• Adlach@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good. Capitalists sure seem to hate the free market when it’s China doing it, huh?

  • protist
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Thanks for posting! The authors conclude the US can still put a stop to this with coordinated effort. They recommend the US implement these steps to stop China from further developing domestic semiconductor technology, and I fully support that!

    Here are some steps that could be taken to ensure that China does not develop the ability to mass-manufacture the sorts of chips needed for high-end military applications in the coming years:

    Limit ArFi immersion lithography tools.

    Limit servicing of existing equipment.

    Limit ArFi photoresist.

    Limit masks.

    Limit mask blanks, writers, and other associated infrastructure.

    Limit metrology equipment.

    Limit CMP equipment.

    Limit epitaxy equipment.

    Limit dry etch equipment.

    Limit CVD and ALD equipment.

    Limit advanced packaging equipment.

    Limit ion implantation equipment.

    Limit semiconductor manufacturing equipment subsystems and subassemblies.

    Limit etchant gas.

    Limit deposition precursors.

    Limit chips that have >25.6Tbps of IO even if they have no compute.

    Limit chips that have >1000TOPS of performance.

    Limit the licensing of 200G SerDes.

    Limit EDA tools.

    Limit Joint Ventures and inbound investments.

    • quicksand@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thanks for the summary. It’s funny to me that they’re suggesting limiting imports on pretty much every tool that’s used in making chips. A highly detailed blanket ban lol

    • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I fully support industrial sabotage and hindering China’s industrial development through economic warfare uwu

      • quicksand@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Good idea, well said! Much better option to military warfare in my opinion.

              • protist
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                No they’re not. Economic sanctions meet no definition of siege warfare

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Warfare in which the defender is trapped in a position (such as a fort or castle) while the attacker bombards and/or barricades them from outside.

                  It’s a barricade erected around a country to block the flow of goods and travel and finance, with the goal of subjecting civilians to economic hardship so they turn on their government. It’s a siege, with the goal of creating enough pain within the country to encourage internal sabotage, revolt, and treachery.

                  Sanctions are warfare.