After living and working in China 10yrs and fundamentally experiencing the growth rate and culture, it's been a bit horrifying to watch the Western world consistently decide withholding tech from China and giving them no other option but develop their own tech, is a good idea. They are the ultimate long-term planners and I have no doubt the existing gaps will be relatively short lived before China closes them.

▲ seanmcdirmid an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I worked in China for 9 years and I really don’t think it makes much of a difference. China is not dumb enough to think that just because they can get it from the west today they can get it from them tomorrow. They were always going to develop their own semiconductor and jet turbine tech and industries, among other. They didn’t do it just to spite the west for not selling them the chips they wanted.

	▲	culi an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Sure but nobody in the world is denying that China's recent lightspeed advances in these areas isn't due to the trade war Trump started in his first term. It had an immediate and massive impact on China's economy and they had an equally massive response to it. China experienced the equivalent of the 1973 energy crisis that the US experienced in response to its role in the 1973 Yom Kippur War

▲ arjie an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Withholding technology is the only tool we have. If we let them have the tech it's not like they'll start depending on us. They will simply replicate the machinery and then someone else will be writing a comment on Nacker Hews in this alternative Earth about how we were such fools in the West to simply let them have our technology thinking that would make them depend on us. In fact, we have this evidence because all the news about Hygon Dhyana being based on a nerfed Zen 1 had all Internet commentary shaped like "We're such idiots to let them have this. We are the eternal morons!"

Literally every non-embargoed technology they have access to they instantly build and enhance. They have industrial and manufacturing iteration ability far beyond what we have. They won't be grateful to us, they won't be dependent on us, they won't be supplicants. They are well on the trajectory to being an equivalent world power with divergent objectives and thinking that handing them R&D is going to slow a negative outcome for us is wishful thinking.

Sometimes the only plan available is not a great plan. That's just how it is. The world sometimes gives you constraints that don't have a happy solution. You race down the precipice on whatever you have. And look what we earned for it: almost a full decade before they got here. That's amazing.

The US only had the bomb exclusively for 4 years before the USSR got that. We had 18 months before they got nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles. We got 8 years of EUV that China couldn't match us in. Precious 8 years and ongoing.

	▲	nneonneo an hour ago \| parent [-]
		For highly complex technologies that require tons of capex to get anywhere, Chinese firms are perfectly happy to depend on foreign companies if they are allowed to. Chinese chipmakers weren't willing to use the first batch of domestic DUV machines because they simply weren't as good as foreign alternatives, and this made it doubly difficult for domestic machine manufacturers: they couldn't get revenue for selling machines, and they couldn't learn from their customers' experiences. The Chinese government, for example, is now apparently withholding Nvidia chips from being imported - despite the export ban being partially lifted from the US side - in order to incentivize local companies to use domestic NPUs instead. Similarly, on a personal level, most of the (technical) folks I know here in China are using Claude/GPT models because they want to use the best models available. But, companies like Bytedance (Doubao) cannot use such models to serve their customers, and ordinary folks also cannot access these models without workarounds. As such, the market for domestic AI models is huge, which has uplifted a lot of the current AI model providers. Ultimately, this creates a funny conundrum: sanctions mean that certain parts of the Chinese population can still access the "banned" tech - able to experiment with it and learn from it - while spurring domestic companies to seek domestic alternatives.

▲ jimbob45 8 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

China is single-handedly propping up Iran, NK, and Russia financially. If you ahem removed the top 1000 leaders of the CCP tomorrow, those three countries wouldn’t be able to continue their population suppression/wars and the world would be an immeasurably better place. Iran killed, what, 20k of their own population earlier this year? Russia has lost 10x that this year alone. Blocking tech from China directly hampers their funding of these countries. Am I wrong?

▲ gedy an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't see how the alternatives ends any differently? We manufacture in China, they copy the products with lower margins then western companies can't compete on price.

▲ aurareturn 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

  they copy the products with lower margins then western companies can't compete on price.

I think this is outdated thinking in 2026. It's more like western companies go to China, look at designs that China has done, then decide to buy them in bulk while slapping their own logos on them with some small modifications.

Then these western brands slap a big markup on the products. So it isn't that western companies can't compete on price. It's just that the prices from Chinese companies are much closer to the source without western markup.

The vast majority of electronics you're buying on Amazon from western brands were actually fully designed and manufactured in China.

▲ sudosysgen an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The steelman of the argument is that, due to legacy in technology and comparative advantage, unless they expect a serious supply chain tech, many core technologies will be too expensive to duplicate for China and so there will be areas where they will not advance. There is some amount of evidence that was true for lithography, they did not seem to be making much progress until they were forced to, and there didn't seem to be enough capital available in China to catch up.

Of course, the extent to which they was true and for how long it would be true is up for debate, but it's not a prima facie foregone conclusion

▲

LIMEVINCE an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not an expert at all so I have to wonder which core technologies were/are too expensive to duplicate for China? Afaik semiconductors represent the cutting edge of manufacturing technology; if China is able to duplicate (or even innovate, as demonstrated by "3d Logic folding") in this industry, I can't imagine how any other sectors would be too expensive to duplicate.

Who knows how far they progressed in lithography once it became clear that withholding technology would be the official state policy-- I heard the Chinese state got involved in developing EUV in a way comparable to the Manhattan project in scale and secrecy.

	▲	sudosysgen a few seconds ago \| parent [-]
		The cost is not just pure development. There are very high switching costs, and downstream opportunity costs affecting the entire ecosystem. As an example, Nikon was competitive with ASML in DUV for a while, but no one was willing to switch because the cost/risk was way too high. For lithography, that was essentially the issue - no serious foundry was willing to take the massive risk to move away from ASML - and, worse, to skip EUV. A second reason is that Chinese foundries still had to compete with foreign foundries. The cost of doing lithography with new Chinese DUV machines will be significantly higher than with ASML DUV and then significantly higher than with ASML EUV. So to build an ecosystem that can one day truly compete with ASML, you'd need the entire Chinese semi industry to take significant losses to get to the point where they can compete with ASML and pose a threat in the market. There is still many sectors like this where China has some kind of parity, but at a total cost of ownership so much higher than western competitors than they are not a serious market threat in the near future. In fact, the US, EU, etc... are in similar positions. Unless the Chinese economy becomes much stronger than the US/EU across the board, one would expect it to be case due to comparative advantage - the cost of directing industry to ignore superior alternatives will slow them down in other fields, unless the Chinese economy is just that much more effective.

▲

SanjayMehta an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

They have the entire resources of their state available for funding.

They will catch up and pass the West.

Take nuclear weapons: even Pakistan and North Korea were able to catch up.

	▲	defrost an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Poor examples. Pakistan with a lot of Saudi backing, NK with a lot of Chinese backing. That aside, China will master chip making at bleeding edge global scale, just as it did with EVs and rare earth processing, etc.