The Fragile Web: How China's Quest for Semiconductor Dominance Threatens Global Supply Chains
In the mountains of North Carolina, in a small town called Spruce Pine, lies one of the world’s most unlikely strategic assets: a quartz mine that produces some of the purest silica sand on Earth. This sand, refined to 99.9% purity, is essential for manufacturing the crucibles that create silicon wafers—the foundation of every computer chip. Few people have heard of Spruce Pine, yet its fate could determine whether your smartphone works, your car starts, or entire nations maintain their technological edge. This obscure dependency exemplifies a troubling reality: the global semiconductor supply chain is not a chain at all, but a fragile web of interconnected nodes that China is systematically working to control.
As 2025 unfolds, semiconductors have become the new oil—powering everything from artificial intelligence systems to renewable energy infrastructure. Yet unlike oil, which flows through visible pipelines and tankers, the semiconductor supply web operates through invisible dependencies spanning continents. China currently controls around 24 percent of global capacity for 50–180 nm chips, and this share is projected to surge to 50 percent by 2030 as China pours massive subsidies into domestic production. This strategic push represents more than economic competition; it’s a calculated attempt to control the neural pathways of the global economy.
The Hidden Architecture of Chip Manufacturing #
To understand China’s strategy, we must first map the semiconductor web’s critical nodes. Unlike traditional manufacturing, chip production resembles a complex orchestration involving hundreds of specialized companies, each controlling a specific slice of an impossibly intricate process.
At the foundation lies silicon itself, derived from quartz sand through a process requiring temperatures exceeding 2,000 degrees Celsius. The Spruce Pine deposits remain uniquely valuable because their low iron content eliminates impurities that would compromise chip performance. Yet this American resource must travel through a global gauntlet: Japanese companies like Shin-Etsu Chemical dominate silicon wafer production, Dutch firm ASML holds a near-monopoly on extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography machines, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) commands over 50% of global foundry capacity.
Each node represents both a technological marvel and a potential chokepoint. ASML’s EUV machines, for instance, cost $200 million each and require components from 5,000 suppliers across 40 countries. These machines use light with wavelengths smaller than viruses to etch transistors just five nanometers wide—barely 10 silicon atoms across. Only three companies worldwide can produce memory chips at this scale: Samsung and SK Hynix in South Korea, and Micron in the United States.
The complexity extends beyond headline companies to obscure specialists controlling critical materials. German firm Wacker Chemie produces polysilicon, the refined material from which wafers are cut. Japanese companies dominate photoresist chemicals that pattern circuits onto chips. Even seemingly mundane components like the graphite crucibles used in silicon purification come from specialized suppliers in China and Madagascar.
This distributed complexity emerged from decades of optimization, as companies focused on their comparative advantages while relying on global markets for everything else. The result is a system of breathtaking efficiency and terrifying fragility—a reality that China’s leadership recognized long before Western policymakers.
China’s Strategic Awakening #
China’s semiconductor ambitions crystallized following the 2018 trade war and subsequent U.S. export controls targeting companies like Huawei. At Davos in January 2024, Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger asserted that China faced a “10 year gap and a sustainable 10 year gap,” given all the export control policies that have been implemented by various countries. Yet this assessment may prove overly optimistic, as China’s response has been both comprehensive and strategic.
Rather than simply attempting to replicate Western technology, China has pursued a systems approach to semiconductor independence. Beijing’s primary response to U.S. technology controls involves developing new structures to provide better support for the domestic semiconductor industry. These tools and policies continue to be designed, built, and fine-tuned across the government at all levels. Developments during 2024 demonstrated a much higher degree of involvement of domestic industry than ever before in complex long-term industrial policy planning, in addition to high levels of cooperation across multiple industry supply chains.
This strategy unfolds across multiple dimensions simultaneously. China has invested heavily in domestic foundries, with Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC) emerging as a national champion. Despite U.S. equipment restrictions, SMIC has achieved 7-nanometer production capabilities, though at lower yields and higher costs than TSMC. More significantly, China has begun developing indigenous alternatives to Western equipment, with Shanghai Micro Electronics Equipment (SMEE) producing lithography systems that, while less advanced than ASML’s machines, could potentially manufacture chips down to 28 nanometers.
The materials dimension reveals China’s most cunning moves. While Western attention focuses on cutting-edge chip manufacturing, China has quietly secured control over critical raw materials. Chinese companies now dominate rare earth mining, essential for semiconductor manufacturing equipment. They’ve also moved to secure high-purity quartz sources, with recent investments in Central Asian suppliers. SandCo, Central Asia’s top-tier supplier of premium quartz sand, reported an unprecedented production total of 15,000 tons for 2024 due to an initial $10 million investment in extended production facilities, indicating growing attention to these strategic materials.
Perhaps most concerning is China’s approach to legacy chips—the less sophisticated semiconductors that power everything from automobiles to home appliances. While Western companies chase the technological frontier, China has systematically built capacity in these “boring” chips that nonetheless represent the backbone of modern civilization. This strategy offers multiple advantages: legacy chips require less advanced equipment that China can more easily obtain or replicate, they generate steady revenue streams, and they create dependencies that China can potentially exploit.
The Taiwan Nexus #
Taiwan occupies the most precarious position in this strategic competition. TSMC’s dominance in advanced chip manufacturing makes the island simultaneously indispensable and vulnerable. The company produces over 90% of the world’s most advanced chips, including those powering iPhones, Tesla vehicles, and NVIDIA’s AI accelerators. This concentration creates what strategists call “the silicon shield”—the theory that China would never invade Taiwan because it would destroy the semiconductor facilities both sides depend upon.
Yet this shield may prove less protective than hoped. TSMC’s newest facilities require constant maintenance and software updates from Western suppliers. In a conflict scenario, these supply lines would be severed immediately, potentially crippling production even if the physical facilities remained intact. Moreover, China’s growing domestic capabilities reduce its dependence on Taiwan’s production, potentially weakening the silicon shield over time.
Recent geopolitical tensions have prompted both sides to reduce these dependencies. TSMC has begun constructing advanced fabrication facilities in Arizona and Japan, though these won’t reach full capacity until the late 2020s. Meanwhile, China accelerates efforts to achieve self-sufficiency in advanced chips, viewing the current window as potentially its last opportunity to resolve the Taiwan question before losing leverage.
Economic Ripple Effects #
The semiconductor web’s fragility has already triggered cascading disruptions across the global economy. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed these vulnerabilities when supply chain interruptions caused chip shortages that idled automobile production lines worldwide. The shortages revealed how modern products depend on semiconductors: a typical car contains over 1,400 chips, while a modern smartphone requires more than 1,000.
In 2024 and 2025, these chips or lightweight versions of these chips are also finding homes in the enterprise edge, in computers, in smartphones, and (over time) in other edge devices such as IoT applications. This expanding demand amplifies supply chain risks, as more industries become dependent on semiconductor availability.
China’s growing control over this web poses distinct economic risks. In a best-case scenario, Chinese production would provide additional global capacity, potentially reducing costs and improving supply security through diversification. However, this outcome requires China to integrate into global markets rather than pursuing technological nationalism. Current trends suggest the opposite: China increasingly views semiconductor self-sufficiency as a national security imperative, potentially leading to a bifurcated global technology ecosystem.
Such bifurcation would impose enormous costs on global commerce. Companies would face the expensive choice of maintaining separate supply chains for different markets, similar to the internet’s fragmentation into national or regional networks. Innovation would slow as researchers lose access to global talent and knowledge networks. Consumers would pay higher prices for products designed for smaller, segregated markets.
The military implications prove equally concerning. In July 2024, Chinese scientists announced development of what could be the fastest analogue-to-digital converter (ADC) for military use. The device can reduce the time delay of electronic warfare receivers from nanoseconds to picoseconds, or one-trillionth of a second. Such advances suggest China’s semiconductor progress may accelerate beyond civilian applications, potentially altering military balances that have maintained global stability.
Future Scenarios: Navigating the Semiconductor Maze #
Looking ahead, three primary scenarios could reshape the global semiconductor landscape, each carrying profound implications for economic security and international relations.
Scenario One: Managed Competition
In this optimistic scenario, the United States, China, and other major players establish frameworks for continued cooperation while pursuing domestic capabilities. Trade agreements could preserve critical supply chains while allowing strategic competition in next-generation technologies. China’s semiconductor industry would develop alongside, rather than in opposition to, existing global networks.
This outcome requires delicate diplomacy and mutual restraint. Western nations would need to accept China’s growing technological capabilities while China would need to resist the temptation to weaponize its supply chain advantages. Recent diplomatic overtures, including high-level technology dialogues, suggest this path remains possible, though increasingly narrow.
Scenario Two: Fragmented Ecosystems
A more likely scenario involves the emergence of competing technological blocs, each with distinct supply chains and standards. China could succeed in building comprehensive domestic capabilities while Western nations create alternative supply networks excluding Chinese components. This technological Cold War would divide the global economy into incompatible systems.
Early signs of this fragmentation already appear. The U.S. CHIPS Act allocates $52 billion to domestic semiconductor production while explicitly excluding Chinese partnerships. European initiatives like the European Chips Act pursue similar goals, albeit with smaller financial commitments. China’s response involves accelerating domestic investment while restricting exports of critical materials like gallium and germanium.
Such fragmentation would impose enormous transition costs but might ultimately enhance global resilience by reducing single points of failure. However, it would also slow innovation and increase consumer costs while creating new opportunities for conflict over technological standards and market access.
Scenario Three: Chinese Dominance
The most concerning scenario involves China successfully achieving comprehensive semiconductor leadership while maintaining its authoritarian governance model. This outcome would grant Beijing unprecedented leverage over global technology systems, potentially enabling economic coercion on a scale previously unimaginable.
Several factors could produce this result. China’s massive domestic market provides natural advantages in developing and scaling semiconductor technologies. Its willingness to subsidize strategic industries exceeds democratic governments’ political capacity for sustained investment. Most importantly, China’s integrated approach to supply chain control—securing raw materials, building manufacturing capacity, and developing indigenous equipment—could create self-reinforcing advantages.
Western responses to this scenario would likely involve aggressive decoupling efforts, potentially triggering economic conflicts that make current trade tensions seem minor. The global economy would face the prospect of operating under Chinese technological leadership or accepting the massive costs of complete supply chain reconstruction.
Wildcards and Disruptions #
Beyond these primary scenarios, several wildcard events could reshape the semiconductor landscape in unpredictable ways. Natural disasters represent one category of risk: earthquakes, floods, or other catastrophes affecting key production centers could trigger global shortages lasting months or years. The concentration of advanced manufacturing in seismically active regions like Taiwan and Japan amplifies these risks.
Technological breakthroughs offer another source of disruption. Advances in quantum computing, neuromorphic chips, or alternative materials like graphene could obsolete current silicon-based technologies. Such developments would redistribute competitive advantages and potentially reduce the importance of existing supply chain choke points.
Geopolitical shocks, including conflicts in the South China Sea or renewed tensions on the Korean Peninsula, could trigger immediate supply disruptions while accelerating technological decoupling. Even conflicts in seemingly unrelated regions could affect semiconductor supply chains through their impacts on shipping, energy costs, or financial markets.
Climate change represents a slower-moving but potentially more fundamental challenge. Semiconductor manufacturing requires enormous amounts of water and energy while producing significant emissions. Taiwan’s frequent water shortages have already affected chip production, while extreme weather events increasingly threaten manufacturing facilities worldwide.
Mapping the Path Forward #
The semiconductor supply chain’s fragility demands urgent attention from policymakers, business leaders, and citizens who depend on these invisible networks. Three strategic priorities emerge from this analysis.
First, diversification must become a central principle of supply chain design. The pursuit of efficiency through concentration has created unacceptable vulnerabilities that China’s strategy exposes and exploits. This requires moving beyond simple reshoring to create truly resilient networks with multiple suppliers, backup capabilities, and rapid response mechanisms.
CSIS Americas director Ryan C. Berg, Emiliano Polo Anaya, and Henry Ziemer survey potential risk vectors in the supply of critical minerals for semiconductor manufacturing and outline the potential for the Western Hemisphere to mitigate these challenges. Their analysis suggests opportunities for reducing dependence on Chinese-controlled materials through strategic partnerships with allied nations.
Second, Western nations must coordinate their responses to avoid fragmented, contradictory policies that China can exploit. The semiconductor challenge transcends national boundaries and requires multilateral solutions. This includes harmonizing export controls, coordinating investment strategies, and sharing critical technologies among trusted partners.
Third, the private sector must internalize supply chain risks that markets currently ignore. Companies designing products around single-source suppliers or concentrated production centers may face catastrophic disruptions as geopolitical tensions escalate. Regulatory frameworks may need to evolve to require supply chain resilience just as they currently mandate financial stability in banking.
Conclusion: The Web We Weave #
The global semiconductor supply chain represents humanity’s most complex technological achievement—a web of dependencies spanning continents, connecting thousands of companies, and enabling the digital civilization we inhabit. Yet this same complexity creates vulnerabilities that China’s leadership has recognized and begun to exploit through a comprehensive strategy of technological self-sufficiency and supply chain control.
The stakes could not be higher. Semiconductors power not just our devices but our defense systems, our energy grids, and our economic networks. Control over these supply chains grants influence over the pace of technological progress, the distribution of economic benefits, and ultimately the balance of global power.
China’s quest for semiconductor dominance challenges the assumptions underlying decades of globalization. The belief that economic interdependence would constrain geopolitical competition appears increasingly naive as nations weaponize trade relationships and supply chain dependencies. The semiconductor web reveals both the benefits and the costs of this interconnected world.
The choices made in the next few years will determine whether this web evolves toward greater resilience and shared prosperity or fragments into competing systems that divide the global economy. Western nations retain advantages in innovation, alliance networks, and financial resources, but these advantages require urgent mobilization and strategic application.
The fragile web of semiconductor supply chains demands our attention not despite its complexity, but because of it. In understanding these dependencies, mapping these relationships, and building these alternatives, we engage in the essential work of securing our technological future. The alternative—dependence on systems we cannot control and actors we cannot trust—represents a risk that democracies cannot afford to accept.
The semiconductor revolution has transformed human civilization in barely seven decades. How we manage its supply chains will shape the next seven decades and beyond. The web we weave today will determine whether tomorrow’s technologies serve human flourishing or enable new forms of control and coercion. The choice, for now, remains ours to make.
References #
American Affairs Journal. (2024, February 23). A new era for the Chinese semiconductor industry: Beijing responds to export controls. American Affairs Journal. https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2024/02/a-new-era-for-the-chinese-semiconductor-industry-beijing-responds-to-export-controls/
American Affairs Journal. (2024, December 6). The evolution of China’s semiconductor industry under U.S. export controls. American Affairs Journal. https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2024/11/the-evolution-of-chinas-semiconductor-industry-under-u-s-export-controls/
Atlantic Council. (2025, March 13). United States–China semiconductor standoff: A supply chain under stress. Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/united-states-china-semiconductor-standoff-a-supply-chain-under-stress/
Berg, R. C., Anaya, E. P., & Ziemer, H. (2024, October 16). Mineral demands for resilient semiconductor supply chains. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/mineral-demands-resilient-semiconductor-supply-chains
Conway, E. (2023). Material world: The six raw materials that shape modern civilization. Knopf.
Credence Research. (2024, September 16). Quartz sand market size, share, growth and forecast 2032. Credence Research. https://www.credenceresearch.com/report/quartz-sand-market
Deloitte Insights. (2025, February 20). 2025 semiconductor industry outlook. Deloitte Insights. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/technology/technology-media-telecom-outlooks/semiconductor-industry-outlook.html
Foreign Policy Research Institute. (2024, September 16). Breaking the circuit: US-China semiconductor controls. Foreign Policy Research Institute. https://www.fpri.org/article/2024/09/breaking-the-circuit-us-china-semiconductor-controls/
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. (2024, November 25). How innovative is China in semiconductors? ITIF. https://itif.org/publications/2024/08/19/how-innovative-is-china-in-semiconductors/
The Manila Times. (2025, June 5). SandCo sets new quartz sand production record with 15,000 tons in 2024, eyes further expansion into China market and critical minerals. The Manila Times. https://www.manilatimes.net/2025/06/05/tmt-newswire/globenewswire/sandco-sets-new-quartz-sand-production-record-with-15000-tons-in-2024-eyes-further-expansion-into-china-market-and-critical-minerals/2127957