This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
From /u/gwern (@gwern ?): analysis on China’s semiconductor industry.
Recent export controls are directly targeting the Chinese ability to fabricate cutting-edge chips. The subsequent effect on electronics prices and the much-maligned supply chain won’t be pleasant—especially for China, and especially if their industry is already slumping. Consequences for the rest of the world are left as an exercise to the reader.
Given the forum, it’s not surprising that the focus is on AI. I’m more interested in the geopolitical outlook. This is an incentive to retaliate, perhaps even against the other regional semiconductor fabricator. And it is suggested that the timing is a calculated insult to Chinese leadership, as they are apparently going through a periodic dog-and-pony show of elections. Gwern suggests that China would otherwise be raising hell.
The counterpart in US domestic politics: crunching semiconductor supply will not mix well with inflation. I don’t think adding $50 to the next iPhone will make or break Democrats, but it seems unlikely to help.
I want to place predictions, but I don’t have a good grasp of the metrics involved. Place your bets, I guess, for:
China taking economic action
China taking military action
Consequences on Chinese industry
Tech policy towards China becoming a wedge issue in American politics
I'll shill Chinatalk as a good source of info and analysis, apparently it was one of their people who posted that big twitter thread, translating some Chinese commentary about how significant the blow was.
https://www.chinatalk.media/p/export-controls-xis-s-and-t-dreams?publication_id=4220&post_id=78583462&isFreemail=true
https://www.chinatalk.media/p/china-responds-to-chip-export-controls?publication_id=4220&post_id=78891054&isFreemail=true
I think military action is locked in, it's only a matter of timing. Once China fills out more of its new ICBM fields, once their new ballistic missile subs are deployed - then they'll feel confident in their strategic deterrent. Right now their missile subs are old and don't have the range to hit the US from home waters. New missile subs will start being deployed around 2024-5.
Many people have been arguing that these next few years are extremely dangerous for the US camp. China has been expanding its navy while the US fleet shrinks, China's fleet is young and concentrated whilst the US fleet is old and dispersed all around the world. Now that a good chunk of the US military is hovering around in Eastern Europe and ammunition stockpiles have been drained, there is probably even more of an opportunity for the Chinese.
Of course, China has issues in getting the necessary sealift capacity and the US retains an advantage in attack subs. However, Taiwan is 90% dependent on food imports and is even more dependent on foreign energy imports. There is no country worse prepared for a naval blockade IMO - China is basically self-sufficient on food once you account for them not exporting - plus they can buy from Eurasian markets. Energy is more troublesome for China but not insoluble if they shut down some industry (given they won't be exporting so much that'll happen anyway).
TSMC is an absolutely dominant semiconductor producer (pic related), it makes a lot of sense for the Chinese to deny them to the US bloc if they can't hope to profit from their work. China doesn't want to fall behind in AI and high-tech weapons.
/images/16661369878189542.webp
A blockade isn't as easy as it sounds on paper. Under international law, a blockade is considered an act of war, and China would be under immediate pressure to clarify whether it is indeed at war with Taiwan. If it says yes, then it implicitly recognizes the independence of Taiwan. If it says no, then other countries are free to ignore the blockade. But formalities aside, I would expect that the Chinese come up with some sophisticated rigamorole to dodge the issue, and that the US doesn't buy it. The US and its allies would try to resolve the situation diplomatically while moving the entire Pacific fleet into the area. If the issue isn't resolved, then the US would take a stance that the blockade is illegal and start escorting resupply convoys into Taiwan's harbors. This puts the Chinese in a real jam—if it allows the ships to pass then it it effectively capitulates and is exposed as a paper tiger; if it tries to enforce the blockade it risks starting World War III. And US involvement in Taiwan's defense is practically guaranteed since the opening shots were fired at a US vessel and not Taiwan itself. A blockade just gives the US time to build up a presence in the area and presents a risk that an actual shooting war will be against the US and not Taiwan. I'm not saying that this necessarily will happen, but the blockade strategy seems inherently more risky than just invading all at once while the US is preoccupied elsewhere and hope they don't get involved militarily.
They can say it's a 'police action' (the US version of the 'special military operation'). Nobody declares wars anymore. The US last declared war on Romania in WW2.
The US has traditionally tried to be ambiguous on its Taiwan strategy as part of a mixed strategy. The Chinese have a tonne of ballistic missiles they'd use to attempt to destroy US forces on Yokohama, Guam and so on at the start of the war. But that obviously brings US and Japan into the war. If the Chinese just attack Taiwan first, then they risk the US pacific fleet intervening in good order. US would prefer that they don't get struck first so they retain those forces - but they don't want to say that they won't defend Taiwan and then betray that word. Thus the word-games
Imagine a naval war between the US and Chinese fleets. Food and fuel isn't being shipped in to Taiwan during that time. Even as the oceans are contested, it's still an effective blockade. Perhaps the Chinese don't want to risk a disastrous marine landing until they've secured total naval and air superiority, that could take a while.
I don't know that a Pearl Harbor style preemptive attack on a powerful country you aren't at war with is a great strategy. An ambivalence among the American public about entering a war to defend Taiwan is going to go out the window after missile attacks on US territory. It also opens the door to retaliatory strikes on the Chinese mainland; every Chinese naval base between Macau and Shanghai would be at risk. It also pretty much guarantees international sanctions against China, at a time when one of the most-traveled shipping lanes in the world is effectively shut down. It would be tough, but the rest of the world can afford to take that hit. The Chinese economy can't, given that it's almost entirely export-based. You're right to say that gaining air and naval superiority could take a while, but that's the problem, and given that blockades in general take a while to get results, it leads me to believe that China won't try this. I'm not saying that a blockade necessarily won't work, mind you, but simply that it's not the obvious slam dunk that some people on the internet make it out to be.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link