4 ms·

U.S. eyes 5-year timeline for China chip decoupling

15 points by ironyman 3y ago

yieldcrv 3y ago
So then we can let all these disputed borders handle themselves, in 2028? lol that’s funny, can’t wait remember world, our aircraft carriers are only there so that half a world away, China is deterred from invading China, until we finish a semiconductor fab stateside!
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  You forget about South Korea and Japan.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    I’m not familiar can you elaborate on the context?
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      Here's some context: https://thediplomat.com/2021/01/the-us-role-in-south-korea-japan-relations-from-johnson-to-biden/ https://thediplomat.com/2021/01/the-us-role-in-south-korea-j... The US fought an anti-communist war on the Korean peninsula shortly after WW2, ultimately resulting in a divided peninsula in which the North, until relatively recently, had a stronger economic and military capacity than the South (militarily the North is probably still stronger, thanks to nukes, but geopolitical analysis isn't even close to my specialty). In 1953 the US and South Korea signed a mutual defense treaty shortly after the Korean War armistice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Defense_Treaty_(United_States%E2%80%93South_Korea) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Defense_Treaty_(United_... Following WW2 the US also insisted on a demilitarized Japan, such that Japan enshrined this in its Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Cons... > Article 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. > In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized. The 1951 US-Japan Security Treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Treaty_between_the_United_States_and_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Treaty_between_the_Un... ) was signed around this time guaranteeing US right to maintain bases on Japan, and prohibiting other foreign bases in Japan. This was renegotiated 9 years later with a mutual defense treaty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_and_Security_between_the_United_States_and_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_a... And the US has a 1951 bilateral defense treaty with the Philippines: https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-renews-warning-defend-treaty-ally-philippines-after-104216019 https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-renews-war... Plus Guam's a bit further away, but not that much further away.
      - yieldcrv 3y ago
        I’m familiar with all of that How does that apply to the context presented? Okay let me try: China is going to invade both of them too and we dont want that to happen? North Korea is going to invade both of them? South Korea and Japan are going to fight each other? If thats not what you were referring to then I dont know
        anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        I was responding to this: > our aircraft carriers are only there so that half a world away, China is deterred from invading China Particularly the "only". As long as we have bases and mutual defense treaties in the area, we will keep aircraft carriers and the like in the area. > China is going to invade both of them too and we dont want that to happen? North Korea is going to invade both of them? South Korea and Japan are going to fight each other? If thats not what you were referring to then I dont know Mostly the top two, though in the past the last one was also an issue. And not necessarily "invade"; China is already pushing around its weight in those waters.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      I just realized by the "half a world away" you might have been referring to the aircraft carriers in Israel?
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Rest of the world has to realise globalisation is coming to an end, it is not only semiconductors, everything else related to computers has to be brought in-house. Ironically it would be interesting to watch nation forks from FOSS languages and operating systems to build their own versions, free from other countries interference.
  - RecycledEle 3y ago
    That's fine. Globalization has the benefit of creating a larger market. As the world's population grows, and as our planet industrializes, regional blocks will have more productive, industrialized population than the whole planet did a few decades before.
simonblack 3y ago
Five years of lost income from the loss of the world's biggest market (4 times the size of the US market) will mean that the US chip makers will be far behind their Chinese counterparts. Don't forget, no sales to China means a huge lack of R & D funding to keep the US chip-makers ahead of the Chinese ones. The Chinese will pull ahead.
- sassy_quat 3y ago
  [dead]

15 points by ironyman 3y ago

So then we can let all these disputed borders handle themselves, in 2028? lol that’s funny, can’t wait remember world, our aircraft carriers are only there so that half a world away, China is deterred from invading China, until we finish a semiconductor fab stateside!

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
You forget about South Korea and Japan.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  I’m not familiar can you elaborate on the context?
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    Here's some context: https://thediplomat.com/2021/01/the-us-role-in-south-korea-japan-relations-from-johnson-to-biden/ https://thediplomat.com/2021/01/the-us-role-in-south-korea-j... The US fought an anti-communist war on the Korean peninsula shortly after WW2, ultimately resulting in a divided peninsula in which the North, until relatively recently, had a stronger economic and military capacity than the South (militarily the North is probably still stronger, thanks to nukes, but geopolitical analysis isn't even close to my specialty). In 1953 the US and South Korea signed a mutual defense treaty shortly after the Korean War armistice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Defense_Treaty_(United_States%E2%80%93South_Korea) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Defense_Treaty_(United_... Following WW2 the US also insisted on a demilitarized Japan, such that Japan enshrined this in its Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Cons... > Article 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. > In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized. The 1951 US-Japan Security Treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Treaty_between_the_United_States_and_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Treaty_between_the_Un... ) was signed around this time guaranteeing US right to maintain bases on Japan, and prohibiting other foreign bases in Japan. This was renegotiated 9 years later with a mutual defense treaty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_and_Security_between_the_United_States_and_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_a... And the US has a 1951 bilateral defense treaty with the Philippines: https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-renews-warning-defend-treaty-ally-philippines-after-104216019 https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-renews-war... Plus Guam's a bit further away, but not that much further away.
    - yieldcrv 3y ago
      I’m familiar with all of that How does that apply to the context presented? Okay let me try: China is going to invade both of them too and we dont want that to happen? North Korea is going to invade both of them? South Korea and Japan are going to fight each other? If thats not what you were referring to then I dont know
      - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        I was responding to this: > our aircraft carriers are only there so that half a world away, China is deterred from invading China Particularly the "only". As long as we have bases and mutual defense treaties in the area, we will keep aircraft carriers and the like in the area. > China is going to invade both of them too and we dont want that to happen? North Korea is going to invade both of them? South Korea and Japan are going to fight each other? If thats not what you were referring to then I dont know Mostly the top two, though in the past the last one was also an issue. And not necessarily "invade"; China is already pushing around its weight in those waters.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    I just realized by the "half a world away" you might have been referring to the aircraft carriers in Israel?
pjmlp 3y ago
Rest of the world has to realise globalisation is coming to an end, it is not only semiconductors, everything else related to computers has to be brought in-house. Ironically it would be interesting to watch nation forks from FOSS languages and operating systems to build their own versions, free from other countries interference.
- RecycledEle 3y ago
  That's fine. Globalization has the benefit of creating a larger market. As the world's population grows, and as our planet industrializes, regional blocks will have more productive, industrialized population than the whole planet did a few decades before.

simonblack 3y ago

Five years of lost income from the loss of the world's biggest market (4 times the size of the US market) will mean that the US chip makers will be far behind their Chinese counterparts. Don't forget, no sales to China means a huge lack of R & D funding to keep the US chip-makers ahead of the Chinese ones. The Chinese will pull ahead.

sassy_quat 3y ago
[dead]