Dutch Align with US Export Controls on Some ASML Chip Tools

106 pointsposted a year ago
by ksec
(bloomberg.com)

256 Comments

codeulike

a year ago

ASML is so interesting. Its like sci-fi that one firm in the Netherlands knows how to make the most complicated machine ever made, and no one else can do it.

And it is arguably the most complicated machine ever made. 50,000 times a second, the EUV lithography machine hits a 25 micron drop of molten tin that is moving at 70 meters per second with two co-ordinated lasers, the first hit to change the shape of the drop of tin in exactly the right way, the second hit to vaporise it, creating Extreme Ultraviolet Light at the right wavelength to etch chip designs onto silicon at "5nm process" sizes. Some labs can cobble together something similar as a proof of concept, but not well enough to make it feasible for mass production of chips.

Video about the light souce - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ge2RcvDlgw

No one else in the world is able to make these machines. If you buy one it costs $150m and gets shipped to you in forty containers on specially adapted planes. Very few firms have the resources/know how to even run the machines - which is what makes TSMC so important.

throwup238

a year ago

EUV technology was developed in partnership with the US Department of Energy which is why the US can implement export controls (it was an explicit condition of original deal with the DoE). A significant part of the “secret sauce” is manufactured in San Diego.

It’s not really “one firm in the Netherlands”, it’s a global collaboration that goes back to the 1990s. Intel was involved from the beginning, they just dropped the ball.

to11mtm

a year ago

> it’s a global collaboration

Yep, even on the optics side (IIRC Zeiss, Nikon and Samsung are big players in the optical side...)

user

a year ago

[deleted]

danparsonson

a year ago

The rest of the machine is no less incredible - the EUV light is reflected off a series of mirrors (the largest weighing, IIRC, somewhere in the region of 300kg, and the largest that Zeiss have ever made) onto a mask of the target pattern, which is rapidly shuttling back and forth, onto another series of mirrors, and finally focused onto the wafer stage, which is also moving precisely in step with the mask, to expose the photoresist on a single die which is on the order of 10mm square.

And each wafer goes through multiple cycles of this, so not only does the machine rapidly create features at the nanonmetre scale with incredible accuracy, but again and again in exactly the same place after removing and returning the wafer.

Oh, and the wafer stage is pretty fun too; it uses an electrostatic chuck that induces a charge in the wafer and therefore holds it firmly in place without needing any kind of suction that could distort the wafer.

Promotional fly through video from ASML here: https://youtu.be/h_zgURwr6nA

Asianometry video about the stage: https://youtu.be/1fOA85xtYxs

Another short video about the light source: https://youtu.be/9VDJMivfhGU

ghaff

a year ago

They were a big customer of a former company I worked for. I had a session at our executive briefing center, and myself and everyone else was just floored and geeking out on their tech.

abdullahkhalids

a year ago

While EUV lithography machines are surely a contender, the most complicated machine every made is likely the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). A 27 km tunnel in which protons (with cross section about 10^-28 square meters) collide head on. Hard to imagine this amount of alignment is possible.

codeulike

a year ago

True, perhaps if we call EUV Lithography the most complicated fabricator machine that actually makes something. Whereas LHC is a scientific experiment.

tonfa

a year ago

One differentiator is that it's factory produced (not just a one off)

sciencesama

a year ago

It’s not complex just gigantic, repeated sections. Definitely not downplaying it but definitely euv is damn complex !!

bravo33

a year ago

It is nothing compared to the EUV machines and not as complicated either and with a utility value much less than even regular DUV machines.

nradov

a year ago

It appears that ASML alone knows the correct rituals to keep the Machine Spirit cooperative.

rajnathani

a year ago

> Very few firms have the resources/know how to even run the machines - which is what makes TSMC so important.

I dispute that this is simply what sets TSMC apart. The process of designing transistors and chip "IP" (the term used) such as 2.5D stacking technologies and the like (which is where coordination with EDA companies like Synopsys, Cadence, and etc. comes in) is just one thing. Then to prepare the photomask (I'm sure there are partners, but still), and operate the whole clean room facility around the input and output of wafers and other materials into these ASML/other fabrication machines is another thing.

wenc

a year ago

ASML seems to strike deep at personal identities: it's the only European player in space dominated by American and Asian companies.

Every time anyone mentions ASML, I see comments of adulation. It's a very human tendency to hero-worship, especially fanboys who only recognize the name but don't understand the history or the ecosystem.

It's useful to remember that ASML didn't outcompete rivals through brilliant innovation in a heated market race. Instead it won mostly by being the last one standing. All the other players dropped out. Nikon and Canon made strategic decisions not to pursue EUV because it was too risky and expensive. ASML, a small Phillips spinoff, couldn't do it alone either. It took two decades and billions of investments backed by Intel and TSMC to keep ASML going before the first breakthrough -- it was a lot of persistence and incrementalism. ASML was essentially a side bet/strategic hedge by Intel, TSMC and Samsung.

(all this is covered on Asianometry)

People associate ASML with the Netherlands, but it would not have been possible without the massive contributions of the Americans, the Taiwanese, the Germans, and the Japanese.

It's like Grigori Perelman and the Poincare conjecture -- he didn't accept the Fields Medal for it because he felt that he just happened to the last person to put the pieces together (he was building on work by Thurston, Hamilton, etc.).

We see ASML as this amazing Dutch company, but we forget all the other players were critical to making this singular company possible (only because it happened to be the only one standing, not because no one else is capable -- this is the great misconception).

ojl

a year ago

It seems for some reason that it’s only important to keep these things in mind and mention that it contains American tech, is an international effort, etc, when discussing some successful European company. But when discussing American companies there is never any talk about such things. Why can’t ASML be seen as an amazing Dutch company even if they also use tech from other countries?

phatfish

a year ago

The American companies that get talked about most here are mainly software companies. The "supply chain" for software is far less interesting and easily hidden away. Who cares about a litany of Indian outsourcing companies (apart from those who were outsourced i suppose)?

tmnvdb

a year ago

Their supply chains consists of Indian and Chinese Univerities.

wenc

a year ago

Because it's not the case.

ASML is truly an international integration company. This type of integration requires deep expertise and tacit knowledge. But they don't manufacture most of their critical components.

The way most narratives make it sound is that ASML is out of this world. No, it is not. It is unique because it is the only one standing in the market, after a 2 decade period of investment.

It has a compelling moat, but that moat is not entirely technical (though it is substantially technical -- there is a lot of tacit knowledge on integration at that level of precision). It's the supplier network lock in, and sunk cost lockin from chipmakers.

impossiblefork

a year ago

The system is Dutch. Any component of anything is always trivial.

If the Dutch want to design a new EUV light source, they can probably find someone to do it. If they want to find someone to grind mirrors to match those from Zeiss, maybe they can find someone who worked on the ESO or similar, and similarly with everything else. Think of it like how the F-35 is a Boeing project, even though many companies make components.

The integrator is the maker, not the component manufacturers.

I don't think the US could have made something like ASML. Baumol effect due to the successful firms, different attitudes, etc. There's after all a reason why the others dropped out.

tmnvdb

a year ago

My impression is one important strategic factor is that ASML was not build using venture capital -in which the US is dominant - but relied mostly on government subsidies. Once ASML was a strong player they got a lot of investment from American customers (intel et al) to invest, for example in UEV development. This is a funding approach that doesn't work well in most markets but seems to fit well with the deep speculative research typical of these kinds of systems. As some other users have noted, the US was the initial leader in UEV research (in the very early phases), but the technology was deemed too speculative to attract significant market funding.

impossiblefork

a year ago

Yes. Especially Germans can make these kinds of long-terms plans.

I saw one thing that made it obvious to me that they were only people who could possibly develop a certain technology which hasn't been commercialized. Basically, they were doing research on details that they from their analysis could determine were necessary, but which nobody else had even thought about yet. It took me half an hour of a guy who had done his PhD on it explaining until I understood why they needed it. I think his work was paid for by industry though.

tmnvdb

a year ago

ASML is not German, and I'm not sure I understand the rest of your comment.

tmnvdb

a year ago

You’re partly right, but I think you’re downplaying ASML’s achievements, especially when it comes to EUV. The ‘internationalization’ you mentioned was definitely one of the key reasons for their success. They were smart to position themselves as a global system integrator early on, stepping away from the vertical integration that their competitors mostly stuck with. (And let’s not forget, ASML was already a big player before EUV even became a thing.)

That said, this isn’t something unique to ASML. It’s just how global companies operate, especially in hardware. Take Tesla as an example—these companies are inherently multinational. They rely on acquired patents, parts and expertise from around the world, and hire international talent to stay competitive.

As someone else pointed out, it’s interesting how often this comes up in ASML discussions here, especially from American users. Maybe it’s because admitting reliance on another country—particularly those “arrogant Europeans” Americans often feel both superior and insecure about—kind of messes with the U.S. dominance narrative.

_fizz_buzz_

a year ago

> It's useful to remember that ASML didn't outcompete rivals through brilliant innovation in a heated market race. Instead it won mostly by being the last one standing.

They were the last one standing because of their brilliant innovation. It was order of magnitudes harder to get EUV from the lab to an actual working machine than anybody thought in the beginning. There is a reason others gave up.

codeulike

a year ago

Fair enough, I can see it was a team effort. But its still interesting that all that work has focused on one place without leaking and it now has global strategic importance.

And being the last one standing must mean something - good at negotiating with funders, tenacious, perceived as a good long term bet etc.

Tade0

a year ago

For a long time the Netherlands were somewhat of a tax haven for companies relying heavily on R&D.

trynumber9

a year ago

Cymer was the best purchase they ever made. But it also means they're totally beholden to US export controls. That light source is made in San Diego after all.

motaforever2019

a year ago

A part of reason No one else can make these machines is because US has tight control on who's allowed to even develop that tech.

tonfa

a year ago

There were 9 manufacturers with access to the initial technology, but only one managed to productionize it iiuc.

int0x29

a year ago

I regret to inform the various nationalists here this wasn't really developed by one group. ASML signed contracts for research and technology from multiple different countries. The Netherlands isn't being strong armed here. It is having to comply with a heavily negotiated contract that they signed decades ago when they aquired a US based firm using export controlled US DOE research.

usrnm

a year ago

And what are ASML and the Netherlands in general getting out of it?

skrebbel

a year ago

This is just a small country getting strong-armed by the US. You can be as pro NATO, pro US, pro "transatlantic relations" as you can and they'll still screw you over. Seriously I can't wait for the EU to get their shit together so we can stop being such pushovers.

JumpCrisscross

a year ago

> This is just a small country getting strong-armed by the US

No, it's not.

It's ASML looking out for its largest customer. It's Amsterdam looking out for its shipping lanes, as well as for its Nine Eyes partner. Washington absolutely strong arms Europe, but it's strategically aligned with the Netherlands.

Like, just think about the guy coming into the White House. What about him screams quiet, behind-the-scenes diplomatic win taker?

harrall

a year ago

The technology that makes ASML’s machines possible (EUV lasers) was researched by the US government with taxpayer money and ASML bought the San Diego-based US company that was producing the technology.

duxup

a year ago

I wish the EU / EU nations were more assertive on any number of topics.

More powers involved the better for me even as an American.

mola

a year ago

I think it would increase the chances for escalation and war. It's hard to be allies with knives on each other's necks. If the us wants peace and power it should embrace its allies like it did most of last century. If Europe becomes militaristic then it's culture will become militaristic, then will be constantly on the verge of war. It will escalate.

I don't think this is really good for the US or anybody else in the long term.

Europe should arm up, but US should cultivate a friendly relationship. If Europe would arm up and the US keeps pushing it'll either end up with escalation or US will have to start dismantling European cohesion, both out comes would be bloody.

Plus, If this tragedy happens, China would have an easier time dominating.

duxup

a year ago

I thing two parties can be assertive and allies.

Plenty of countries don't think the same things and are not at war, and they're not even allies...

mola

a year ago

If you're assertive and the other party keeps pushing you, what is the outcome? Trump has made it clear he will use US power to humiliate Europe while respecting their adversaries. If Europe becomes more assertive, a confrontation,probably a bloody one, will happen.

duxup

a year ago

>If you're assertive and the other party keeps pushing you, what is the outcome?

Disagreement?

People do that all the time.

mola

a year ago

And people who only honor power usually solve these disagreements using violence.

To avoid this outcome being common, we created a monopoly on violence inside states so disagreements have to be solved via courts and not violence.

We don't have this in geo politics.

user

a year ago

[deleted]

throw-the-towel

a year ago

This is exactly the Kremlin's rhetoric behind invading Ukraine. "Oh, the Evil West made us go to war!" As if you couldn't just, you know, not go to war.

mola

a year ago

Yes,but Putin can hardly be described as non confrontational. His whole image is based on power. European leaders and voters on the other hand are less so. (They're getting there though) What I'm saying is that if you'll have Europe embrace a more putinistic style AND try to dominate them, you'll get a war.

Russia is already in that position, so you are already dealing with an assertive opponent who only believe in power. And you got war.

So I'm not saying that Putin's rhetoric is correct. but it is a fact that it causes war. In Europe's case it's avoidable if you don't go that route.

wbl

a year ago

The war is already here. We just have a choice: dissuade Putin by imposing costs or let him escalate his aggression.

roenxi

a year ago

There are a lot of options. The most successful option I've ever seen was the international response to the US invasion of Iraq - a strongly worded letter and let them wreck themselves slowly with constant wars. The US is being forced into a more pacifist stance because they can't afford to finance their own aggression and this Chinese are reminding them that peace and prosperity are linked. The USSR already collapsed because Russia couldn't afford to control Eastern Europe so we already know that Russia can't handle that sort of expansion.

The sensible thing would be to pull NATO back to more reasonable boundaries and leave the Russians alone. Maybe ally with them to oppose the Chinese or support India against China. Point them East instead of forcing them to militarise to the West.

What actually happened only really makes sense in context of the famous and rather concerning Trump-Biden debate. If that is the quality of the US's diplomatic head then it is easy to explain why the US policy went so far astray.

nradov

a year ago

The West never forced Russia to do anything. When the USSR collapsed we offered Russia the opportunity to be allies and partners but instead they chose violence. So fuck 'em, now they'll get nothing.

The sensible thing would be to bleed Russia to death. Regardless of whether they manage to hold on to some part of Ukraine for a while, Russia's ability to threaten their other neighbors and project conventional power beyond their borders is being rapidly, irreversibly ground down. Their low birth rate, and declines in their educational system and industrial base, are going to take them off the board as significant players for decades. Most of their major infrastructure and industrial plant is either a remnant of Soviet times or was built largely by foreign experts who have now left for good; there just aren't many young Russians left who still know how to build anything.

Russia has nothing that we need. China can be contained without any help from Russia. China isn't self sufficient in energy or food, and are facing their own demographic time bomb. So it's enough to keep them bottled up behind the first island chain and prevent them from securing their sea lines of communication. Keep the pressure on and eventually they'll have another revolution or civil war; those have been a frequent occurrence throughout Chinese history. As for India, sure let's have good relations with them but they're going to pursue their own interests and have zero interest in being sucked into some kind of entangling alliance.

phatfish

a year ago

Russia has no interest in the far East, apart from the natural resources it is an empty wilderness. They want control of the populations of Eastern Europe again, hence the invasion of Ukraine.

Without NATO more countries than Ukraine and Georgia would be at risk of war with Russia.

mopsi

a year ago

> The sensible thing would be to pull NATO back to more reasonable boundaries and leave the Russians alone.

This does nothing to address the core issue of Russia viewing over 100 million Europeans across more than 10 countries as "lost colonies" that must be reconquered and subjugated under a Russian supremacist ideology.

It is us, not Russia, that must be left alone. In February 2022, European tanks did not roll into Russia; Russian tanks rolled into Europe.

wbl

a year ago

Russia signed no less than four agreements over 50 years reiterating that countries can join their own alliances. That's in addition to the commitments to territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Russia is not going to ally with the US against China even if we let them rape and murder Ukraine to their black hearts content. They want to dominate Europe and share the values of our authoritarian adversaries.

impossiblefork

a year ago

Constantly on the verge of war with whom?

There is no reason for EU-US war, as there is no possibility of gaining anything. Neither can invade the territory of the other.

Militarism and aggression from the EU would presumably be directed east.

barrenko

a year ago

Of course, as EU nations are barely assertive they make poor allies.

cscurmudgeon

a year ago

Wasn't ASML started based on research funded by the US?

> In 1997, ASML began studying a shift to using extreme ultraviolet and in 1999 joined a consortium, including Intel and two other U.S. chipmakers, in order to exploit fundamental research conducted by the US Department of Energy. Because the CRADA it operates under is funded by the US taxpayer, licensing must be approved by Congress. It collaborated with the Belgian IMEC and Sematech and turned to Carl Zeiss in Germany for its need of mirrors.[25]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASML_Holding

Before aiming to not be pushovers, EU should probably study the history of their own companies.

skrebbel

a year ago

> Wasn't ASML started based on research funded by the US?

No. ASML started as a spinoff of ASMI and Philips in 1984. It became hugely successful and effectively a global monopoly in chip production before any of its EUV products shipped.

Also, taxpayer money funds lots of research everywhere, and this is then used by companies to make money. Most of that research is public, done at universities. That the US chose to stick an "ours!!" label on some of it doesn't really make that research more special than other taxpayer funded research, in moral terms.

lokar

a year ago

Then be prepared to spend 5%+ of gdp on defense, or become a Russian satellite.

impossiblefork

a year ago

We're 3x as many as the Russians. There's no need for that, unless we need to have a war for some other reason.

5% is what Sweden needed in the 1980s to defend itself from the whole Soviet Union + Warsaw Pact, without the EU and without NATO.

mrcnkoba

a year ago

Never heard of the war between Sweden and Warsaw Pact in the 1980s. Maybe 5% is why it never happened.

mschild

a year ago

5%+ would likely put Europe ahead of the US in spending on military. Even 3%+ would be such a significant amount of noney that almost noone except the US could compete.

That said, its a price we should pay instead of relying on the US as a partner.

trgn

a year ago

Us and Israel show what the downstream effects on tech innovation are. It may not be a coincidence

megous

a year ago

There's innovation without having to constantly kill and terrorize your neighbors and provoke wars to test your tech.

trgn

a year ago

no I understand that part, it just seems that at least today, there is a relation between a dynamic tech industry and high military spending. There's some historical evidence too (gps, internet, ...). Europe has a really stagnant tech industry (comparatively speaking), and low military spending. anyway, maybe the relation is spurious, e.g. maybe china is a good counterexample here (?)

megous

a year ago

Europe is quite varied, you'd probably need to look at individual countries and do a more fine grained comparison between those, because they have their own differing policies on both military spending (some just buy gear from outside and may not innovate much) and support for innovation/industry or even educational systems (and where they stand on "sit and listen <-> here's a lot of tools and support and freedom/time to experiment" rigidity scale).

trgn

a year ago

Startup scene in Europe is where? Berlin, Amsterdam, London, where else?

megous

a year ago

I don't understand the relevance of the question. I thought the therad is about innovation, not "startups" (what's that? american style "supergrowth or you go to trash" VC funded companies?)

Chris2048

a year ago

> or become a Russian satellite

I'm sceptical Russia has this kind of power anymore, beyond being a proxy for China..

microtonal

a year ago

It's so sad that the relationship between allies has come to the point where NATO Article 5 has become a bargaining chip against privacy/market fairness laws (DSA/DMA). I think to a lot of Europeans it feels like Americans have unilaterally ended a friendship.

It's true that Europe and Canada need to invest more in defense, but the balance is currently 755 billion USD (US) vs. 430 billion USD (EU) [1]. So it's certainly not like the MAGA rhetoric pretends. The US has the benefit of being a large nuclear power, but for a long time the US preferred being the nuclear protector to avoid too much proliferation on the continent.

Another annoying part of the 'they gotta pay up' Trump/MAGA discourse is that it's starting to sound like a mob wanting protection money. This is not how the NATO agreement works. Countries have to spend 2% of their GDP on defense, but it's not a payment to the US. They could buy Saab Grippens if they wanted to.

[1] https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pd...

mongol

a year ago

If the US rhetoric continues it will not be long until you will see some currently non-nuclear EU countries start talking about contingency options. It will take a while, but it is good to remember that the reason there are so few nuclear weapons states is not because it is terribly hard, but because states have abstained for the global good and benefit of non-proliferation. This with the implied protection from states that have it.

If that no longer holds, then we enter a new era where non-proliferation will be history.

jnurmine

a year ago

I think already at this point, that there will be several more nuclear states in Europe (inside EU) in the not so distant future.

Many of the countries already have certified delivery platforms, or have ordered them.

Of course, we're treading in new waters and it's completely unknown if any existing contracts and treaties will be honoured anymore, but that concern will be secondary to this, I think.

I say it is a secondary concern because 1. basically any European nation can put together a delivery system, ballistic or cruising, should they have to; and 2. creating the weapon itself is not really that big of an undertaking for a modern high-technology nation state level actor.

mongol

a year ago

My bet is that we will see Poland to become the next nuclear weapons state. Possibly in collaboration with some neighbours around the Baltic Sea. Who knows, maybe Ukraine joins

bravo33

a year ago

The United States Intelligence Complex will never ever let that happen, instead we will give them an option to have our own nuclear warheads which can be equipped to a US operated aircraft on their soil just like it is in the Netherlands. The most important thing is the the Polish Government cannot independently target using a nuclear warhead the targeting and the decision to launch should always be made by the US(i.e. A US 4 star general just like how it is in NATO)

mongol

a year ago

How would they prevent it? Using military force? Because if it becomes an existential question, the drive to achieve it will be very high. Also, the intelligence complex has failed to stop countries like North Korea, so I don't think they are allmighty in choosing who can get it or not. The status quo is a consensus. We will see what happens when allies to the US sense the relationship has fundamentally changed.

lokar

a year ago

I certainly find the trump rhetoric distasteful and counterproductive. But I really think the EU would be better off with the ability to defend themselves. Depending on NATO article 5 always introduces a tempting ambiguity, which can lead to miscalculation.

microtonal

a year ago

I agree. Not only does it open the chance of miscalculation, but also makes Europe vulnerable to this kind of blackmailing.

It is still sad though. At any rate, it fits the pattern. During his first term he was also more interested in cozying up with autocrats.

openrisk

a year ago

For a long time Europe was happy having the cake and eating it. Pretending to be a united, peaceful, "soft superpower" and reaping the peace dividends of a US brokered world system. Yet everybody knows that almost all power rests with its varied nation governments, that they are all preoccupied with their own demons and internal inequalities and that they all see the EU as an alliance of convenience.

History called our bluff. Event after event, Financial crisis (remember that?), the Brexit implosion of the UK, the Syrian war / migration crisis, the Pandemic, the Russian invasion, the Trumpist implosion of the US, the Adtech invasion, the Energy transition disruption from China etc. An endless list of setbacks that is not going to end anytime soon.

The old continent is shaken to the very core but somehow we are still in the denial phase.

jnurmine

a year ago

Hardly having the cake and eating it. Ideas of a pan-European army were always shot down by either NATO or UK. I mean, it's hard to develop an own army if you are not allowed to by people who are part of the decision process.

wbl

a year ago

NATO is the EU with other hats plus US.

microtonal

a year ago

The old continent is shaken to the very core but somehow we are still in the denial phase.

I am not sure we are in denial. Have you seen defense spending since the invasion of Ukraine? Moscow failed blackmailing member states using gas. There was pretty good collective purchasing and distribution of COVID vaccinations, etc.

It's just a very slow process with 27 member states. But it seems that every crisis so far as accelerated European integration, which is a win.

openrisk

a year ago

> every crisis so far as accelerated European integration

There is indeed some evidence of this but this is not a cause to celebrate.

It is a reactive response and minimalist in scope. Once the crisis is somehow mitigated, everybody is back singing their old tunes. E.g., the various proclamations for banking and capital markets union are still in deep freeze, two decades after the financial crisis. The first response to the Covid and migrant crises was to close internal borders etc.

> It's just a very slow process with 27 member states.

Yes, and we should always celebrate and prioritise preserving that individuality - when it is not hindering the collective survival of our cultures and values.

The beauty of the European project is that it doesnt follow a known pattern. It must invent the needed mechanisms. At this juncture it feels there is a need for drastic such invention. To stop running after disasters and have some confidence in our future.

NickC25

a year ago

>it's starting to sound like a mob wanting protection money

Starting to sound like a mob? He's been at this for his whole adult life.

Spooky23

a year ago

The long Russian strategy has been to undermine the NATO via the US. The right wing nonsense in the US plays into that, by design, and is happening at the worst time for the US.

Reality is the value that the US brings is lower than it was. Ukraine has chewed up the old Soviet-era WW2 style tank divisions, but we’ve also seen that 4th generation fighters can’t survive in contested airspace and traditional Navy ships need to stay offshore (for now) to avoid being sunk by drone jetskis. Kinda a problem where we have limited inventory of 5th generation aircraft in either of our air forces.

The Navy sort of figured this out, but instead of building submarines built stealth ships with no weapons.

We need a reappraisal of US military force structure, based on the technology of 2026 vs 1986, as we’re on the path to end up like the Russians.

lth20B

a year ago

As an EU citizen, what bothers me most about this is that the EU is currently verbally attacked from both sides: Lavrov started in the Carlson interview with saying that relationships with Russia and the EU will be difficult but relations with the US are still possible. Mededev topped it off by saying that the EU cannot be forgiven but the US is still an important partner.

YouTube channels that follow the Russian narrative suddenly amplify this and pivoted from "the US is to blame" to "the EU is to blame".

The US narrative (at least online) seems to shift similarly: The US wasn't that important for the conflict, it is the Brits, the French and the Eastern European states who are the real hawks and who have to pay for the war.

Since the EU will be left out of talks between Trump and Putin, one wonders what the game is here and if secret agreements have already been made.

JumpCrisscross

a year ago

> Since the EU will be left out of talks between Trump and Putin, one wonders what the game is here and if secret agreements have already been made

This is defeatist. Europe isn't bound by talks it's left out of.

SllX

a year ago

The DMA really is despicable though. Finding existing monopoly language to be inadequate for their purposes, the EU invented entirely new language that’s theoretically neutral laws on neutral principles but was drafted with the intent of targeting specific foreign entities in a comprehensive manner (mostly American, but also TikTok which is a PRC corporation) threatening to levy fines of 20% of their global—not EU—global revenue.

With the full text of the law implemented, several of these companies came up with compliance plans that don’t run afoul of the letter of the law, but the EC has repeatedly and continued to say “not good enough”, effectively inserting itself in the design process of new products and services from these companies going forward.

I’m against using NATO Article 5 as a bargaining chip too, but seeing what popular support crappy extremely targeted and extremely bureaucratically-minded laws like this has, has me questioning how much the EU is really an ally these days. It’s a given that a lot of you feel this way about the election of Donald Trump (twice), so I get it, but it cuts both ways across the Atlantic right now.

bigmattystyles

a year ago

Is that so bad if that’s the cost of independence? Go after profiteers ruthlessly however.

lokar

a year ago

I think it would be a better system (as an American)

skrebbel

a year ago

Fwiw this is kinda what I meant with "for the EU to get their shit together"

yapyap

a year ago

be a US sattelite, be a Russian sattelite.

Honestly it feels like the US is also becoming a Russian sattelite with Trump & Elon having quiet gettogethers w Putin.

throw-the-towel

a year ago

Why don't you see it as giving a concession to your ally?

datadeft

a year ago

Not going to happen when the leaders of the EU are largely unelected career burocrats.

user

a year ago

[deleted]

MangoCoffee

a year ago

Maybe this is a wake up call for Europe to take its own defense seriously instead of relying on the US Both Bush and Obama have called for NATO members to increase their military budgets beside Trump. It took Russia invading Ukraine for NATO members to finally take this issue seriously.

The significant geopolitical shake-up of the past few years should serve as a clear warning to Europeans to prioritize their own defense instead of depending on the USA.

user

a year ago

[deleted]

frodo8sam

a year ago

The supply chain for these machines is heavily dependent on the US and the Netherlands is heavily dependent on US security guarantees, just like the rest of Europe.

michaelt

a year ago

> The supply chain for these machines is heavily dependent on the US

The supply chain for iPhones is heavily dependent on Chinese manufacturing.

We wouldn't normally expect Tim Cook to kowtow to the Chinese Communist Party, though.

bmelton

a year ago

> We wouldn't normally expect Tim Cook to kowtow to the Chinese Communist Party, though

Why wouldn't we? They already do, and quite a bit.

They store Chinese user data exclusively in China on Chinese servers run by Chinese companies despite the obvious implication that the state has eyes into that data.

They censor apps out of the app store that violate Chinese policies and comply with requests for censorship, automatically deleting VPNs that could be used to bypass the firewall or news apps that could access free information. They censor information on Tianenman Square protests, and Hong Kong democracy.

They have modified iCloud encryption and air-drop settings to allow China to bypass them and limit time durations to make them less effective as tools in protest organization.

They make investments into Chinese companies, they maintain quiet neutrality on sensitive subjects that would imperil their relations with the state, they adapt to their markets and acquiesce their territorially disputed maps to China's requests, etc.

frodo8sam

a year ago

I fully expect people like Tim Cook and Elon Musk to appease the Chinese government if it benefits their business and doesn’t make them appear cozy with the CCP to the U.S. public.

rkajg

a year ago

[flagged]

llamaimperative

a year ago

Europe has its own nuclear forces

Also LOL @ the US being the destabilizing force with Russia.

krisoft

a year ago

> Europe has its own nuclear forces

That is not really true. Some european countries have nuclear forces. France and the UK.

There are also countries who host American nuclear weapons, but they can't arm them without the authorisation of the US Department of Defense. (Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey)

Europe as an entity does not have its own nuclear force. (It is hard to even know what that would mean.)

l5870uoo9y

a year ago

As I understand the UK nuclear deterrence is highly dependable on the US, unlike the french.

switch007

a year ago

In what way?

dleink

a year ago

UK Trident missiles are leased from the US. Also, Much of the technology in the UK program is from the US, and the french tech was developed independently.

user

a year ago

[deleted]

tmnvdb

a year ago

Russia is in Europe and has a lot of nukes.

jimbohn

a year ago

Let me guess, russia is a misunderstood friend, right?

lokar

a year ago

Yes comrade, the Tsar is your friend!

FredPret

a year ago

France and the UK have nukes

https://www.icanw.org/nuclear_arsenals?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj...

rtlknb

a year ago

UK is not even in the EU any longer and France having nukes is not an "EU nuclear force".

orwin

a year ago

If France consider the EU being one of it's 'vital strategic interest', you can consider EU to have 289 nukes available. Not 290, because the first one will be used as a 'warning shot'.

tmnvdb

a year ago

This is classic dilemma in nuclear strategy: would France risk Paris to defend Warsow, or Berlin (by using nuclear weapons)?

A similar dilemma: will the US risk New York to save Paris?

France did not believe that the US would risk New York to save Paris.

So France developed it's own nuclear deterrent.

I leave the rest as an exercise to the reader.

orwin

a year ago

It seems pretty clear that yes. Probably won't do the warning shot until a EU city where a french embassy/school is present is bombed, but clearly yes.

Post-95 french doctrine refuse the use of nuke as a tactical weapon, so i guess supply lines or military airports would be the targets of subsequent nukes, but we have generals who grew with the idea of using tactical nukes, and i'm pretty sure the possibility is still studied at St-Cyr.

French will say "we won't bomb Russia, but do you think we can bomb your territory, close to the border, on this train station/close to this airport?" It will probably be refused, until its _really_ needed.

Russia (and US) doctrine of only using nuke if their territory is nuked does not work in an offensive war.

bcrosby95

a year ago

You're correct. They wouldn't. The US and France would not nuke Russia if it invaded Poland or Germany. But that isn't necessarily true if Russia invaded the US or France (and had a chance of winning).

piva00

a year ago

The UK is still in Europe, it has a lot of interest in keeping Europe as a whole safe and defended. France is tightly integrated and dependent on the EU, being a nuclear force makes the EU as a whole a nuclear force.

Unless you believe France and the UK would leave the rest of Europe hanging to dry in case of a nuclear exchange, if you think so I'd first question why.

tmnvdb

a year ago

It is generally believed by people who study nuclear strategy that this in fact does not work.

Imagine Russia invades Poland. Will the UK Nuke Moscow? Probably not - because Russia would surely retaliate, on the UK!

Imagine Russia nukes Paris. Does the UK Nuke Moscow? Probably not! For the same reason.

As always, yes minister got it all right: https://youtu.be/3OpsP-gz_00?si=_uKmwkZUbE_fTNCM

adgjlsfhk1

a year ago

The European nuclear arsenal isn't for countering Russian invasion, it's for MAD. If Russia tried to invade poland, they get kicked out by Nato conventional forces instantly (and probably take Kalliningrad while they're at it). If, OTOH, France's nukes are to prevent Russia from using nukes.

tmnvdb

a year ago

There is no European nuclear arsenal. There is a French nuclear arsenal. It functions to deter other countries from using nuclear weapons against France.

microtonal

a year ago

I have read some experts views a while back and as far as I understood it’s more complicated. Suppose that Russia launches nukes for The Netherlands or South-West Germany, it’s likely that the UK/France will retaliate ‘just in case’ because it’s not immediately clear if the nukes are not destined for the UK/France.

But yeah, Poland/East Germany is probably too far away and there will be debates about nuclear sharing.

belter

a year ago

Are you going to create a new account for every comment?

adgjlsfhk1

a year ago

Saudi Arabia has less of a history of invading European countries

rtlknb

a year ago

We were told in 2022 that the Russian army was incompetent, people had no gloves and were fighting with shovels. Probably not entirely without reason, because the Ukrainian counteroffensive in 2022 was relatively successful.

So the gas money definitely did not go to the army. Now, after the sanctions, on the other hand Russia keeps producing missiles and other things and trades with China.

By the way, Saudi Arabia does have a history of invading Yemen. Not an EU country, but a "military operation".

fsckboy

a year ago

the House of Saud conquered Arabia less than 100 years ago.

myrmidon

a year ago

What exactly is your point?

You are basically saying that despite pre-2022 Russian/European gas trade revenue initial Russian military performance was poor, but since Russian combat readiness improves now (with sanctions in place), the EU might as well have continued trading? Because that is just faulty reasoning; You would need actual data here to draw any conclusions about sanction effectiveness.

vasco

a year ago

Article from 2001: What ASML agreed to do to win U.S. approval of SVG merger

> VELDHOVEN, the Netherlands — To win U.S. clearance in the purchase of Silicon Valley Group Inc., officials at ASM Lithography Holding N.V. agreed to a number of restrictions and obligations aimed at protecting lens technology and maintaining operations in the United States. But the Dutch company's CEO today said many of those requirements are compatible with ASML's original goals in buying SVG.

> ASML today announced it had finally cleared U.S. review of its planned purchase of San Jose-based SVG about seven months after announcing plans to acquire the lithography supplier for $1.6 billion in stock. Completion of the merger had been stalled for several months because of concerns about U.S. national security and protection of defense-related technologies. The U.S. government agreement now clears the way for ASML to complete its takeover of SVG within the next few weeks, according to officials in Veldhoven (see today’s story).

> “Clearly any CEO would like a completely free hand, with no obligations,” said ASML chief executive officer Doug Dunn, during a conference call today following the announcement of the agreement. Dunn said a free hand was “never going to be the case with this particular merger/takeover. The U.S. government took a very strong interest in this because, in their opinion, it very clearly effected national security.”

> Topping the list of requirements in the agreement is a promise by ASML to make a “good faith effort” to sell SVG's Tinsley Laboratories subsidiary within six months of completing the acquisition of Silicon Valley Group. Tinsley's lens-polishing technology was one of the major concerns blocking ASML from finishing its purchase of SVG.

The article continues: https://www.eetimes.com/what-asml-agreed-to-do-to-win-u-s-ap...

belter

a year ago

From 1999 - https://www.eetimes.com/u-s-gives-ok-to-asml-on-euv-effort/

"U.S. Undersecretary of Energy Ernest Moniz said, “if the EUV technology proves viable, ASML has agreed to build a factory in the U.S., similar to its Netherlands facility, as well as to establish an American research and development center. The factory will supply 100 percent of all ASML's sales in the United States.”"

Minoz said ASML has “agreed to help facilitate periodic reviews among the Euclides EUV program members and U.S. manufacturers.” Euclides is a Europe-based research effort supported by the European Community and based primarily at ASML's R&D facilities in Eindhoven. “Collaborative participation on a pre-competitive basis among these leading lithography tool suppliers is the best approach for strengthening the overall technology and assuring its international acceptance,”

rtlknb

a year ago

I would like to see what happens if Germany imposes export controls on Pfizer 20 years from now because Biontech developed the mrna vaccine sold by Pfizer.

saturn8601

a year ago

Everyone switches over to Moderna's offerings?

int0x29

a year ago

There is a lot of US national lab research in MRNA vaccines to a point where it is questionable how much private companies can own them.

blackeyeblitzar

a year ago

Well for one, the EUV technology ASML is known for was licensed to ASML under terms dictated by the US, since it is literally a result of US government funded research.

porridgeraisin

a year ago

A lot of the IP in what ASML does is held by KLA, Intel, IBM, etc. So america has quite a lot of say in it.

jnurmine

a year ago

Yes, but their say will only work as long as both parties feel that the other party honors their contractual obligations.

Hearing the inaugural speech of President Trump, I feel that some treaties and contracts might soon be worth less than the paper they were written on, if breaking those somehow gives national benefits in the quest to "make America great again".

That is how Mr. Trump's speech came across to me anyway. Perhaps and hopefully that is untrue, I'm not a native speaker, so perhaps I lost some subtle nuances.

tristanj

a year ago

They don't have a choice. ASML licenses the intellectual property for EUV lithography from the US government. Therefore they follow US export control laws on EUV machines.

KeplerBoy

a year ago

How did this happen? Why does the US gov own the IP of technology developed in the netherlands by a dutch company?

tristanj

a year ago

Key EUV research was funded by the US government, and developed at Lawrence Livermore/Berkeley Labs & Sandia national labs. The IP is owned by the US government and they created a licensing vehicle, Silicon Valley Labs, to commercialize the technology. ASML acquired licenses to these IPs with its acquisition of Silicon Valley Labs in 2001.

jansan

a year ago

My calendar says it is 2025. Shouldn't these patents have expired by now?

ozim

a year ago

I think this IP ASML uses is more like Coca Cola or KFC recipe I did not see those going into public domain as those are trade secrets not patents.

tonfa

a year ago

Do you have source for this?

ASML acquired SVGI (Silicon Valley Group, doesn't seem to have been created as a licensing vehicle, apparently founded in 1977), but according to wikipedia it already had access to the technology (SVGI, Intel, and some other US chip manufacturers had access to the tech).

Nowhere in any of the press articles about the acquisition they mention EUV as being a factor (seems like standard industry consolidation instead). If anything they were really far from delivering EUV at the time (it took close to 20y).

jmisavage

a year ago

It’s because the US National Laboratories developed all the initial technology to enable EUV. ASML just builds the machines.

belter

a year ago

Why would state something that is not correct. Cymer is a fully owned company by ASML.

ckastner

a year ago

It seems that you are confusing ownership of the company with licensing of the IP it uses.

AMD produces their own x86 under IP licensed by Intel (and vice versa).

belter

a year ago

It seems you are confusing the details and conditions of a contract never disclosed publicly, of base research, where a EU based company spent 20 years and billions of EU funds to create a workable product.

In any case if the US adrenaline fueled diplomacy, starts violating hundreds of years old borders of it's allies, respect for ambiguous IP Laws, will be pretty low in the list of priorities. :-)

ckastner

a year ago

> It seems you are confusing the details and conditions of a contract never disclosed publicly

The details have never been disclosed but it is well known that this agreement fell within the domain of national security and export controls.

Here's a press release [1] directly from ASML that references these export controls. Even though this PR actually relaxing DUV controls with respect to the U.S., it reaffirms that "EUV systems are also subject to license requirements."

[1]: https://www.asml.com/en/news/press-releases/2024/dutch-gover...

belter

a year ago

"To access EUV technology, Intel in 1997 formed the EUV LLC, which entered into a cooperative R&D agreement (CRADA) with DOE. As part of this agreement, Intel and its partners would pay $250 million over three years to cover the direct salary costs of government researchers at the national labs and acquire equipment and materials for the labs, as well as cover the costs of its own researchers dedicated to the project. In return, the consortium would have exclusive rights to the technology in the EUV lithography field of use. At the time, it was the largest CRADA ever undertaken."

In return, the consortium would have exclusive rights to the technology in the EUV lithography field of use

https://issues.org/van_atta/

akie

a year ago

That is such an oversimplification that it's honestly insulting.

jmisavage

a year ago

Then go read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_ultraviolet_lithograph...

Researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories were funded in the 1990s to perform basic research into the technical obstacles. The results of this successful effort were disseminated via a public/private partnership Cooperative R&D Agreement (CRADA) with the invention and rights wholly owned by the US government, but licensed and distributed under approval by DOE and Congress.

belter

a year ago

> The US government owns the intellectual property for ASML's EUV lithography.

This is false.

tristanj

a year ago

From the wikipedia page on EUV: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_ultraviolet_lithogra...

> To address the challenge of EUV lithography, researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories were funded in the 1990s to perform basic research into the technical obstacles. The results of this successful effort were disseminated via a public/private partnership Cooperative R&D Agreement (CRADA) with the invention and rights wholly owned by the US government, but licensed and distributed under approval by DOE and Congress.[3] The CRADA consisted of a consortium of private companies and the Labs, manifested as an entity called the Extreme Ultraviolet Limited Liability Company (EUV LLC).[4]

> In 2001 SVG was acquired by ASML, leaving ASML as the sole benefactor of the critical technology.

Unless the situation has changed, the IP is still owned by the US government, and is licensed to ASML through their acquisition of Silicon Valley Group.

dkjaudyeqooe

a year ago

Those early patents have likely expired.

count

a year ago

The ITAR licensing around their export from the United States and the conditions under which they may be (including flowing down the restrictions clauses) don't expire, generally.

belter

a year ago

From your own reference ( note this had 18 years of R&D by ASML ):

"By 2018, ASML succeeded in deploying the intellectual property from the EUV-LLC after several decades of developmental research, with incorporation of European-funded EUCLIDES (Extreme UV Concept Lithography Development System) and long-standing partner German optics manufacturer ZEISS and synchrotron light source supplier Oxford Instruments..."

ckastner

a year ago

> By 2018, ASML succeeded in deploying the intellectual property from the EUV-LLC

That explicitly says that the IP is with EUV-LLC (edit: which is of U.S. origin).

belter

a year ago

In 1998, ASML formed a European industrial R&D consortium dubbed ‘EUCLIDES’ (Extreme UV Concept Lithography Development System) with ZEISS and Oxford Instruments. Then EUCLIDES joined forces with the American EUV LLC in 1999...

"The CRADA consisted of a consortium of private companies and the Labs, manifested as an entity called the Extreme Ultraviolet Limited Liability Company (EUV LLC)."

ckastner

a year ago

You keep pointing out European involvement as if that somehow displaced American involvement (and thus continued U.S. control, the subject of this thread).

Again, your first quote explicitly states that EUV-LLC was American. The second quote refers to the "Labs", which in this case were the Lawrence Livermore, Sandia, and Berkeley National Laboratories.

Apple may have developed the M4 from the ground up but they still licensed the ISA from ARM.

belter

a year ago

The EUV-LLC was 100% financed by the private companies in the consortium, ASML being one.

"To access EUV technology, Intel in 1997 formed the EUV LLC, which entered into a cooperative R&D agreement (CRADA) with DOE. As part of this agreement, Intel and its partners would pay $250 million over three years to cover the direct salary costs of government researchers at the national labs and acquire equipment and materials for the labs, as well as cover the costs of its own researchers dedicated to the project. In return, the consortium would have exclusive rights to the technology in the EUV lithography field of use. At the time, it was the largest CRADA ever undertaken."

In return, the consortium would have exclusive rights to the technology in the EUV lithography field of use

https://issues.org/van_atta/

amelius

a year ago

> The US government owns

Curious how that happened.

belter

a year ago

It's not true.

alephnerd

a year ago

It is in the sense that the LLNL owns the EUV IP that ASML implemented, and ASML is using this IP after inheriting it from AMD+Motorola who sold off their stake in EUV LLC.

All NatLab-Private partnerships have this kind of a rider.

ASML is already starting another partnership with LLNL on next-gen EUV.

itishappy

a year ago

They're allowed to export the wafer handling systems (roughly half of their big litho machine) currently manufactured in Wilton Connecticut.

dkjaudyeqooe

a year ago

They get to avoid sanctions and other consequences. It's not meant to be equitable.

But there are still benefits to NL since China is their adversary too.

tmnvdb

a year ago

I don't think those conversations get that far. The Netherlands is one of the most "transatlantic" countries in Europe and values the US/NATO relationship highly. In that sense not much different from Taiwan.

JumpCrisscross

a year ago

> what are ASML and the Netherlands in general getting out of it?

Wow, the conspiracy theories in this thread are nuts.

The Netherlands is a port economy and agricultural exporter. The U.S. Navy protects the sea lanes it relies on. The Netherlands have been a reliable and natural American ally because our interests align--particularly when it comes to a war as potentially devastating to international trade as a Pacific conflict.

(Zooming in to ASML, their largest customer is TSMC.)

selimthegrim

a year ago

Their intelligence agency might as well be a part of Five Eyes at this point.

barrenko

a year ago

It's an incredibly short-sighted, and might I say, such a European question.

mitthrowaway2

a year ago

I wonder to what extent ASML management looks at Kawasaki Heavy Industries' contracts to build high speed rail in China and says, "that's the outcome we want!"

yapyap

a year ago

I feel like it’s one of those things where not complying and finding out is not a good option, especially with the disregard and disrespect the US has shown towards the ICC I don’t think doing petty things that inconvenience the Dutch economy would be unthinkable, with the new president I think saying the quiet part out loud, - hell, screaming the quiet part as loud as you can - might be the new norm

impossiblefork

a year ago

I don't think that's true.

There's a reason the law you're talking about only authorizes the president to do it. The lawmakers know that what they by passing the law are threatening is crazy, so they put it in the hands of the president, who they understand will never use it. They make sure there's a strong gate separating them and the other dog, then they bark. They know that actually trying to extract people from the Hague would look something like the Battle of Hostomel on steroids and would permanently and irrevocably damage relations and they would do nothing of the sort.

mg794613

a year ago

This has been going on long before Trump even thought about going into politics.

There is a reason the US does not recognize the ICC. And we also know they have the plans ready to free any soldier from the Netherlands _if_ we were to arrest a American soldier.

And the US _will_ execute that plan. And the Netherlands _will_ sit back and let it happen.

See, the world is a big schoolyard, and America is tired of shaking people down for protection money and threatens us "to start protecting ourselves".

I don't like Trump, but I can't deny he accelerates events that should have started a while back. Very good for our future, not so much for the US. But that's what they voted for.

cscurmudgeon

a year ago

> shaking people down for protection money

This is false though. No one pays US money for defense. The 2% spending is on their own industry. The analogy breaks down.

If anything, the US pays to support other countries/allies.

bravo33

a year ago

they kind of do though since that money goes into the NATO money pool and purchases weapons with US of A specifications .... ahem I meant NATO Specifications.

nradov

a year ago

The Netherlands gets to continue purchasing F-35A fighters and participating in the NATO nuclear sharing arrangement. This is the ultimate guarantee of sovereignty which trumps any mere commercial concerns. Quid pro quo.

tonfa

a year ago

> The Netherlands gets to continue purchasing F-35A fighters

Is that a benefit? I got the impression some countries are rather pressured by the US to spend their money on US military equipment (instead of alternatives) rather than the reverse.

nradov

a year ago

Which alternatives specifically? The F-35 is the only 5th-generation multirole fighter available for purchase today. The Netherlands could probably negotiate a purchase of obsolete European fighters such as the Saab Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon, or Dassault Rafale. Those are adequate for the air sovereignty mission but not much else. They aren't significantly cheaper, are way behind in most capabilities, and aren't survivable against a modern air defense system. There are European consortiums working on 6th-generation fighters but at this point those are paper airplanes and it will be decades before they reach volume production (if ever).

Most importantly, the F-35A is the only available platform certified for nuclear weapons delivery so as long as the Netherlands wants to continue participating in the NATO nuclear sharing arrangement there is no alternative. Germany looked into getting the Typhoon certified for the nuclear strike mission but gave up due to high costs and purchased the F-35A instead.

CalRobert

a year ago

Well, they're a pretty big employer, and not in the Randstad.

AndyMcConachie

a year ago

Maybe the kid of some ASML exec gets to go to Harvard?

Who knows. In the last batch of negotiations they never made the deal public. These deals get made by elites and the public never learns the details.

skrebbel

a year ago

> Maybe the kid of some ASML exec gets to go to Harvard?

FWIW this is not a very common ambition people have here in NL. Besides the implied blatant corruption, which I don't think is the case here, I strongly doubt you can bribe any Dutch executive with something as uncool as a bought Harvard admission.

egl2020

a year ago

Harvard could be the safety school if the kid doesn't get into Delft or Eindhoven.

skrebbel

a year ago

I laughed out loud, thanks for making my day

neximo64

a year ago

Curious who you think uses these devices and who designs and distributes the chips.

Without the American companies not sure the benefits would be the same to the Netherlands or to ASML.

openrisk

a year ago

Lots of trips to Silicon Valley to learn the "secrets" of being masters of the digital universe.

Somehow it never leads to anything :-)

datadeft

a year ago

We can carry the flag for the US in the war of trying to dominate the planet. I think it is a worthy goal.

6510

a year ago

ASML gets to see the Chinese government sink the big money into rendering them obsolete, they get to see their stock implode and to shut down RND. But the Netherlands will get to see ASML pack their bags and leave. This of course besides further unpredictable retaliation from China.

We also love it when our government takes marching orders from the US.

sylware

a year ago

Until china is not able to produce state-of-the-art EUV photolitographers, they will be "grounded" to produce old silicon process chips.

belter

a year ago

Or until the US invades Greenland, and will be barred by the EU of ever using ASML machines again ;-)

usrnm

a year ago

The US already threatened to invade the Netherlands not so long ago, worked like a charm. I'm pretty sure your scenario would be resolved just as easily

corimaith

a year ago

The US isn't even willing to send troops to deal with the Houthis and now you're treating an invasion of the Netherlands as credible? Maybe you should cool it with the propaganda here.

krisoft

a year ago

> and now you're treating an invasion of the Netherlands as credible?

It is as credible as it gets. The explicit threat is in the American Service-Members' Protection Act and it was signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 2, 2002.

Which part of this do you feel is propaganda?

corimaith

a year ago

>It is as credible as it gets.

It's as uncredible as it gets the moment you spend more than 1 minute thinking about it. Let's play this logically through.

In order to coerce the Netherlands to align with ASML Export Controls (With the assumption they do not already align with such policy), the US (Who exactly in the US, the famously No-New-Wars Donald Trump, or an isolationist Congress) is going to the invoke the Hague Invasion Act, to "free" nonexistent American officials that are held up by nonexistent criminal convictions by the Hague? And this will somehow coerce the Netherlands despite being completely unrelated to ASML which is located 137 KM away in Veldhoven?

Even the gritty details, how exactly is this "invasion" of yours going to work? You are going to send a battallion of Marines to attack the Hague, or are you going to Veldhoven 137 KM away to occupy ASML Factories or capture the ASML CEO? Which of the two? All the while provoking a kinetic war with a technologically-peer nation? Even if you do manage to do it, what then? Your supply lines are completely cut, enemy troops are moving in with greater firepower and numbers. Or are you assuming some kind of national invasion where the US Military is going to direct a CSG to attack the Dutch then some sort of occupation, likely within wider war against Europe which likely lead to quagmire of massive American casualties, all for the sake of "coercing" ASML not to export to China? And American people, US Congress, political rivals and the Democrats will just stand by instead of likely removing the incumbent?

The nonalignment is dubious. The motivation within individuals is non-credible. The mechanism does not exist. The invasion is highly improbable and self-defeating. The very fact that you label this as "as credible as it gets" should tell anyone that you and OP are either extremely uninformed, or being intellectually dishonest with an agenda to divide.

krisoft

a year ago

> Let's play this logically through.

Okay. Let's.

> In order to coerce the Netherlands to align with ASML Export Controls

Oops. You went down the wrong route. The credible threat I'm talking about is over the International Criminal Court potentially prosecuting American service members.

That is as credible as it gets. Elected politicians got together, and signed their promise of it happening into literal law. There is no more credible way for America to signal that they are going to do something besides actually doing it.

Please re-read my comment more carefully. I'm not talking about the ASML or export controls.

> The very fact that you label this as "as credible as it gets" should tell anyone that you and OP are either extremely uninformed, or being intellectually dishonest with an agenda to divide.

You sling a lot of accusations. Try to not guess what I might think. Read my actual words. Thanks.

America did in fact threaten the Netherland with invasion. Credibly. This is a fact. I precisely named my source in my previous comment.

No. They did not do this in context of ASML, nor did I say that they did that.

JumpCrisscross

a year ago

> The credible threat I'm talking about is over the International Criminal Court potentially prosecuting American service members

The ICC doesn't execute its arrest warrants. Even if it were stupid enough to issue one for an American's arrest, there would be plenty of time for de-escalation between its issuance and execution.

krisoft

a year ago

I agree with that. Does not make the threat less credible, in my opinion.

In fact the credibility of the threat is what makes the de-escalation so much more likely.

forty

a year ago

Sorry, but I think it's bullshit. I understand why they would write some paper with threats to put some pressure on Netherlands, but actually acting on it is completely ridiculous if you do a very simple pros and cons balance.

corimaith

a year ago

>Please re-read my comment more carefully. I'm not talking about the ASML or export controls.

So you're intellectually dishonest then. You reply to my comment criticising the framing of an US invasion in the context of ASML export controls, disputing such framing as propaganda and then now you say it's not at all about ASML exports in a thread about ASML exports and instead some pendantic nitpick about the Hague Act?

> The credible threat I'm talking about is over the International Criminal Court potentially prosecuting American service

Declaring war on America and then firing missiles at their cities is also a way for an credible invasion of any country by America to occur. Does that mean then that the invasion of X country by America is a "credible threat" then?

Either you using your own made up definition that is so generalized that it is a pointless statement, or No. Because such a scenario relies upon a series of prior actions (and even the mechanics of the invasion itself) that would be considered highly improbable, which is what makes it non-credible. You'd have to explain how such a realistic chain of events could occur given contemporary context.

krisoft

a year ago

> So you're intellectually dishonest then.

Ok. Have a nice day then. :)

aurareturn

a year ago

Pretty sure the reason ASML has to comply is because they rely on American suppliers. Without those American suppliers, they wouldn't be able to build their machines.

microtonal

a year ago

Or, I don't know? The Netherlands considers the US an ally and if the US asks it, we (sometimes begrudgingly) do it?

Which circles back to the current problem in the White House. Allies don't work on transactionalism and threats. They work using a lot of silent diplomacy and the understanding that you sometimes sacrifice a bit for an ally.

Everybody gets some wins.

aurareturn

a year ago

It’s all about leverage. What leverage does the US have on ASML?

dragonelite

a year ago

The lithographic light source is US ip being created on US shores. If they do that it will be the last EUV machine ASML will make in the EU.

Hell i would bet ASML will move to US than stay in EU, if the US says move to the US and we will allow you to do business with China again.

Also it looks like China has multiple EUV tracks on going from SSMB to that tin based EUV that ASML works with.

belter

a year ago

The lithographic light source used in ASML EUV lithography systems is based on intellectual property developed by Cymer, a company that....drum roll...ASML acquired in 2013.

kube-system

a year ago

If we're talking about the above hypothetical trade embargo, it wouldn't really matter. Ownership doesn't override trade restrictions.

dragonelite

a year ago

You think Cymer will stay ASML property when the US can just do a National security ruling...

Queue in the "First time" meme with China and Netherlands.

impossiblefork

a year ago

It's not like AMSL couldn't build other light sources. There's a lot of particle accelerator research in Europe, for example.

But presumably there is a partnership, so that the Netherlands accomodates the US and the US accommodates the Netherlands, so that nobody is unhappy, with this working well enough that no one has felt the need to do switch.

amelius

a year ago

Is EUV the only way? Isn't there a much slower technique with laser engraving, but which they may scale in some other way?

https://www.asianometry.com/p/euv-lithography-but-with-a-fre...

nomercy400

a year ago

EUV is all about the laser. To create the small transistors of 4nm for example, either lithography or some other laser tech, you need to be able to shine a pure light on them of small enough wavelength. EUV is the smallest we can create thus far.

CamperBob2

a year ago

I suppose that the real issue is that EUV is the smallest we can focus thus far. Otherwise we'd be using harder X-rays from things like synchrotron light sources, no?

andyferris

a year ago

You want to impact the surface, not deep into the material like X-rays would penetrate, so you can't actually go too low in wavelength either.

sylware

a year ago

Isn't that a significant research field? New semi-conducting crystals and materials which would be friendly to x-rays?

xbmcuser

a year ago

It would be really interesting if in order to compete and not being able to get anywhere with photolithography if they come up with some other material to make processors or something else. Silicon is the thing that has been worked on and billions have been spent on it over decades. Now with chinese government as well private companies spending billions on a break through we might get something out of left field where private companies would not have been willing to invest in. As they say competition/war speeds up innovation.

sylware

a year ago

if if if would would would.

Dude, they found a way, until they did.

Synaesthesia

a year ago

USA the parent of the world, grounding unruly teenagers like the PRC.

Keyframe

a year ago

they'd still need know-how what to produce, and that seems to also be the hard part if not way harder.

mg794613

a year ago

No, we don't "allign".

We get pressured until we do what America wants us to do.

int0x29

a year ago

They signed an agreement with the US government when they bought an export controlled light source.

fyrn_

a year ago

To be fair America funded a lot of the research. You could argue they should't have taken so much US investment though. It's like when founders give to much control of their company away for the sweet VC cash, nothing is free.

TheRealPomax

a year ago

No, despite what you might personally feel, ASML and the Dutch government really do align with the US when it comes to the matter of "making sure ASML can keep existing".

dbspin

a year ago

These export controls seem particularly misguided in light of the role Taiwan's TSMC play in chip design and manufacture. Long term, clearly China is capable of catching up with ASML's tooling - it's an economic necessity that they do so, even if (big assumption) they'll always be X years behind the current process node. Espionage and desperation are a powerful combination. Short term, doesn't this make Taiwan an even more glittering jewel to the CCP?

shrubble

a year ago

The USSR was consistently 10-15 years behind in semiconductor fabrication ability and this did matter. China is closer, but still…

BTW the ASML technology is based in part on research that was funded by the USA; which is why the USA has a say in who gets it.

nradov

a year ago

Taiwan is a jewel that could quickly shatter into dust. There are persistent rumors that the ASML tooling (and other key fab machinery) is rigged for sabotage. If China were to mount a serious invasion attempt then Taiwanese security forces or TSMC employees would wreck the machinery beyond repair. This implicit threat acts as a deterrent against invasion.

Even if China could capture the ASML tooling intact it would only be useful for some reverse engineering. Actual production requires both skilled local employees and ongoing support from headquarters back in the Netherlands.

eumenides1

a year ago

To further add to the parent, think about how stupid it is to turn off an money printing machine. China did exactly when it mismanaged Hong Kong. Hong Kong USED to be financial titan.

First, Taiwan sees HK and knows what's up. You don't sleep next to an elephant all your life and not know when they will roll over.

Second, even if Taiwan didn't rig for sabotage AND (big AND) just straight up surrendered (it won't); People will slowly leave, turn over will happen, machines will age out, the right investments will not be made, etc. Taiwan may not shatter (immediately), but it will rust and dull. Look at HK and I believe that is the BEST case scenario for the China.

For Taiwan, semi-conductors represent a poison pill/porcupine defense. But that is all that is, defense/poison. It won't stop China if the leaders decide that it would just eat the consequences. I hope Taiwan can find a creative solution to their woes.

For China, they have to realize they are on a timer. They can't keep "turning off money machines", or "crushing jewels". At some point they are going to run out of "resources" to extract and I hope they figure out how to work with countries in their region instead of antagonizing them. Why? because 1+ billion people will suffer if they don't figure it out.

1oooqooq

a year ago

sounds great for china. pretend invasion, suffer no consequence because never actually invaded, but still destroy the enemy silicon fab advantages.

nradov

a year ago

Which is why the USA essentially forced TSMC to build a fab here. That reduces China's potential leverage and provides some geographic redundancy. Even if China never invades, TSMC production in Taiwan could be crippled by a natural disaster or labor action or local political crisis or something.

https://www.tsmc.com/static/abouttsmcaz/index.htm

1oooqooq

a year ago

that will be slightly relevant when they move all their engineers here

foooorsyth

a year ago

So because China will steal it eventually, we should just give it away now? That’s your argument?

>clearly China is capable of catching up with ASML’s tooling

The only thing clear to me is precisely the opposite. Nobody has been able to catch up with ASML, including China. If China is capable of catching up on their own (without espionage), why would Taiwan even matter? Why would export controls on ASML tooling even matter?

They matter because ASML and TSMC are companies built on secret know-how that others can’t replicate. Do we really need to explain on HN that companies are built on secrets?

SllX

a year ago

> why would Taiwan even matter?

The CCP has fully subscribed to irredentism and it has popular support in the mainland. Taiwan will never not matter.

But otherwise I agree with the rest of your argument.

JumpCrisscross

a year ago

> CCP has fully subscribed to irredentism and it has popular support in the mainland

Plenty of countries, particularly those in an economic slump, have popular support for stupid wars. That changes quickly when the war is started and the costs come home.

SllX

a year ago

This doesn’t stop them from starting stupid wars for stupid reasons. Losing a war is not even a guarantee that they will waive their future territorial ambitions or concessions just as two examples: Spain and Gibraltar or Argentina and the Falklands.

JumpCrisscross

a year ago

> Argentina and the Falklands

This is the example Xi, and those around him, would be looking to.

SllX

a year ago

Yeah. Irredentism is a fundamentally emotional ideology borne from nationalism. It doesn’t have to make sense, it just has to be a rallying cry.

JumpCrisscross

a year ago

> It doesn’t have to make sense, it just has to be a rallying cry.

Correct. It's for domestic consumption. By the time leadership is weak enough to be compelled into playing it out, chances are it won't make military sense.

SllX

a year ago

The hope is that it not making military sense prevents military action. We don’t have any such promise from reality, or much historic precedent to depend on, and in the case of the PRC and Taiwan, it is CCP leadership which is angling for a takeover of the independent nation of Taiwan and the eradication of the Republic of China.

threeseed

a year ago

> they'll always be X years behind the current process node

Which will render the country a technological back-water and affect their ability to build the advanced systems needed to compete in a war for Taiwan.

And given that China would be fighting against a war against West + Japan + South Korea with support from at least a few ASEAN countries they would need to be at the top of their game to have a chance of taking Taiwan.

thefounder

a year ago

What makes you think they need the latest technology to win a war? Technology may be an advantage but the wars are dicy.

0cf8612b2e1e

a year ago

What fraction of servers are even running the latest and greatest? Datacenters are not scrapping their entire fleet the day TSMC releases a new node.

threeseed

a year ago

We aren't talking about China being behind on one node.

It's a ban on anything less than 7nm. So every year the discrepancy accumulates.

user

a year ago

[deleted]

threeseed

a year ago

What we've seen in Ukraine is the trend towards autonomous aerial/naval drones.

And having compute superiority can make a big difference if it ends up being a war largely conducted by competing AIs.

user

a year ago

[deleted]

user

a year ago

[deleted]

Synaesthesia

a year ago

Someone want to remind me?, why can't China have these technologies again?

eumenides1

a year ago

China has a history of stealing technologies if it can. Fine, but don't expect the world to LET china steal these technologies.

And if China doesn't like it, it can reinvent the wheel. Here is the fun part. I think China can absolutely do so in a technical sense. But I know the people absolutely won't do it, because they don't want it/aren't incentivized to do it.