Pro Gaming

@Panda_166

Work hard and Study hard to achieve success before 30

Asia

Joined May 2018

424 Following

66 Followers

6.4K Posts

Panda_166 retweeted

Loong of the east

@loong_of

14 days ago

China’s counter-response to U.S. bullying tactics is entering a critical phase, marked by the establishment of a comprehensive, systematic "toolbox"—a strategy modeled, notably, after U.S. practices. Since the trade war launched against China during the first term of the Trump administration, the United States—in concert with its Western allies—has continuously tightened restrictions on China’s access to high-end technologies. These restrictions focus on semiconductors, artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing, aerospace, supercomputing, and various dual-use technologies (civilian-military applications), with the aim of curbing China’s development in high-end manufacturing and frontier technologies. However, over the past decade, as China has achieved leapfrog breakthroughs in numerous strategic technological fields, the original dynamic has fundamentally shifted. China is no longer merely a passive recipient of international technological restrictions; it now urgently needs to establish its own autonomous and controllable system for managing technology outflows—particularly regarding core technologies in which it has already secured a global leading edge. On June 1, Hong Kong’s *South China Morning Post* reported that Chinese research teams have drafted a "comprehensive" export control list targeting the United States and its allies, covering 63 distinct technological fields. Researchers have identified technologies deemed strategically sensitive or globally competitive, with the objective of preventing their outflow abroad through export restrictions. This pioneering study, titled *Framework for Selecting Technologies for Export Restriction: An Empirical Study*, was first published on March 19 in the *Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences*. The paper delves deeply into "a fundamental strategic issue that has rarely been publicly discussed in China in recent years." It proposes China’s first relatively comprehensive framework for identifying technologies subject to export controls, ultimately selecting 63 specific technologies characterized by strategic sensitivity or global competitiveness. These technologies span fields such as advanced materials, quantum communication, AI hardware, energy systems, biotechnology, and aerospace engineering. According to the study’s assessment, the technologies designated as "Tier 1" restricted exports include: satellite-based quantum-encrypted communication, electromagnetic launch technology, solar cell-related technologies, general-purpose miniaturized AI edge computing devices, metal recovery technologies for rare earth waste residues and tailings, and advanced high-strength steel production technologies for the automotive industry, among others. Other technologies include graphyne material preparation, deep-ultraviolet crystal fabrication, ultra-large-scale offshore wind turbines, space robotics, high-performance carbon electrode fabrication for perovskite solar cells, autonomous orbit determination via inter-satellite links for the BeiDou-3 navigation system, and free-space optical communication. In their paper, the research team notes that this framework draws partly upon the export control mechanisms that the United States has long had in place. Through decades of evolution, the U.S. Department of Commerce has established a methodology that combines expert technical reviews with public consultations to identify specific technological domains and parameters subject to export bans or restrictions. The paper points out that, historically, U.S. export controls have focused not only on military or dual-use technologies but have also closely targeted two specific categories of critical technologies: first, fields where latecomer nations—exemplified by my country—are rapidly rising and, while not yet technological leaders, show the potential to challenge U.S. monopolies (e.g., integrated circuits, supercomputing, and civil nuclear power); and second, cutting-edge foundational technologies poised to shape the future landscape of science, technology, and industry (e.g., 3D printing, brain-computer interfaces, and artificial intelligence). Evidently, the Chinese research team has sought to construct an assessment methodology tailored to China’s specific stage of development and industrial structure. Their screening process draws comprehensively upon existing domestic and international technology lists, the International Patent Classification (IPC) system, technology gap models, and patent co-occurrence network analysis; furthermore, it has undergone multiple rounds of expert review involving stakeholders from industry, academia, and government agencies. The study also relies heavily on patent databases to identify technological domains in which China possesses a comparative advantage. Taking the field of advanced materials as an example, the research team analyzed over 215,000 international patent records, employing machine learning clustering models and network analysis to pinpoint key technological nodes. The significance of this research extends far beyond export policy alone. In the past, my country’s science and technology development strategy centered primarily on technology acquisition and addressing industrial deficiencies. However, as Chinese enterprises and research institutions increasingly join the global "first tier" across numerous cutting-edge sectors, issues such as technological sovereignty, technological security, and the protection of critical strategic technologies have now become subjects of routine discourse and policy deliberation within China. The study also observes that my country’s institutional framework for ensuring the security of technology trade currently lags behind those of developed nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan—countries that, through decades of development, have successfully established comprehensive systems for technology export control. Based on this study, it is recommended that relevant competent authorities, grounded in top-level design, effectively undertake three key tasks: monitoring and anticipating trends in foreign technology export restrictions while strengthening preventive measures; refining the selection processes and methodologies for my country's own restricted export technologies; and advancing the practical implementation of control measures for these technologies.

loong_of's tweet photo. China’s counter-response to U.S. bullying tactics is entering a critical phase, marked by the establishment of a comprehensive, systematic "toolbox"—a strategy modeled, notably, after U.S. practices.

Since the trade war launched against China during the first term of the Trump administration, the United States—in concert with its Western allies—has continuously tightened restrictions on China’s access to high-end technologies. These restrictions focus on semiconductors, artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing, aerospace, supercomputing, and various dual-use technologies (civilian-military applications), with the aim of curbing China’s development in high-end manufacturing and frontier technologies.

However, over the past decade, as China has achieved leapfrog breakthroughs in numerous strategic technological fields, the original dynamic has fundamentally shifted. China is no longer merely a passive recipient of international technological restrictions; it now urgently needs to establish its own autonomous and controllable system for managing technology outflows—particularly regarding core technologies in which it has already secured a global leading edge.

On June 1, Hong Kong’s *South China Morning Post* reported that Chinese research teams have drafted a "comprehensive" export control list targeting the United States and its allies, covering 63 distinct technological fields. Researchers have identified technologies deemed strategically sensitive or globally competitive, with the objective of preventing their outflow abroad through export restrictions.

This pioneering study, titled *Framework for Selecting Technologies for Export Restriction: An Empirical Study*, was first published on March 19 in the *Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences*. The paper delves deeply into "a fundamental strategic issue that has rarely been publicly discussed in China in recent years." It proposes China’s first relatively comprehensive framework for identifying technologies subject to export controls, ultimately selecting 63 specific technologies characterized by strategic sensitivity or global competitiveness. These technologies span fields such as advanced materials, quantum communication, AI hardware, energy systems, biotechnology, and aerospace engineering.

According to the study’s assessment, the technologies designated as "Tier 1" restricted exports include: satellite-based quantum-encrypted communication, electromagnetic launch technology, solar cell-related technologies, general-purpose miniaturized AI edge computing devices, metal recovery technologies for rare earth waste residues and tailings, and advanced high-strength steel production technologies for the automotive industry, among others. Other technologies include graphyne material preparation, deep-ultraviolet crystal fabrication, ultra-large-scale offshore wind turbines, space robotics, high-performance carbon electrode fabrication for perovskite solar cells, autonomous orbit determination via inter-satellite links for the BeiDou-3 navigation system, and free-space optical communication.

In their paper, the research team notes that this framework draws partly upon the export control mechanisms that the United States has long had in place. Through decades of evolution, the U.S. Department of Commerce has established a methodology that combines expert technical reviews with public consultations to identify specific technological domains and parameters subject to export bans or restrictions. The paper points out that, historically, U.S. export controls have focused not only on military or dual-use technologies but have also closely targeted two specific categories of critical technologies: first, fields where latecomer nations—exemplified by my country—are rapidly rising and, while not yet technological leaders, show the potential to challenge U.S. monopolies (e.g., integrated circuits, supercomputing, and civil nuclear power); and second, cutting-edge foundational technologies poised to shape the future landscape of science, technology, and industry (e.g., 3D printing, brain-computer interfaces, and artificial intelligence).

Evidently, the Chinese research team has sought to construct an assessment methodology tailored to China’s specific stage of development and industrial structure. Their screening process draws comprehensively upon existing domestic and international technology lists, the International Patent Classification (IPC) system, technology gap models, and patent co-occurrence network analysis; furthermore, it has undergone multiple rounds of expert review involving stakeholders from industry, academia, and government agencies. The study also relies heavily on patent databases to identify technological domains in which China possesses a comparative advantage. Taking the field of advanced materials as an example, the research team analyzed over 215,000 international patent records, employing machine learning clustering models and network analysis to pinpoint key technological nodes.

The significance of this research extends far beyond export policy alone. In the past, my country’s science and technology development strategy centered primarily on technology acquisition and addressing industrial deficiencies. However, as Chinese enterprises and research institutions increasingly join the global "first tier" across numerous cutting-edge sectors, issues such as technological sovereignty, technological security, and the protection of critical strategic technologies have now become subjects of routine discourse and policy deliberation within China.

The study also observes that my country’s institutional framework for ensuring the security of technology trade currently lags behind those of developed nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan—countries that, through decades of development, have successfully established comprehensive systems for technology export control. Based on this study, it is recommended that relevant competent authorities, grounded in top-level design, effectively undertake three key tasks: monitoring and anticipating trends in foreign technology export restrictions while strengthening preventive measures; refining the selection processes and methodologies for my country's own restricted export technologies; and advancing the practical implementation of control measures for these technologies.

194

22K

Panda_166 retweeted

Novaspark @DatManFrancis

18 days ago

@Jay83214566 @laiwu1988 Rocketry originated from china, the first ballistic missile was made by Nazi German. Am literally thinking we stoled who's technology.

Panda_166 retweeted

Ray Cui @laiwu1988

18 days ago

@Jay83214566 美国人历史果然差，美国的导弹之父是中国人，钱学森。美国人自己没什么文化，二战后靠依靠来自中国德国等国家的人才发展起来，以为是自己了不起。美国人要认清现实，没有了外国移民，你们啥也不是。如果没有了中国人，美国 ai 产业根本就是个笑话。

138

Pro Gaming

@Panda_166

Who to follow

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users