comment: >
  
  Stealing IP is not the actual issue. The two main points of contention are with Huawei which is seen as a security risk and with ASML, a Dutch company that produces the most advanced chip-making machines and that is not allowed to export them to China. To a lesser degree the success of Tiktok is also seen as highly problematic.
context: Correction “Washington has had technological hegemony for years. China big mad they won’t share.” >
  
  USA outsources majority of microchip manufacturing to TSMC 
  China eyes Taiwan enviously >
  
  Which is also why they stepped up their rhetoric about "regaining" Taiwan. 
  If they take TSMC, then they effectively has a leverage over the global economy that they can politically utilize.
  They are more likely to destroy TSMC in the process. Which is still not too bad because it would force shifting to China for alternatives, such as they are. It would also cause a major depression in global economy as supply chains collapse but China is willing to risk that (maybe).
  As long as TSMC remains free (under US protection), the current status quo is in effect. >
  
  Pretty sure America isn't willing, which is why we've partnered closer with Taiwan. Any move against Taiwan will trigger a response from America, Japan and S. Korea. Which would fuck the world economy even more. >
  
  There’s a reason TSMC is opening a chip fab in Arizona. 
  The reason that Taiwan is important is more because of their location. Japan and Korea contain the North China sea, the Ryukyu islands contain the East China Sea, and Indonesia and Malaysia contain the South China Sea and the Straight of Malacca. 
  All of them are US Allies. Right in the center of all of that is Taiwan; which protects the biggest water gap in the China Seas. This defensive perimeter effectively contains China militarily within its waters. Subs can’t pass though Non-international water into the Pacific with this perimeter.
  It becomes a significantly larger problem containing China without any of these key locations. With them, China could be effectively blockaded. Without Taiwan, it becomes virtually impossible. If China is able to escape this perimeter in any meaningful way, the risk is the capability of medium/short range missile strikes directly on US soil from submarines. >
  
  Island Chain Theory.
  Western doctrine has mostly abandoned the idea, but I believe it's still huge in Chinese strategic thinking. >
  
  It’s still the going theory it. Naval warfare has always been about access to land and denying your enemy. Missiles aircraft and CIWS/Iron Dome have only made this more true. >
  
  
  Naval warfare has always been about ...
  
  Yeah, and if we were at war or nearing a state of war with China, then setting up bases on those islands to help reinforce a naval blockade is absolutely something we might try to persuade those countries to let us do.
  But we're not at war, and we're certainly not trying to start one by doing anything as provocative as trying to impede China's access to the Pacific Ocean or (militarily) laying the groundwork to impede it in the future.   
  Which is why I said Island Chain Strategy isn't really something the west is pursuing, or even considering now that the Cold War is over, but the possibility is still quite dominant in Chinese thinking.
  Instead, we're just trying to cultivate influence in the region and building better and better navies, sonar nets, submarines, ASW, etc. so we can blockade China purely from sea-based assets if we have to. >
  
  
  Island Chain Strategy isn’t really something the West is pursuing 
  
  Not exactly. There’s a major forward sub base in Guam, and a major airbase on Okinawa (and a couple on the Japanese main islands + S. Korea).  These bases have the First Island Chain pretty well covered within their AOR, and more sub bases in Hawaii and the US West Coast can provide fairly rapid backup when needed, arriving in time to relieve the Guam-based assets after a tour in the area. Any of those subs can make port and receive supplies and service from existing naval supply depots in Okinawa, Sasebo, Yokosuka, Busan, Subic Bay, and Singapore, and probably a couple other locations I’m not thinking of, plus a dozen smaller ports where the US has standing agreements for port visits and purchase of supplies. 
  There are also air bases, Marines and Soldiers all over Japan and S. Korea as well as plenty of surface ships in Sasebo and Yokosuka.  Oh, and Australia isn’t too far away either, and easily covers the southern flank along Indonesia. 
  The US and it’s allies are certainly going to be very familiar with all the various routes through the islands, and can almost certainly provide choke point coverage within a few days if needed. There’s no need for a string of bases on the islands themselves. >
  
  The new US doctrine call for fire teams that can fire long range missiles then move. US and Japan are building high secured storage bunker  for these missles in these island. When war break out, fire team will be transport in, fire the missles then move to the next location. This make it difficult for China to take out US assets. >
  
  They give Washington way too much credit.
  See any congressional hearing on technology. >
  
  If anything, Washington deserves credit for Chinese success. They made a deal with megacorps to export our manufacturing industry and rot our country from the inside out. >
  
  But weren't we forced to make this deal? Asian markets started selling PCs in the US with much of the same functionality and yet thousands of dollars left. Companies had no choice but to use the same labour in Asian markets just to compete. >
  
  No, not forced.
  The other option was a trade war that added a tax on imports from any country that didn't meet specific standards on worker rights and pay.
  But that would hurt profits. >
  
  Yes this is how geopolitics works. You try to maintain advantages over your adversaries. China is bipolar af bouncing between saber rattling and accusing the US of being meanies 🥺 >
  
  This is also how nationalism works. You accuse other countries of being evil while pretending you are not doing anything wrong >
  
  Even better when you have an effective stick against domestic media. A language barrier against foreign media helps too. >
  
  The west should be thankful most chinese don't speak English. All the "fuck china" comments and inflammatory headlines over here will only make the chinese more nationalistic. >
  
  There are plenty of Chinese citizens that say fuck China. >
  
  People who can't separate a country's name and a country's government are either morons or being intentionally inflammatory. >
  
  But CCP is China. Saying CCP bad mean China bad. 
  U cant get out of this loophole. >
  
  Mentally dense teenagers are bad at realizing things. >
  
  And china doesn’t? >
  
  Not yet, but they want it.  The US has plenty of faults, but anyone who thinks that a China-dominated world would be better has to be nuts. >
  
  Disagree. I don't see a problem with a hyper nationalist authoritarian surveillance state being the world superpower. >
  
  The lack of a “/s” here actually makes it impossible to tell if you’re serious or not these days. >
  
  Lol, what I hear is:
  “China frustrated they cannot rip themselves off into technical advantage. Unable to comprehend why doing your own R&D would translate to a constant advantage in the field you research.” >
  
  I mean, if you didn't keep stealing IP's and didnt partake in unfair trading practices this wouldn't be a problem now would it?