Cold War against China?

[owlo]

On November 16, US war planes destroyed 116 fuel trucks in in oil-rich eastern Syria, the source of a solid portion of ISIL’s oil revenue. In a statement, the US Defense Department indicated that in addition to the tankers, airstrikes also hit a number of tactical units, fighting positions, storage depots, vehicles, and staging areas in Syria and Iraq as part of Operation Inherent Resolve. In subsequent operations, the number of tankers destroyed reached 238.

https://www.justsecurity.org/28064/targeting-tankers-law-war-part-1/

I am not disputing your claim that "The PLAN (Chinese Navy) are consistently and increasingly not adhering to maritime formalities" it might be completely true and if you put me another example I might wholeheartedly agree with you. Don't get me wrong, I do not have any sympathies towards China, and they are pushing the world as we know it into a dark direction

Also, not only they might not help but more than once the Chinese navy attacked Filipino fishing boats with water cannons when those were fishing in the disputed water between China and Philippine.

But accusing them to not assist an Israel tanker when the Yemen government are at war with Israel, I don't see what is not understood. Specially when I am pretty sure that those chines ships knew exactly that there were 2 destroyers that they were patrolling the area.

Why do you think the Chinese should get involved in a this conflict at any level?

Now tell me,

https://imemc.org/article/israeli-navy-attacks-fishing-boats-in-gaza-9/

Should the US, or China or anyone attack Israel and save the Palestinian boats in this instance?

Fuel trucks/tankers are these:

They operate inside a territory, are manned by nationals of that country, and are generally legitimate targets.

Maritime tankers are these:

They might be owned by a company incorporated in a country, but generally transit between oil terminals (eg. Saudi Arabia and Spain) They are generally manned by sailors from 3rd party countries. (generally about 30% EU/US and 70% others) - They are almost never legitimate targets if traveling between two neutral ports. Economic warfare against these vessels (eg Russia currently) is generally achieved through sanctions. Maritime law protects these vessels of all nations and China should adhere to it.

Starting to think this may be a language issue. They are completely different things.

Now tell me,

https://imemc.org/article/israeli-navy-attacks-fishing-boats-in-gaza-9/

Should the US, or China or anyone attack Israel and save the Palestinian boats in this instance?

This leads me back to the idea it's not a language issue but one about Israel yet again. I'll engage this once against my better judgment, but you'll probably get a better reply from your echo chamber.

Israel has been stepping up restriction of the maritime zone for security reasons since Hamas took control in 2007. It should be 20 miles as per the Oslo accords, but the Netanyhu government have been constantly eroding it. This is a better article to understand it. In terms of maritime law, nations have a right to board and inspect vessels in their national waters and to enforce restrictions on them. If a vessel is in distress the Israelis (and US/Chinese) have a responsibility to respond and save the crew. Their use of water cannon and aggressive tactics are contrary to maritime customs and quite indicative of how Europeans are starting to treat refugee vessels. I don't agree with it at all, and I suspect if you ask any other mariner or former mariner they will disagree too. But all this is completely irrelevant to the thread.

 

[4bars]

Fuel trucks/tankers are these:

They operate inside a territory, are manned by nationals of that country, and are generally legitimate targets.

Maritime tankers are these:

They might be owned by a company incorporated in a country, but generally transit between oil terminals (eg. Saudi Arabia and Spain) They are generally manned by sailors from 3rd party countries. (generally about 30% EU/US and 70% others) - They are almost never legitimate targets if traveling between two neutral ports. Economic warfare against these vessels (eg Russia currently) is generally achieved through sanctions. Maritime law protects these vessels of all nations and China should adhere to it.

Starting to think this may be a language issue. They are completely different things.



This leads me back to the idea it's not a language issue but one about Israel yet again. I'll engage this once against my better judgment, but you'll probably get a better reply from your echo chamber.

Israel has been stepping up restriction of the maritime zone for security reasons since Hamas took control in 2007. It should be 20 miles as per the Oslo accords, but the Netanyhu government have been constantly eroding it. This is a better article to understand it. In terms of maritime law, nations have a right to board and inspect vessels in their national waters and to enforce restrictions on them. If a vessel is in distress the Israelis (and US/Chinese) have a responsibility to respond and save the crew. Their use of water cannon and aggressive tactics are contrary to maritime customs and quite indicative of how Europeans are starting to treat refugee vessels. I don't agree with it at all, and I suspect if you ask any other mariner or former mariner they will disagree too. But all this is completely irrelevant to the thread.

You are not only @owlo but also your agenda. As me I am me and my own agenda. Obviously we discuss based on that. And surely I had been too trigger happy quoting you as for me it was more an agenda issue as I don't know if you would post the same if it would not be a Houthi ship attacking an Israeli one. As everything is entrenched, I think everything is relevant as I don't understand why we ask certain things to one country towards another, when we are not asking the same when is the opposite.

I should, though refrain to have a belligerent tone though and I apologize for that. I am sure that any country at war would attack oil tankers land or sea if that affects their enemy. But as you said, it is becoming irrelevant and is my fault that I dragged you on this.

I still think I am right in certain parts of it though but I leave it here

 

[owlo]

They weren't Houthis according to the Pentagon...

This is some weird ass reporting. Somali pirates operating in the gulf, fleeing back to Yemen, who fire missiles at the ships as the Somalis retreat?

You are not only @owlo but also your agenda. As me I am me and my own agenda. Obviously we discuss based on that. And surely I had been too trigger happy quoting you as for me it was more an agenda issue as I don't know if you would post the same if it would not be a Houthi ship attacking an Israeli one. As everything is entrenched, I think everything is relevant as I don't understand why we ask certain things to one country towards another, when we are not asking the same when is the opposite.

I should, though refrain to have a belligerent tone though and I apologize for that. I am sure that any country at war would attack oil tankers land or sea if that affects their enemy. But as you said, it is becoming irrelevant and is my fault that I dragged you on this.

I still think I am right in certain parts of it though but I leave it here

Fair enough. I just have a large interest in maritime/navy stuff so tend to post on it. (A larger interest than Israel/Palestine though its a less popular topic.) And yes, any ship should be helped in distress, even by submarines if possible. It's just the law/customs of the sea. I would also expect the Israeli navy to help a Palestinian owned ship in distress. (though they seem happier to cause it recently)

As to the bold, you're right. (see Lucitania/USW in WWII etc) I hope we never find out for sure. It would mean huge ecological and maritime disaster these days.

 

[Balljy]

So it looks like the Trump sanctions against Huawei has just forced a massive influx of state money and enabled them to catch-up against the western chips in a short period of time. That's using old manufacturing technology so they will have to overcome big infrastructure challenges over the next few years but I'm sure the money will be going there too.

 

[4bars]

So it looks like the Trump sanctions against Huawei has just forced a massive influx of state money and enabled them to catch-up against the western chips in a short period of time. That's using old manufacturing technology so they will have to overcome big infrastructure challenges over the next few years but I'm sure the money will be going there too.

I don't think they needed trump pissing huawei. This strategy had been always there from ages. I wonder how the world will be when China will have the best microchips. They will have no qualms to stop access to the west

 

[Balljy]

I don't think they needed trump pissing huawei. This strategy had been always there from ages. I wonder how the world will be when China will have the best microchips. They will have no qualms to stop access to the west

Agreed that it was always going to happen eventually, but the sanctions definitely sped up the process. Look at the investment change from 2020 but especially 2022 from the government. The worry about China is also the Taiwan issue as they would dominate the microchip market if they took control.

 

[sglowrider]

So it looks like the Trump sanctions against Huawei has just forced a massive influx of state money and enabled them to catch-up against the western chips in a short period of time. That's using old manufacturing technology so they will have to overcome big infrastructure challenges over the next few years but I'm sure the money will be going there too.

I saw a US chip analyst interview which he suggested that by 2030; because of all these short-sighted, politically driven actions, and the chip sanctions, China will have their capability and will own like 30% of the chip market by then.

Made them from being customers to becoming competitors by then.

 

[4bars]

Agreed that it was always going to happen eventually, but the sanctions definitely sped up the process. Look at the investment change from 2020 but especially 2022 from the government. The worry about China is also the Taiwan issue as they would dominate the microchip market if they took control.

I agree with you that probably affected the investment but I think semi conductors investment have exploded all around the world after COVID, Every country realized that the world was too dependent on Taiwan (60% of , a mildly unstable area and probably highly unstable in a few years. Billions of dollars of investment to bring back production nationally
[

 

[4bars]

I saw a US chip analyst interview which he suggested that by 2030; because of all these short-sighted, politically driven actions, and the chip sanctions, China will have their capability and will own like 30% of the chip market by then.

Made them from being customers to becoming competitors by then.

China had been investing in semi conductors and had a investment plan since 2014. If anything, after COVID the other countries realized that they were not to be left behind

 

[sglowrider]

China had been investing in semi conductors and had a investment plan since 2014. If anything, after COVID the other countries realized that they were not to be left behind

Not according to the FT chart above. It's very clear that major $$ started after 2019

 

[Balljy]

Not according to the FT chart above. It's very clear that major $$ started after 2019

Yeah, according to the article the state funding in 2022 was $948 million. They were clearly forced into moving forward quicker than planned although they will need to keep investing similar amounts get their fabrication technology up to what is needed as they're still behind on that.

I realised today that the new plant in the US is being built by TSMC with Apple. There must be a load of legislation behind that to avoid the problems in Taiwan.

 

[calodo2003]

Yeah, according to the article the state funding in 2022 was $948 million. They were clearly forced into moving forward quicker than planned although they will need to keep investing similar amounts get their fabrication up to what is needed as they're still behind on that.

I realised today that the new plant in the US is being built by TSMC with Apple. There must be a load of legislation behind that to avoid the problems in Taiwan.

Most likely due to this...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act

 

[Balljy]

Most likely due to this...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act

That makes sense. TSMC make some money and the US get the latest tech.

 

[sglowrider]

Most likely due to this...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act

Waste of taxpayer's money. The only ones benefitting from it are the folks who are involved in the construction of the plants. Civil engineering consultants/companies, local suppliers etc.

Nvidia CEO says the US will take 20 years to achieve chipmaking independence from China and Taiwan, despite booming fab construction and subsidies

20yrs is a long time in politics. And in tech, they always say a year is equivalent to a dog's year.

I can't imagine 20yrs.

From purveyors of protectionism to globalisation and now back to protectionism.

 

[Balljy]

Waste of taxpayer's money. The only ones benefitting from it are the folks who are involved in the construction of the plants. Civil engineering consultants/companies, local suppliers etc.

Nvidia CEO says the US will take 20 years to achieve chipmaking independence from China and Taiwan, despite booming fab construction and subsidies

20yrs is a long time in politics. And in tech, they always say a year is equivalent to a dog's year.

I can't imagine 20yrs.

From purveyors of protectionism to globalisation and now back to protectionism.

I think it does make some sense. Bringing the TSMC EUV fabs into the US gives the US the ability to look at it and build upon it. I don't think they'd have previously expected to catch-up on TSMC within 10-20 years considering how long Intel have been trying and failing if talking purely on chip density. It may be forced upon them now though.

I'm sure it won't be long until China get there themselves though as they've taken older TSMC technologies and put the money in to improve it. The manufacturing plants will be the issue in the future for China ignoring what happens with Taiwan.

China's biggest issue is the lack of EUV fabs so they might fall behind again if the US can get TSMC plants going in the US before anything happens with Taiwan.

 

[sglowrider]

I think it does make some sense. Bringing the TSMC EUV fabs into the US gives the US the ability to look at it and build upon it. I don't think they'd have previously expected to catch-up on TSMC within 10-20 years considering how long Intel have been trying and failing if talking purely on chip density. It may be forced upon them now though.

I'm sure it won't be long until China get there themselves though as they've taken older TSMC technologies and put the money in to improve it. The manufacturing plants will be the issue in the future for China ignoring what happens with Taiwan.

China's biggest issue is the lack of EUV fabs so they might fall behind again if the US can get TSMC plants going in the US before anything happens with Taiwan.

I agree to an extent. The problem is both in terms of the supply chain and the technical capital that is concentrated in Taiwan. The US doesn't produce many STEM graduates so I don't know how they will replace the technical capital that is readily available in Taiwan... and in China. Its a matter of time before China catches up. Then competing globally.

It will be a case of nice infrastructure ie nice plants but the rest of the ecosystem is hollow. The Taiwanese engineers wont move to AZ. They are already paying them hardship pay to move there.

Plus TSMC management has complained about the poor work ethos in AZ.

Its a political play -- and if Trump comes in, he may want to choke off any of Biden's initiatives like he did with Obama whether its good for the country or not eg TPP.

 

[4bars]

Not according to the FT chart above. It's very clear that major $$ started after 2019

I believe that graph are not semi conductors but companies and huawei is a huge tech conglomerate but i believe huawei doesnt manufacture semi conductors but i might be wrong. So probably that investment graph is not related to semi conductors but it could be totally related with trump war. Maybe a independent software from apple and android? 5G any other part of the conglomerate?

Again i might be wrong on that but is certain that the Kick off for semi conductors investement was in 2014

https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-pursuit-semiconductor-independence

And sure the world, including china are investing huge amounts after covid

 

[sglowrider]

I believe that graph are not semi conductors but companies and huawei is a huge tech conglomerate but i believe huawei doesnt manufacture semi conductors but i might be wrong. So probably that investment graph is not related to semi conductors but it could be totally related with trump war. Maybe a independent software from apple and android? 5G any other part of the conglomerate?

Again i might be wrong on that but is certain that the Kick off for semi conductors investement was in 2014

https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-pursuit-semiconductor-independence

And sure the world, including china are investing huge amounts after covid

How Huawei surprised the US with a cutting-edge chip made in China

 

[4bars]

How Huawei surprised the US with a cutting-edge chip made in China

You are most likely right

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

 

[owlo]

You are most likely right

The article says you are right!

 

[4bars]

The article says you are right!

I was tired to discuss. I think he got a point and i think i got too. So didnt want to keep repeating mine

 

[VorZakone]

 

[Cal?]

China had been investing in semi conductors and had a investment plan since 2014. If anything, after COVID the other countries realized that they were not to be left behind

There are quite a few choke points in cutting-edge chip manufacturing, all of which controlled by US or US allies.

China are nowhere near catching up.

 

[4bars]

There are quite a few choke points in cutting-edge chip manufacturing, all of which controlled by US or US allies.

China are nowhere near catching up.

China has been able to produce 5nm density chips, not yet in mass production. The next level is 3nm that is the most advanced that TMSC mass produces.

So I would not say not near catching up

 

[RedTiger]

China has been able to produce 5nm density chips, not yet in mass production. The next level is 3nm that is the most advanced that TMSC mass produces.

So I would not say not near catching up

They'll make enough 5nm chips to supply their domestic market, that's enough to severely disrupt south Korea's and Taiwan's market share.

 

[4bars]

They'll make enough 5nm chips to supply their domestic market, that's enough to severely disrupt south Korea's and Taiwan's market share.

Still they need to be capable to mass produce it though. Who knows, I know nothing of this industry and the pace, but anywhere I read is that China is shortening the distance. But not only that, they will invest whatever is necessary in as many factories and human capital to be able to make it work. While the west will not have it that easy to be less dependent from Taiwan in terms of mass scaling.

Once China will be near catching up, Taiwan will be very strategic for China as they would not be as dependent but the west will still be. So trying something on Taiwan would damage the supply chain for the west while it will be mitigated for China. Something will happen before the decade ends IMO

 

[Cal?]

China has been able to produce 5nm density chips, not yet in mass production. The next level is 3nm that is the most advanced that TMSC mass produces.

So I would not say not near catching up

5nm not in mass production > 3nm already inside my iphone, TMSC are on track to mass produce 2nm next year

That's quite a gap, also China doesn't have access to EUV and other advanced semiconductor manufacturing equipment completely dominated by US, Japan and the Netherlands.

Japan are about the most reliable anti-China ally for the US, even more than NATO.

 

[4bars]

5nm not in mass production > 3nm already inside my iphone, TMSC are on track to mass produce 2nm next year

That's quite a gap, also China doesn't have access to EUV and other advanced semiconductor manufacturing equipment completely dominated by US, Japan and the Netherlands.

Japan are about the most reliable anti-China ally for the US, even more than NATO.

Agree with everything on your last post. Not agreeing on your claim that they are not near catching up, specially with the level of investment, difference on costs and drive of a country that are taking leaps in every area. I don't know why it should be different in the semi conductors

 

[Cal?]

Agree with everything on your last post. Not agreeing on your claim that they are not near catching up, specially with the level of investment, difference on costs and drive of a country that are taking leaps in every area. I don't know why it should be different in the semi conductors

I don't think they are taking leaps in every area, if anything Xi's China has gone backwards.

Anyway, back to semi-conductors, as mentioned before, there are many choke points all controlled by US or US allies, throwing money at it won't solve the issue, especially with China rapidly running out of money.

 

[4bars]

I don't think they are taking leaps in every area, if anything Xi's China has gone backwards.

Anyway, back to semi-conductors, as mentioned before, there are many choke points all controlled by US or US allies, throwing money at it won't solve the issue, especially with China rapidly running out of money.

Only future will tell. We agree to disagree

 

[VorZakone]

Taiwan elections are next month FYI.

 

[VorZakone]

 

[VorZakone]

I just can't comprehend Chinese strategy here. They're making it easier for the US to remain relevant in the Pacific because they're just antagonizing everyone. Japan, Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines still favour US presence in the region (as far as I know).

 

[Cal?]

I just can't comprehend Chinese strategy here. They're making it easier for the US to remain relevant in the Pacific because they're just antagonizing everyone. Japan, Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines still favour US presence in the region (as far as I know).

Xi deserves a Nobel peace prize, he single-handedly solved the animosity that existed between Japan & Korea since even before WWII, he's on the way to forcing Vietnam to becoming a US ally.

 

[The United]

Xi deserves a Nobel peace prize, he single-handedly solved the animosity that existed between Japan & Korea since even before WWII, he's on the way to forcing Vietnam to becoming a US ally.

They kind of have been for awhile, no?

 

[Cal?]

They kind of have been for awhile, no?

They have been friendly for a while, I'm talking about the possibility of US base in Vietnam, who'd have thought it even under consideration before the Emperor came to town.

 

[owlo]

I just can't comprehend Chinese strategy here. They're making it easier for the US to remain relevant in the Pacific because they're just antagonizing everyone. Japan, Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines still favour US presence in the region (as far as I know).

Somewhat agree. It's not in isolation though. Increased entropy at sea is in their interest, as the US struggle to juggle. New systems make littoral environments even more complex for expensive ships, and straining the system is potentially in Chinese interests. (though could have catastrophic consequence for them) - We might start to see more US flagged ships if Europe doesn't start to step up. Though their ROE are dodgy and they've not ratified unclos [though abide by it.] Their proxy actions (Yemen could well be Chinese approved) are posing both actual and philosophical questions.

 

[VorZakone]

 

[VorZakone]