SMIC reaches 7nm without access to western equipment and technologies
techinsights.com
techinsights.com
My own Flanders has hero Lieven Bouwens. There are huge lists of the USA 'importing' european knowhow before the world wars. Japan was a falous tech thief in the 1960's.
In most cases, the importer got better than the country of origin. Beware.
(And many others, of course.)
Furthermore, this take is the “neutral global citizen” way of looking at things. It’s one perspective, and certainly important to be aware of, but China vs US (or the west more generally) isn’t a neutral outcome.
The Chinese system would be a massive detriment to human rights if allowed to continue growing, as it’s a massive detriment to human rights now. “Retweeting” pro-western perspectives is the right thing to do in that case, even if it isn’t the most “neutral” perspective.
For some reason there’s a fear of being pro-western nowadays and so many like to take this “enlightened observer” approach, but that’s a luxury existing in the west affords, and keeping it requires defending it.
If that’s how you feel, then don’t spread it, but when the stakes are as high as the future of billions of lives, neutrality or forwarding the most despotic perspective makes you in part culpable for what they do.
most importantly, stop projecting American imperialist attitudes onto China. there is zero indication of China trying to spread the systems you are so afraid of.
funny how the "neutral global citizen" is interested in preserving a system that just happens to benefit the west at the expense of the global south.
Zero? Not convincing.
China expanding the territory of its recent political and social systems looks clear to people watching from outside China. Examples: Tibet, Hong Kong recently, and Taiwan is officially a someday target. Nearby countries understandably worry they are on the someday list as well, more since South China Sea activities and the artificial islands being constructed.
China calls these system expansions "internal" because everywhere the systems expand to is deemed "really" China already. But most people who live there didn't (or don't) want it, and have lost (or would lose) access to ways of life, human rights and freedoms that they previously had and cherished that are under discussion in this thread.
(It's a bit like Russia's view that Ukraine is "really" part of Russia so the invasion is not an invasion, and the annexation of Crimea was not an annexation. Whatever you think of history, one way or another those actions obviously spread the current Russian system to more territory and people, most of whom don't want it. The parallels to China and Taiwan (and previously China and Tibet) are strong enough that many words have been written saying that's why China chose not to condemn Russia in either case.)
No one even disputes Chinese sovereignty over Tibet and Hong Kong, as far as I'm aware.
Everyone recognizes that Taiwan has legally been part of China since 1945 (it became part of China in the 1680s, but Japan took it as a prize of war in 1895 and had to give it back at the end of WWII). The complication there is that China had a civil war, the former government of China retreated to Taiwan, and the territory has grown apart over the decades.
But it's not as if China is just randomly making up territories to claim. It's claiming very specific territories that it has a strong legal claim to.
Legal claims, justified or not, are imho irrelevant to the current discussion point, which is whether China wishes to spread its political and social systems to large numbers more people, and whether there is an international ethical obligation to resist that. That's why I mentioned the parallel with Russia, which "claims" Ukraine. That claim is irrelevant: Even if the legal claim was justified, it would still be an invasion, because the Ukrainians don't want to be invaded or be subjgated to Russian rule.
> No one even disputes Chinese sovereignty over Tibet
That statement is false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_sovereignty_debate
A great many people have disputed Chinese sovereignty over Tibet ever since the annexation of 1959, and they still dispute it and protest against Chinese rule. As for "spreading of systems": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet
> and Hong Kong
Legal sovereignty of a sort is not disputed there. But it does come tainted, as China took control on the condition of a "two systems" treaty about how to treat the people before the handover, and broke that treaty soon after. It is not clear the territorial handover would have occurred so easily if it was known in advance that China would dishonour its commitment to the people. As a result of breaking that treaty, it can be said that China has in fact violated some aspects of territorial legal sovereignty in Hong Kong, because those aspects were not China's legal right to take.
But "legal claims" and "specific territories" have no bearing on the point of discussion in this thread, which is whether China has "zero" ambition to spread its political and social systems
Tibet and Hong Kong are examples where it has spread its recent political and social systems to large numbers more people than before, removing cherished human rights and freedoms from them against their will. It says it wants to do it in Taiwan. So "zero" ambition to spread its systems is nonsense.
I think your argument is that other countries don't need to worry about China spreading its systems further. That may or may not be justified, it's hard to tell. The South China Sea activities could have been collaborative projects with other countries in the region, but they are not, and that understandably makes those countries wary. China does not have a recent history of being particularly trustworthy (Hong Kong broke that), or sane (the "diplomacy" around Taiwan is bonkers), and talk of its ambitions being limited will be taken by some as merely a way to gain their cooperation until it's sufficiently powerful to change its mind.
In any case, the discussion was about people and ethics, and the spread of political and social systems which take away rights and freedoms, and where there's an ethical obligation towards those people. I think there's a good case for countries, legal claims, and historical control, being irrelevant to that.
I'm not really referring to private individuals here. I'm referring to organizations that matter, like countries, the UN, etc. Individuals can have whatever opinion they'd like, but there's no question at all in the international arena about whether Tibet is part of China.
> Indeed, legal sovereignty of a sort is not disputed there.
Not just "of a sort." Chinese territorial sovereignty over Hong Kong isn't disputed at all. Whether China is upholding its treaty with the UK is an entirely different question, but that question doesn't impact whether Hong Kong is part of China.
> I think your argument is that other countries don't need to worry about China spreading its systems further.
China is interested in regaining control over the territories that it considers to be China. These aren't far-flung parts of the world. They are close-by territories that have historically (not just in the distant past, but even in the post-war era) been internationally recognized as being part of China. China isn't about to claim California. It thinks Taiwan is part of China because Taiwan was (and still is) part of the Republic of China, to which the People's Republic considers itself the successor.
If you go looking for UN views on whether Tibet is "part of" China, you will find plenty of dissent in various UN working groups and such, and if you read into the subtlety of diplomats working on the things that actually matter, you'll find people avoid saying one way or another because the things that matter don't involve the silly concept "part of", and because China freaks out uncooperatively if anyone mentions it, so it's better for dealing with real issues for people to avoid mentioning it. Even if they think it.
If you only look at formal views, via resolutions and such, I argue (as do many) those are just part of the diplomatic machinery. They don't define truth, or say what people actually think.
> that question doesn't impact whether Hong Kong is part of China.
I argue that whether Hong Kong is "part of" China is irrelevant to the question of whether China has (or had) ambitions to spread its systems over more people than before.
But since you bring up legal sovereignty, the question of whether China has the legal right to control the Hong Kong people in the way that it does, against their will and achieving it by dishonour and deception, is not as clear cut as you make out. The treaty being associated with the handover certainly has bearing on that. China broke international law in Hong Kong (not that international law is enforcible of course), and the very concept of legal sovereignty is founded on international agreements. If you don't honour agreements upon which the concept is founded, words like "legal sovereignty" don't mean anything anyway.
> to which the People's Republic considers itself the successor
Which again is about legal and political claims and such, and therefore irrelevant to the question of whether China desires to spread its present day political and social systems to more people.
Indeed, "considers itself the successor" implies that it does want to spread its systems to more people that don't want them.
This is about as ambiguous as American sovereignty over Hawaii. Yes, there are private individuals who question it, but that is not the position taken by any government or major international institution that I'm aware of. As for "subtle" statements, the US, UK and many other countries have made very unsubtle, definitive statements that they recognize Chinese sovereignty over Tibet.
> If you don't honour agreements upon which the concept is founded, words like "legal sovereignty" don't mean anything anyway.
Countries violate their treaty obligations all the time. Sovereignty is sacrosanct, and not something a country loses because it doesn't fulfil the conditions of one or another treaty. Britain can complain about China's treaty violations, and it can even take reciprocal actions (and it has), but it can't, for example, claim that sovereignty over Hong Kong has reverted to the UK.
> Indeed, "considers itself the successor" implies that it does want to spread its systems to more people that don't want them.
Only inside China.
1) They did it. That's all that matters. We'll have to deal with that as a fact. Trying to use moral labels will not help anybody.
2) A top country screams theft. Meanwhile all the other country's including but not limited to China know that top country stole just as much when it wasn't at the top of the ladder. They can and will rightfully call the top country out not applying equal measures. Retweeting only half of the truth is hypocritical, they know it, and they'll use it to gain political advantage against the 1st world. It does not make us 'enlightened observers' simply for pointing this out.
3) While China is far from a beacon of human rights, this kind of tech transfer used to be the kickoff for more human rights in the countries where it happened. After Lieven Bouwens in Flanders etc there was massive worker abuse up to killing children in factories. Everybody knew things where blatantly unfair. The workers organized and demanded rights (The whole story about priest Daens in our history). I understand the US had its own Robber Barons, and a lot of western countrys have similar stories. Why would China be different?
The first is hard for me to accept, as a Westerner attached to direct democracy, but I recognize its accomplishments and try to look through the fog of propaganda.
The second is a an alternative to the Western, 'rules-based', neo-liberal and neo-colonial order. You're likely to see a large part of the world supportive of this alternative. It also leaves plenty of space for human rights and democracy in partner countries, since national sovereignty and multipolarity are amongst its guiding principals.
Here's what the PRC says about its democratic processes http://www.news.cn/english/2021-12/04/c_1310351231.htm
Having spoken to a bunch of Chinese people, they confirm many of these aspects. If anything it's a more direct form of democracy, where you elect local representatives that you have the opportunity to know personally, which then can get delegated to higher (up to national) bodies.
I have read about the positive aspects of the Chinese system of representation and the iterative improvements that it's intended to introduce. Definitely some things to learn from that approach.
Still, I can't go so far as to call it direct democracy and it's not just semantics or my reference to the Swiss system. Here is my reasoning. The Chinese government (central, provincial or local) is known for some heavy handed tactics that just wouldn't pass in a direct democracy where the people is sovereign.
Example: China's anti-coronavirus measures. (I am not arguing for or against but the case illustrates the mechanism.) I see no evidence that a large majority of Chinese citizens support those measures. In Switzerland, it was clear that the majority supporting measures was razor thin and this led to significant compromises. Primarily because there would have been more and more democratic initiatives seeking to limit government action and some would be successful. Neighbouring countries with less direct democracy do not feel this pressure and do not move so quickly.
How do you figure? It's funny, the vast majority of the complaints I see about China and human rights are things that the US is even worse about...
Chinese culture emphasizes harmony. The don't want war/conflict generally. Even when China was the most powerful country on Earth, they did not try to colonize and expand like the Europeans did.
But to an American, a powerful country means it will probably invade and start wars. This is the American way.
We're all painfully aware of how many countries the US did that to, since most of were born in one.
There was a lawsuit a few years ago that TSMC won but it before all this.
People in the tech industry should find this mass movement of whole groups of people familiar. See Fairchild Semiconductor, Zoom, Facebook, etc, etc, etc...
I wonder why we here in the West just can't let China have their microchips.
I suspect this trend will continue - moderate defensive advantage, and no offensive advantages.
Yes, that's exactly what the West also tried. That doesn't mean it doesn't imperil the West to be on the receiving-end of these tactics.
They agree with the praise the CCP gives itself, but just add a dash of reality.
Invading Taiwan just doesn’t make any sense.
And China already trashed the treaties guaranteeing a certain level of autonomy in Hong Kong.
And embargo is not a given thing, just see ruzzia today. Critical exports are allowed because they are simultaneously critical imports for others. I think any Chinese military action would show immediately just how impotent "world organisations" really are. I bet there would be close to no real consequences for China after annexation of Taiwan.
Russia is very different from China. Comparing a superpower to “Nigeria with nukes” is a bit pointless, but one of the crucial differences is that Russians know they can’t expect anything good from their mafia state. Chinese - quite the opposite, they expect sustained rapid growth, like the past five decades. Another difference is that Chinese don’t seem very enthusiastic about wars, compared to Russians - or Americans.
And no, they don’t have occupation of Taiwan in their doctrine. China has been repeatedly explaining they seek peaceful unification. And they seem fine playing the long game, ready to wait a couple of generations for it to happen.
Yes, invasion would cause recession, but it won't be framed like that in the media. The recession (maybe) would start before the invasion, then invasion will happen to cover it up and blame outside force (USA of course) for the economic hardships, and this actually works every time.
And of course occupation would be peaceful. At least for the first 5 minutes. It would be a totally peaceful blockade on sea and air with a totally reasonable and peaceful demand to surrender all control of the island, disarm army and so on. And when treacherous evil Taiwanese will dare to treacherously attack the blockade forces, then China will be forced to a totally justified self defense. Just like ruzzia today is "defending" from imaginary Nato. They really believe that btw. You underestimate ability of authoritarian state to twist words and invent doublespeak.
Again, China is not Russia. Mentality-wise, USA is closer to Russia than China is.
Also USA presidential elections are joke, and definitely not a good benchmark to look at. Whole world somehow understands that simple vote by every single citizen is the best way to elect a leader, if you prefer democratic process in general. Also USA is definitely not even close to the ruzzia. I wouldn't evaluate China here, but ruzzia and USA are pretty much on the opposite spectrum in mentality, until Orange-man at least.
As for Russian and American mentality - there many similarities, from glorifying their army, to feeling that they have god-given right to invade anyone, shielding war criminals, being skewed towards religious fundamentalism, to assuming there’s nothing good coming from the government… to a surprisingly short history of their country.
Always talking points and slogans, like people can't even tell the difference between nuanced and complex reality and a simplistic cartoonish impression of it. Comical.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-62744522
China may have committed crimes against humanity in Xinjiang - UN
Srsly though, you clearly aren't dumber than an average journalist, so why not cut the middleman and read UN reports by yourself?
You'd be surprised how stuff gets rephrased to have completely different interpretation. Or, even better, gets omitted. E.g you won't see BBC reporting on UN report A/HRC/24/52/Add.1, much less under the headline "Britain may have committed crimes against humanity towards POC - UN"
You've randomly thrown out some random article on BBC, totally unrelated to the context of previous discussion.
What "point" were you expecting exactly? (:
You aren't really giving me much substance to work with, apart from the fact that you've linked a propaganda state media. So, as there is nothing else to address, I addressed that.
So my point is: don't link propaganda state media as it's all two minutes hate and no substance, elaborate on your point so that it is somewhat clear what exactly you want to discuss, and bring some reference example/benchmark on which you would base your comparisons.
If that was true they wouldn't have introduced the Anti-secession Law.
After the Russian invasion of Ukraine I don't think China would be dumb enough to invade Taiwan. They are already crumbling on the inside and depend too much on imports to survive. Russia has more export than import so it has a better chance to survive when cut off from the rest of the world. And China is pissing off too many neighbours trying to extend its borders.
But yes, if Xi held power despite losing support that would be… fairly bad.
No, not like in the US. When someone is allowed to run who is not a member of the CCP (and who is running against the CCP), then that's getting close. When the chairman loses an election and has to leave office, replaced by someone who is not from the CCP, then that's elections like the US.
For the record: Yes, I absolutely have a clue about US presidential requirements.
There are parties in China other than CCP (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in...), and those are kind of like parties in the west. CCP is different though - it’s less of a party and more part of the government, with “sub parties” inside it. This means that on one side it’s privileged - as described in the constitution - but on the other hand, being part of the government, it’s controlled by govt mechanisms, unlike the “do whatever you wish” western parties. You could draw analogies with what the Church used to be in Middle Ages - except Church ended up being fundamentalist, while CCP keeps adjusting to society’s preferences.
It’s a part of government, essentially. Expecting China to be ruled by someone outside is like expecting US to be ruled by someone who’s not a citizen - both are fundamentally arbitrary rules, but both exist for complicated historical reasons.
Of course in US there are also hard rules that aren’t in constitution, eg you need to be a member of one of two ruling parties, you must not have left-wing views, and you have to be wealthy and Christian. But I’m pretty sure there are similar quirks in China too.
But I notice the very first sentence of that link: "The People's Republic of China is a one-party state ruled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)."
So, yes, there are other parties that are allowed to exist. (If you want one that doesn't include "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" as part of the platform, you're out of luck, though.)
But some of those parties actually have people who have won elections and have seats, which is more than I thought was the case. That's slightly less "one-party state" than I thought.
Still... there's also a list of banned parties. I'm trying to remember when the last time was that the US banned a political party. So China lets there be alternate parties, as long as they don't stray very far from the CCP orthodoxy. That's more than I thought, but it's considerably less than political freedom.
I think it's better to look at more broad goals. Can ideas or people get represented in each system? The actual mechanisms may be very different, but I think comparing the end results would be more interesting.
An anecdote from my country. We have a left-leaning party that constantly wins the poorer areas. At first glance, this means they're popular. In practice, it's a bit different - since they already have a stable majority, and they have an old tradition of only supporting their own people when it's their turn to govern, what happens is that each individual potential candidate simply decides to go with this party instead of swimming against the current. So the real election is inside the party, then their candidate wins in 70-80% of the cases.
Is this a good system? Well, this strongly depends on the process to select the party candidates. It's surprisingly non-shitty on average, in that it tends to select competent people. It's shockingly shitty on occasion, when it fails basic integrity checks. Judging the end results is far from straightforward.
Btw, I'm definitely not advocating for more of this inside the existing western democracies. It's definitely a horrible idea, because we definitely do NOT have the institutional processes to select consistently good candidates inside each party. China is not mixing them.
Not trying to start something, just want to say I chuckled here - saying this in the middle of debt forgiveness for democrat voters is pretty ironic.
And thank you for the comment.
The trick is multi-patterning which is hard but merely requires some math, some programming, attention to detail and good control. 7 nm typically requires 4x multi-patterning or more. Multi-patterning gets you below diffraction limits by reversing the diffraction into multiple pattern offset exposures. What China has is "Deep UV photo lith" which is 193 nm from an ArF excimer laser. Classic diffraction limits would say you can only get line resolution down to half that. With multi-patterning you can go below that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_patterning
What China still doesn't have is EUV which negates any multi-patterning at 7 nm and you can use milder, low order multi-patterning at smaller nodes. Without EUV, SMIC is mostly locked to 7 nm.
Apple A13
AMD Zen 3
Snapdragon 865+
If they never get EUV, but perfect this process, then I suppose the above are possible..
Apple A12
AMD Zen 2
Snapdragon 855
I am very curious the yield and number of masks required.
This article outlines struggles Intel had with multipatterning and 10nm on DUV.
https://www.eetimes.com/intels-10nm-node-past-present-and-fu...
E: Furthermore, I don't think SMIC has any packaging technology that would allow them to leverage chiplets.
A rather good summary.
Does anyone have TLDR from reports. An indigennous 7nm supply chain cannot be right.