3 ms·

Chinese tech and power has come along way since your formative image of them took shape in the early 2000s

windexh8er 4y ago
How? China doesn't possess the capability to build their own competitive chips. The chips they do manufacture do not require high precision. Everything I've read about China over the last few years has indicated it is, generally, unsustainable. From their disastrous fiscal policies of internal hyper-finance [0], their weakening navy [1], their aging population that's well on its way through decline [2] and the [3] continued climate issues that loom over China - it doesn't look all that great once you peel back the facade. China is in a big mess that started back then and continues to get worse under current leadership. [0]https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-slow-motion-financial-crisis-unfolding-expected https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-slow-motion-financial-c... [1] https://news.usni.org/2021/01/22/chinese-navy-faces-overseas-basing-weakness-report-says https://news.usni.org/2021/01/22/chinese-navy-faces-overseas... [2] https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3157385/chinas-ageing-population-long-term-reality-and-its-silver https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3157385/c... [3] https://www.world-energy.org/article/20509.html https://www.world-energy.org/article/20509.html
- Dah00n 4y ago
  >China doesn't possess the capability to build their own competitive chips The US doesn't either. ASML is the only supplier of cutting-edge lithography systems and they are Dutch, not from Taiwan or the US. Without them Intel and TSMC couldn't do what they do and US sanctions is why China can't currently build competitive chips. It is not because of some kind of US tech brilliance.
  - petra 4y ago
    I believe TSMC is 50% owned by US companies.
    - selectodude 4y ago
      Intel owns a significant chunk of ASML but it’s always been a fully Dutch company. That being said, ASML is 100 percent reliant on US Government research for their EUV breakthroughs, which is why the USG can tell them who they can and can’t sell to.
  - windexh8er 4y ago
    Look at the top 12 chip manufacturers globally. The ones that design the chips that run our everyday lives. They are mostly US based companies. The IP is within, mostly, US based companies. I posted this in another comment. This is why the US is heavily subsidizing bringing that to US soil [0]. This is preemptive, but in many ways, a bit late. If you're saying the US doesn't know how to design and build chips then you're conflating two very different things. The US manufacturers used to build them here, but the global supply chain made it infeasible to do it on US soil historically. The US currently doesn't have the manufacturing capacity to fabricate the chips they design - but the actual R&D is here. China doesn't have that. > It is not because of some kind of US tech brilliance. If that's the case then please share one Chinese rival to Intel / AMD. [0] https://www.nist.gov/semiconductors/chips-act https://www.nist.gov/semiconductors/chips-act
- mywittyname 4y ago
  China has recently developed a low-altitude, hyper-sonic missile platform (DF-ZF) for which the USA doesn't have a great defense against. And this platform is specifically designed to attack carrier groups. THAAD can theoretically stop these missiles but the range for doing so is extremely limited due to the speed (up to Mach 10) and low altitude these missiles fly at.
  - chuckster563 4y ago
    That system was designed using US tools. It is simulated on computers whose chips, OS, system and software were all made in the west. https://freebeacon.com/national-security/report-missile-tech-funded-by-us-taxpayers-through-the-us-government-ends-up-in-china/ https://freebeacon.com/national-security/report-missile-tech...
  - cromwellian 4y ago
    These are not true hypersonic cruise missiles (e.g. a SCRAMJet), instead they are ballistic missiles with an unpowered hypersonic glider warhead. Thus, they aren't too dissimilar from the way ICBMs work for missile defense with EKVs being needed to intercept. The intercept speed of EKVs IIRC is over Mach 25. Thus, the interception goal would be to get them in their boost phase, or mid-course phase, rather than the terminal phase after they've launched the HGV (hypersonic glide vehicle). HGV phase, I think only laser/particle weapons would work given the time between detection and firing solution. But for mid-course, they could use SM-3/SM-6. The SM-3 is specifically designed for targets like the DF. So AEGIS systems with SM-3 might be effective in protecting US carriers as long as the launches are detected. The problem is, the HGV only spends a much shorter time in ballistic phase, and once it re-enters the atmosphere, it is no longer on a predictable ballistic trajectory. That said, military tech often works much better in theory than in reality. The USSR/Russia had a fearsome military tech on paper, the evidence in Ukraine seems to be it was hyperbole.
    - rnk 4y ago
      I'm sure China would manage to sink some carriers if there was an all out assault with all their capabilities, that is one of their key goal. Nothing will be invulnerable. They'll have some other weapons no one knew about. But what will the US do then. Will we stage weapons in other countries around China, increasing the danger of a real world war? Will we manage to build bases on Taiwan that can be protected somehow? I hope I never find out.

How? China doesn't possess the capability to build their own competitive chips. The chips they do manufacture do not require high precision. Everything I've read about China over the last few years has indicated it is, generally, unsustainable. From their disastrous fiscal policies of internal hyper-finance [0], their weakening navy [1], their aging population that's well on its way through decline [2] and the [3] continued climate issues that loom over China - it doesn't look all that great once you peel back the facade. China is in a big mess that started back then and continues to get worse under current leadership. [0]https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-slow-motion-financial-crisis-unfolding-expected https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-slow-motion-financial-c... [1] https://news.usni.org/2021/01/22/chinese-navy-faces-overseas-basing-weakness-report-says https://news.usni.org/2021/01/22/chinese-navy-faces-overseas... [2] https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3157385/chinas-ageing-population-long-term-reality-and-its-silver https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3157385/c... [3] https://www.world-energy.org/article/20509.html https://www.world-energy.org/article/20509.html

Dah00n 4y ago
>China doesn't possess the capability to build their own competitive chips The US doesn't either. ASML is the only supplier of cutting-edge lithography systems and they are Dutch, not from Taiwan or the US. Without them Intel and TSMC couldn't do what they do and US sanctions is why China can't currently build competitive chips. It is not because of some kind of US tech brilliance.
- petra 4y ago
  I believe TSMC is 50% owned by US companies.
  - selectodude 4y ago
    Intel owns a significant chunk of ASML but it’s always been a fully Dutch company. That being said, ASML is 100 percent reliant on US Government research for their EUV breakthroughs, which is why the USG can tell them who they can and can’t sell to.
- windexh8er 4y ago
  Look at the top 12 chip manufacturers globally. The ones that design the chips that run our everyday lives. They are mostly US based companies. The IP is within, mostly, US based companies. I posted this in another comment. This is why the US is heavily subsidizing bringing that to US soil [0]. This is preemptive, but in many ways, a bit late. If you're saying the US doesn't know how to design and build chips then you're conflating two very different things. The US manufacturers used to build them here, but the global supply chain made it infeasible to do it on US soil historically. The US currently doesn't have the manufacturing capacity to fabricate the chips they design - but the actual R&D is here. China doesn't have that. > It is not because of some kind of US tech brilliance. If that's the case then please share one Chinese rival to Intel / AMD. [0] https://www.nist.gov/semiconductors/chips-act https://www.nist.gov/semiconductors/chips-act
mywittyname 4y ago
China has recently developed a low-altitude, hyper-sonic missile platform (DF-ZF) for which the USA doesn't have a great defense against. And this platform is specifically designed to attack carrier groups. THAAD can theoretically stop these missiles but the range for doing so is extremely limited due to the speed (up to Mach 10) and low altitude these missiles fly at.
- chuckster563 4y ago
  That system was designed using US tools. It is simulated on computers whose chips, OS, system and software were all made in the west. https://freebeacon.com/national-security/report-missile-tech-funded-by-us-taxpayers-through-the-us-government-ends-up-in-china/ https://freebeacon.com/national-security/report-missile-tech...
- cromwellian 4y ago
  These are not true hypersonic cruise missiles (e.g. a SCRAMJet), instead they are ballistic missiles with an unpowered hypersonic glider warhead. Thus, they aren't too dissimilar from the way ICBMs work for missile defense with EKVs being needed to intercept. The intercept speed of EKVs IIRC is over Mach 25. Thus, the interception goal would be to get them in their boost phase, or mid-course phase, rather than the terminal phase after they've launched the HGV (hypersonic glide vehicle). HGV phase, I think only laser/particle weapons would work given the time between detection and firing solution. But for mid-course, they could use SM-3/SM-6. The SM-3 is specifically designed for targets like the DF. So AEGIS systems with SM-3 might be effective in protecting US carriers as long as the launches are detected. The problem is, the HGV only spends a much shorter time in ballistic phase, and once it re-enters the atmosphere, it is no longer on a predictable ballistic trajectory. That said, military tech often works much better in theory than in reality. The USSR/Russia had a fearsome military tech on paper, the evidence in Ukraine seems to be it was hyperbole.
  - rnk 4y ago
    I'm sure China would manage to sink some carriers if there was an all out assault with all their capabilities, that is one of their key goal. Nothing will be invulnerable. They'll have some other weapons no one knew about. But what will the US do then. Will we stage weapons in other countries around China, increasing the danger of a real world war? Will we manage to build bases on Taiwan that can be protected somehow? I hope I never find out.