The smallest transistors currently in production are the intel 18A which have a gate length of 18 angstroms or 1.8nanometers.
However this is more of a naming convention than actual size as transistors have moved off planar design for a while now as FINFETS and GAA transistors became the norm.
The smallest planar transistors are around 22nm which would give you around 450,000 stacked end to end in one cm. This doesn't take into consideration buffer devices or any proper layout procedure.
I however don't think that's the core breakthrough here. It's more about it's durability seemingly.
Sounds to me USSR revolution wasn't that "successful" afer all
Reducing the USSR to a "failure" because it collapsed is ahistorical idealism and the height of liberal nonsense. We should judge a formation by the contradictions it resolved, not by whether it achieved eternity. Tsarist Russia was a feudal wreck where peasants starved and most couldn't read. Within decades, the Soviet project doubled life expectancy, wiped out illiteracy, and industrialized a continent-sized country, dragging millions out of poverty.
Women gained full legal equality in 1918: abortion rights, divorce, workplace access, while Western women were still fighting for the vote. Socialized childcare and mass employment pulled women into public life on a scale capitalism wouldn't match for generations.
And let's not forget who actually broke fascism: the Red Army fought four-fifths of the Wehrmacht, lost 27 million people, and took Berlin while the West sat on the sidelines and even continued to trade with the nazi beast for years into the war (see the history of ford factories and IBM).
Collapse doesn't retroactively erase what was built. "Anarchists" like you who dismiss seventy years of concrete progress because the state eventually fractured aren't radical they're reactionary. Material gains for millions don't vanish because the system that produced them later unraveled.
The aftermath of the collapse proved the stakes that people like you refuse to grapple with. The 1990s were catastrophic. Life expectancy cratered, millions plunged into homelessness and destitution, women and children were trafficked by the tens of thousands, and the entire country was looted by oligarchs with IMF blessing. The chaos bred Yeltsin's drunken comprador regime, which paved the way for Putin's rise as his right-hand man a direct product of the Soviet collapse. When you cheer the unraveling of a workers' state even a deeply flawed one, you're not celebrating freedom. You're celebrating the road that led straight to oligarchs, fascists, and some of the worst reaction imaginable. But you don't really care about anyone but yourself.
I'm sure that definitely contributes to it. But entering a game of chicken when everybody already knows where your line is is simply a bad idea and I'm sure the CPC and Russian government realize that as well.
While true at the surface it was more to fight against groups funded by the USSR (such as in Afghanistan) to contain influence gains as far as I'm aware at least.
Which is a slight but very important distinction as it meant direct nuclear power clashes were far less likely and action even if perfunctory could be taken to avoid being seen as unreliable as it was against proxies, even if it became incredibly close at times.
For example if the US was arming Syria to invade Iran as opposed to doing it itself an Article 5 style agreement would make a lot more sense.
Neither China nor Russia are willing to end the world for Iran which is what would be required. The US obviously knows this too hence would not be dissuaded. All an article 5 like agreement would do is weaken China's position as a growing alternate pole when the US invade and China doesn't press the button.
An agreement to work around sanctions and help Iran guarantee development is much more beneficial for everyone.
Also article 5 wasn't designed with the idea of ever protecting against nuclear powers, it's purpose is to intimidate imperialisms victims out of being too uppity and fighting back too far.
Li Mingliang (executive director of the Belt and Road Tianjin Strategic Research Institute and professor at the School of International Business of Tianjin Foreign Studies University) on how the Belt and Road Initiative is increasingly driven by vocational education cooperation, with China exporting skills training to partner countries to support employment and industrial development, while stressing that future success depends on deeper localization, stronger integration, and adaptation to digital and green technology.
You are right, the United States is still the world’s dominant military superpower overall, but that's not really relevant to this specific point. In this specific case (the Sentinel ICBM versus comparable Chinese missiles) it is clearly behind. The reasons vary as you rightly pointed out: rigid doctrine, arms-control treaty legacies, extreme cost inflation, industrial constraints, and political limits on mobility and basing. All of that matters for why the gap exists, but it does not change the material outcome. China fields newer, more advanced, more survivable, more flexible systems designed for modern strategic conditions, while the US is spending almost unimaginable sums to preserve an increasingly vulnerable fixed-silo model and continue to enrich defense company shareholders.
So this missile is costing $150B+ to develop, wont even enter production until 2029 and will probably be $200M+ per unit and it is less advanced than the DF-41 from 2017 not to mind China's full missile ecosystem?
The smallest transistors currently in production are the intel 18A which have a gate length of 18 angstroms or 1.8nanometers.
However this is more of a naming convention than actual size as transistors have moved off planar design for a while now as FINFETS and GAA transistors became the norm.
The smallest planar transistors are around 22nm which would give you around 450,000 stacked end to end in one cm. This doesn't take into consideration buffer devices or any proper layout procedure.
I however don't think that's the core breakthrough here. It's more about it's durability seemingly.