Good. Capitalists sure seem to hate the free market when it's China doing it, huh?
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
11 points (66.7% liked)
Technology
34894 readers
620 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Thanks for posting! The authors conclude the US can still put a stop to this with coordinated effort. They recommend the US implement these steps to stop China from further developing domestic semiconductor technology, and I fully support that!
Here are some steps that could be taken to ensure that China does not develop the ability to mass-manufacture the sorts of chips needed for high-end military applications in the coming years:
Limit ArFi immersion lithography tools.
Limit servicing of existing equipment.
Limit ArFi photoresist.
Limit masks.
Limit mask blanks, writers, and other associated infrastructure.
Limit metrology equipment.
Limit CMP equipment.
Limit epitaxy equipment.
Limit dry etch equipment.
Limit CVD and ALD equipment.
Limit advanced packaging equipment.
Limit ion implantation equipment.
Limit semiconductor manufacturing equipment subsystems and subassemblies.
Limit etchant gas.
Limit deposition precursors.
Limit chips that have >25.6Tbps of IO even if they have no compute.
Limit chips that have >1000TOPS of performance.
Limit the licensing of 200G SerDes.
Limit EDA tools.
Limit Joint Ventures and inbound investments.
Thanks for the summary. It's funny to me that they're suggesting limiting imports on pretty much every tool that's used in making chips. A highly detailed blanket ban lol
I fully support industrial sabotage and hindering China's industrial development through economic warfare uwu
Good idea, well said! Much better option to military warfare in my opinion.
Give peace a chance.
Sure, this isn't counter to that
Sanctions are siege warfare.
No they're not. Economic sanctions meet no definition of siege warfare
Warfare in which the defender is trapped in a position (such as a fort or castle) while the attacker bombards and/or barricades them from outside.
It's a barricade erected around a country to block the flow of goods and travel and finance, with the goal of subjecting civilians to economic hardship so they turn on their government. It's a siege, with the goal of creating enough pain within the country to encourage internal sabotage, revolt, and treachery.
Sanctions are warfare.
These sanctions would be to ensure the US maintains a technological advantage through prohibiting the export of cutting edge technology. I'm wondering if you actually read what you quoted above before continuing to say this.
If you're interested in actual modern examples of siege warfare, please read on
I just quoted a definition. Here, I'll quote from your link.
The essence of a siege lies in the encirclement of a defended area and the subsequent isolation of the enemy forces by cutting of their channels of supply and reinforcement with a view of inducing the enemy into submission by means of starvation.
How does this not describe a sanctions regime? Obviously the sanctions on China are minor compared to other sanctioned nations, but look at the sanctions on Iran or Russia or Cuba or the Taliban regime. Encirclement, isolation, cutting channels of supply and reinforcement, and the goal in all those casrs is to induce the enemy into submission. Starvation isn't uncommon.
The sanctions are meant to hurt the enemy.
"Starvation isn't uncommon"
Since the whole point is starvation, you should probably expound on how a ban on semiconductor technology exports to China will induce starvation
I was referring to the other , more heavily sanctioned nations that I also mentioned. Obviously.
Oh ok, I didn't realize we had strayed off topic. So it sounds like we're in agreement these semiconductor sanctions against China are not "siege warfare"
I say it's an opening salvo. Do you think it'll stop here?
Just because the siege hasn't fully begun doesn't change what it is at its core.
I'm not buying your slippery slope fallacy, but again, I'm glad you came around
Came around to what? I'm saying this is the begining of another sanctions regime - actually it started with Trump's tradewar bullshit. There's a clear escalation that these wars follow.
In every country they're used, sanctions only ever get worse until the government collapses. Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, DPRK, and now Russia. It's almost always a one way street to worse and harsher sanctions until it sparks a civil war. China is next.
Learn some fucking history.