4 ms·

The CHIPS act and US sanctions against the Chinese semiconductor sector are now publicly sold as "national security" measures, but if you read the think-tank st

The CHIPS act and US sanctions against the Chinese semiconductor sector are now publicly sold as "national security" measures, but if you read the think-tank studies that led to these measures, the actual motivation is gaining leverage over China in a critical economic sector. Back in 2020, the Brookings Institution laid out the strategy that the Biden administration has subsequently followed, in a report whose title speaks for itself: "Maintaining China's dependence on democracies for advanced computer chips" [0]. The basic argument that the Brookings Institution made was that the US can directly or indirectly control several key bottlenecks in the semiconductor industry. Semiconductors are critical to any modern economy, so by maintaining control over these bottlenecks, the US can maintain a potential chokehold on the Chinese economy. The Biden administration publicly argues that this is all about national security, but there's no plausible national security interest in preventing Chinese smartphone manufacturers from importing chips fabricated by TSMC. The strategy is to control the flow of high-end chips to Chinese companies, and to prevent China from creating its own high-end chips by controlling access to the machinery necessary to fabricate them. Over time, these controls are going to expand into other areas, like cloud computing. Then, whenever the US likes, it can turn off the spigot, and China will simply not have access to modern semiconductors. That's the theory. Of course, China has something to say about this as well, and has been working like crazy over the last few years to develop substitutes to US-controlled imported semiconductors. The attempt to drive Huawei out of business with sanctions was the shot across the bow, and China got the message. Huawei's new smartphone with 7nm chips and 5G is an indication that China has made significant progress, but we'll have to see how things develop. 0. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/maintaining-chinas-dependence-on-democracies-for-advanced-computer-chips/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/maintaining-chinas-depend...

tester756 3y ago
What do you think about Chip War book?
Goodroo 3y ago
They will get opposite of what they want. A good example is Huawei making its own modem something Apple is unable to do.
- robotnikman 3y ago
  One thing that's worth noting, China doesn't have to worry about the minefield of patents owned by Qualcomm, Intel, and various other companies in terms of modem technology. Apple needs to be very careful that.
- r00fus 3y ago
  Dont you think that wasn’t gonna happen anyway? Take a look at all the other areas where China worked with the Western vendors and then replaced them after taking their IP.
SubiculumCode 3y ago
I do not think you can dismiss the national security element. There is wide spread recognition now that China controls too many aspects of supply chain, and that they are willing to use that as leverage to achieve geopolitical objectives. Getting out from under that influence is seen as a top priority by natsec. Moreover, cementing control over high-end chips production is a) securing our own levers, but also reducing future dependence that could arise. Also, the CHIPS act targets high end chips because advanced chips are critical to developing AI. AI superiority has major economic implications which can roll into security implications, but more directly, AI will power modern military weapon systems, want it or not, those are coming.
- DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
  > There is wide spread recognition now that China controls too many aspects of supply chain, and that they are willing to use that as leverage to achieve geopolitical objectives. When it comes to semiconductors, it's the exact opposite. The US controls the supply chain, and is weaponizing that control to a far greater extent than China has ever done with any sector. If US policy were simply about reducing the US' own dependencies, the US would not be trying to drive Chinese semiconductor companies out of business with sanctions. US policy is about crippling the Chinese semiconductor industry, in order to be able to apply pressure on China on a whole range of other political and strategic issues. Here's how the Brookings Institution study ends: > If SME export controls successfully reduce China's chip fab capacity, the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea — the only remaining economies with significant near-state-of-the-art chip fab capacity — could coordinate on further, targeted end-use and end-user controls to advance the cause of human rights and global stability. The plan is to make China entirely dependent on the US and its allies, and then to turn the screws to force China to make concessions on other issues. This is exactly the sort of supply-chain weaponization the US says China might theoretically engage in in the future.
  - SubiculumCode 3y ago
    I think the world is better off in the world where the U.S. leads than in one in which China leads. Yes, the U.S. has turned sour on China, and for good reasons. China has turned away from liberalization, cementing one ruler for life while "anti-corruption" campaigns removed his political rivals. We tired of how our economy was playing by rules that the Chinese were not including massive protectionist subsidies, inappropriate currency peg that prevent American companies from competing, one-sided requirements to give IP or trade.secrets to China in order to enter their market, (which affects our US economy particularly as it is highly dependent IP dependent), increasing aggressive Chinese nationlism and anti-American rhetoric in the Party, massive IP theft from hacking, or straight up counterfeiting, with little done to curb it, the high rate of forced labor, state sponsored industrial espionage at scale, pervasive and horrific.human rights abuses at home, the fall of Hong Kong!!!, and the rising threats to Taiwan. And lest you think economic decoupling is at the behest of U.S. war policy, its because corporations have independently decided that China is too risky, because of all the things mentioned above, and because covid taught the value of diversification of risks. Need I really go on? You consistently defend China and implicate US as being the aggressor, but I think its mostly the opposite: The U.S. had ignored Chinese aggressions for too long because the good were cheap and because there was the dream that integration would bring mutual liberalization.
SubiculumCode 3y ago
In terms of Huawei chips, isn't this a matter of failed sanctions, not that they developed their own chip making capabilities?
- DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
  SMIC, a Chinese fab that is heavily sanctioned by the US, has reached 7nm, which has allowed Huawei to start making competitive phones again. The sanctions are failing because Chinese companies are developing workarounds and replacements.

tester756 3y ago

What do you think about Chip War book?

Goodroo 3y ago

They will get opposite of what they want. A good example is Huawei making its own modem something Apple is unable to do.

robotnikman 3y ago
One thing that's worth noting, China doesn't have to worry about the minefield of patents owned by Qualcomm, Intel, and various other companies in terms of modem technology. Apple needs to be very careful that.
r00fus 3y ago
Dont you think that wasn’t gonna happen anyway? Take a look at all the other areas where China worked with the Western vendors and then replaced them after taking their IP.

SubiculumCode 3y ago

I do not think you can dismiss the national security element. There is wide spread recognition now that China controls too many aspects of supply chain, and that they are willing to use that as leverage to achieve geopolitical objectives. Getting out from under that influence is seen as a top priority by natsec. Moreover, cementing control over high-end chips production is a) securing our own levers, but also reducing future dependence that could arise. Also, the CHIPS act targets high end chips because advanced chips are critical to developing AI. AI superiority has major economic implications which can roll into security implications, but more directly, AI will power modern military weapon systems, want it or not, those are coming.

DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
> There is wide spread recognition now that China controls too many aspects of supply chain, and that they are willing to use that as leverage to achieve geopolitical objectives. When it comes to semiconductors, it's the exact opposite. The US controls the supply chain, and is weaponizing that control to a far greater extent than China has ever done with any sector. If US policy were simply about reducing the US' own dependencies, the US would not be trying to drive Chinese semiconductor companies out of business with sanctions. US policy is about crippling the Chinese semiconductor industry, in order to be able to apply pressure on China on a whole range of other political and strategic issues. Here's how the Brookings Institution study ends: > If SME export controls successfully reduce China's chip fab capacity, the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea — the only remaining economies with significant near-state-of-the-art chip fab capacity — could coordinate on further, targeted end-use and end-user controls to advance the cause of human rights and global stability. The plan is to make China entirely dependent on the US and its allies, and then to turn the screws to force China to make concessions on other issues. This is exactly the sort of supply-chain weaponization the US says China might theoretically engage in in the future.
- SubiculumCode 3y ago
  I think the world is better off in the world where the U.S. leads than in one in which China leads. Yes, the U.S. has turned sour on China, and for good reasons. China has turned away from liberalization, cementing one ruler for life while "anti-corruption" campaigns removed his political rivals. We tired of how our economy was playing by rules that the Chinese were not including massive protectionist subsidies, inappropriate currency peg that prevent American companies from competing, one-sided requirements to give IP or trade.secrets to China in order to enter their market, (which affects our US economy particularly as it is highly dependent IP dependent), increasing aggressive Chinese nationlism and anti-American rhetoric in the Party, massive IP theft from hacking, or straight up counterfeiting, with little done to curb it, the high rate of forced labor, state sponsored industrial espionage at scale, pervasive and horrific.human rights abuses at home, the fall of Hong Kong!!!, and the rising threats to Taiwan. And lest you think economic decoupling is at the behest of U.S. war policy, its because corporations have independently decided that China is too risky, because of all the things mentioned above, and because covid taught the value of diversification of risks. Need I really go on? You consistently defend China and implicate US as being the aggressor, but I think its mostly the opposite: The U.S. had ignored Chinese aggressions for too long because the good were cheap and because there was the dream that integration would bring mutual liberalization.

SubiculumCode 3y ago

In terms of Huawei chips, isn't this a matter of failed sanctions, not that they developed their own chip making capabilities?

DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
SMIC, a Chinese fab that is heavily sanctioned by the US, has reached 7nm, which has allowed Huawei to start making competitive phones again. The sanctions are failing because Chinese companies are developing workarounds and replacements.