7 ms·

> And how far out is that? These guys have a 100% market share https://www.asml.com/en/products/euv-lithography-systems https://www.asml.com/en/products/euv-li

by gusfoo 10mo ago

> And how far out is that? These guys have a 100% market share https://www.asml.com/en/products/euv-lithography-systems https://www.asml.com/en/products/euv-lithography-systems at the 'extreme' end and, obviously, everyone else is trying but haven't really shown much promise. Here's a good background article on the topic: https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2025/03/12/the-race-is-on-to-build-the-worlds-most-complex-machine https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2025/03/12/...

Nextgrid 10mo ago
> everyone else is trying but haven't really shown much promise What was the incentive/funding for their attempts? In a non-national-security scenario it makes sense not to try too hard because you can just buy ASML's solution. With China it's a bit different, if they decide it's a matter of national security and pour Manhattan-project-levels of money/resources into it, they could make faster progress.
- mtrovo 10mo ago
  Agree, especially given the track record of China outcompeting in other markets where they got blocked.
- dragontamer 10mo ago
  Well yeah. No one is saying that China cannot do that. Just that the political calculus is that it's better for China to spend their resources on that, rather than building up troops and warships. Force Chinas growth to be more expensive. It has nothing to do with not believing China can do it, it's about slowing them down in a task we believe that they can do.
  - SiempreViernes 10mo ago
    > Just that the political calculus is that it's better for China to spend their resources on that, rather than building up troops and warships. Note that this calculus only makes sense if you invade China while they are busy with the EUV machines, otherwise they catch up technologically and then build all the scary military. Of course, the the calculus doesn't make sense at all, because the obvious order when you can't do both is you build enough military to feel safe first, then you try for the tech race.
    - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
      > the obvious order when you can't do both is you build enough military to feel safe first, then you try for the tech race Literally zero actual wars with a technological component have progressed like this. (The first tradeoff to be made is the one Russia is making: sacrificing consumption for military production and research. Guns and butter.)
      - mk89 10mo ago
        That's not true. Mass/quantity can still resist/delay/push back until you're exhausted and done. We're not anymore in the swords vs guns era. We're talking about hypersonic missiles vs super intelligent hypersonic missiles. Still, all it takes is 1 dumb missile to pass through the defenses and an entire city can be wiped off. At the end of the day, they don't care if a missiles didn't reach the precise target. As you can see in Ukraine, Russia is bombing all types of buildings, they don't give a damn about schools, kindergarten or so. The tech component is not everything.
        JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
        > We're not anymore in the swords vs guns era. We're talking about hypersonic missiles vs super intelligent hypersonic missiles These are still hypotheticals. Every war since the Civil War has had a decisive technological component. If the model doesn't apply there, this time probably ain't different.
        mk89 10mo ago
        Like the Vietnam War? Or the wars in Afghanistan...?
        JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
        > Like the Vietnam War? Yes. Concern around Soviet space and missiles capabilities overtaking America’s directly lead to Kennedy changing his mind on no boots on the ground. (The Vietnam War started with America betting on BVR, with the long-seeing but minimally-agile F-4 Phantom. Soviet MiG-21s, on the other hand, blended into civilian traffic. This lead to disaster. When the MiG-25 rolled out, we countered with the F-15 Eagle. But it came too late, which meant we couldn’t establish air superiority with long-range aircraft alone.) Note: I’m not saying this was the decisive component. It was one among many, and not the most important. But if we had F-15s at the outset, when the Soviets had MiG-21s, there is a better chance the skirmish would have stayed in the skies and Vietnam would have stalemated like Korea.
  - hearsathought 10mo ago
    > it's about slowing them down in a task we believe that they can do. But it's not slowing them down. It's forcing them to accelerate development ( aka investing more into the sector ). Has china invested more or less? It's amazing how blind people are to this counterintuitive fact.
    - dragontamer 10mo ago
      Oh, and your plan is to just give them the chips they want directly? Of course investing into chip development is slowing China down. Its slower to build their own than for us to give them those chips.
      - beej71 10mo ago
        > Oh, and your plan is to just give them the chips they want directly? Yes! Remove the impetus for them to innovate and make them reliant on our exports.
      - hearsathought 10mo ago
        > Oh, and your plan is to just give them the chips they want directly? "Give them"? I love sneaky propagandists. No, make them pay for it. It's what we do to our "allies" so that they are dependent on american tech. > Of course investing into chip development is slowing China down. From a myopic narrow point of view. But viewed more broadly, it has accelerated china's tech development. > Its slower to build their own than for us to give them those chips. In the short term, but not the long term. Just like banning china from participating in the international space station forced china to accelerate their development of their space program.
        dragontamer 10mo ago
        > From a myopic narrow point of view. But viewed more broadly, it has accelerated china's tech development. Yes. I'm fine with this. Weakening China in the short term means pushing the Taiwan war timeline by years. Years that we will spend building up the DDG(X). As I said before and I'll say again: USA is weak in 2020s but strong in the 2030s. We only need to delay China by a few years and the DDG(X) changes everything. ---------- You need to understand that I make my view based on the perceived strength of the US Navy. The US Navy is getting huge upgrades and a few years of delay makes an incredible difference.

by gusfoo 10mo ago

Nextgrid 10mo ago

> everyone else is trying but haven't really shown much promise What was the incentive/funding for their attempts? In a non-national-security scenario it makes sense not to try too hard because you can just buy ASML's solution. With China it's a bit different, if they decide it's a matter of national security and pour Manhattan-project-levels of money/resources into it, they could make faster progress.

mtrovo 10mo ago
Agree, especially given the track record of China outcompeting in other markets where they got blocked.
dragontamer 10mo ago
Well yeah. No one is saying that China cannot do that. Just that the political calculus is that it's better for China to spend their resources on that, rather than building up troops and warships. Force Chinas growth to be more expensive. It has nothing to do with not believing China can do it, it's about slowing them down in a task we believe that they can do.
- SiempreViernes 10mo ago
  > Just that the political calculus is that it's better for China to spend their resources on that, rather than building up troops and warships. Note that this calculus only makes sense if you invade China while they are busy with the EUV machines, otherwise they catch up technologically and then build all the scary military. Of course, the the calculus doesn't make sense at all, because the obvious order when you can't do both is you build enough military to feel safe first, then you try for the tech race.
  - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    > the obvious order when you can't do both is you build enough military to feel safe first, then you try for the tech race Literally zero actual wars with a technological component have progressed like this. (The first tradeoff to be made is the one Russia is making: sacrificing consumption for military production and research. Guns and butter.)
    - mk89 10mo ago
      That's not true. Mass/quantity can still resist/delay/push back until you're exhausted and done. We're not anymore in the swords vs guns era. We're talking about hypersonic missiles vs super intelligent hypersonic missiles. Still, all it takes is 1 dumb missile to pass through the defenses and an entire city can be wiped off. At the end of the day, they don't care if a missiles didn't reach the precise target. As you can see in Ukraine, Russia is bombing all types of buildings, they don't give a damn about schools, kindergarten or so. The tech component is not everything.
      - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
        > We're not anymore in the swords vs guns era. We're talking about hypersonic missiles vs super intelligent hypersonic missiles These are still hypotheticals. Every war since the Civil War has had a decisive technological component. If the model doesn't apply there, this time probably ain't different.
        mk89 10mo ago
        Like the Vietnam War? Or the wars in Afghanistan...?
        JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
        > Like the Vietnam War? Yes. Concern around Soviet space and missiles capabilities overtaking America’s directly lead to Kennedy changing his mind on no boots on the ground. (The Vietnam War started with America betting on BVR, with the long-seeing but minimally-agile F-4 Phantom. Soviet MiG-21s, on the other hand, blended into civilian traffic. This lead to disaster. When the MiG-25 rolled out, we countered with the F-15 Eagle. But it came too late, which meant we couldn’t establish air superiority with long-range aircraft alone.) Note: I’m not saying this was the decisive component. It was one among many, and not the most important. But if we had F-15s at the outset, when the Soviets had MiG-21s, there is a better chance the skirmish would have stayed in the skies and Vietnam would have stalemated like Korea.
- hearsathought 10mo ago
  > it's about slowing them down in a task we believe that they can do. But it's not slowing them down. It's forcing them to accelerate development ( aka investing more into the sector ). Has china invested more or less? It's amazing how blind people are to this counterintuitive fact.
  - dragontamer 10mo ago
    Oh, and your plan is to just give them the chips they want directly? Of course investing into chip development is slowing China down. Its slower to build their own than for us to give them those chips.
    - beej71 10mo ago
      > Oh, and your plan is to just give them the chips they want directly? Yes! Remove the impetus for them to innovate and make them reliant on our exports.
    - hearsathought 10mo ago
      > Oh, and your plan is to just give them the chips they want directly? "Give them"? I love sneaky propagandists. No, make them pay for it. It's what we do to our "allies" so that they are dependent on american tech. > Of course investing into chip development is slowing China down. From a myopic narrow point of view. But viewed more broadly, it has accelerated china's tech development. > Its slower to build their own than for us to give them those chips. In the short term, but not the long term. Just like banning china from participating in the international space station forced china to accelerate their development of their space program.
      - dragontamer 10mo ago
        > From a myopic narrow point of view. But viewed more broadly, it has accelerated china's tech development. Yes. I'm fine with this. Weakening China in the short term means pushing the Taiwan war timeline by years. Years that we will spend building up the DDG(X). As I said before and I'll say again: USA is weak in 2020s but strong in the 2030s. We only need to delay China by a few years and the DDG(X) changes everything. ---------- You need to understand that I make my view based on the perceived strength of the US Navy. The US Navy is getting huge upgrades and a few years of delay makes an incredible difference.