[HN Gopher] Dutch Align with US Export Controls on Some ASML Chi...
___________________________________________________________________
Dutch Align with US Export Controls on Some ASML Chip Tools
Author : ksec
Score : 92 points
Date : 2025-01-16 19:07 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| sylware wrote:
| Until china is not able to produce state-of-the-art EUV
| photolitographers, they will be "grounded" to produce old silicon
| process chips.
| belter wrote:
| Or until the US invades Greenland, and will be barred by the EU
| of ever using ASML machines again ;-)
| aurareturn wrote:
| 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.
| danieldk wrote:
| 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.
| usrnm wrote:
| 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
| postepowanieadm wrote:
| Netherlands(ASML) or Denmark(Greenland/Ozempic)?
| peterpost2 wrote:
| I think he might be thinking about the following
| repulsive law:
|
| https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-
| Members%27_...
| belter wrote:
| Your forgot about the ASML Machines remote disable. The
| SEAL Team 6 better deploy already to a location around
| Amsterdam....
|
| "ASML can remotely disable chip machines if China invades
| Taiwan" - https://nltimes.nl/2024/05/21/asml-can-remotely-
| disable-chip...
| sylware wrote:
| I heard about total destruction, but not from ASML, from
| taiwan authorities.
| corimaith wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > _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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| > So you're intellectually dishonest then.
|
| Ok. Have a nice day then. :)
| dragonelite wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| If we're talking about the above hypothetical trade
| embargo, it wouldn't really matter. Ownership doesn't
| override trade restrictions.
| dragonelite wrote:
| 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.
| amelius wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| jecel wrote:
| https://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoimprint-lithography
| xbmcuser wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| if if if would would would.
|
| Dude, they found a way, until they did.
| Keyframe wrote:
| they'd still need know-how what to produce, and that seems to
| also be the hard part if not way harder.
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| USA the parent of the world, grounding unruly teenagers like
| the PRC.
| usrnm wrote:
| And what are ASML and the Netherlands in general getting out of
| it?
| tristanj wrote:
| 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.
| belter wrote:
| > The US government owns the intellectual property for ASML's
| EUV lithography.
|
| This is false.
| tristanj wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Those early patents have likely expired.
| count wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > _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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > The US government owns
|
| Curious how that happened.
| belter wrote:
| It's not true.
| alephnerd wrote:
| 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.
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| How did this happen? Why does the US gov own the IP of
| technology developed in the netherlands by a dutch company?
| jmisavage wrote:
| It's because the US National Laboratories developed all the
| initial technology to enable EUV. ASML just builds the
| machines.
| belter wrote:
| Why would state something that is not correct. Cymer is a
| fully owned company by ASML.
| ckastner wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > _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 wrote:
| "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/
| cowboy_henk wrote:
| This is really a major simplification and glosses over a
| lot. US National laboratories were involved but certainly
| didn't "develop all the initial technology". This page on
| the ASML website gives a good overview:
| https://www.asml.com/en/news/stories/2022/making-euv-lab-
| to-...
| akie wrote:
| That is such an oversimplification that it's honestly
| insulting.
| tristanj wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| My calendar says it is 2025. Shouldn't these patents have
| expired by now?
| ozim wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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).
| stevenwoo wrote:
| Other posters have given the answer but here is the answer
| in an informative podcast released just over a month ago
| with some details on the development process from some ASML
| PR folks in San Diego (they have offices in the USA).
|
| https://www.npr.org/2024/11/13/1212604208/asml-euv-
| extreme-u...
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| thanks, i appreciate the link and will give it a listen.
| frodo8sam wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| _> 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.
| frodo8sam wrote:
| 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.
| bmelton wrote:
| > 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.
| neximo64 wrote:
| 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.
| PeterStuer wrote:
| They don't get Nordstreamed.
| AndyMcConachie wrote:
| We already got Nordstreamed by Nordstream.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| vasco wrote:
| 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...
| rtlknb wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Everyone switches over to Moderna's offerings?
| int0x29 wrote:
| 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.
| belter wrote:
| 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,"
| 6510 wrote:
| 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.
| creato wrote:
| Don't like it? Don't license the critical tech for your
| company from the US DOE: https://www.eetimes.com/u-s-gives-
| ok-to-asml-on-euv-effort/
| AndyMcConachie wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| Harvard could be the safety school if the kid doesn't get
| into Delft or Eindhoven.
| skrebbel wrote:
| 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.
| lokar wrote:
| Then be prepared to spend 5%+ of gdp on defense, or become a
| Russian satellite.
| bigmattystyles wrote:
| Is that so bad if that's the cost of independence? Go after
| profiteers ruthlessly however.
| lokar wrote:
| I think it would be a better system (as an American)
| mschild wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Us and Israel show what the downstream effects on tech
| innovation are. It may not be a coincidence
| megous wrote:
| There's innovation without having to constantly kill and
| terrorize your neighbors and provoke wars to test your
| tech.
| trgn wrote:
| 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
| (?)
| danieldk wrote:
| 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...
| lokar wrote:
| 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.
| danieldk wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| danieldk wrote:
| _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 wrote:
| > 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.
| jnurmine wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| NATO is the EU with other hats plus US.
| mongol wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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
| lth20B wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > _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 wrote:
| 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.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| 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.
| NickC25 wrote:
| > _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.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| > or become a Russian satellite
|
| I'm sceptical Russia has this kind of power anymore, beyond
| being a proxy for China..
| yapyap wrote:
| 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.
| impossiblefork wrote:
| 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.
| FpUser wrote:
| FUD
| datadeft wrote:
| Not going to happen when the leaders of the EU are largely
| unelected career burocrats.
| duxup wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| throw-the-towel wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| The war is already here. We just have a choice: dissuade
| Putin by imposing costs or let him escalate his
| aggression.
| duxup wrote:
| >If you're assertive and the other party keeps pushing
| you, what is the outcome?
|
| Disagreement?
|
| People do that all the time.
| mola wrote:
| 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.
| barrenko wrote:
| Of course, as EU nations are barely assertive they make
| poor allies.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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?
| throw-the-towel wrote:
| Why don't you see it as giving a concession to your ally?
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| 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.
| harrall wrote:
| 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.
| openrisk wrote:
| Lots of trips to Silicon Valley to learn the "secrets" of being
| masters of the digital universe.
|
| Somehow it never leads to anything :-)
| itishappy wrote:
| They're allowed to export the wafer handling systems (roughly
| half of their big litho machine) currently manufactured in
| Wilton Connecticut.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| 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.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| 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!"
| datadeft wrote:
| We can carry the flag for the US in the war of trying to
| dominate the planet. I think it is a worthy goal.
| yapyap wrote:
| 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
| mg794613 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| impossiblefork wrote:
| 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.
| porridgeraisin wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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 wrote:
| Their intelligence agency might as well be a part of Five
| Eyes at this point.
| barrenko wrote:
| It's an incredibly short-sighted, and might I say, such a
| European question.
| CalRobert wrote:
| Well, they're a pretty big employer, and not in the Randstad.
| nradov wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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.
| dbspin wrote:
| 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?
| threeseed wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| What makes you think they need the latest technology to win a
| war? Technology may be an advantage but the wars are dicy.
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| threeseed wrote:
| 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.
| foooorsyth wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > _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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > _Argentina and the Falklands_
|
| This is the example Xi, and those around him, would be
| looking to.
| SllX wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > _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 wrote:
| 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.
| shrubble wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| mg794613 wrote:
| No, we don't "allign".
|
| We get pressured until we do what America wants us to do.
| fyrn_ wrote:
| 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.
| int0x29 wrote:
| They signed an agreement with the US government when they
| bought an export controlled light source.
| codeulike wrote:
| 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.
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| 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.
| sciencesama wrote:
| It's not complex just gigantic, repeated sections. Definitely
| not downplaying it but definitely euv is damn complex !!
| tonfa wrote:
| One differentiator is that it's factory produced (not just a
| one off)
| codeulike wrote:
| True, perhaps if we call EUV Lithography the most complicated
| fabricator machine that actually makes something. Whereas LHC
| is a scientific experiment.
| nradov wrote:
| It appears that ASML alone knows the correct rituals to keep
| the Machine Spirit cooperative.
| throwup238 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > it's a global collaboration
|
| Yep, even on the optics side (IIRC Zeiss, Nikon and Samsung
| are big players in the optical side...)
| milleramp wrote:
| I saw a working euv laser at TRW in the early 2000's.
| https://www.laserfocusworld.com/lasers-
| sources/article/16550...
| throwup238 wrote:
| EUV LLC is the joint venture between ASML, Intel, etc
| funded by the Department of Energy. That's the legal
| structure that they used to bring the entire deal together.
| TRW was a partner.
| motaforever2019 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| There were 9 manufacturers with access to the initial
| technology, but only one managed to productionize it iiuc.
| wenc wrote:
| 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).
| codeulike wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| For a long time the Netherlands were somewhat of a tax
| haven for companies relying heavily on R&D.
| ojl wrote:
| 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?
| trynumber9 wrote:
| 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.
| ghaff wrote:
| 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.
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| Someone want to remind me?, why can't China have these
| technologies again?
| int0x29 wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-20 23:01 UTC)