramp up again.

所以我想，这大概就是人性的本性吧。

So I guess that's the way human nature is.

国防工业基础，说实话，在某种程度上正是美国如此强大、如此强大的原因，对吧？

And the defense industrial base, I mean, is something that, you know, in some ways, it is the reason why America is so strong and is so mighty, right?

就像我们赢得战争一样，本总是喜欢这么说。

Like, we won the Ben always likes to say this.

我们赢得了国防工业，或者赢得了工业革命，对吧？

We won the defense industrial or we won the Industrial Revolution, right?

技术是使美国强大、令世界羡慕的核心支柱。

Like, technology is the backbone of what makes America strong, of what is the envy of the world.

如果我们不将这种优势应用于国家安全和国家利益，就会失去很多竞争力。

And if we don't apply that to our national security and our national interest, we lose a lot of that competitive nature.

因此，你知道，在硅谷——那里正在产生并蓬勃发展着大量尖端技术——建立一种以国防为核心、以我所说的国家利益为导向的实践，真的非常重要。

And so, you know, having a kind of defense focused and sort of what I would say really a national interest focused practice in Silicon Valley, where a lot of the bleeding edge, you know, technology is being produced and where it's thriving, that is really important.

我认为还有一件关于硅谷的重要事情需要指出，那就是我们非常善于模仿。

The other thing that I think is really important to call out about Silicon Valley is, you know, we're very mimetic people.

如果一家公司做了某件事，其他公司往往也会跟进；如果有一位创始人证明了你可以建立一家新的航天公司，其他创始人就会纷纷效仿。

If one firm is doing something that another firm often follows on, if there's one founder who proves that you can build the next space company, other founders will follow suit.

因此，这导致了人才、资本和专注于十年前还不可触及领域的人员的爆发式增长。

And so that leads to this explosion of talent, explosion of capital, explosion of people focused on sort of something that was untouchable ten years ago.

因此，我们的观点是，最终的成功故事将是：每一家公司都设立了一项体现美国活力的实践，每一个机构都将它视为不仅仅是一次性的投资主题，而是一个可以持久存在的创新类别——我们认为它确实如此。

And so it's our view that the ultimate success story will be when every firm has an American dynamism practice and when every institution looks at it as something that is it's not just a one off thesis, but it's really something that can be a lasting and enduring category of innovation, which we think it is.

当我阅读关于无人机的报道时，总是看到它们是在土耳其、伊朗和中国制造的。

When I read about drones, I'm always reading about them being made in Turkey, in Iran, in China.

美国能制造无人机吗？

Can America make drones?

美国真的在制造无人机吗？

Does America make drones?

至于高超音速武器，美国也并非绝对在制造。

And these hypersonic weapons as well in The United States, not Absolutely.

而是外包给了其他地方。

Farmed out to somewhere

这之所以如此必要，是因为美国政府不愿意从其他国家购买无人机技术。

I mean, of why it's so necessary is because the US government doesn't want to buy drone technology from countries.

他们不能，我的意思是，在很多情况下。

They can't, I mean, in many cases.

所以你可以在这里制造。

So you can build it here.

我认为，美国制造的许多无人机存在的真正问题是，其中一些简单的零部件大多来自中国，或其他国家。

I'd say that the actual problem with a lot of the drones that are being manufactured in The US, it's that some of the dumb parts, most of them come from China, most of them come from other countries.

我们必须在这方面做得更好，即这些大型系统（即使是小型无人机）所使用的零部件。

And that's something that we have to get better at is the component parts that go into these larger systems, even if they're small scale drones.

我们必须找到方法来制造这些零部件，并激励企业去做这件事。

We have to figure out how to manufacture those and incentivize companies to do that.

但当然，像Skydio这样的公司——我们投资组合中的一家公司——已经运营了十到十一年，它与国防部合作，并在美国本土制造。

But certainly, are, you know, there's companies like Skydio, which is a portfolio company of ours that's been operating for ten, eleven years now that works with the Department of War and is built in The U.

S.

S.

但我们确实需要更多地思考我们所说的‘前移’这些零部件的问题。

But we do have to think more about what we call shifting left, these component parts.

我们不能一边使用中国零部件，一边却说这能解决我们为国防部乃至公共安全领域制造产品的问题，因为无人机在这些领域每天都在使用。

We can't be, you know, taking Chinese parts and saying that that's going to be the solution to how we build for especially the Department of War, but also things like public safety, where drones are also being used every day.

但转向？

But shifting?

我们所说的‘左移’，指的是并非那些主承包商，而是进入供应链的零部件。

We say shifting left in terms of it's not these primes, but it's the component parts that go into the supply chain.

所以这总是让人困惑，因为人们会问：这是不是党派问题？

So it's always confusing because people are like, is that a partisan thing?

不，不是的。

It's like, no.

这并不是一个党派性的说法。

It's not a partisan comment.

更多是不仅仅是转向的问题。

More of Not just that a shift.

供应那些用于产品中的零部件类型

Supply the types of component parts that go into a product that

你正在处理这个问题，那特朗普总统不应该对这些零部件加征关税吗？

you're working Well, shouldn't President Trump put tariffs on those components?

嗯，我认为，在某些情况下，是的，我们已经看到不同的立法和政策。

Well, I think, I mean, in some cases, yeah, we've seen different pieces of legislation and policy.

我的意思是，我们确实看到一些新的行政命令，特别是在公共安全方面，不再与中国无人机公司合作，例如。

I mean, we've certainly seen new executive orders around public safety in particular not working with Chinese drone companies, for example.

长期以来，如果你看到任何警察部门或地方警方使用无人机，他们通常都是在使用大疆或中国产的无人机。

For a long time, if you were seeing any sort of police force or local police force working with drones, oftentimes they were working with DJI or working with Chinese drones.

这无疑是一个国家安全威胁。

And that is definitely a national security threat.

所以现在，你正看到一种警醒和政策转变：我们并不希望这些数据回流到中国。

So now you're seeing sort of a wake up call and a policy shift that we don't actually want that data returning to China.

我们并不一定希望这些无人机在全国各地的社区中运行。

We don't necessarily want those drones operating in communities across the country.

因此，你正看到通过各种政策实现的这种转变，无论是行政命令，还是确保这些零部件和技术真正实现美国制造。

So, you are seeing sort of this shift through various types of policy, whether it's executive orders, to make sure that these components and make sure that this technology is actually American made.

而且我们确实一直在投资这方面。

And we've certainly you know, we've been investing in it.

我认为，对于那些在国家安全和国家利益相关领域开展业务的公司来说，未来将出现巨大的投资机会。

And I think there's going to become a huge opportunity for people to invest in these companies that are working across various sectors that are important for national security and the national interest.

更别提只是为沃尔玛送货了。

And never mind just delivering for Walmart.

是的。

Yes.

我的意思是，这正成为一个巨大的商机。

I mean, that's becoming a huge Yes.

生意，对吧？

Business right

这会说是国家利益，对吧？

would say that's the national interest, right?

非常非常快速的配送。

Very, very quick delivery.

我去过其中一个设施。

I went to one of those facilities.

真的非常惊人。

It's really amazing.

一开始你可能会笑，但当你看到它真的在运行时，就会觉得不一样了。

And you really, you know, at first you laugh at it, and then you see it actually working.

它确实很出色，但并不是到处都适用。

It's really pretty It's not for everywhere.

你知道，曼哈顿可能短期内不会出现这种情况，但美国大部分地区并不是曼哈顿。

You know, it's not going to happen in Manhattan necessarily anytime soon, but most of America is not Manhattan.

完全正确。

Totally.

而且这也很有意思，因为对我们来说，我们已经在这个领域投资了很长时间。

And it's interesting too, because for us, we've been investing in this category for a long time.

但早期的无人机公司，并没有把国防作为使命。

But the early drone companies, they were not focused on defense as a mission.

再次说，2015年在硅谷根本没人考虑过这一点。

Again, it's like no one was thinking about that in 2015 in Silicon Valley.

2015年我们谈论无人机时，谈的是送货。

When we were talking about drones in 2015, we were talking about delivery.

我们谈论的是这类技术的消费类应用。

We were talking about sort of the consumer applications of this.

这又回到了我认为这个领域技术是如何开发的问题。

And it goes back to, I think, how technology is built in this category.

这些公司很多都属于所谓的军民两用类型。

A lot of these companies are what's known as dual use.

它们希望为消费者提供产品。

They want to provide for the consumer.

它们希望为企业提供服务，但同时也与国防部合作。

They want to provide for the enterprise, but they're also working with the Department of War.

因此，无人机正是这一情况的绝佳例子。

And so drones are actually a great example of that.

许多现在直接与国防部合作的公司，最初都像是玩具，或者原本打算专注于消费类应用，但现在它们已经转向与公共安全和国防部合作，因为国防部是一个非常愿意合作的客户。

A lot of the companies that are now working directly with the Department of War started off as sort of these toys, or they started off as something that was going to be, you know, focused on a consumer application that's now, you know, they've pivoted to working with public safety and working with Department of War because that's such a willing customer.

所以我认为我们也在看到这种趋势，即使是十年前成立的公司，也认为这是一次真正的机遇。

So I think we're seeing that, too, that sort of movement of even companies that were built ten years ago saying that this is a real opportunity.

你们的努力是否能获得两党支持，还是这只是共和党的事情？

Do your endeavors speak to both sides of the political aisle, or is this just a GOP thing?

哦，这是一个两党共同推动的倡议。

Oh, this is a bipartisan initiative.

我的意思是，我们一直在这个领域进行投资。

I mean, we've been investing in this category.

我个人已经投资了十多年。

I personally have been investing for over a decade.

你知道，共和党执政时期一直对此表示支持。

You know, Republican administrations have been supportive.

民主党执政时期也一直表示支持。

Democratic administrations have been supportive.

在我们的峰会上，我们已经举办了许多年。

At our summit, we've had many, many years now.

几年前，副部长凯瑟·希克斯曾发表过讲话。

Deputy Secretary Kath Hicks spoke a few years ago.

你知道，如果你去华盛顿，人们很少能在很多事情上达成一致。

You know, it's exciting to see, if you go to Washington, there's not many things that people agree on.

在华盛顿，人们通常一致认同的唯一一件事就是《国防授权法案》（NDAA），以及支持我们的军队，确保最先进技术能落到作战人员手中。

The one thing that people usually agree on in Washington is the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, and supporting our troops, making sure that the best technology ends up in the hands of the warfighter.

因此，我认为在投资国防工业基础方面从未遇到过阻力。

And so I don't think there's ever been pushback on investing in the defense industrial base.

无论你是与众议院民主党人、众议院共和党人、参议院民主党人还是参议院共和党人交谈，他们通常都能在这一点上达成一致。

It's something that, whether you're talking to House Dems or House Republicans or Senate Dems or Senate Republicans, they usually get to alignment and agreement on.

而且，这些委员会的成员中，大多数是退伍军人，或者有很多人曾服役于情报部门。

And again, like the people who serve on those committees, most of them are veterans, or a good many of them are veterans, or they've worked in the intelligence community.

因此，他们深知，如果你的设备存在缺陷，或者面对的对手拥有比你更先进的技术，会面临怎样的现实。

So they know the realities of what you're dealing with if you have a faulty device or if you're up against an adversary that has better technology than you.

因为他们亲身体验过，所以他们会暂时放下党派立场。

And because they've experienced that, they sort of put away their partisan affiliation.

你知道，那句老话怎么说来着——战壕里没有无神论者。

You know, I think the old saying, There's no atheists in foxholes.

战壕里其实也没有民主党人或共和党人。

There's really no Democrats or Republicans in foxholes either.

你知道，人们都希望合作，共同解决眼前的问题。

You know, it's like people want to work together, and they to solve the problem at hand.

所以我认为你在华盛顿确实能看到这种现象。

And so I think you really see that in Washington.

当我们去那里时，我们会与所有人合作。

And when we go, we work with everyone.

无论谁掌权，我们都会以同样的方式支持这一议题。

And no matter who is in power, we're always supporting this issue in the same way.

我们必须确保我们的军人时刻拥有最先进的技术装备。

We need to make sure that our men and women in uniform have the best technology in their hands at all times.

政府还能做得更好些什么？

And what could government do better?

政府还能做得更好些什么？

What could government do better?

天哪。

Oh, goodness.

嗯，我觉得我们有很多

Well, so I think for have a lot

我想让这次讨论再延长一点。

thought extend this about session a little bit.

是的。

Yeah.

所以我认为，这已经是一个十年的历程了，我一直在反复强调，需要让硅谷公司参与采购。

So I think, you know, it has been a ten year I mean, it's been a ten year journey of saying the same things over and over and over again about needing to bring Silicon Valley companies into procurement.

因此，我们一直与两党议员密切合作，强调引入新技术的重要性。

So we've worked very closely with members on both sides of the aisle on how important it is to bring in new technology.