The biggest difference between the United States and the Soviet Union in scientific and technological development is that the scientific and technological research and development of the former Soviet Union has always relied on national strength to push away, while American science and technology grow freely under the traction of the "invisible hand" of the market.
Oral / Wu Xiaobo (WeChat public account: Wu Xiaobo channel)
What is the one area in which the United States is most severely suppressing China today? Chip.
Not long ago, on October 7, the United States implemented a new round of chip export control measures against China, blacklisting 31 Chinese companies and research institutions to restrict China's ability to obtain core semiconductor technologies. So now is undoubtedly a particularly difficult time for China's semiconductor industry.
Blocking and suppressing the science and technology industries of other countries is a consistent practice of the United States. During the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union in the last century, the United States also used the same means to curb the development of the semiconductor industry in the former Soviet Union, and the former Soviet Union was completely defeated.
Today we will talk about the history of the "chip cold war" between the United States and the Soviet Union, and see what lessons China can find from this history and what enlightenment it can get.
As we all know, at the beginning of the Cold War, the scientific and technological strength of the former Soviet Union was not inferior to that of the United States. The Soviet Union launched its first satellite before the United States and sent Gagarin into space first. In the field of semiconductors, the United States and the Soviet Union built general-purpose computers using thousands of tubes, and then invented transistors almost simultaneously, so the two were initially comparable.
The world's first electronic computer "Eniacre"
In addition, the former Soviet Union has a large number of high-quality talents, and the top level also attaches great importance to the semiconductor industry.
It seems that the time and place are right, but the result is surprising, the semiconductor industry in the former Soviet Union has suffered a complete failure. How far has it failed?
For example, in the late Cold War, the United States, Japan and other countries refused to transfer the manufacturing technology of civilian game consoles, which had been widely popularized, to the former Soviet Union. Why? Because the former Soviet Union could not make its own precision chips to match its advanced weapons, it had to find a way to pick the chips in the electronic equipment produced by the United States and Japan, and then reverse research and development, and make a modified version to install on its own missiles or other weapons.
Then you must want to ask, at the beginning of the Cold War, the semiconductor industry in the former Soviet Union started so well, and the Soviets worked very hard, why was it completely left behind by the United States at the end of the Cold War?
To answer this question, we have to go back to the moment when the gap between the United States and the Soviet Union first began to widen—the 1950s.
At that time, the United States and the Soviet Union had just invented the transistor, and then they faced the same problem - electronic components now have two major technical routes, one is the tube, the other is the transistor, which path should be chosen to develop semiconductor technology?
Logically, the answer to this question should be obvious - transistors are smaller, lighter, less energy-intensive than tubes, and significantly more efficient than clumsy tubes.
A replica of the world's first transistor
But at that time, the top management of the former Soviet Union was concerned with another problem, that is, in the event of a nuclear war, the transistors were completely powerless in front of the electron pulses generated by the nuclear explosion, and the electron tubes could resist such shocks. For this reason, the decision-making level of the former Soviet Union decided to concentrate on the miniaturization of electron tubes.
In fact, many scientists at that time understood in their hearts that the electron tube was outdated, no matter how much it developed, it could not be turned over, and the transistor was the future development direction. Engaging in tube miniaturization is just drilling into a dead end.
However, no one said what was on their minds. Why? Because throughout the 1950s, the former Soviet Union was vigorously developing the tube industry, which thousands of researchers and workers relied on to support their families.
If at this time you say, "The tube is outdated, you should make transistors", it means that these people may lose their jobs, and you yourself may be one of them. You already have an iron rice bowl in your hand, so why bother? In this way, the former Soviet Union continued to run towards a dead end.
Let's look at the American side. In fact, at that time, many researchers in the United States also wanted to insist on the development of tubes, after all, they also had the same mind as the Soviets. But neither they nor the US government have said anything on the issue of "developing tubes or transistors".
Who has the final say?
Market.
The biggest difference between the United States and the Soviet Union in scientific and technological development is that the scientific and technological research and development of the former Soviet Union has always relied on national strength to push away, while American science and technology grow freely under the traction of the "invisible hand" of the market.
American consumers will not think "if a nuclear war breaks out, transistors will not be used", they will only consider which is lighter and better to use, electron tube or transistor. The answer is clearly the latter.
Electronic products such as radios made from transistors are highly sought after in the United States, which in turn has stimulated research and development, and more and more companies are working on transistors. Under the fierce business competition, the industry has also been continuously iterated and innovated. By the 1960s, the United States was already using advanced integrated circuits in weapons such as fighter jets.
Transistor radios produced in the United States in the 1960s
The former Soviet Union woke up like a dream at this time: American technology has developed to such a point? So the leaders of the time gave a death order: the electronics industry turned quickly, mobilized all forces, and must catch up with the United States within ten years.
You think, this is always okay, right?
As a result, all efforts were in vain.
First of all, the semiconductor industry is a capital-intensive high-tech industry, which requires long-term and high-intensity continuous investment to produce results, and this objective gap in technology cannot be filled quickly. In order to quickly complete the tasks of their superiors, many scientists in the former Soviet Union chose to directly copy and plagiarize American designs.
Immediately afterwards, the Soviets found that these imitated chips had nowhere to go - American chips were made and could be installed on corresponding computers, TVs and other consumer goods, and the people would pay for them; The former Soviet Union copied a chip, but could not find the corresponding application scenario, there was no market, no way to sell money, and as a result, the operation of the entire industry could only rely on government blood transfusion.
Hearing this, you understand that the reason for the collapse of the former Soviet Union in the chip race with the United States is, in the final analysis, two words - "market". Because there is no market, the semiconductor industry in the former Soviet Union chose the wrong direction at the initial fork in the road, and even if it is difficult to turn later, it cannot grow independently and vigorously, and no amount of blood transfusion is in vain.
After talking about the former Soviet Union, let's look at China's situation. In recent years, the United States has launched endless methods to suppress China's semiconductor industry, and the chip competition between China and the United States has become more and more fierce:
From the continuous suppression of SMIC, Huawei and other companies, to the promulgation of the Chip and Science Act in August this year (providing about 52.7 billion US dollars in capital subsidies and tax incentives to attract chip industries from various countries to the United States, while restricting companies receiving US subsidies and preferential policies from investing in China), to the inclusion of 31 Chinese companies, research institutions and other groups on the so-called "Unverified List (UVL)" in October. Even those who work in China's semiconductor-related industries or have U.S. green cards are required to choose between work and nationality...
The United States laid a dead hand.
New export controls adopted by the U.S. Department of Commerce
Today Chinese mainland chip companies mainly produce chips with a process above 28nm, and the technology of individual companies such as SMIC has reached 14nm, but we do not have mature technology for chips with higher precision. For comparison, companies such as Samsung already have the ability to mass-produce 3nm chips.
If these more sophisticated chips cannot be made, our new energy vehicles, mobile phones, medical equipment and other products will be stuck in the neck.
What do we do?
I attended a seminar last week where a bunch of experts sat together and discussed how we could break through the U.S. blockade of the chip industry. Discussions came and went, and finally experts came to two conclusions: the first conclusion, self-improvement, mobilize all of China's chip companies, and try their best to build their own. This conclusion is of course, and it is also what China has been doing, it is better to seek others than to seek yourself, and it is of course best if you can create it yourself.
But I still have to say more, the former Soviet Union also worked very hard and mobilized a lot of resources, but in the end failed. It warns us that the more we have to open up at the moment when we are blocked and suppressed the hardest; At the moment when competition is most tense and decision-making is most critical, the more we must believe in the market, respect the market, and play the role of the market, and not make mistakes in key choices or actions.
The second conclusion is to wait for the occurrence of the "prisoner's dilemma" phenomenon within the US-led chip alliance.
What do you mean?
Today, the United States has mobilized the world's leading chip companies, carrots and sticks, forced them to embrace the United States, decoupling from China, and the establishment of the effect is very effective, and China feels very much pressure.
At present, among the world's top ten chip factories, the first place is TSMC in Taiwan, the second place is Samsung in South Korea, the third place is UMC in Taiwan, GF in the United States ranks fourth, and SMIC ranks fifth. In the top ten, the United States accounts for only 3. In addition, the world's most cattle manufacturer of lithography machines is ASML in the Netherlands.
Ranking of the world's top 10 wafer foundries
These companies are under pressure from the United States and dare not do business with Chinese mainland. But there is a fact that China is still the world's largest manufacturing country today, China is also the largest demand for chip technology and equipment, the Chinese market needs global chip companies, and global chip companies definitely need the Chinese market.
For chip companies, the most important thing is business interests, and the most common game is the market game. Although they are under the restrictions of the United States on the surface, they all have their own calculations in private.
Therefore, the "chip alliance" that the United States is trying to form cannot be a monolith, and there will inevitably be divisions and rifts within it. Just as prisoners in a prisoner's dilemma choose to betray each other and expose each other in order to reduce their sentences, chip companies care most about their own interests, and it will be very difficult for the United States to force them to always cooperate with themselves and abandon China's huge market.
This is yet another example of the hidden power of the market. Under the influence of the invisible hand, the goal of every enterprise is to pursue profit maximization, and the market is always guiding the allocation of resources to more efficient places. From this point of view, the United States is already against the market by trying to form a "chip alliance" to block China.
Therefore, experts have concluded that "waiting for the prisoner's dilemma to happen" because China is doing something that conforms to the rules of the market, while the United States is already going against the sky.
From the chip cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union to today's competition between China and the United States, there are a lot of flowers, and I think the final summary is nothing more than four words - "respect the market".
Respect the market and do research and development for self-improvement; Respect the market and expand the opening up to do business; Respect the market, wait for the opportunity, time will give us the answer.
Today's article is adapted from the audio of "Hearing Wu Xiaobo Every Day".
Teacher Wu also talked about the following topics
Is today's China an "M-shaped society" under the stroke of Japanese management scientist Ken Omae?
In this audio, Mr. Wu talks about three reasons why he believes that China is not an "M-type society" at present.
Financial services are the latent desires and potentials of human beings, which fund the activities that make up the day after day of our lives, and these purposeful activities are aesthetic in their own right.
In this audio, Mr. Wu talks about Robert Schiller's "Finance and a Good Society".
Compared to agriculture, industry, and the information age, what are the key drivers of change in the bioeconomy?
In this audio, Mr. Wu talks about the impact of the arrival of the bioeconomy era.
How did Britain decline step by step from the "empire where the sun never sets"?
In this audio, Mr. Wu talks about the history of Britain's decline.
Join "Hear Wu Xiaobo Every Day"
5 minutes a day, study with Teacher Wu
Help you improve your business understanding and build financial thinking
Audio Planning | Bi Ran
Audio Operations | Chang Xiujuan | Editor-in-Chief | Zheng Yuanmei