5 ms·

There is a strangeness in the reasoning in the article. The claim is that these supercomputers pose a threat to the US but current purchases en route to China a

There is a strangeness in the reasoning in the article. The claim is that these supercomputers pose a threat to the US but current purchases en route to China are exempted. Normally anything that poses a real threat would not create any exemptions. “The new rules take effect immediately but do not apply to goods from U.S. suppliers already en route.”

tw04 6y ago
>Normally anything that poses a real threat would not create any exemptions. Citation please? Exemptions happen all the time for all sorts of reasons. Off the top of my head: if the goods in-flight were already invoiced and paid, and on the books for a publicly traded company, halting shipment and asking them to take the stock back could have massive ramifications to that company and the stock market as a whole. If the parts shipped so far aren't enough to actually complete the supercomputer build, why on earth would the government force that company to jump through all those hoops? In general, retroactively punishing previously legal behavior is frowned upon by most folks in all but the rarest circumstances.
- hluska 6y ago
  I’m not the person who you’re replying to but I believe they have made a mistake. There is the US Munitions List, for which export is controlled by the US Department of State. This is a US Commerce blacklist so these items are not on the USML. I vaguely recall a shipment being stopped midway under the USML but I’m having an early 40s moment - I’ll update this if I remember the case and find a decent citation!
kube-system 6y ago
> Normally anything that poses a real threat would not create any exemptions. Define "real threat". Are we talking about an imminent threat, a potential threat, a long-term strategic threat, etc? The immediacy in which someone handles a threat depends on the details. For instance, high cholesterol and a heart attack are both a threat to someone's health. While you'd want to address both of those issues, one of them you might immediately call 911 for, and the other you might schedule an appointment for next week.

tw04 6y ago

>Normally anything that poses a real threat would not create any exemptions. Citation please? Exemptions happen all the time for all sorts of reasons. Off the top of my head: if the goods in-flight were already invoiced and paid, and on the books for a publicly traded company, halting shipment and asking them to take the stock back could have massive ramifications to that company and the stock market as a whole. If the parts shipped so far aren't enough to actually complete the supercomputer build, why on earth would the government force that company to jump through all those hoops? In general, retroactively punishing previously legal behavior is frowned upon by most folks in all but the rarest circumstances.

hluska 6y ago
I’m not the person who you’re replying to but I believe they have made a mistake. There is the US Munitions List, for which export is controlled by the US Department of State. This is a US Commerce blacklist so these items are not on the USML. I vaguely recall a shipment being stopped midway under the USML but I’m having an early 40s moment - I’ll update this if I remember the case and find a decent citation!

kube-system 6y ago

> Normally anything that poses a real threat would not create any exemptions. Define "real threat". Are we talking about an imminent threat, a potential threat, a long-term strategic threat, etc? The immediacy in which someone handles a threat depends on the details. For instance, high cholesterol and a heart attack are both a threat to someone's health. While you'd want to address both of those issues, one of them you might immediately call 911 for, and the other you might schedule an appointment for next week.