> By the time I became NSA director in the late 1990s, however, the calculation was no longer that simple. We still wanted an MTOPS advantage, of course, but we were fast realizing that our preferred limits were undermining the global competitiveness of the U.S. computer industry — the very industry on which we relied for our success. It was becoming clear that the overall health of that industry was more important than any MTOPS advantage against a specific target country. We still insisted on limits with regard to places such as Cuba and North Korea, but we became far more forgiving elsewhere.
This, of course, had a powerful, positive commercial impact, but the NSA didn’t flip its position for commercial reasons. We did it for security reasons. On balance, this change made us stronger, not weaker, over the long haul, since retarding exports would inevitably retard the technological progress that was both our economic and our security lifeblood.
That early lesson has caused me to continue to challenge arguments that technological protectionism furthers national security. It might, but then again, it could have the opposite effect if it freezes development, alienates allies, feeds distrust or invites the creation of similar barriers abroad. I would recommend these broader considerations to those in the U.S. security enterprise with responsibility for evaluating these trade-offs today.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-let-america-be-...
The whole post is worth reading. The same logic could be applied to US trying to put backdoors in its products for a specific national security goal, which will ultimately end up undermining US technological supremacy and national security as well. And yet the current CIA director just implied that US would be fine with backdoored products, because "where are people going to get their encryption from? The foreigners? Ha!"
This sort of arrogance, which is the same type of arrogance that ended up banning chip sales to China last year, is what will make the US lose out in the long term.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160618/08022234741/cia-d...
http://www.nextplatform.com/2016/06/20/look-inside-chinas-ch...
Summary, it's a RISC architecture that resembles an Alpha but it's not a straight-up copy.
I wasn't aware that China had competitive fabrication plants for processors. If they don't and they built these at say 40 or 45nm then wouldn't this design performance be even more impressive?
What more evidence do you want?