4 ms·

> History has shown that withholding technology from China does not significantly stop them and they'll achieve it (or better) in a small number of years. It's

> History has shown that withholding technology from China does not significantly stop them and they'll achieve it (or better) in a small number of years. It's worked for a very long time for aircraft. China has been pushing to build its own aircraft for >23 years. It took 14 years for COMAC to get its first regional jet flying commercial flights on a Chinese airline, and 21 years to get a narrow-body plane flying a commercial flight on a Chinese airline. If for no technical reasons and purely political, COMAC may still be decades away from being able to fly to most of the world. Likewise, in ~5 years, China may be able to build Chips that are as good as Nvidia after Nvidia's 90% profit margin - i.e. they are 1/10th as good for the price - but since they can buy them for cost - they're they same price for performance and good enough. If for purely political reasons, China may never be able to export these chips to most of the world - which limits their scale - which makes it harder to make them cost effective compared to Western chips.

sofixa 1y ago
> China has been pushing to build its own aircraft for >23 years. It took 14 years for COMAC to get its first regional jet flying commercial flights on a Chinese airline, and 21 years to get a narrow-body plane flying a commercial flight on a Chinese airline And both those planes have a strong dependency on "western" components that won't be overcome before the 2030s, and even then, they're around a generation behind.
- huntertwo 1y ago
  5 years behind becomes 3 years behind. China is expanding their manufacturing abilities faster than the US. Soon they will surpass the US. Look no further than their generic consumer electronics manufacturing.
  - sofixa 1y ago
    It's not 5 years behind, engine tech is more on a ~15 year cycle, or even more. CFM LEAP, latest short-to-medium-haul airliner engine from CFM (GE+Safran) is from 2013 (first run). Its predecessor, CFM56, is from 1974 (first run) and saw a few evolutions, including as late as 2009.
Yoric 1y ago
> If for purely political reasons, China may never be able to export these chips to most of the world - which limits their scale - which makes it harder to make them cost effective compared to Western chips. Note that this happens at the same time the US is breaking up its own alliances, so as of this writing, there's no such thing as certainty about politics.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  >the same time the US is breaking up its own alliances This isn't happening. The US is driving a harder bargain with our allies. No one serious thinks anyone is walking away from alliances with the US.
  - brookst 1y ago
    The US has become unreliable and erratic. Countries aren’t cutting ties or anything, but certainly investing to reduce exposure to capricious US leadership. Much of Europe is increasing domestic military production rather than just buying more from the US precisely because the US has publicly discussed leaving NATO and/or not honoring its guarantees.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
      Increasing domestic military production is actually a great outcome. Obviously Wall Street would have preferred purchasing from US-listed/owned arms companies, but from the perspective of a military alliance, having well-armed allies is the main point. It's really hard to argue with Trump's methods if they led to Europe finally spending on their own defense.
      - markdown 1y ago
        You've moved the goalposts
        ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
wood_spirit 1y ago
But at the same time they are fielding multiple new stealth aircraft and their jets and missiles outperformed western aircraft in the recent Pakistan India flare-up.
- ambicapter 1y ago
  So you'd think they'd be able to build a commercial jet liner, no?
  - hmm37 1y ago
    But commercial jet liners aren't as important to China for security. They have high speed railroads for that.
  - kelipso 1y ago
    It’s would be a result of where the money and resources go, I assume. Apparently they haven’t felt a need to manufacture their own commercial jets but they did for military jets. They definitely feel the need in the case of chips.
  - ta20240528 1y ago
    So… you'd think the USA would be able to built a nationwide, high-speed rail network? See what I did there?
    - ambicapter 1y ago
      I mean, they're different industries, so I'm not sure how strong that analogy is.
      - ta20240528 1y ago
        OP: "So you'd think they'd be able to build a commercial jet liner, no?" Sigh, the OP chucked out a casual insult at the Chinese because - unlike the USA and EU - their society is unable to (to date) build an international airliner business. I deftly pointed out that the USA - despite is historical achievements - cannot build a high speed rail network and industry. Once cannot cherry-pick the data one likes.
fooker 1y ago
> China may never be able to export these chips While you type this, the rest of the world is already using Chinese cars, something that was unthinkable a year or two ago. The US has closed the market off from this for its auto industry to survive.
- Alupis 1y ago
  This statement doesn't make a lot of sense. 40-50% of vehicles are foreign-made already[1]. I would strongly wager it's vastly more likely that these Chinese vehicles do not meet US safety standards - which are quite high. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-adjusts-imports-of-automobiles-and-automobile-parts-into-the-united-states/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-pr...
  - lmz 1y ago
    Much higher standards than European ones? Because the cars do sell there as well.
    - Alupis 1y ago
      Yes. The EU focuses on safety of pedestrians, and the US focuses on safety of occupants. That's not to say a vehicle cannot do both well (see the many European vehicles sold in the US), but that is to say Chinese vehicles may not meet the US standards. The US has a lot of vehicle regulations that significantly differ from the EU market.
      - wobfan 1y ago
        Do you mind providing sources for that? Because, as a EU citizen, I have never in my life seen any tests that carmarkers are advertising with that focus on pedestrians. I am regularly seeing tests that focus on occupants though, e.g. the Euro NCAP. But I am by no means an expert. It would be hard to focus on pedestrian safety from a carmaker standpoint except for adding software features that recognize people in front of you and auto-brake or smth, which definitely is not the focus of the tests here. It may be a requirement though. The more I think about it, the more sure I am that you just made this up, sorry.

sofixa 1y ago

> China has been pushing to build its own aircraft for >23 years. It took 14 years for COMAC to get its first regional jet flying commercial flights on a Chinese airline, and 21 years to get a narrow-body plane flying a commercial flight on a Chinese airline And both those planes have a strong dependency on "western" components that won't be overcome before the 2030s, and even then, they're around a generation behind.

huntertwo 1y ago
5 years behind becomes 3 years behind. China is expanding their manufacturing abilities faster than the US. Soon they will surpass the US. Look no further than their generic consumer electronics manufacturing.
- sofixa 1y ago
  It's not 5 years behind, engine tech is more on a ~15 year cycle, or even more. CFM LEAP, latest short-to-medium-haul airliner engine from CFM (GE+Safran) is from 2013 (first run). Its predecessor, CFM56, is from 1974 (first run) and saw a few evolutions, including as late as 2009.

Yoric 1y ago

> If for purely political reasons, China may never be able to export these chips to most of the world - which limits their scale - which makes it harder to make them cost effective compared to Western chips. Note that this happens at the same time the US is breaking up its own alliances, so as of this writing, there's no such thing as certainty about politics.

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
>the same time the US is breaking up its own alliances This isn't happening. The US is driving a harder bargain with our allies. No one serious thinks anyone is walking away from alliances with the US.
- brookst 1y ago
  The US has become unreliable and erratic. Countries aren’t cutting ties or anything, but certainly investing to reduce exposure to capricious US leadership. Much of Europe is increasing domestic military production rather than just buying more from the US precisely because the US has publicly discussed leaving NATO and/or not honoring its guarantees.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    Increasing domestic military production is actually a great outcome. Obviously Wall Street would have preferred purchasing from US-listed/owned arms companies, but from the perspective of a military alliance, having well-armed allies is the main point. It's really hard to argue with Trump's methods if they led to Europe finally spending on their own defense.
    - markdown 1y ago
      You've moved the goalposts
      - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago

wood_spirit 1y ago

But at the same time they are fielding multiple new stealth aircraft and their jets and missiles outperformed western aircraft in the recent Pakistan India flare-up.

ambicapter 1y ago
So you'd think they'd be able to build a commercial jet liner, no?
- hmm37 1y ago
  But commercial jet liners aren't as important to China for security. They have high speed railroads for that.
- kelipso 1y ago
  It’s would be a result of where the money and resources go, I assume. Apparently they haven’t felt a need to manufacture their own commercial jets but they did for military jets. They definitely feel the need in the case of chips.
- ta20240528 1y ago
  So… you'd think the USA would be able to built a nationwide, high-speed rail network? See what I did there?
  - ambicapter 1y ago
    I mean, they're different industries, so I'm not sure how strong that analogy is.
    - ta20240528 1y ago
      OP: "So you'd think they'd be able to build a commercial jet liner, no?" Sigh, the OP chucked out a casual insult at the Chinese because - unlike the USA and EU - their society is unable to (to date) build an international airliner business. I deftly pointed out that the USA - despite is historical achievements - cannot build a high speed rail network and industry. Once cannot cherry-pick the data one likes.

fooker 1y ago

> China may never be able to export these chips While you type this, the rest of the world is already using Chinese cars, something that was unthinkable a year or two ago. The US has closed the market off from this for its auto industry to survive.

Alupis 1y ago
This statement doesn't make a lot of sense. 40-50% of vehicles are foreign-made already[1]. I would strongly wager it's vastly more likely that these Chinese vehicles do not meet US safety standards - which are quite high. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-adjusts-imports-of-automobiles-and-automobile-parts-into-the-united-states/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/03/fact-sheet-pr...
- lmz 1y ago
  Much higher standards than European ones? Because the cars do sell there as well.
  - Alupis 1y ago
    Yes. The EU focuses on safety of pedestrians, and the US focuses on safety of occupants. That's not to say a vehicle cannot do both well (see the many European vehicles sold in the US), but that is to say Chinese vehicles may not meet the US standards. The US has a lot of vehicle regulations that significantly differ from the EU market.
    - wobfan 1y ago
      Do you mind providing sources for that? Because, as a EU citizen, I have never in my life seen any tests that carmarkers are advertising with that focus on pedestrians. I am regularly seeing tests that focus on occupants though, e.g. the Euro NCAP. But I am by no means an expert. It would be hard to focus on pedestrian safety from a carmaker standpoint except for adding software features that recognize people in front of you and auto-brake or smth, which definitely is not the focus of the tests here. It may be a requirement though. The more I think about it, the more sure I am that you just made this up, sorry.