Cold War against China?

[berbatrick]

 

[VorZakone]

This already shared here? The Chinese didn't appreciate being lectured by Keir Starmer.

 

[Suedesi]

Europe seeking to acquire Chinese battery technology via tech transfers in exchange for equal market access, a policy tool normally restricted to emerging economies! The irony.

 

[Suedesi]

Interesting take from historian and Columbia professor https://x.com/adam_tooze

"The first China shock was China becoming part of our supply chains. The second China shock is us scrambling to become part of theirs."

His argument is "There’s no debate—China now completely dominates the global manufacturing ecosystem at scale."

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Some good news at last:

If Lockheed doubles production to 1000+ PAC-3's, on top of Raytheons PAC-2 GEM-T which will peak around 500 P/Y,

We're looking at US missile production exceeding the height of the Cold War.

The worrying part is that Lockheed are funding this themselves due to, yet again, budgetary concerns.

 

[Raven]

Some good news at last:

If Lockheed doubles production to 1000+ PAC-3's, on top of Raytheons PAC-2 GEM-T which will peak around 500 P/Y,

We're looking at US missile production exceeding the height of the Cold War.

The worrying part is that Lockheed are funding this themselves due to, yet again, budgetary concerns.

How is deepening the arms race a good thing?

 

[Mogget]

How is deepening the arms race a good thing?

There's apparently an existential crisis looming between the US and China, which he refuses to elaborate on.

 

[Revan]

There's apparently an existential crisis looming between the US and China, which he refuses to elaborate on.

Every time there has been a dominant power and a rising power, there has been war (or Cold war). So basically an existential crisis looming between the US and China is pretty much inevitable considering that both will want to control the Pacific and East Asia.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

There's apparently an existential crisis looming between the US and China, which he refuses to elaborate on.

It’s not that I refuse to elaborate, it’s that I’ll have to explain with a wall of text as it’s not one point but many and will take an hour of my time

 

[nickm]

Every time there has been a dominant power and a rising power, there has been war (or Cold war). So basically an existential crisis looming between the US and China is pretty much inevitable considering that both will want to control the Pacific and East Asia.

Well, that's not always true. Britain and America didn't go to war over this - arguably Britain deliberately handed over global leadership to the US and facilitated a bunch of institutions that enabled it. But perhaps there were cultural reasons for that.

Point taken though, I don't disagree.

Even if Trump, say, doesn't want to defend Taiwan from any attempted Chinese invasion, IMO there are other potential flashpoints that would soon emerge and challenge US supremacy (with the US likely in a far weaker position post a successful invasion).

But possibly the US, in its current isolationist frame of mind, would be OK to cede global leadership to China. At some point someone is going to test US resolve.

 

[Raven]

There's apparently an existential crisis looming between the US and China, which he refuses to elaborate on.

I don't get it. I can't think of a single example in history where an arms race benefitted ordinary people.

 

[RoyH1]

I don't get it. I can't think of a single example in history where an arms race benefitted ordinary people.

We need to be careful about not developing a mineshaft gap. That would be terrible for the West.

 

[berbatrick]

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-i...nd-tsmc-stalling-progress-until-at-least-2026

Huawei's ambitions for the AI market have faltered as the chipmaker struggles to procure bleeding-edge EUV (Extreme Ultraviolet) equipment from ASML - leaving its Ascend AI chips stuck at 7nm for many years, a significant disadvantage versus Nvidia, per Bloomberg. This major setback for China also portends that the technological gap will only widen in the coming years. To put this in perspective, while not entirely directly comparable, TSMC's 7nm node debuted back in 2018. SMIC's 7nm came to market in 2021, several years behind TSMC, and the rumored extension of 7nm into 2026 leaves it serving for five years as its leading-edge process node, an eternity in chip manufacturing.

 

[Redplane]

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-i...nd-tsmc-stalling-progress-until-at-least-2026

Huawei's ambitions for the AI market have faltered as the chipmaker struggles to procure bleeding-edge EUV (Extreme Ultraviolet) equipment from ASML - leaving its Ascend AI chips stuck at 7nm for many years, a significant disadvantage versus Nvidia, per Bloomberg. This major setback for China also portends that the technological gap will only widen in the coming years. To put this in perspective, while not entirely directly comparable, TSMC's 7nm node debuted back in 2018. SMIC's 7nm came to market in 2021, several years behind TSMC, and the rumored extension of 7nm into 2026 leaves it serving for five years as its leading-edge process node, an eternity in chip manufacturing.

China about to invade the Netherlands

Protecting ASML against all forms of property theft must require a small army these days.

 

[Balljy]

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-i...nd-tsmc-stalling-progress-until-at-least-2026

Huawei's ambitions for the AI market have faltered as the chipmaker struggles to procure bleeding-edge EUV (Extreme Ultraviolet) equipment from ASML - leaving its Ascend AI chips stuck at 7nm for many years, a significant disadvantage versus Nvidia, per Bloomberg. This major setback for China also portends that the technological gap will only widen in the coming years. To put this in perspective, while not entirely directly comparable, TSMC's 7nm node debuted back in 2018. SMIC's 7nm came to market in 2021, several years behind TSMC, and the rumored extension of 7nm into 2026 leaves it serving for five years as its leading-edge process node, an eternity in chip manufacturing.

I wonder what's triggered that article to be wriiten? That ban has been in place for ages now, and as far as I know there's been no talk about it ending.

There has been a change recently, and that's talk of a licence being revoked for ASML supplying replacement parts for DUV to China which would take 7nm out of action too eventually.

 

[berbatrick]

We need to be careful about not developing a mineshaft gap. That would be terrible for the West.

A 5nm mineshaft, between their 7nm crudeness and our enlightened 2nm future, so that those damn Ruskies Chicoms cannot get in.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

I don't get it. I can't think of a single example in history where an arms race benefitted ordinary people.

Let's think about it using two really prominent examples:

UK - German Naval Arms race 1905 - 1914:

UK - French/Napoleonic Naval Arms race 1798-1812


In both cases war was inevitable. There was practically little the UK could do on its own to stem the bourbon dynasty detractors and royalists across Europe from slugging it out, especially with the Hapsburgs being involved too.

There was also nothing Britain could do to stop the Franco-German geopolitical situation and the growing interests of the Russian Empire towards central Europe post Franco-Prussian war either.

In both scenarios, Britain armed itself to the teeth. What happened was Britain was able to avoid it's civilians being starved and also enact embargos on Germany/France.

Had Britain not armed itself in the previous years, the outcome could have been catastrophic for the ordinary person.

Nothing the US can do diplomatically or politically can stop China from going down the path it is going down now - Most of the Obama administration and the bush administration tried appeasement, and it did not work. We're heading to war and there's nothing the West can do to prevent that - other than capitulating. So we must be ready for when the time comes or we end up like the Germans during the Turnip Winter, or the Russians during the Continental system.

 

[neverdie]

Nothing the US can do diplomatically or politically can stop China from going down the path it is going down now - Most of the Obama administration and the bush administration tried appeasement, and it did not work. We're heading to war and there's nothing the West can do to prevent that - other than capitulating. So we must be ready for when the time comes or we end up like the Germans during the Turnip Winter, or the Russians during the Continental system.

A war the West fecking started without exception across all fronts. In the Middle East, by deception, couldn't give a shit about detractions, in Ukraine (yeah Russia invaded after they NATOed the place), and now they tell China there is no One China policy which is another betrayal of US pledged policy.

It is the US and its vassals that are at fault if this all goes tits up. No ambiguity at all.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

A war the West fecking started without exception across all fronts. In the Middle East, by deception, couldn't give a shit about detractions, in Ukraine (yeah Russia invaded after they NATOed the place), and now they tell China there is no One China policy which is another betrayal of US pledged policy.

It is the US and its vassals that are at fault if this all goes tits up. No ambiguity at all.

Ah yes, keep lying. There was no NATO discussion, sentiment or even expressions until Russia invaded in 2014. I was there at the protests, there wasn't any fecking talk of NATO during Euromaidan.

Sorry, it's also bullshit that somehow, China/Russia invading somewhere that doesn't want to be part of it, is somehow the West's fault.

Think of the actual insanity you're sprouting.

It's actually Saddam's fault that US invaded Iraq because if he didn't gas the Kurds or claim he had WMD's, the US wouldn't have had an excuse! That's the kind of shit logic you're parroting.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Let's think about it using two really prominent examples:

UK - German Naval Arms race 1905 - 1914:

UK - French/Napoleonic Naval Arms race 1798-1812


In both cases war was inevitable. There was practically little the UK could do on its own to stem the bourbon dynasty detractors and royalists across Europe from slugging it out, especially with the Hapsburgs being involved too.

There was also nothing Britain could do to stop the Franco-German geopolitical situation and the growing interests of the Russian Empire towards central Europe post Franco-Prussian war either.

In both scenarios, Britain armed itself to the teeth. What happened was Britain was able to avoid it's civilians being starved and also enact embargos on Germany/France.

Had Britain not armed itself in the previous years, the outcome could have been catastrophic for the ordinary person.

Nothing the US can do diplomatically or politically can stop China from going down the path it is going down now - Most of the Obama administration and the bush administration tried appeasement, and it did not work. We're heading to war and there's nothing the West can do to prevent that - other than capitulating. So we must be ready for when the time comes or we end up like the Germans during the Turnip Winter, or the Russians during the Continental system.

This view doesn't make sense. A hot war doesn't benefit China or the US. No doubt both nations will invest in the military and there likely will be cold war style machinations, but there are no incentives for a hot war for anyone.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

This view doesn't make sense. A hot war doesn't benefit China or the US. No doubt both nations will invest in the military and there likely will be cold war style machinations, but there are no incentives for a hot war for anyone.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Destined-War-America-Escape-Thucydidess/dp/0544935276

What happens when China's geopolitical and economic interests directly intersect and contradicts with American ones?

America views the 1st and 2nd Island Chains as the most important line of defence for the US West Coast. China views the main heartland of that Island chain Chinese territory.

How does that reconcile with one another?

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Destined-War-America-Escape-Thucydidess/dp/0544935276

What happens when China's geopolitical and economic interests directly intersect and contradicts with American ones?

America views the 1st and 2nd Island Chains as the most important line of defence for the US West Coast. China views the main heartland of that Island chain Chinese territory.

How does that reconcile with one another?

It doesn't matter if interests intersect and contradict, that's nothing new at all.

From a sheer game theory perspective, the payoff would have to be insanely high compared to the risks for either side to choose a hot war strategy and that payoff isn't there for the island chains so I simply can't see it happening. Neither US or China can improve their expected outcome by choosing a hot war strategy. I just don't see it. There will be compromises and posturing, etc, but I just don't see you align the incentives where one side will profit more by starting a hot war.

 

[Mogget]

Every time there has been a dominant power and a rising power, there has been war (or Cold war). So basically an existential crisis looming between the US and China is pretty much inevitable considering that both will want to control the Pacific and East Asia.

Painta a grim picture for humanity then, if this pattern carries on repeating itself. Just feck diplomacy I guess?

 

[VorZakone]

A war the West fecking started without exception across all fronts. In the Middle East, by deception, couldn't give a shit about detractions, in Ukraine (yeah Russia invaded after they NATOed the place), and now they tell China there is no One China policy which is another betrayal of US pledged policy.

It is the US and its vassals that are at fault if this all goes tits up. No ambiguity at all.

Ah yes, the West started the Ukraine war.

 

[Vitro]

A war the West fecking started without exception across all fronts. In the Middle East, by deception, couldn't give a shit about detractions, in Ukraine (yeah Russia invaded after they NATOed the place), and now they tell China there is no One China policy which is another betrayal of US pledged policy.

It is the US and its vassals that are at fault if this all goes tits up. No ambiguity at all.

The excusing and minimisation of colonialism in this post is a bit annoying, to be honest.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

Painta a grim picture for humanity then, if this pattern carries on repeating itself. Just feck diplomacy I guess?

War, like diplomacy, is just an extension of Politics, and sometimes political entities are so non reconcilible that war remains the only option.

Sometimes, actors choose war as a modus-operandi before all other options (see: Russia, neo-cons etc), others use it as a last resort.

It doesn't matter if interests intersect and contradict, that's nothing new at all.

From a sheer game theory perspective, the payoff would have to be insanely high compared to the risks for either side to choose a hot war strategy and that payoff isn't there for the island chains so I simply can't see it happening. Neither US or China can improve their expected outcome by choosing a hot war strategy. I just don't see it. There will be compromises and posturing, etc, but I just don't see you align the incentives where one side will profit more by starting a hot war.

Read the book I linked, honestly it paints the exact picture you said. The outcomes are grim, theres so much to lose, and yet time after time again when nation states have been in this situation, its gone hot in one way or another. Whether directly (WWI) or indirectly via proxies (Cold war).

 

[Mogget]

War, like diplomacy, is just an extension of Politics, and sometimes political entities are so non reconcilible that war remains the only option.

Sometimes, actors choose war as a modus-operandi before all other options (see: Russia, neo-cons etc), others use it as a last resort.

It is but I naively hope for a time when war isn't seen as just another extension of politics.

It can be described as political entities with irreconcilable differences but I like to see it for what it is; groups of powerful men (with some women included now too) intent on obtaining even more power and resources for themselves, who are being prevented from doing so by other powerful men with opposing goals.

And it seems no matter how technologically advanced we become, this is just what humans are going to do.

 

[neverdie]

Ah yes, the West started the Ukraine war.

Baited the Russians into invading. Didn't start it. Never said that in all the years of posting about it and never will. The other fronts are entirely of Western dying hegemony fault.

 

[neverdie]

It's actually Saddam's fault that US invaded Iraq because if he didn't gas the Kurds or claim he had WMD's, the US wouldn't have had an excuse! That's the kind of shit logic you're parroting.

Now who is naive. The US gave not a single feck about Saddam gassing the Kurds. That wasn't the casus belli. It was his invasion of Kuwait (1.0) which had effects on the oil market and security of the global energy market/system. feck all to do with the Kurds. It's like saying the British declared war on Germany because of the Jewish elimination policies - not even remotely relevant to the declaration.

As for Ukraine, I've never once in my life blamed the Ukrainians for the situation. I have blamed two parties only: Russia, and yes, including all the things you've said, and NATO which wants this war (wanted it at any rate, not sure they, nor anyone involved, wants it any more). I do not support nations when it comes to war. I support an end to war, period. You won't find me, historically, not saying "Russia didn't invade Urkraine" (and that such wasn't a crime). I have said that from the get-go. But you'd have to be naive to assume that there wasn't a massive element of "will he, won't he" (literally broadcast) before that invasion and, also, that NATO were not present in Ukraine (in a real way) prior to that.

I'm just thankful it's nearly over.

But assume I'm wide of the consensus on Russia/US. Fine. You are very wide of the consensus on China/US/Taiwan because it was US policy qua Kissinger and Nixon, all the way to the very recent past, that it ought be a one China policy.What did they think would happen given the literal title of that policy? That, obviously, China would, by whatever means, try to bring Taiwan into its One China. The Chinese won't want a war to do this (at all) but will prefer if it is done over time. They''re the world's largest economy and have been waiting a 100 years, nearly, for this. They're not going to feck it up by a war they might not even win. But they absolutely will respond to the US/NATO (NATO +) putting defense systems into Taiwan and meddling with attack systems. And everyone knows it.

 

[VorZakone]

Baited the Russians into invading. Didn't start it. Never said that in all the years of posting about it and never will. The other fronts are entirely of Western dying hegemony fault.

The Russians have agency. We didn't put a gun to Putin's head and told him to invade. Putin didn't have to do it.

 

[neverdie]

The Russians have agency. We didn't put a gun to Putin's head and told him to invade. Putin didn't have to do it.

The Americans also have agency. You're right, he didn't have to invade. It was dumb and illegal that he did. But the US (parts of the US) wanted him to. They wanted an Afghanistan for the "Soviets" 2.0 and that was literally broadcast by the likes of Clinton et al at the time.

We'll talk about it with the Germans and French and do nothing with these talks, whilst in the background we'll continue to send elite units over to train the Ukrainians. That is the historical record. Is Russia to blame? Yes. But let's not pretend geopolitics is that simple.

 

[VorZakone]

The Americans also have agency. You're right, he didn't have to invade. It was dumb and illegal that he did. But the US (parts of the US) wanted him to. They wanted an Afghanistan for the "Soviets" 2.0 and that was literally broadcast by the likes of Clinton et al at the time.

The idea of the warmongering West (or US) that was out there to bait Russia to invade its neighbours is not convincing.

Russia got a slap on the wrist for annexing Crimea, poisoning defectors on Western soil and still got to make business deals with Western countries post-Crimea, and so forth.

If anything, it's more likely that Putin felt he could get away with the 2022 invasion as well, rather than him being "baited" and "backed into a corner".

 

[neverdie]

The idea of the warmongering West (or US) that was out there to bait Russia to invade its neighbours is not convincing.

To you and many more people on this website whom apart from this issue and maybe one more I agree with on almost everything. But it's quite convincing to me. It just doesn't amount to an excuse for an invasion. It tells a story which needs to be told - historiographers will be telling it with great nuance for years to come, including the NATO issue - and which was shut down because EU and US states implemented an immense war-time propaganda campaign.

 

[neverdie]

If anything, it's more likely that Putin felt he could get away with the 2022 invasion as well, rather than him being "baited" and "backed into a corner".

He had to know, regardless of whether we agree or disagree (and we don't agree generally), that there would be sanctions and a vast reaction to that he did. That's why most of us, who are anti-war, never thought he would do it in the first place. Because of the necessary blow-back to an outright invasion.

Whatever our opposing thoughts on the war, we surely agree? that the Russian state calculus (forget Putin for a second) had to have made an argument, right or wrong, that the invasion was worth it despite what would be the necessary blowback. That had to be the case.

 

[VorZakone]

He had to know, regardless of whether we agree or disagree (and we don't agree generally), that there would be sanctions and a vast reaction to that he did. That's why most of us, who are anti-war, never thought he would do it in the first place. Because of the necessary blow-back to an outright invasion.

Ofcourse he expected a reaction. The question is: did he invade because he was baited? It's not a convincing argument to me because Western countries were generally passive and tolerant of Russia's behavior in the years before.

Therefore it seems to me more likely that Putin felt he could do this invasion partly because he thought the Western response would again be weak enough for him to get away with it.

 

[neverdie]

Ofcourse he expected a reaction. The question is: did he invade because he was baited? It's not a convincing argument to me because Western countries were generally passive and tolerant of Russia's behavior in the years before.

Therefore it seems to me more likely that Putin felt he could do this invasion partly because he thought the Western response would again be weak enough for him to get away with it.

I follow what the Obama consensus (his officials) was/is prior to this war. Russia will not lose a war on its border with Ukraine and it is magical thinking to assume that it will. It was always known they would invade under such circumstances where Ukraine became more and more into the NATO (de facto) fold. It was official intel literature. There's no point in going over all of it again.

I believe, fundamentally, that Russia sees Ukraine as the US sees Cuba. And, following that, old or new mind-state as it is, they treat the Ukrainian mass as the US would and has treated the Cuban mass. "part of our sphere of influence and we'll use war as a weapon to keep it so". That's what history tells me. That's the only rationale I can find for Russia's actions. As for baited. Leave it open then. I think what the US/N did amounts to baiting. Doesn't mean you have to take the bait. But that's that I believe based on facts and other people find that ridiculous based on their own facts. I don't see the point in us discussing it because I'm not going to change my mind here and I don't expect others are either. This is why I don't go near the Ukrainian thread because it irritates people and I'm trying to avoid that.

But the Chinese thing is almost entirely the US' fault and anyone pretending otherwise is ridiculous to me. It began more than a decade ago and has been a concerted effort to limit the rise of China (by the US).

 

[B20]

One China died when China killed Hong Kong's independence and human rights. There is absolutely no way Taiwan would ever consider coming back into the fold now, nor should any democracy supporting country allow it.

 

[nickm]

It doesn't matter if interests intersect and contradict, that's nothing new at all.

From a sheer game theory perspective, the payoff would have to be insanely high compared to the risks for either side to choose a hot war strategy and that payoff isn't there for the island chains so I simply can't see it happening. Neither US or China can improve their expected outcome by choosing a hot war strategy. I just don't see it. There will be compromises and posturing, etc, but I just don't see you align the incentives where one side will profit more by starting a hot war.

If China believed there was a low probability of the US defending Taiwan, or that they could successfully deter more than a token US response, because the US interest in maintaining the status quo was in reality quite low, then you aren't dealing with two players with equal stakes in the game. Ultimately, do they believe, in their bones, that the US public would want to sacrifice a large chunk of its navy to defend Taiwan? When you can't even persuade the US to continue sacrificing some old equipment to defend Ukraine?

 

[nickm]

Baited the Russians into invading. Didn't start it.

Freedom for me, but not for thee.

 

[nickm]

Ofcourse he expected a reaction. The question is: did he invade because he was baited? It's not a convincing argument to me because Western countries were generally passive and tolerant of Russia's behavior in the years before.

Therefore it seems to me more likely that Putin felt he could do this invasion partly because he thought the Western response would again be weak enough for him to get away with it.

100%.