13 ms·

Haha what a crackers comment. Threatening to nuke the Netherlands if ASML sells a lithography machine to China, what are you smoking. The Dutch would probably b

Haha what a crackers comment. Threatening to nuke the Netherlands if ASML sells a lithography machine to China, what are you smoking. The Dutch would probably blow up the ASML factory and short the entire stock market the day before if that sabre was even rattled. Bye bye tech.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
Nothing in society operates in a vacuum. The ASML/China issue doesn't exist in isolation. Obviously, there are plenty of levers to pull elsewhere in trade and policy, and many things more important to either side than the ASML issue. As for the nukes, I invite you to imagine a hypothetical: what if Netherlands really, really wanted to sell a lithography machine to China, for whatever reason (say an ancient prophecy compelling them to), and the US really, really wanted for that not to happen (again, prophecy of something). Try to imagine how those negotiations would go - step through them, like you would a loop in the debugger, and tell me where you believe it stops.
- gizajob 2y ago
  It stops at whatever trip you’re on invoking nukes and ancient Dutch-Sino prophecies.
- rcxdude 2y ago
  It stops way, way before that bullshit. Everyone involved in that negotiation only cares about it because they have some reason to want an even vaguely functional society to still exist, and the minute nukes are involved that's no longer a concern, for anyone. The nuclear taboo exists for a very good reason, and basically everyone (nuclear power or not) has extremely strong incentives to maintain it. (to play one option forward, if the US actually is insane enough to threaten the netherlands with this, what do you think the dutch will play forward in their own game theory. One of the key aspects of nuke geopolitics is that nuclear powers cannot be allowed to get away with throwing that weight around, because there's no obvious termination point: the netherlands would instantly be very strongly incentivised to, if not develop their own nukes, align with China (or Russia, or probably more realistically, poke France) in return for a credible threat of retaliation. Congrats to the US, they've just scored an own goal)
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    "Nuclear Taboo" does not exist[0]. It never did, it never made sense. You can't rely on the belief that rulers and politicians operate on ethics and reject options based on how morally questionable they are. If they ever did, we wouldn't have wars, we wouldn't have war crimes, "collateral damage", "enemy combatants" = any male 12+; we wouldn't have low and high scale corruption, etc. What exists is what I described above. Everyone knows war, up to and including nuclear, is always possible, but no one wants to go there. There is an obvious termination point: total nuclear war. It anchors everyone's expectations about how far they can push, who they can or cannot threaten with military action. People can run these hypotheticals quickly in their heads. Netherlands asking US, "so what you're gonna do, invade?", US saying "yes, and what then", and Netherlands... conceding, because they can't one-up. Compare: the only reason the war in Ukraine is still hot, is because Russia has nukes, and Ukraine doesn't, so there's only so much any of the allies can do to help[1]. If both countries had their own arsenal, or neither, this wouldn't happen. So not "nuclear taboo", just an implicit understanding of MAD and where the buck stops, and how it affects who can threaten whom with military action, and recursively, how far anyone can push anyone else in political negotiations. It trickles down to the ASML/China question, too - even if they really wanted to have this deal, politicians in Netherlands know they have to concede to the US, because what else can they do?. They already run the "what if we X" / "then we Y" loop in their heads, hit the ceiling, and know they can trade horizontally, but can't escalate vertically beyond some point because of X, that's because of Y, that's because of Z, that's because of... nukes. -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_taboo#Debate_over_the_concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_taboo#Debate_over_the_... [1] - And let's not forget that Putin threatened the world with nuclear retaliation if NATO helps Ukraine too much. There goes your taboo. Not that it existed, unless you forgot that some years ago, USA threatened the world with nuclear first-strike as a possible retaliation for cyber attacks.
- adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
  it definitely doesn't end with nukes. the US totally has the power to shoot down the planes that the machines are transferred in if they wanted to.

TeMPOraL 2y ago

Nothing in society operates in a vacuum. The ASML/China issue doesn't exist in isolation. Obviously, there are plenty of levers to pull elsewhere in trade and policy, and many things more important to either side than the ASML issue. As for the nukes, I invite you to imagine a hypothetical: what if Netherlands really, really wanted to sell a lithography machine to China, for whatever reason (say an ancient prophecy compelling them to), and the US really, really wanted for that not to happen (again, prophecy of something). Try to imagine how those negotiations would go - step through them, like you would a loop in the debugger, and tell me where you believe it stops.

gizajob 2y ago
It stops at whatever trip you’re on invoking nukes and ancient Dutch-Sino prophecies.
rcxdude 2y ago
It stops way, way before that bullshit. Everyone involved in that negotiation only cares about it because they have some reason to want an even vaguely functional society to still exist, and the minute nukes are involved that's no longer a concern, for anyone. The nuclear taboo exists for a very good reason, and basically everyone (nuclear power or not) has extremely strong incentives to maintain it. (to play one option forward, if the US actually is insane enough to threaten the netherlands with this, what do you think the dutch will play forward in their own game theory. One of the key aspects of nuke geopolitics is that nuclear powers cannot be allowed to get away with throwing that weight around, because there's no obvious termination point: the netherlands would instantly be very strongly incentivised to, if not develop their own nukes, align with China (or Russia, or probably more realistically, poke France) in return for a credible threat of retaliation. Congrats to the US, they've just scored an own goal)
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  "Nuclear Taboo" does not exist[0]. It never did, it never made sense. You can't rely on the belief that rulers and politicians operate on ethics and reject options based on how morally questionable they are. If they ever did, we wouldn't have wars, we wouldn't have war crimes, "collateral damage", "enemy combatants" = any male 12+; we wouldn't have low and high scale corruption, etc. What exists is what I described above. Everyone knows war, up to and including nuclear, is always possible, but no one wants to go there. There is an obvious termination point: total nuclear war. It anchors everyone's expectations about how far they can push, who they can or cannot threaten with military action. People can run these hypotheticals quickly in their heads. Netherlands asking US, "so what you're gonna do, invade?", US saying "yes, and what then", and Netherlands... conceding, because they can't one-up. Compare: the only reason the war in Ukraine is still hot, is because Russia has nukes, and Ukraine doesn't, so there's only so much any of the allies can do to help[1]. If both countries had their own arsenal, or neither, this wouldn't happen. So not "nuclear taboo", just an implicit understanding of MAD and where the buck stops, and how it affects who can threaten whom with military action, and recursively, how far anyone can push anyone else in political negotiations. It trickles down to the ASML/China question, too - even if they really wanted to have this deal, politicians in Netherlands know they have to concede to the US, because what else can they do?. They already run the "what if we X" / "then we Y" loop in their heads, hit the ceiling, and know they can trade horizontally, but can't escalate vertically beyond some point because of X, that's because of Y, that's because of Z, that's because of... nukes. -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_taboo#Debate_over_the_concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_taboo#Debate_over_the_... [1] - And let's not forget that Putin threatened the world with nuclear retaliation if NATO helps Ukraine too much. There goes your taboo. Not that it existed, unless you forgot that some years ago, USA threatened the world with nuclear first-strike as a possible retaliation for cyber attacks.
adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
it definitely doesn't end with nukes. the US totally has the power to shoot down the planes that the machines are transferred in if they wanted to.