Who's Winning America's 'Tech War' With China? (wired.com)
(Saturday October 12, 2024 @05:34PM (EditorDavid)
from the in-the-chips dept.)
- Reference: 0175239679
- News link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/24/10/12/1755254/whos-winning-americas-tech-war-with-china
- Source link: https://www.wired.com/story/jake-sullivan-china-tech-profile/
In mid-2021 Ameria's National Security Advisor set up a new directorate focused on "advanced chips, quantum computing, and other cutting-edge tech," [1]reports Wired . And the next year as Congress was working on [2]boosting America's semiconductor sector, he was "closing in on a plan to cripple China's... In October 2022, the Commerce Department forged ahead with its new export controls."
So what happened next?
> In a phone call with President Biden this past spring, Xi Jinping [3]warned that if the US continued trying to stall China's technological development, he would not "sit back and watch." And he hasn't. Already, China has answered the US export controls — and its corresponding deals with other countries — by imposing its own restrictions on critical minerals used to make semiconductors and by hoovering up older chips and manufacturing equipment it is still allowed to buy. For the past several quarters, in fact, China was the top customer for ASML and a number of Japanese chip companies. A robust black market for banned chips has also emerged in China. According to a recent New York Times [4]investigation , some of the Chinese companies that have been barred from accessing American chips through US export controls have set up new corporations to evade those bans. (These companies have claimed no connection to the ones who've been banned.) This has reportedly [5]enabled Chinese entities with ties to the military to obtain small amounts of Nvidia's high-powered chips.
>
> Nvidia, meanwhile, has responded to the US actions by developing new China-specific chips that don't run afoul of the US controls but don't exactly thrill the Biden administration either. For the White House and Commerce Department, keeping pace with all of these workarounds has been a constant game of cat and mouse. In 2023, the US introduced the first round of updates to its export controls. This September, it released another — an announcement that was quickly followed by a similar expansion of controls by the Dutch. Some observers have speculated that the Biden administration's actions have only made China more determined to invest in its advanced tech sector.
>
> And there's clearly some truth to that. But it's also true that China has been trying to become self-sufficient since long before Biden entered office. Since 2014, it has plowed nearly $100 billion into its domestic chip sector. "That was the world we walked into," [NSA Advisor Jake] Sullivan said. "Not the world we created through our export controls." The United States' actions, he argues, have only made accomplishing that mission that much tougher and costlier for Beijing. Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger estimated earlier this year that there's a "10-year gap" between the most powerful chips being made by Chinese chipmakers like SMIC and the ones Intel and Nvidia are working on, thanks in part to the export controls.
>
> If the measure of Sullivan's success is how effectively the United States has constrained China's advancement, it's hard to argue with the evidence. "It's probably one of the biggest achievements of the entire Biden administration," said Martijn Rasser, managing director of Datenna, a leading intelligence firm focused on China. Rasser said the impact of the US export controls alone "will endure for decades." But if you're judging Sullivan's success by his more idealistic promises regarding the future of technology — the idea that the US can usher in an era of progress dominated by democratic values — well, that's a far tougher test. In many ways, the world, and the way advanced technologies are poised to shape it, feels more unsettled than ever.
>
> Four years was always going to be too short for Sullivan to deliver on that promise. The question is whether whoever's sitting in Sullivan's seat next will pick up where he left off.
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/jake-sullivan-china-tech-profile/
[2] https://www.semiconductors.org/chips-incentives-awards/
[3] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/02/biden-jinping-warning-election-meddling-cyberattacks-call-00150129
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/04/technology/china-ai-microchips-takeaways.html
[5] https://www.reuters.com/technology/chinas-military-government-acquire-nvidia-chips-despite-us-ban-2024-01-14/
So what happened next?
> In a phone call with President Biden this past spring, Xi Jinping [3]warned that if the US continued trying to stall China's technological development, he would not "sit back and watch." And he hasn't. Already, China has answered the US export controls — and its corresponding deals with other countries — by imposing its own restrictions on critical minerals used to make semiconductors and by hoovering up older chips and manufacturing equipment it is still allowed to buy. For the past several quarters, in fact, China was the top customer for ASML and a number of Japanese chip companies. A robust black market for banned chips has also emerged in China. According to a recent New York Times [4]investigation , some of the Chinese companies that have been barred from accessing American chips through US export controls have set up new corporations to evade those bans. (These companies have claimed no connection to the ones who've been banned.) This has reportedly [5]enabled Chinese entities with ties to the military to obtain small amounts of Nvidia's high-powered chips.
>
> Nvidia, meanwhile, has responded to the US actions by developing new China-specific chips that don't run afoul of the US controls but don't exactly thrill the Biden administration either. For the White House and Commerce Department, keeping pace with all of these workarounds has been a constant game of cat and mouse. In 2023, the US introduced the first round of updates to its export controls. This September, it released another — an announcement that was quickly followed by a similar expansion of controls by the Dutch. Some observers have speculated that the Biden administration's actions have only made China more determined to invest in its advanced tech sector.
>
> And there's clearly some truth to that. But it's also true that China has been trying to become self-sufficient since long before Biden entered office. Since 2014, it has plowed nearly $100 billion into its domestic chip sector. "That was the world we walked into," [NSA Advisor Jake] Sullivan said. "Not the world we created through our export controls." The United States' actions, he argues, have only made accomplishing that mission that much tougher and costlier for Beijing. Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger estimated earlier this year that there's a "10-year gap" between the most powerful chips being made by Chinese chipmakers like SMIC and the ones Intel and Nvidia are working on, thanks in part to the export controls.
>
> If the measure of Sullivan's success is how effectively the United States has constrained China's advancement, it's hard to argue with the evidence. "It's probably one of the biggest achievements of the entire Biden administration," said Martijn Rasser, managing director of Datenna, a leading intelligence firm focused on China. Rasser said the impact of the US export controls alone "will endure for decades." But if you're judging Sullivan's success by his more idealistic promises regarding the future of technology — the idea that the US can usher in an era of progress dominated by democratic values — well, that's a far tougher test. In many ways, the world, and the way advanced technologies are poised to shape it, feels more unsettled than ever.
>
> Four years was always going to be too short for Sullivan to deliver on that promise. The question is whether whoever's sitting in Sullivan's seat next will pick up where he left off.
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/jake-sullivan-china-tech-profile/
[2] https://www.semiconductors.org/chips-incentives-awards/
[3] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/02/biden-jinping-warning-election-meddling-cyberattacks-call-00150129
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/04/technology/china-ai-microchips-takeaways.html
[5] https://www.reuters.com/technology/chinas-military-government-acquire-nvidia-chips-despite-us-ban-2024-01-14/
Re: (Score:1)
by ihavesaxwithcollies ( 10441708 )
> Attempting to prevent China from acquiring tech is stupid and futile They will either get it on the black market or develop it themselves They are smart and perfectly capable of developing tech
Uh-oh! I spotted a flaw in your logic. If they are “smart and perfectly capable”, why do they need to resort to nefarious and illegal means?
Re: (Score:2)
by Berkyjay ( 1225604 )
> What will happen if they eventually develop tech we need?
Considering that their innovation strategy depends heavily on corporate espionage, I'm comfortable knowing that we will NEVER need their technology.
North Korea, probably (Score:2)
by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 )
Stealing everything from both sides.
The difference between "war" and "competition" (Score:1)
by Jeremi ( 14640 )
In a war, you attempt to defeat your enemy by destroying their people and their assets.
In a competition, you attempt to succeed against your competitor by performing better than they do.
It sounds like Wired's headline is mislabelling the situation. OTOH if they really think it's a war rather than a competition, they should say why; AFAICT the article does not.
Huawei (Score:1)
by cheesybagel ( 670288 )
Their sanctions were supposed to kill Huawei. How well did that turn out?
It took Huawei two years but now they have their own supply network independent of the US.
Some success.
A robust black market "emerged"? (Score:3)
I expect there's always been an especially robust black market in China.
Re: (Score:2)
True. And typical of communist sh*tholes. That was the oligarchy in the USSR. They are just laying low, waiting for the Party to collapse. So they can openly buy their mega-yachts.