This dramatic action was clearly a tit for tat response to last week's Saudi oil decision.
Russia has very little bargaining power to effect the Saudi's decision. This move by Biden lends credibility to the possibility that it was really China that moved Saudi's hand. The fact that it was announced right before China's Party Congress is awfully symbolic too. (vs US midterms)
China's inflation situation is significantly less correlated to oil prices than the first world. A cynic could even possibly make the case that this was all part of a masterplan to flank the West. From a relative standpoint, oil barely hurts China.
True, but iirc coal is >50% of China's energy source. Besides, they have a huge neighbor right next door to sell them oil at any price they want. Just need a few back scratches.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to push this narrative. It just seems too coincidental to not be interesting.
The scary thing is that Russia is the one showing restraint on nuclear war, given how the swamp rats have bragged about giving intel to Ukraine on how to locate and kill Russian generals.
To me it seems that Russia is the only one showing the intention to use nuclear weapons (and, frankly the only one that has the incentive to do so, since they're out of other military options). I haven't seen much restraint from them among all the saber-rattling, what restraint are you talking about?
In the long dance of "how far can nuclear powers go without actually having a war", America's intelligence sharing in Ukraine is not the most dangerous thing that's been done, not even close.
The Soviet Union:
(1) Had Soviet pilots flying Soviet planes duelling American planes in the skies over the Korean peninsula
(2) Had Soviet anti-aircraft gunners shooting down American planes in the jungles of Vietnam
(3) Deployed Soviet soldiers armed with tactical nuclear weapons to a country neighbouring America and gave them permission to fire those tactical nuclear weapons without first phoning the Kremlin, and didn't tell the Americans this, even when the Americans were 24 hours away from attacking the island those soldiers & nukes were on
About the only things good for US inflation are a balanced federal budget (to pull more money out of the economy and shut down the Fed's printing presses) and higher interest rates.
Yep, so I'm wondering if rising prices on consumer goods, which is what a China trade war would do, will make Congress Do Something, which will further screw up inflation. I am no fan of our reliance on China, but a trade war right now feels like it's just accelerating bad things.
Congress seldom has any worthwhile ideas. Nobody either has any or has the courage to go up and state them...all you have are vague political wish-lists from across the political isle. And should something end up getting passed, it's in a 2,000+ page document that has as much text devoted to pork as the main issue at hand.
There doesn't seem to be the will to cause tax increases for the majority of the population, which is something necessary for a long-term balanced budget. Such messaging hurts everyone, those on the right who are against it, and those on the left whose spending programs would die once the population realizes what is required to fund everything we already have.
Would have been good to have some sort of breakdown of what you expect the response to be. China will want to hit back I assume? Rare-earths or something of that kind?
But are the news sources those voters follow going to report extensively on this? I can't imagine e.g. Fox News is going to run "Biden now strong on China!" stories, just as they didn't cover the many failures of Trump's tough-on-China policies.
We are degrading an essential input into China's economy and military capability. That's an aggressive and escalatory move. We played this card unilaterally without seeking, as far as I know, any concession.
We have to expect an escalatory response from China. Given the war in Ukraine and the economic troubles we are facing, that response could really bite us.
I can't judge whether this is right or wrong in the long run, just that it seems sudden and timed for the midterms. China bashing is incredibly popular. And there's much that China has done and is doing that deserves criticism.
I don't agree. If you read the rules, we're not kneecapping their entire industry, just the part that makes advanced chips with military/AI/great power competition applications. Dishwasher and EV chips will be okay.
The concession we sought was under Obama: stop stealing our intellectual property in exchange for cyber cooperation (i.e. less espionage from us). We gave that a decade to pan out and China is back (and was quickly) to stealing all our latest and greatest tech (F-35, B-21 Raider, etc).
So from my perspective, since we hold all the cards vis a vis patents and US ownership of the underlying software, this can't really be interpreted as aggression or provocation. Just as in Cuba, we're refusing to take part in the Chinese system. We're not going to help China build a military to defeat the US military.
If China wants to stop sending us basic consumer goods, America can produce them fairly easily, granted at a higher cost, but also with adding employment.
I agree. This was clearly done for strategic, rather than electoral reasons. It was never going to attract new votes to the Dems, and the White House made no PR effort to sell it on that scale. (I wish it had, because I think this is a major ositive step.)
The fly in the ointment for me is that all this new policy does is slow down China; it doesn't prevent it from developing the capacity it seeks. I believe the Brits tried something similar 200 years ago with us. It didn't work.
China is also going through a major demographic change. By the year 2100 they are expected to have a population of 900 million to 1 billion, down from the present 1.4 billion. That will also have major effects as to what is going on in it. Slowing China down at the moment is an improvement over letting go full steam ahead.
It does, perhaps not as much in the U.S., which like it or not, is open to immigration via one means or another. China, like Japan, is aghast at the thought of foreign immigration as opposed to temporary workers. The lack of new workers, in all fields at all levels, will be a greater detriment to China in particular. Again, due to history and its historical character which not even the current Party in power has significantly made a dent it.
China is not our friend, and has no interest, at least at the present time, in being so.
As to America, the poor, the working class, and the mid to lower middle class, need abundance, growth, if they are ever to improve their lot. Limited growth for these groups is only going to cause resentment, unease, and a movement towards any party that actually promises and fulfills that promise of growth.
OK then, why not spend the effort to improve the lot of working class Americans with education and social programs rather than attacking China's economy? As Gandhi said: "An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind." China's economy has grown due to education and hard work. Meanwhile the U.S. is "dumbing down" and providing tax cuts to the rich. Our woes are not China's fault and transferring our sins onto others accomplishes nothing.
Even if China does achieve parity on its own, I presume this move (and later moves that follow it) will help to keep the non-Chinese advanced semiconductor industry from becoming dependent on China. The worst possible outcome is that China convinces western companies that it must sell its products to China, then Chinese businesses reverse-engineer those products, and China then turns around and wipes out western competitors with a flood of subsidized products.
If the U.S. emerged from its America centric view of the world, it might find a different China. Does China compete specifically with the United States, or, as Korea and Japan, compete in a global system (nothing better than competition say the U.S. economic pundits) with all nations? Does China, which is willing to export its rare earth minerals to the U.S., deserve to be denied computer chip facilities because it may use the these chips in military applications? The facilities may produce chips that strengthen military, but isn’t China military strong enough without the special chips. The Hong Kong debacle illustrates the slanted view of China. Before the protests, according to the Heritage Foundation (conservative think-tank), Hong Kong was #1 in the Freedom Index for 15 years running. The protestors wanted to make Hong Kong freer than free and succeeded in making Hong Kong less free – great accomplishment. During the massive protests, not one protestor was killed – compare that to the many protestors killed in U.S. protests.
The enmity China has shown democracy and Western values in HK and elsewhere, for one. You think there is no reason why almost all China's neighbors prefer to ally with the US?
Don't understand. Hong Kong was awarded # 1 in Freedom Index for more than ten years. U.S. was 15th. By values, are you referring to the values of President Trump, who, having been elected by the American people, must reflect their values? Are you saying that American values are superior to those from other cultures? U.S. has military allies, and only nations that want to protect their special interests far from its borders have military allies with nations far from its borders.
I snicker when I read the part about China lacking semiconductor fabrication equipment. They already have much of the equipment and with economic war declared, I am sure they will have no qualms about reverse engineering anything they need. The U.S. offshored their chip business to Asia years ago and are not likely to get it back. Japan, S. Korea, and the two Chinas will continue to dominate well into the future. The U.S. is shooting itself in the foot with this move and will make the coming recession even worse for itself.
You underestimate the difficulty of what you are suggesting. Advanced microchip fabrication plants are probably the single hardest thing to make in the world that people have actually succeeded at making. It would be easier for China to land a manned rocket on Mars in the next 10 years than duplicate TSMC's most advanced chip fabrication equipment in the same length of time without outside help.
TSMC makes a majority of the super high end chips, but the basic stuff that makes our refrigerators and cars work is done elsewhere - China mainland, Korea, and Japan. Remember this is all about a proxy war over who will ultimately controls TSMC which is 95 miles off the coast of mainland China. China has been poaching semiconductor engineers for years and is focused on being the leader in the future. It is more difficult for the U.S. to protect Taiwan than for China to pop over and snatch it up.
The recent semiconductor crunch should have taught us a lesson that China controls not only a majority of semiconductor manufacturing but a majority of the shipping business that distributes them throughout the world. China has a lot of aces up their sleeves and have a government fully focused on securing the chip manufacturing business. If you think it difficult for China to grab the lead in the advanced microchip manufacturing business, it is simply one step up the ladder for them while the U.S. is almost starting from scratch.
"What country is the largest producer of semiconductors?
China is the world’s leading producer of semiconductor chips, according to United Nations data. The electronics value chain, including consumer electronics and ICT, has been regionalized in recent years, and China has become a major international production center for microelectronics.
Who is world’s largest chip maker?
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSM) is the largest manufacturer of semiconductor chips. Although Intel earns more revenue, TSM makes almost 90% of the world’s advanced chips manufactured. TSM also controls more than half of the global semiconductor market, by revenue."
As you said, TSMC in Taiwan makes the highest-end stuff, which is usually what matters for advanced military applications. (If you're just making a calculator or something else that would work just fine with the kind of chips available twenty years ago, then yeah, China can supply you with a zillion of those, no problem.) So the easiest way to get a high-end chip fabricator in your country is to bribe TSMC to make one - and, as it happens, they've pretty much finished building a plant in Arizona that they think will be operational in 2024...
I am not following you. Asia makes the chips that power 95% of the world's needs for semiconductors. TSMC's high end chips are only used in specialized products and in small quantities. China has been stockpiling its needs for these chips for a couple of years and its 'Made In China 2025' program was specifically developed for this scenario. War has been declared and by the time the Arizona TSMC plant is operational, China will have its own 5nm chip technologies and enough of a stockpile of TSMC chips to meet their needs until then.
My point is that China has been expecting this attack and is ready to meet the challenge. Their government and industries are organized like military operations and they now have a patriotic motivation to strike back at such aggression. China now more than ever is unified to become independent of U.S. hegemony. This transgression will not be allowed to pass unchallenged.
This is very similar to the kneecapping done to Japan previously and other Asians are watching to see if China will back down to the bully. This could be a horrific prestige disaster for the U.S. globally and push China closer to rogue Russia. Biden has brought a knife to a gun fight and the outcome will likely exceed the debacles of Bush Jr. in Afghanistan and Iraq. "All politics is local" and this will increase prices for the U.S. consumer and that will not fare well at the voting booth.
It does not make any sense that the highest end chips are what is used in military operations. I work in IC design. I have worked on chips that go into missiles in the last few years. They are very middle of the road in terms of semiconductor technology. Drones are one of the latest new military toys (and very effective it seems). They don't require particularly high end chips. High end chips are smaller and use less energy. Motors require orders of magnitude more current and payloads weigh orders of magnitude more than chips.
The highest nodes of semiconductor are likely used almost exclusively in AI and microprocessor types of applications. The next highest will be in highly integrated applications like iPhones. Until you are designing smart bullets, I don't see a real need for the highest node semiconductor processes in most military projects.
Is the goal really only to prohibit China's military use of the technology or is it to kneecap the Chinese economy in general by depriving Chinese companies of access to important components? Given the timescales at which weapon systems are developed, produced and deployed I'm skeptical that setting their technology back five or ten years is going to do much to reduce China's militarily capacity?
Setting back Chinese semi-conductor manufacturing could buy the US and Taiwan a 10-year window (at least) of chip supremacy. This creates time which would allow both nations to better fortify their strategic situation versus China and impair any Chinese moves on Taiwan.
Timing this before the CCP’s Party Congress sends a huge message.
Noah references Hal Brands and Michael Beckley’s book “Danger Zone.” Brands and Beckley’s argument is that the US has better long term prospects than the PRC in their competition. It just needs to make it through the 2020s to a point where the balance of power will shift back towards the US in East Asia.
These rules will not make any difference to Chinese military power through the 2020s though? All or almost all weapons system the Chinese military has access to by 2030 will use pretty old semiconductor components.
Hmmm...perhaps. The thing is, a significant part of warfare involves gathering useful information and transmitting it to the right decision makers at the right point in time.
It is not always the case but I am quite confident in saying that in most battles, the party with the better understanding of what is transpiring will win-or, at the very least, mute the effect of an adversary victory.
In warfare, the actual amount of time soldiers spend trading rounds compared to other activities such as observing, reconnaissance or maneuvering to advantageous positions is minuscule. Most armies spend the majority of their time in warfare either maneuvering or preparing their positions.
Chip supremacy will never provide a guaranteed victory. However, it would give one combatant significant benefits over another by fostering information superiority.
I suppose it depends on how new-fangled war becomes. Like if AI shows a better strategy in the future (via war game simulations) or can direct drone swarms effectively. So sure, you could say this freezes China to the weapons systems it has now (or planned) while the US and allies could potentially work out more potent ways to fight.
Yeah, I think you are right. If military supremacy continues to be based on complex and expensive platforms that take decades to develop and are used for 50 years it won't matter that much who has access to the latest semiconductor technology. But in a future where these are replaced by millions of dispensable and autonomous drones I could see it.
Well, making it through the 2020's with the prospect of civil war in the U.S. could be problematic. The attack by an armed mob on the Capitol cheered on by a former President does not bode well for success. "United we stand, divided we fall..."
It's insane that people see the prospect of war against nuclear-armed China as a given. As if we didn't have enough with dealing with climate change. Our leaders are going bonkers, and are determined to take us all down with them even before global warming does.
Oh, interesting. I suppose another deterrent is that Taiwan's an island located farther out (as opposed to HK), and that crossing the straits is not as simple as crossing a bridge.
I don't think this timing with the CCP Congress is coincidental. It's a signal to the party elites that a third term with Xi at the helm would be going down a bad road.
I honestly fear it's due to the midterms and a political stunt, or that it's being done solely to hurt the Saudis and thus not out of any logical long-term policy.
The mid-terms is as good a reason as any for doing something positive.
As I look out at the world, I see an axis, yes an old term, of Russia, China, Iran, forming. The new Saudi MBS leader, is enmeshed in new issues, thinking the old ones are gone. That will come back to bite him, unfortunately.
Dealing with the Saudi's at the moment is definitely a mid-term thing. Three weeks from now Biden can go back on anything or stay put. It will sort of be incidental. As long as there is no will to let energy companies drill, and get product out of the ground, things are not getting better any time soon in America.
Biden's whole approach to energy is baffling. If you want to reduce payments to despots, you continue to produce at home. You also reduce the risk of oil spills given how the tankers are too big to fit through the Suez canal. Of course for a long term low-carbon economy, that would require a major nuclear power building spree along with switching to the hydrogen/ammonia economy, which would allow the US to decouple itself from the rest of the world.
Instead of that, Biden shuts down domestic production and begs everyone for more just for politics, as it's easier to 'hide' production abroad than in your back yard. Per Shellenberger, Biden's oil policy was/is to drain the strategic reserve until the mid-terms, then stop so it is though there is no captain of this ship.
As you said, there is no reason why Biden won't reverse his course with China in a month or so. China might even be aware that this is all politics, I do not know.
Under the terms of the oil supply reserve, after the oil has been sold, the government is required to replenish it after six months. That bill is likely to be more than it cost to empty it, to its present point.
Neil evidently believes that if you just think happy thoughts, hold hands with everyone, and sing “kumbaya”, suddenly, the CCP would give up all claims on Taiwan and won’t ever invade.
What part of the U.S. "One China" policy don't you understand? Of course the PRC will not cede the island of Taiwan to the ROC. If the U.S. will quit dumping obsolete arms there the two China's will peacefully figure out a way to unite once more. This is a remnant of the ongoing Chinese Civil War and no business of the U.S.
Fascinating work! Particularly on speed at which the expiration date of our computer chip economic weapon was falling. I really love the import graphic you put in this, it highlights so well how reliant they are at the moment on our chips. I wish I wouldn't have seen that sooner.
I am Chinese, and I am very surpirsing that you guys stay vigilant to China, even China remain moderate foregin policy all the way. I think you just don't want China‘s rise.
This dramatic action was clearly a tit for tat response to last week's Saudi oil decision.
Russia has very little bargaining power to effect the Saudi's decision. This move by Biden lends credibility to the possibility that it was really China that moved Saudi's hand. The fact that it was announced right before China's Party Congress is awfully symbolic too. (vs US midterms)
That's interesting, but doesn't China want cheaper oil too?
China's inflation situation is significantly less correlated to oil prices than the first world. A cynic could even possibly make the case that this was all part of a masterplan to flank the West. From a relative standpoint, oil barely hurts China.
Hmm. Along with semiconductors, oil is China's biggest import. They import almost 3/4 of the oil they consume. They are very dependent on oil imports.
True, but iirc coal is >50% of China's energy source. Besides, they have a huge neighbor right next door to sell them oil at any price they want. Just need a few back scratches.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to push this narrative. It just seems too coincidental to not be interesting.
Hilarious you think a move of such gravity is motivated by tit for tat politics.
If we have a nuclear war, we'll have got their by escalatory tit for tat politics... quite possibly with a gravity bomb being one such tit or tat
The scary thing is that Russia is the one showing restraint on nuclear war, given how the swamp rats have bragged about giving intel to Ukraine on how to locate and kill Russian generals.
To me it seems that Russia is the only one showing the intention to use nuclear weapons (and, frankly the only one that has the incentive to do so, since they're out of other military options). I haven't seen much restraint from them among all the saber-rattling, what restraint are you talking about?
In the long dance of "how far can nuclear powers go without actually having a war", America's intelligence sharing in Ukraine is not the most dangerous thing that's been done, not even close.
The Soviet Union:
(1) Had Soviet pilots flying Soviet planes duelling American planes in the skies over the Korean peninsula
(2) Had Soviet anti-aircraft gunners shooting down American planes in the jungles of Vietnam
(3) Deployed Soviet soldiers armed with tactical nuclear weapons to a country neighbouring America and gave them permission to fire those tactical nuclear weapons without first phoning the Kremlin, and didn't tell the Americans this, even when the Americans were 24 hours away from attacking the island those soldiers & nukes were on
Why do you say Russia's the one showing restraint?
Not everything that happens in the same week is related.
I think this sanctions package has taken longer than that to conceive and prepare.
I think the Saudi decision was motivated by wanting higher oil prices.
Lmfao your framing of how China interacts with the world is clearly manufactured by state department propaganda.
A trade war with China will not be good for US inflation.
About the only things good for US inflation are a balanced federal budget (to pull more money out of the economy and shut down the Fed's printing presses) and higher interest rates.
Yep, so I'm wondering if rising prices on consumer goods, which is what a China trade war would do, will make Congress Do Something, which will further screw up inflation. I am no fan of our reliance on China, but a trade war right now feels like it's just accelerating bad things.
Congress seldom has any worthwhile ideas. Nobody either has any or has the courage to go up and state them...all you have are vague political wish-lists from across the political isle. And should something end up getting passed, it's in a 2,000+ page document that has as much text devoted to pork as the main issue at hand.
There doesn't seem to be the will to cause tax increases for the majority of the population, which is something necessary for a long-term balanced budget. Such messaging hurts everyone, those on the right who are against it, and those on the left whose spending programs would die once the population realizes what is required to fund everything we already have.
Would have been good to have some sort of breakdown of what you expect the response to be. China will want to hit back I assume? Rare-earths or something of that kind?
Yeah, rare earths is the obvious one. But there’s a billion tiny cuts that China can inflict on people who buy their crap.
Whatever they do, if it deters some Americans from buying a Chinese crap, it is likely on net a good thing.
When I heard about this move, I wrote a short post more focused on what the Chinese response might be.
As well, I was and am highly skeptical of the timing of this and suspect there was a lot of political motivation vis a vis the midterm elections.
Your take is more trusting than mine.
https://robertsdavidn.substack.com/p/did-america-declare-war-on-china
I doubt the political interpretation; I don't think voters care about this at all.
Thanks for the post!!
But are the news sources those voters follow going to report extensively on this? I can't imagine e.g. Fox News is going to run "Biden now strong on China!" stories, just as they didn't cover the many failures of Trump's tough-on-China policies.
Why do you think the US refusing to help China build military grade semiconductors to be used on US troops is like the US declaring war on China?
Well, it's a metaphor, like "trade war".
A really bad one. You know as well as I do how that will be portrayed.
We are degrading an essential input into China's economy and military capability. That's an aggressive and escalatory move. We played this card unilaterally without seeking, as far as I know, any concession.
We have to expect an escalatory response from China. Given the war in Ukraine and the economic troubles we are facing, that response could really bite us.
I can't judge whether this is right or wrong in the long run, just that it seems sudden and timed for the midterms. China bashing is incredibly popular. And there's much that China has done and is doing that deserves criticism.
I don't agree. If you read the rules, we're not kneecapping their entire industry, just the part that makes advanced chips with military/AI/great power competition applications. Dishwasher and EV chips will be okay.
The concession we sought was under Obama: stop stealing our intellectual property in exchange for cyber cooperation (i.e. less espionage from us). We gave that a decade to pan out and China is back (and was quickly) to stealing all our latest and greatest tech (F-35, B-21 Raider, etc).
So from my perspective, since we hold all the cards vis a vis patents and US ownership of the underlying software, this can't really be interpreted as aggression or provocation. Just as in Cuba, we're refusing to take part in the Chinese system. We're not going to help China build a military to defeat the US military.
Also, hasn’t Chinese rhetoric and sabre-rattling towards Taiwan also been escalatory and non-concessionary.
If China wants to stop sending us basic consumer goods, America can produce them fairly easily, granted at a higher cost, but also with adding employment.
We can also stop sending them food if they seek that route.
I agree. This was clearly done for strategic, rather than electoral reasons. It was never going to attract new votes to the Dems, and the White House made no PR effort to sell it on that scale. (I wish it had, because I think this is a major ositive step.)
The fly in the ointment for me is that all this new policy does is slow down China; it doesn't prevent it from developing the capacity it seeks. I believe the Brits tried something similar 200 years ago with us. It didn't work.
That's right, it will just slow China down. But if it can slow China down til after Xi Jinping dies...
China is also going through a major demographic change. By the year 2100 they are expected to have a population of 900 million to 1 billion, down from the present 1.4 billion. That will also have major effects as to what is going on in it. Slowing China down at the moment is an improvement over letting go full steam ahead.
It does, perhaps not as much in the U.S., which like it or not, is open to immigration via one means or another. China, like Japan, is aghast at the thought of foreign immigration as opposed to temporary workers. The lack of new workers, in all fields at all levels, will be a greater detriment to China in particular. Again, due to history and its historical character which not even the current Party in power has significantly made a dent it.
I am curious... why is it OK to "slow down" China's economic growth but not OK to do the same to the U.S. economy?
China is not our friend, and has no interest, at least at the present time, in being so.
As to America, the poor, the working class, and the mid to lower middle class, need abundance, growth, if they are ever to improve their lot. Limited growth for these groups is only going to cause resentment, unease, and a movement towards any party that actually promises and fulfills that promise of growth.
OK then, why not spend the effort to improve the lot of working class Americans with education and social programs rather than attacking China's economy? As Gandhi said: "An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind." China's economy has grown due to education and hard work. Meanwhile the U.S. is "dumbing down" and providing tax cuts to the rich. Our woes are not China's fault and transferring our sins onto others accomplishes nothing.
Even if China does achieve parity on its own, I presume this move (and later moves that follow it) will help to keep the non-Chinese advanced semiconductor industry from becoming dependent on China. The worst possible outcome is that China convinces western companies that it must sell its products to China, then Chinese businesses reverse-engineer those products, and China then turns around and wipes out western competitors with a flood of subsidized products.
If the U.S. emerged from its America centric view of the world, it might find a different China. Does China compete specifically with the United States, or, as Korea and Japan, compete in a global system (nothing better than competition say the U.S. economic pundits) with all nations? Does China, which is willing to export its rare earth minerals to the U.S., deserve to be denied computer chip facilities because it may use the these chips in military applications? The facilities may produce chips that strengthen military, but isn’t China military strong enough without the special chips. The Hong Kong debacle illustrates the slanted view of China. Before the protests, according to the Heritage Foundation (conservative think-tank), Hong Kong was #1 in the Freedom Index for 15 years running. The protestors wanted to make Hong Kong freer than free and succeeded in making Hong Kong less free – great accomplishment. During the massive protests, not one protestor was killed – compare that to the many protestors killed in U.S. protests.
“Might” is a pretty slim tendril to hang an edifice on. All indications are actually, no, the US wouldn’t find a different China.
What are the indications?
The enmity China has shown democracy and Western values in HK and elsewhere, for one. You think there is no reason why almost all China's neighbors prefer to ally with the US?
Don't understand. Hong Kong was awarded # 1 in Freedom Index for more than ten years. U.S. was 15th. By values, are you referring to the values of President Trump, who, having been elected by the American people, must reflect their values? Are you saying that American values are superior to those from other cultures? U.S. has military allies, and only nations that want to protect their special interests far from its borders have military allies with nations far from its borders.
Big idea with zero strategic objectives communicated to the American people. Biden is obviously looking at this from the
perspective of corporate graft and domestic politics rather than foreign policy. Hey- what could happen?
I snicker when I read the part about China lacking semiconductor fabrication equipment. They already have much of the equipment and with economic war declared, I am sure they will have no qualms about reverse engineering anything they need. The U.S. offshored their chip business to Asia years ago and are not likely to get it back. Japan, S. Korea, and the two Chinas will continue to dominate well into the future. The U.S. is shooting itself in the foot with this move and will make the coming recession even worse for itself.
You underestimate the difficulty of what you are suggesting. Advanced microchip fabrication plants are probably the single hardest thing to make in the world that people have actually succeeded at making. It would be easier for China to land a manned rocket on Mars in the next 10 years than duplicate TSMC's most advanced chip fabrication equipment in the same length of time without outside help.
TSMC makes a majority of the super high end chips, but the basic stuff that makes our refrigerators and cars work is done elsewhere - China mainland, Korea, and Japan. Remember this is all about a proxy war over who will ultimately controls TSMC which is 95 miles off the coast of mainland China. China has been poaching semiconductor engineers for years and is focused on being the leader in the future. It is more difficult for the U.S. to protect Taiwan than for China to pop over and snatch it up.
The recent semiconductor crunch should have taught us a lesson that China controls not only a majority of semiconductor manufacturing but a majority of the shipping business that distributes them throughout the world. China has a lot of aces up their sleeves and have a government fully focused on securing the chip manufacturing business. If you think it difficult for China to grab the lead in the advanced microchip manufacturing business, it is simply one step up the ladder for them while the U.S. is almost starting from scratch.
"What country is the largest producer of semiconductors?
China is the world’s leading producer of semiconductor chips, according to United Nations data. The electronics value chain, including consumer electronics and ICT, has been regionalized in recent years, and China has become a major international production center for microelectronics.
Who is world’s largest chip maker?
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSM) is the largest manufacturer of semiconductor chips. Although Intel earns more revenue, TSM makes almost 90% of the world’s advanced chips manufactured. TSM also controls more than half of the global semiconductor market, by revenue."
https://www.csfusion.org/semiconductor/why-can-only-taiwan-make-semiconductors/
As you said, TSMC in Taiwan makes the highest-end stuff, which is usually what matters for advanced military applications. (If you're just making a calculator or something else that would work just fine with the kind of chips available twenty years ago, then yeah, China can supply you with a zillion of those, no problem.) So the easiest way to get a high-end chip fabricator in your country is to bribe TSMC to make one - and, as it happens, they've pretty much finished building a plant in Arizona that they think will be operational in 2024...
I am not following you. Asia makes the chips that power 95% of the world's needs for semiconductors. TSMC's high end chips are only used in specialized products and in small quantities. China has been stockpiling its needs for these chips for a couple of years and its 'Made In China 2025' program was specifically developed for this scenario. War has been declared and by the time the Arizona TSMC plant is operational, China will have its own 5nm chip technologies and enough of a stockpile of TSMC chips to meet their needs until then.
My point is that China has been expecting this attack and is ready to meet the challenge. Their government and industries are organized like military operations and they now have a patriotic motivation to strike back at such aggression. China now more than ever is unified to become independent of U.S. hegemony. This transgression will not be allowed to pass unchallenged.
This is very similar to the kneecapping done to Japan previously and other Asians are watching to see if China will back down to the bully. This could be a horrific prestige disaster for the U.S. globally and push China closer to rogue Russia. Biden has brought a knife to a gun fight and the outcome will likely exceed the debacles of Bush Jr. in Afghanistan and Iraq. "All politics is local" and this will increase prices for the U.S. consumer and that will not fare well at the voting booth.
It does not make any sense that the highest end chips are what is used in military operations. I work in IC design. I have worked on chips that go into missiles in the last few years. They are very middle of the road in terms of semiconductor technology. Drones are one of the latest new military toys (and very effective it seems). They don't require particularly high end chips. High end chips are smaller and use less energy. Motors require orders of magnitude more current and payloads weigh orders of magnitude more than chips.
The highest nodes of semiconductor are likely used almost exclusively in AI and microprocessor types of applications. The next highest will be in highly integrated applications like iPhones. Until you are designing smart bullets, I don't see a real need for the highest node semiconductor processes in most military projects.
Is the goal really only to prohibit China's military use of the technology or is it to kneecap the Chinese economy in general by depriving Chinese companies of access to important components? Given the timescales at which weapon systems are developed, produced and deployed I'm skeptical that setting their technology back five or ten years is going to do much to reduce China's militarily capacity?
We have no non-military reasons to kneecap the Chinese economy. This isn't about protecting American companies or workers from economic competition.
No but economic power leads to national power. Everyone gets poorer but power is zero-sum.
Setting back Chinese semi-conductor manufacturing could buy the US and Taiwan a 10-year window (at least) of chip supremacy. This creates time which would allow both nations to better fortify their strategic situation versus China and impair any Chinese moves on Taiwan.
Timing this before the CCP’s Party Congress sends a huge message.
Noah references Hal Brands and Michael Beckley’s book “Danger Zone.” Brands and Beckley’s argument is that the US has better long term prospects than the PRC in their competition. It just needs to make it through the 2020s to a point where the balance of power will shift back towards the US in East Asia.
These rules will not make any difference to Chinese military power through the 2020s though? All or almost all weapons system the Chinese military has access to by 2030 will use pretty old semiconductor components.
Hmmm...perhaps. The thing is, a significant part of warfare involves gathering useful information and transmitting it to the right decision makers at the right point in time.
It is not always the case but I am quite confident in saying that in most battles, the party with the better understanding of what is transpiring will win-or, at the very least, mute the effect of an adversary victory.
In warfare, the actual amount of time soldiers spend trading rounds compared to other activities such as observing, reconnaissance or maneuvering to advantageous positions is minuscule. Most armies spend the majority of their time in warfare either maneuvering or preparing their positions.
Chip supremacy will never provide a guaranteed victory. However, it would give one combatant significant benefits over another by fostering information superiority.
I suppose it depends on how new-fangled war becomes. Like if AI shows a better strategy in the future (via war game simulations) or can direct drone swarms effectively. So sure, you could say this freezes China to the weapons systems it has now (or planned) while the US and allies could potentially work out more potent ways to fight.
Yeah, I think you are right. If military supremacy continues to be based on complex and expensive platforms that take decades to develop and are used for 50 years it won't matter that much who has access to the latest semiconductor technology. But in a future where these are replaced by millions of dispensable and autonomous drones I could see it.
Well, making it through the 2020's with the prospect of civil war in the U.S. could be problematic. The attack by an armed mob on the Capitol cheered on by a former President does not bode well for success. "United we stand, divided we fall..."
I talk of the second U.S. civil war in the present tense.
It's insane that people see the prospect of war against nuclear-armed China as a given. As if we didn't have enough with dealing with climate change. Our leaders are going bonkers, and are determined to take us all down with them even before global warming does.
Just a thought - will export controls back-fire and end up pushing China to invade Taiwan to capture its semi-conductor facilities/hardware?
Those fabs are like Faberge eggs (as someone put it). In any war, they'll be destroyed. They're not hard-to-destroy items like oil fields.
Oh, interesting. I suppose another deterrent is that Taiwan's an island located farther out (as opposed to HK), and that crossing the straits is not as simple as crossing a bridge.
I don't think this timing with the CCP Congress is coincidental. It's a signal to the party elites that a third term with Xi at the helm would be going down a bad road.
As with Edward Snowden, seeing that the government is actually doing something positive is rare and quite nice.
I honestly fear it's due to the midterms and a political stunt, or that it's being done solely to hurt the Saudis and thus not out of any logical long-term policy.
The mid-terms is as good a reason as any for doing something positive.
As I look out at the world, I see an axis, yes an old term, of Russia, China, Iran, forming. The new Saudi MBS leader, is enmeshed in new issues, thinking the old ones are gone. That will come back to bite him, unfortunately.
Dealing with the Saudi's at the moment is definitely a mid-term thing. Three weeks from now Biden can go back on anything or stay put. It will sort of be incidental. As long as there is no will to let energy companies drill, and get product out of the ground, things are not getting better any time soon in America.
Biden's whole approach to energy is baffling. If you want to reduce payments to despots, you continue to produce at home. You also reduce the risk of oil spills given how the tankers are too big to fit through the Suez canal. Of course for a long term low-carbon economy, that would require a major nuclear power building spree along with switching to the hydrogen/ammonia economy, which would allow the US to decouple itself from the rest of the world.
Instead of that, Biden shuts down domestic production and begs everyone for more just for politics, as it's easier to 'hide' production abroad than in your back yard. Per Shellenberger, Biden's oil policy was/is to drain the strategic reserve until the mid-terms, then stop so it is though there is no captain of this ship.
As you said, there is no reason why Biden won't reverse his course with China in a month or so. China might even be aware that this is all politics, I do not know.
Under the terms of the oil supply reserve, after the oil has been sold, the government is required to replenish it after six months. That bill is likely to be more than it cost to empty it, to its present point.
You evil paranoid bastards. So now the world is split into two, again.
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.
Which is exactly what the Chinese are saying about the U.S. and now it obviously is true.
And therefore what?
Neil evidently believes that if you just think happy thoughts, hold hands with everyone, and sing “kumbaya”, suddenly, the CCP would give up all claims on Taiwan and won’t ever invade.
What part of the U.S. "One China" policy don't you understand? Of course the PRC will not cede the island of Taiwan to the ROC. If the U.S. will quit dumping obsolete arms there the two China's will peacefully figure out a way to unite once more. This is a remnant of the ongoing Chinese Civil War and no business of the U.S.
Fascinating work! Particularly on speed at which the expiration date of our computer chip economic weapon was falling. I really love the import graphic you put in this, it highlights so well how reliant they are at the moment on our chips. I wish I wouldn't have seen that sooner.
I am Chinese, and I am very surpirsing that you guys stay vigilant to China, even China remain moderate foregin policy all the way. I think you just don't want China‘s rise.