Spare me that 'high Chinese IQ'...
The most important factor in fuel usage efficiency is burn and very close behind is the power to weight ratio.
- We want to burn as much of any X quantity of fuel as possible. That is why there is a process called 'atomization' where the fuel is turned into as fine a mist as possible.
- We want to minimize the weight that the energy from the burning of the fuel has to carry. One horse carrying/pulling 100 kilos will out pace, out distance, and out last another horse carrying/pulling 500 kilos.
So if the Chinese car changed to an aluminum frame and therefore is lighter overall, that still would
NOT make the Chinese car more technologically superior because the American can easily change the steel frame to an aluminum version in one generation. Or the Americans can find ways to use less steel to reduce mass/weight and yet still have the same structural strength.
On the other hand, if the American car uses electronic fuel injection while the Chinese car uses carbureration, that will make the American car technologically superior because electronic fuel injection require much more sophisticated spark control, fuel dispense, finer fuel atomization which lead to less fuel required to produce the same power output which will equate to better fuel efficiency.
It is far easier to achieve the first than for the second. Reduction of steel for the frame does not introduce anything new to the car, but fuel injection require an electronic control unit, more wiring, higher fuel pressure, and a fuel pump while the carburetor does not require a fuel pump.
Returning to the ASAT issue, going from one orbital altitude to a higher one does not require a technological breakthrough, just a larger vehicle. The US went to the Moon and stationed satellites at several altitudes, so why should it be difficult for US to plant an ASAT satellite anywhere? In the simple Chinese mind, if China does it and no one else does it, it means no one else can.