5 ms·

I can't help but feel that not supplying processors to the "National University of Defense Technology" is basically a textbook use of export regs? I don't real

by CHY872 12y ago

I can't help but feel that not supplying processors to the "National University of Defense Technology" is basically a textbook use of export regs? I don't really understand why people are complaining about this one?

icegreentea 12y ago
Denying the chinese access to Intel chips for their flagship supercomputing facility only promotes indigenous Chinese chip manufacturing. Given that there's no reason why Chinese chip design and manufacturing could not match and/or exceed western designs, this choice potentially accelerates the rate at which Western dominance over high tech goods is eroded. Furthermore, by denying Intel chips in such a high profile manner, this will likely cause all sorts of antagonization, and reduce the ability to pressure/guide Chinese growth and development in directions that are more beneficial for American/Western interests.
- CHY872 12y ago
  This wouldn't have been a surprise for the Chinese. Intel would have been told a long time ago, and so likely would the university in question. It also won't be a scenario that China hasn't planned for. The reason that China's been building up its chipmakers over the last few years is for precisely this scenario; reducing the reliance on American tech. They've been doing this quite successfully; Cisco now aren't able to do business with the Chinese government, iirc. Lastly, Tianhe-2 was a $400 million computer. The decision to block American collaboration on a project valued at a considerable fraction of $1 billion isn't made by some office clerk; it will have been considered at the highest levels of at least the military, but most likely the government in general. It's a diplomatic maneuvre specifically designed to hurt China. Intel's just been caught in the crossfire. They could easily be pacified (for example, by giving them a supercomputer contract in the US). In terms of the Chinese reaction, antagonization is probably the point.
  - CHY872 12y ago
    et voila! http://investors.cray.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=98390&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2033626 http://investors.cray.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=98390&p=irol-newsA...
- LLWM 12y ago
  More competition is good for consumers.
higherpurpose 12y ago
Here's what one of NSA's former chiefs, Michael Hayden, had to say just a week ago (probably unaware this was going to happen): > By the time I became NSA director in the late 1990s, however, the calculation was no longer that simple. We still wanted an MTOPS advantage, of course, but we were fast realizing that our preferred limits were undermining the global competitiveness of the U.S. computer industry — the very industry on which we relied for our success. It was becoming clear that the overall health of that industry was more important than any MTOPS advantage against a specific target country. We still insisted on limits with regard to places such as Cuba and North Korea, but we became far more forgiving elsewhere. This, of course, had a powerful, positive commercial impact, but the NSA didn’t flip its position for commercial reasons. We did it for security reasons. On balance, this change made us stronger, not weaker, over the long haul, since retarding exports would inevitably retard the technological progress that was both our economic and our security lifeblood. That early lesson has caused me to continue to challenge arguments that technological protectionism furthers national security. It might, but then again, it could have the opposite effect if it freezes development, alienates allies, feeds distrust or invites the creation of similar barriers abroad. I would recommend these broader considerations to those in the U.S. security enterprise with responsibility for evaluating these trade-offs today. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-let-america-be-boxed-in-by-its-own-computers/2015/04/02/30742192-cc04-11e4-8a46-b1dc9be5a8ff_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-let-america-be-b...
- CHY872 12y ago
  These are his views, and by extension were the views of the US establishment until at least 10 years ago, but probably until more recently, and are views presumably shared by at least some the people who made the decision - but they still decided to not let the export go ahead. Which tells me that either the doctrine has changed in the last 10 years, or that this deal doesn't fit into his model, or that this is a diplomatic maneuvre. My guess is one of the latter two, although I could be wrong.
ethanbond 12y ago
Well, you know, free market etc.
- CHY872 12y ago
  And yet, the US won't sell Iran nukes or China F-22s. The world we live in is far from free market, for everything from solar panels to textiles [0]. A really obvious place in which one might actually want the opposite of a free market is in military tech. Exporting the tech behind a computer that'll presumably be used for mostly military purposes is something that could be expected to be frowned upon in certain circumstances. [0] - http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-launches-new-trade-challenge-against-china-1423664566 http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-launches-new-trade-challenge...
  - tete 12y ago
    > And yet, the US won't sell Iran nukes or China F-22s. But still be the main sponsor of various terrorist organizations. However, that's a different story. The thing that is upsetting here though it is that this is about a country with a legit, well-respected government, that is not known for violent anti-Americanism, etc. Oh and the population-wise biggest country in the world, often considered the only competitor to the US. I think that's a big deal.
- fatman13gg 12y ago
  Huawei too. http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/hardware/us-suspicions-of-chinas-huawei-based-partly-on-nsas-own-spy-tricks http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/hardware/us-sus... http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-08-07/chinas-huawei-finds-favor-in-canada-amid-u-dot-s-dot-rejection http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-08-07/chinas-huawe...
Dylan16807 12y ago
Because it's not like selling them weapon parts or military tech, it's generic processing power. There's not much reason to slightly annoy their construction of supercomputers.

by CHY872 12y ago

icegreentea 12y ago

Denying the chinese access to Intel chips for their flagship supercomputing facility only promotes indigenous Chinese chip manufacturing. Given that there's no reason why Chinese chip design and manufacturing could not match and/or exceed western designs, this choice potentially accelerates the rate at which Western dominance over high tech goods is eroded. Furthermore, by denying Intel chips in such a high profile manner, this will likely cause all sorts of antagonization, and reduce the ability to pressure/guide Chinese growth and development in directions that are more beneficial for American/Western interests.

CHY872 12y ago
This wouldn't have been a surprise for the Chinese. Intel would have been told a long time ago, and so likely would the university in question. It also won't be a scenario that China hasn't planned for. The reason that China's been building up its chipmakers over the last few years is for precisely this scenario; reducing the reliance on American tech. They've been doing this quite successfully; Cisco now aren't able to do business with the Chinese government, iirc. Lastly, Tianhe-2 was a $400 million computer. The decision to block American collaboration on a project valued at a considerable fraction of $1 billion isn't made by some office clerk; it will have been considered at the highest levels of at least the military, but most likely the government in general. It's a diplomatic maneuvre specifically designed to hurt China. Intel's just been caught in the crossfire. They could easily be pacified (for example, by giving them a supercomputer contract in the US). In terms of the Chinese reaction, antagonization is probably the point.
- CHY872 12y ago
  et voila! http://investors.cray.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=98390&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2033626 http://investors.cray.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=98390&p=irol-newsA...
LLWM 12y ago
More competition is good for consumers.

higherpurpose 12y ago

Here's what one of NSA's former chiefs, Michael Hayden, had to say just a week ago (probably unaware this was going to happen): > By the time I became NSA director in the late 1990s, however, the calculation was no longer that simple. We still wanted an MTOPS advantage, of course, but we were fast realizing that our preferred limits were undermining the global competitiveness of the U.S. computer industry — the very industry on which we relied for our success. It was becoming clear that the overall health of that industry was more important than any MTOPS advantage against a specific target country. We still insisted on limits with regard to places such as Cuba and North Korea, but we became far more forgiving elsewhere. This, of course, had a powerful, positive commercial impact, but the NSA didn’t flip its position for commercial reasons. We did it for security reasons. On balance, this change made us stronger, not weaker, over the long haul, since retarding exports would inevitably retard the technological progress that was both our economic and our security lifeblood. That early lesson has caused me to continue to challenge arguments that technological protectionism furthers national security. It might, but then again, it could have the opposite effect if it freezes development, alienates allies, feeds distrust or invites the creation of similar barriers abroad. I would recommend these broader considerations to those in the U.S. security enterprise with responsibility for evaluating these trade-offs today. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-let-america-be-boxed-in-by-its-own-computers/2015/04/02/30742192-cc04-11e4-8a46-b1dc9be5a8ff_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-let-america-be-b...

CHY872 12y ago
These are his views, and by extension were the views of the US establishment until at least 10 years ago, but probably until more recently, and are views presumably shared by at least some the people who made the decision - but they still decided to not let the export go ahead. Which tells me that either the doctrine has changed in the last 10 years, or that this deal doesn't fit into his model, or that this is a diplomatic maneuvre. My guess is one of the latter two, although I could be wrong.

ethanbond 12y ago

Well, you know, free market etc.

CHY872 12y ago
And yet, the US won't sell Iran nukes or China F-22s. The world we live in is far from free market, for everything from solar panels to textiles [0]. A really obvious place in which one might actually want the opposite of a free market is in military tech. Exporting the tech behind a computer that'll presumably be used for mostly military purposes is something that could be expected to be frowned upon in certain circumstances. [0] - http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-launches-new-trade-challenge-against-china-1423664566 http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-launches-new-trade-challenge...
- tete 12y ago
  > And yet, the US won't sell Iran nukes or China F-22s. But still be the main sponsor of various terrorist organizations. However, that's a different story. The thing that is upsetting here though it is that this is about a country with a legit, well-respected government, that is not known for violent anti-Americanism, etc. Oh and the population-wise biggest country in the world, often considered the only competitor to the US. I think that's a big deal.
fatman13gg 12y ago
Huawei too. http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/hardware/us-suspicions-of-chinas-huawei-based-partly-on-nsas-own-spy-tricks http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/hardware/us-sus... http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-08-07/chinas-huawei-finds-favor-in-canada-amid-u-dot-s-dot-rejection http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-08-07/chinas-huawe...

Dylan16807 12y ago

Because it's not like selling them weapon parts or military tech, it's generic processing power. There's not much reason to slightly annoy their construction of supercomputers.