this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
37 points (100.0% liked)

PC Gaming

10682 readers
722 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
37
Intel CEO says China must make its own chips if sanctions become too restrictive, points to EUV as key cutoff point (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Import tariffs and service bans are definitely pretty wonky with dubious benefits, but I can understand the export concerns. Exporting tech that can be used in weapons directly to a country that is threatening a highly strategic ally (Taiwan) is a bad move. Yes they'll get them elsewhere or make them, but you won't have the US government and a US company directly profiting off the destruction of an ally.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

If the destruction of an ally would happen regardless of another government's actions (because, as you said, China will get weapons from elsewhere), then concerns like "we shouldn't profit off its destruction" are solely moral and/or ideological in nature. Thus being irrelevant for the sake of Realpolitik:

  • sell to China - you got some profit, but lost the ally
  • don't sell to China - you got no profit but you still lost the ally

And it's clear that USA follows Realpolitik when it comes to its foreign policy.

I also don't think that the PRC even needs to weaponise itself further to annex Taiwan. What's keeping the PRC at bay seems to be international repercussions, that are better addressed through soft power, not hard power.

Because of both things, I don't think that Taiwan plays a role explaining those policies. I think that USA is trying to protect its internal industry against competition.