Silicon and the Next Conflict

I originally posted this through a group page, The Info Domain . I am bringing it over to my page as an article to ensure it's properly recorded. In doing so, I've gone through and redone the article as well. Spoiler: this article does not say, "Chips are the most important thing." Please feel free to reply and engage!

I would like to start a discussion for you to ponder over. Every book you read is an educational opportunity, and many great organizations and thinkers put reading lists together for the year. Often, there is some category behind each. When pursuing my reading, I often tie potentially-related books together to make new connections and gain a greater understanding of a topic. Two books I recently read, Chris Miller’s Chip Wars and Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s (NDT’s) Starry Messenger fit into a few I’ve been reading. One gave great insight into the current state of silicon chips and the other into the ability of even the most educated scientists to make accurate predictions.

Chris Miller ’s Chip Wars is an excellent overview of the silicon industry, reminding me of several great technology-related reads from the last couple of years. If you enjoyed the history of the internet in Walter Isaacson’s The Innovators or James Gleick's The Information - you’ll enjoy Chip Wars' extra layer of depth. What Miller provides in this read is the industrial and technological background on silicon chips, the substance behind what makes Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company ( 台积公司 ) so indispensable, and much greater insight into articles and videos like this recent 60 Minutes Australia special , which (among many other topics), emphasizes Taiwan's importance to the world as a peerless semiconductor producer. Many of these articles discuss the need to defend Taiwan's from a Chinese invasion, specifically because a Chinese government (CCP) takeover of 台积公司 could create an incredible imbalance of technological capability. This fear is heightened in the face of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, demonstrating the realism-driven world touted in writings like The Tragedy of Great Power Politics by John J. Mearsheimer .

Technologically, where is the world today? Is that in step with it geopolitically? Can it be summarized with the Silicon industry? Silicon chips were a fantastic feat of technological evolution, but the understanding of today tends to paint silicon chips as both the current and future offset. In the initial years of silicon's emergence, only a few major international players invested heavily. They took control of critical elements in the supply chain and now dominate these physical layers holding the information domain together. However, while that may summarize what has come so far, our history of that is only as good as we can retell it. Nassim Nicholas Taleb tells us in The Black Swan, we don't typically do that correctly, either.

So, what do we know about what's around the corner??

Jim Collins’s books Good to Great and Built to Last speak to the ability of businesses to survive technological change and stiff competition. These books provide an inside look at the processes Clayton M. Christensen discusses in The Innovator’s Dilemma. These books discuss the tips, tricks, and trade secrets major industrial winners follow that failed businesses don’t. But, it's never that easy, is it?

That leads me to the second primary book of this article, which I read just before Chip Wars.?

I’m grateful my friend Sean Nakao recommended NDT’s Starry Messenger. I love simple messages across a broad swath of information, and this book provides a meta-astrophysical view of society; it felt to me like a scientific take on Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner’s Freakonomics.

Chapter by chapter, NDT covers topics most people I know (including me) have at least some limited knowledge and many opinions on. But, using the framework of an astrophysicist’s view on life, he explains topics across the spectrum that left me in awe. There’s never enough time to know everything, but NDT is probably not far off. I was humbled throughout.?

While I learned a great deal and gained even great appreciation for NDT, what I connected with the most in this book was humanity’s (IPE, economics, business, behavioral science, etc.) inability to predict the future. He gave continuous examples over the last century-plus of 30-year prediction failures. It’s not just Marty McFly's lack of hoverboards, either. Talented and educated continually people fail to understand the world outside of what technology currently provides.

If you think 30 years is too far away to fairly derive a relevant prediction, Nicole Perlroth’s This is How They Tell Me the World Ends explains that most tech industry predictions fail at five years away. Seemingly... always. Perpetually.?Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity is Near explains the increasingly rapid speed of technological evolution makes it increasingly difficult to make mid or long-term tech predictions.?So, while Artificial Intelligence is potentially (likely ?) the next offset, and while AI requires semiconductors (silicon chips) to function, learn, and grow, the current state of our source of this material circles predictably close to today's parts and today's envisioned technologies.

Starry Messenger's demonstrations of failed predictions were not predictions that failed due to subtle nuance. They were not failures of small corrections at the start that missed the shot at the end. They were broad, sweeping failures to see beyond the next horizon based on technologies seemingly emerging from nowhere. Scientists predicted blimps would replace the horse for personal transportation, calling motorized carriages a technology for hobbyists.

A truly new capacity does not so much innovate as revolutionizes. The jet engine; the internet; the silicon chip; the smartphone; self-driving vehicles; and the reusable spacecraft – all of these have changed the baseline for what experts understood to be true.?

So, after reading Starry Messenger, I walked into Chip Wars wondering if silicon chips would be the technology to define our next 30 years. Will Taiwan continue to control and dominate the global computing market the way Saudi Arabia dominates oil (PSA: fossilized dinausar power won't last forever )? Answering this question correctly will either keep the major players we have today on top or shift the foundation again, bringing new players to the surface.?

Tyrel Campbell and I are currently teaching the ability to identify strategic perspectives at Georgetown CCT (CCTP-694, if you're interested ). Picking a single company from within any of these books provides immense opportunity for study, and I’m excited to see what our brilliant Georgetown students come up with.?

For this article, I infer that Silicon is a waypoint to the next offset. I am certainly not the only one to produce such an image, but strategic leaders struggle to find the balance between accessing semiconductor technology and pursuing the next big thing. The United States is putting billions into producing these facilities , which I support; however, my concern is related to going to war. This is not a question about whether the United States should honor its allegiances, fight for democracy internationally, or support allies, friends, and partners, alike. Separating everything - even the increasingly concerning China-Taiwain rhetoric. It's a question about commentary related to warfare tied to Taiwan's hold of the semiconductor industry and whether silicon chips are worth fighting for.

Does the importance of here-and-now silicon chips make Taiwan too valuable to leave alone? My question is, what is the next technological revolution? Would a war set us up to achieve that technological feat, or would it set us back, delay, and even prevent it from happening?

Starry Messenger underscored that nobody ever gets the next technology right, but here there is little room for getting it wrong. Chip Wars emphasizes the importance of the current semiconductor industry and its implications for strategic security and international success. Will silicon chips lead to a global conflict? Many writers, including those from Foreign Policy , The Atlantic , The New York Times , Vox , and several others discuss the tension surrounding Washington, Beijing, Teipei, and silicon chips, and how it all could lead to conflict. Many others are discussing the upheaval and reset of the current construct, as the United States and some of its allies wrestle with China in the economic arena. Trade war? Sure. Competition is the hallmark of American Capitalism. Shooting War? Still trying to figure it out. Is the silicon trade worth a future hot war or will proliferation, revolution, evolution, or another emerging technology ease the strain? Is it possible that national leaders will walk their countries into a conflict before that happens?

In terms of what is happening with computing, we're making faster and more powerful chips, but when will the next offset make chips look like the 2023 version of vacuum tubes? Is it quantum? Will AI be the offset to build the next offset (the way Homo Sapiens built everything to this point, including AI)? What is on the fringes and how far away is it? Will we get to the point of making chips at the same time the next major offset appears? Does the American investment demonstrate a focus on keeping up with today and getting ahead tomorrow? How far out are we looking? I'm always thinking of James Carse's Finite and Infinite Games, wondering who is thinking the furthest out - so far ahead they are making cutting the brush and routing the future path.

At this point, I cede the floor to anyone else who wants to discuss the implications or indications of this material as it relates to business, technology, military, readiness, international relations, national security, the information environment, the cognitive dimension, or wherever your mind wanders.

Please feel free to comment with your great ideas. Who has seen the next innovation? If you’re reading this, I want to hear from you whether I am your professor, or you are mine, or you are a junior enlisted service member, or a senior defense civilian. All are welcome - bystanders, tech enthusiasts, and all – and the myriad skills between.?When one person teaches, two people learn .

I want to get some great discussion going on this so please feel free to tag, share, or comment to increase the flow.??

Thank you for reading.?

- Luke Revell

#artificialintelligence #technology #internationalrelations #semiconductors #intelligencepredictions #futurist #reading #learning