Back & Forth: Intel and the Semiconductor Industry

Sujai Shivakumar, Charles Wessner, and Christina Alfonso

Source Link

Recent trends, driven by major industrial policies of other countries, have eroded U.S. leadership in advanced semiconductor manufacturing. The United States has also seen an erosion of onshore chipmaking, which now accounts for only about 10 percent of global capacity. Meanwhile, China—the United States’ most formidable strategic competitor—is making rapid strides in semiconductor manufacturing, particularly in defense-related sectors, fueled by massive public subsidies.

In this context, the United States needs to build on its assets to secure the future of this strategically valuable industry. While we rightly celebrate U.S. leadership in designing chips, we must also recognize the significant value to the nation embedded in Intel Corporation’s deep network of knowledge, resources, and relationships that underpin its ability to produce extremely complex and sensitive technologies that are key to many aspects of the U.S. economy and, not least, national defense. This complex network with a capable U.S. firm at its core took many years to grow and is of major strategic value. Especially given its scale, Intel plays a key role in sustaining the industrial commons that anchor the activities of other semiconductor companies in the United States. Notwithstanding its current challenges, Intel cannot be left unsupported—particularly in today’s fraught geopolitical landscape—as a much-diminished Intel would have major negative consequences for U.S. economic and national security.

AI Alone Won’t Save the Planet

YANA GEVORGYAN

Source Link

This year’s annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, where participants will address the theme of “Collaboration for the Intelligent Age,” comes at a critical juncture for the planet. Ecosystems are straining under the pressure of climate change, and the interconnected cycles that maintain freshwater availability, soil moisture, ocean health, and plant growth are spinning out of balance at an alarming pace.

NSO ruling is a victory for WhatsApp, but could have a small impact on spyware industry

Suzanne Smalley

Source Link

When a federal judge recently ruled that a major spyware manufacturer should be held liable for the phone hacks its technology allows, privacy advocates cheered. But within hours of the first-of-its-kind decision, close observers of the commercial surveillance marketplace were asking what impact the ruling might have on the company’s continued operations and on the industry as a whole.

The answer could be: not that much.

The closely-watched case began in 2019 when the Meta-owned messaging platform WhatsApp sued NSO Group — which makes the powerful zero-click spyware Pegasus — for allegedly hacking devices belonging to 1,400 of its users, including journalists, human rights defenders, dissidents and diplomats.

Late last month, a federal judge in California stunned spyware manufacturers and human rights activists alike when she concluded that NSO violated both computer hacking laws and WhatsApp’s terms of service when it allegedly repeatedly breached the messaging platform to infect victims’ devices with Pegasus.

New Superconductive Materials Have Just Been Discovered

Charlie Wood

Source Link

In 2024, superconductivity—the flow of electric current with zero resistance—was discovered in three distinct materials. Two instances stretch the textbook understanding of the phenomenon. The third shreds it completely. “It’s an extremely unusual form of superconductivity that a lot of people would have said is not possible,” said Ashvin Vishwanath, a physicist at Harvard University who was not involved in the discoveries.

Ever since 1911, when the Dutch scientist Heike Kamerlingh Onnes first saw electrical resistance vanish, superconductivity has captivated physicists. There’s the pure mystery of how it happens: The phenomenon requires electrons, which carry electrical current, to pair up. Electrons repel each other, so how can they be united?

Then there’s the technological promise: Already, superconductivity has enabled the development of MRI machines and powerful particle colliders. If physicists could fully understand how and when the phenomenon arises, perhaps they could engineer a wire that superconducts electricity under everyday conditions rather than exclusively at low temperatures, as is currently the case. World-altering technologies—lossless power grids, magnetically levitating vehicles—might follow.

EDUCATING OFFICERS FOR FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES

Vicky Karyoti 

Source Link

Today, nearly every single article or book discussing the possible impact of military AI, references that one famous quote by Vladimir Putin: “Whoever leads in AI will rule the world.”

Since the dawn of history, warfighting has gone hand-in-hand with technological innovation. With the risk of sounding technologically deterministic, one could hardly deny the importance and centrality of the available war technology at any battle, campaign, and war effort. Students of military history are bombarded with stories about how the stirrups or the gunpowder transformed not only the way wars were fought, but the extended socio-political structure of whole continents. Today, nearly every single article or book discussing the possible impact of military AI, references that one famous quote by Vladimir Putin: “Whoever leads in AI will rule the world.” An entire field of organizational studies, namely innovation studies, has been created to study exactly the circumstances under which innovation can foster, which actors can most suitably promote innovation, and how innovations might be militarily effective through proper implementation. But less attention has been drawn towards the relationship between technological innovation, and those who are most affected by it; in other words, the military professionals tasked with implementing, planning, and using it.

When a new technological innovation is introduced, the surrounding discussions focus on its applications, its possible effectiveness, and how to best make sure it predictably and consistently remains functional. How military professionals will use it becomes the purview of training experts, who painstakingly design appropriate training regimes for their use, how to adapt to cases of malfunction or complete system failure, and how to coordinate with colleagues around the new technology. Here, I argue that there is an overarching set of key competencies that professional military education (PME) programs should aim to develop in the officers, not only those whose tasks and expertise will be most closely tied to the any new technology, but all of them. This article is therefore trying to address the questions of what are the key technology and innovation-related competencies that program designers and owners should aim to develop, and what challenges might they encounter in their efforts? Through the examination of these questions, the article argues that, while each technology brings its own particular challenges, there is a set of organizational and sociologically informed points of pressure, that if appropriately and systematically addressed, will be beneficial in preparing officers for the wars to come. The answer suggested here is a separate, comprehensive education track within the PME programs that is created and tailored for preparing officers for working with and around new military technologies. Finally, I do not claim that this approach does not already exist in some capacity in PME programs, but that their systematization through the lens of the key competencies will provide officers with an across-the-board set of skills, which might otherwise be fragmented or ad hoc.

Why Greenland Matters

Mathew Burrows 

Source Link

The media outrage over a president-elect who campaigned against war not ruling out the use of military force to obtain Greenland (and the Panama Canal) is right and understandable but misses the Arctic’s growing strategic dimension and Russia and China’s progress in staking out their claims. Greenland is rich in mineral deposits, and its geographic position makes control over Greenland and the Arctic crucial for power projection, rival monitoring, and securing shipping routes.

Many viewers of the second season of the “Trump Show” see the president-elect’s warmongering as just another aspect of his blustering personality and not something to be taken seriously. This misses the significant implications of Trump’s ambitions. Climate change, which Trump has decried as a hoax, is melting Arctic icecaps, potentially revealing previously inaccessible raw material deposits. Greenland’s strategic position and rich raw material reserves, including oil, gas, zinc, copper, platinum, and rare earths, make it crucial in the Arctic region. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the region has an estimated 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30 percent of undiscovered natural gas. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that Greenland has 1.5 million tons of rare-earth element reserves, close to the 1.8 million tons in the United States. However, China leads with 44 million tons of deposits and could use them as leverage in a trade war. Given Trump’s tariff threats to China, Greenland’s rare-earth deposits are becoming increasingly significant.

Greenland’s proximity to the Arctic shipping routes means it could play a key role in managing, securing, and controlling these new trade pathways. The Northeast Passage, also known as the Northern Sea Route, is a shipping route along the Arctic coast of Russia that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. This route is growing more significant due to the melting ice in the Arctic, creating permanently usable routes that can reduce transport times and costs between Europe and Asia.

The geopolitical dynamics involving Greenland, Russia, China, and the United States will influence the future of global trade and international relations not just in the High North but in the larger play for global advantage among the three great powers.

China Suddenly Building Fleet Of Special Barges Suitable For Taiwan Landings

H I Sutton 

Source Link

Anyone wondering what an invasion of Taiwan might look like now has a fresh visual clue. Defence analysts watching Chinese shipyards have noticed an increase in a particular type of vessel.

A number of special and unusual barges, at least 3 but likely 5 or more, have been observed in Guangzhou Shipyard in southern China. These have unusually long road bridges extending from their bows. This configuration makes them particularly relevant to any future landing of PRC (People’s Republic of China) forces on Taiwanese islands.

Naval News has seen multiple sources confirming their construction, and has shared information with naval experts to validate our preliminary analysis. The consensus is that these are most likely for amphibious landings.

Unusual Barges Similar To D-Day Mulberry Harbours

Each barge has a very long road span which is extended out from the front. At over 120 meters (393 ft) this can be used to reach a coastal road or hard surface beyond a beach. At the aft end is an open platform which allows other ships to dock and unload. Some of the barges have ‘jack up’ pillars which can be lowered to provide a stable platform even in poor weather. In operation the barge would act as a pier to allow the unloading of trucks and tanks from cargo ships.

The Guangzhou Shipyard International (GSI) on Longxue Island has been a key part in China’s naval expansion. It is particularly associated with construction of unusual vessels including a very large uncrewed surface vessel and a light aircraft carrier.

The barges are reminiscent of the Mulberry Harbours built for the allied invasion of Normandy during World War Two. Like those, these have been built extremely quickly and to novel designs. Although there appears to have been a smaller prototype as early as 2022, the batch of these barges have appeared only recently.

Taiwan hypersonics aim for deep strikes on the mainland

Gabriel Honrada

Source Link

Taiwan’s latest hypersonic missiles allow for precise long-range strikes on China’s vital infrastructure and military installations, a significant advancement in the self-governing island’s defense strategy amid rising tensions with Beijing.

Last month, multiple media sources reported that Taiwan is developing hypersonic missiles capable of striking targets deep into northern China, with ranges extending beyond 2,000 kilometers.

The National Chung-Shan Institute of Science and Technology (NCSIST) has already mass-produced the Ching Tien supersonic cruise missile, with a 1,200–2,000 kilometer range, and is working to upgrade it into the Ching Tien hypersonic cruise missile.

Taiwan reportedly began producing the Ching Tien hypersonic cruise missile in late 2024 and delivered small quantities to the Taiwanese Air Force and Missile Command. In the future, Taiwan aims to deploy 10 sets of mobile systems with 20 missiles at Pingtung County, south of the island, according to reports.

The Ching Tien hypersonic cruise missile will reportedly transition from bunker-style launch systems to mobile platforms, enhancing survivability and strike capability. The Taiwanese military considers 12×12 chassis trucks from Czech manufacturer Tatra as primary launch vehicles, while US-made Oshkosh M983 trucks are an alternative.

The Ching Tien missile series, first deployed last year, represents Taiwan’s inaugural strategic weapon capable of reaching targets as far as Hohhot, Inner Mongolia. The project, reportedly part of an NT$13.5 billion (US$411 million) budget under the codename “Feiji No 2,” underscores Taiwan’s push to bolster deep-strike capabilities amid escalating regional tensions.

Efforts also involve developing advanced materials and rocket engines to refine the missiles further, with the NCSIST leveraging domestic expertise to achieve hypersonic speeds. This initiative aligns with Taiwan’s strategic pivot toward more mobile and survivable defense systems.

A Trump diplomacy for Europe

Source Link

Europe anxiously awaits Donald Trump’s inauguration. Its greatest fear is that the United States withdraws its commitments and resources from Ukraine, and perhaps the continent. But it can craft a diplomatic strategy to avert this. Europe must make the case that America has a compelling and enduring interest in European security, including Ukraine. What would this look like?

Trump wants a secure and prosperous America. These are the core interests of any country. In this, Trump is no different from any previous US president, or indeed any current European leader. What is different is the way he will pursue these interests. Trump cares little for values. His policy instincts favour retrenchment to overseas commitment, and protectionism to free trade. In diplomatic method, he prefers transactions and ‘deals’ over making rules and working through international organisations.

This means that Europe can no longer rely on the glue of values, institutions and law that have reinforced transatlantic relations for 80 years. Now more than at any time since the 1930s these relations will depend on the strength of shared interests alone. Europe’s challenge is therefore to renew America’s self-interested case for an enduring commitment to the continent. It must persuade America that Europe’s security and prosperity are preconditions of its own. It can do so in four ways.

Firstly, Europe must explain that its security is a compelling US economic interest. Europe is America’s biggest trade partner. It is also by far the leading destination for American investment. And together with Japan, Europe dominates inward investment into America, which creates jobs for American workers. While Trump may pressure Europe to reduce its trade surplus, this should not obscure how much America benefits from a vibrant economic relationship. A Europe imperilled by Russia or in turmoil after a Ukrainian defeat would severely undermine this. America cannot hope to export more to Europe while also abandoning it to its adversaries.

Can Trump Save America From Itself? – OpEd

Alastair Crooke

Source Link

Russian FM Lavrov last week dismissed Team Trump’s floated peace proposals for Ukraine as unsatisfactory. Essentially, the Russian view is that the calls for a frozen conflict precisely miss the point: From the Russian perspective, such ideas – frozen conflicts, ceasefires and peacekeepers – do not begin to qualify as the type of treaty-based, ‘Big Picture’ deal the Russians have been advocating since 2021.

Without a sustainable, permanent end to conflict, the Russians will prefer to rely on a battlefield outcome –even at the high risk of their refusal bringing continuing escalatory – even nuclear – U.S. brinkmanship.

The question rather is: Sustained peace between the U.S. and Russia – Is it even possible?

The death of former President Jimmy Carter recalls to us that the turbulent 1970s policy ‘revolution’ which became encapsulated in the writings of Zbig Brzezinski, Carter’s National Security Adviser – a revolution that bedevils U.S.-Russia relations from then, until today.

The Carter era saw a major inflection point with Brzezinski’s invention of weaponised identitarian conflict, and his espousal of the same identitarian tools – as applied more widely – in order to bring western societies under the control of a technocratic élite “[practicing] continuous surveillance over every citizen … [together with élite] manipulation of the behaviour and intellectual functioning of all people …”.

Brzezinski’s seminal books, in short, advocated a managed cosmopolitan identitarian sphere, that would swap out communal culture – i.e. national values. It is in the hostile reaction to this technocratic ‘control’ vision that we can root today’s trouble breaking out everywhere, on all global fronts.

Put plainly, current events are in many ways a replay of the turbulent 1970s. Today’s march toward anti-democratic norms began with the Trilateral Commission’s seminal The Crisis of Democracy (1975) – the fore-runner to WEF(‘Davos’) and Bilderberg – with, (in Brzezinski’s words), international banks and multinational corporations being crowned as the principal creative force in the place of the “the nation-state as the fundamental unit of man’s organised life”.

Since The 2011 Fukushima Accident, Japan Has Restarted 14 Nuclear Reactors – Analysis

EIA

Source Link

Japanese utilities restarted two additional nuclear reactors in 2024 that had been suspended from operations in response to the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident, taking the total number of restarted reactors to 14 since the accident. In November, Tohoku Electric Power Co. restarted its 796-megawatt (MW) Onagawa Unit 2 reactor, and in December Chugoku Electric Power Co. restarted its Shimane Unit 2 (789 MW). Onagawa is the nuclear power plant located closest to the epicenter of the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami.

Most of the restarted reactors have been pressurized water reactors (PWR) located in western Japan. Onagawa Unit 2 and Shimane Unit 2, by contrast, are the first boiling water reactors (BWR) to be restarted. Onagawa Unit 2 is also the first reactor in the eastern part of the country to be restarted. Japan’s nuclear regulator prioritized the restart of PWRs due to public safety concerns regarding BWR technology, which is the design of the Fukushima Daiichi units.

Japan suspended its nuclear fleet from 2013 to 2015 for mandatory safety checks and upgrades following the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident. Before the accident, 54 commercial nuclear reactors were operating in Japan, and nuclear power accounted for approximately 30% of the country’s electricity generation. Nuclear restarts have proceeded slowly since the first two units (Sendai Units 1 and 2) were restarted in 2015. Restarts have been slow due to a significantly more stringent safety inspection and authorization process established after the accident and local court injunctions emerging from ongoing public safety concerns in some regions. Public support for restarts has been growing in Japan recently, however.

Under the current restart process, once regulatory approvals have been granted, the local municipality and prefectural governments are consulted prior to restart. In addition to the 14 reactors already restarted, three more units (namely, the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Unit 6 and Unit 7 and the Tokai Daini unit) have received regulatory approval to restart but have yet to do so. Tohoku Electric Power announced in 2018 that Onagawa Unit 1 would be decommissioned rather than upgraded, but the utility plans to seek approval to restart Onagawa Unit 3. Restarting another 10 units is under regulatory review.

How NATO Can Strengthen Its Ties With The Indo–Pacific – Analysis

Stephen Nagy

Source Link

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has highlighted the increased connectivity of war in modern times. Conflict in one part of the world cannot be separated from other regions. In June 2024, North Korea provided at least five million munitions to Russia. And more recently, North Korea sent an estimated 12,000–15,000 troops to fight Ukraine. China has also supported Russia’s illegal war through third countries and by propping up its economy through the purchase of energy.

Former Japanese prime minister Fumio Kishida voiced similar concerns at the 2022 Shangri-la Dialogue. In his keynote address to the annual security summit, he warned that ‘today’s Ukraine could be tomorrow’s East Asia’.

For NATO and its Indo–Pacific Four (IP4) allies — Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea — Russia’s invasion serves as a cautionary tale about the potential for aggression from revisionist powers. It has prompted a re-evaluation of military readiness and collective defence strategies. Countries in the region, such as Japan and South Korea, have become acutely aware of the need to strengthen deterrence capabilities.

The situation has also galvanised NATO discussions about the importance of a cohesive response to aggression, emphasising the necessity of solidarity not only in Europe but across the globe. This is based on a convergence in understanding in NATO that ‘unilateral transgressions of the rules-based international order and other unexpected events will have dramatic domino effects all over the world’, requiring a coordinated response.

Escalation Dominance Does Matter

Joe Buff

Source Link

In a reply to a recent article in Global Security Review, which advocated for American escalation dominance, Katerina Canyon, Executive Director of the Peace Economy Project, challenged the importance of escalation dominance, instead advocating for a reduction in nuclear weapons and an increase in domestic spending. Canyon is wrong on three points: the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis, who started the nuclear arms race, and the need for nuclear cost cutting.

The Cuban Missile Crisis

Canyon begins her article by employing the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example of where diplomacy rather than military force carried the day. Her explanation is simple disinformation and misunderstands how nuclear deterrence works.

Early in the crisis, President John F. Kennedy moved nuclear-armed bombers to Air Force bases in Florida, lining them up wing tip to wing tip, as a visible display of the nuclear hell both Cuba and the Soviet Union would face if Nikita Khruschev did not remove nuclear weapons from Cuba. That signal was seen by the Soviets.

President Kennedy also called the then-recent deployment of Minuteman I intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) his “ace in the hole.” He credited his ICBMs with forcing the Soviets to back down. Minuteman I was very much American escalation dominance that the Soviets could not match.

He also implemented a blockade around Cuba. When the Soviet submarine B-59 attempted to run the blockade, the USS Beale depth charged the submarine. Rather than launching its nuclear torpedoes against the Beale, B-59 retreated.

Contrary to Canyon’s assertion that diplomacy carried the day, it was military strength and nuclear superiority that carried the day. General Secretary Khruschev knew that the United States had a superior nuclear arsenal and backed down.

An open letter to Prof Muhammad Yunus

Shekhar Gupta

Source Link

Respected and dear Prof Yunus,

At the very outset, I am conflicted on whether I should congratulate you or commiserate with you. Usually, one wouldn’t need to qualify such a brilliant ascent to power with a caution. But the challenge of leading a large, populous and still largely poor nation in the Subcontinent cannot be taken lightly.

Nevertheless, congratulations first. When I had the privilege of spending a couple of days with you, at a large philanthropy conference in Hubballi-Dharwad in early 2016, I was awed by your sincerity, gentle manner and yet a firm belief in your ability to master the odds.

In the Walk The Talk episode we recorded, you had told me the story of how Sheikh Hasina had taken away your bank, and you responded by taking your bank overseas.

You refused to take the bait of probably a too-clever-by-half response by me that her government took away your bank, and you took revenge by building one overseas. You said we’re not seeking revenge, but just doing the right thing. I could see then that you were angry, hurting and holding back.

The opportunity came last August in an incredibly dramatic meltdown of the Hasina government. You were brought back from overseas to head the new administration, though you still haven’t given yourself an executive or political title. You’ve stayed with ‘Chief Adviser’, and probably will go with that to Davos later this month.