Yes mostly. The West outsourced this market due to heavy environmental and financial costs of extracting it. It’s sort of the same story as for a lot of the rare earth elements.
https://payneinstitute.mines.edu/strategic-intervention-to-r...
> China produces approximately 98% of the global gallium supply and 88% of the global germanium supply; dominance has been fueled by government intervention. Beijing mandated its rapidly expanding aluminum producers to install the capacity to extract gallium. Between 2005 and 2015, China’s production of low-purity gallium surged from 22 metric tons to 444 metric tons, a nearly 2000 percent increase. This move flooded the market and forced producers in the United Kingdom, Germany, Hungary, and Kazakhstan to shutter their operations.
https://www.riotinto.com/en/news/releases/2026/rio-tinto-adv...
Here they are somehow eliminating the need for phosphors for color conversion but they didn't say how.
I mean, if GaN is a problem we are already in a bad shape.
The problem with outsourcing all your manufacturing so you can mildly increase profits and destroy any organized labor is that whoever you outsourced it to holds you hostage.
Any talk of this is just propaganda to sell weapons and increase the "defense" budget.
So gallium is a byproduct of bauxite mining but requires some sophistication. China produces 60% of the world's aluminum. India is the second largest producer but doesn't have the infrastructure to extract gallium. That will probably change. But it is a sophisticated process so you need an entire supply chain for that too. China has that. India does not (currently).
But India would avoid the geopolitical issues of being dependent on China or Russia.
> The problem with outsourcing all your manufacturing
Not having a war is a good thing, not a problem.
You should open a history book. Or two.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Peo...
I find it hard to believe this comment was made in good faith.
They are two separate countries now, unless you think North/South Korea are the same, Russia/Ukraine, etc.
No, they are not. The US legally recognized Taiwan (fka Formosa) as Chinese territory in 1943 and 1945 and legally recognized the PRC as the sole legal government of China in 1979, following a similar recognition by the UN in 1971.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12503
There are only 11 countries in the world that recognize Taiwan as a sovereign entity and the largest are Guatemala, Haiti, and Paraguay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_T...
It is de facto a country, not de jure, for obvious reasons. You can pretend otherwise, but what's the point in engaging in a discussion where you get to invent your own reality?
Rinse, Repeat.
Hilariously not any organized labor, just the local group. The largest organized labor group in the history of the world is alive and well, and is headquartered in Beijing.
This was basically just a case of kicking the can down the road really hard. The can is still there, waiting for you, and you are now completely dependent on it (oh and it has nuclear weapons).
Sounds like all the more reason for china to start a war.
Just having one side dependent isn't going to stop war.
This is almost the exact same argument that was used to justify economic cooperation with Russia, they’d never start a war in Europe because their economy would collapse!
Ooos.
Also we read the warning as "don't buy from them, rather buy from us".
And it was extensivly debated in general.
The EU kept at it with plans to expand until the war started for the second time and “someone” took it upon themselves to violently sever that link.
Now at latest by 2014 that should have changed indeed. But even then different approaches would have been possible then cutting all ties and hope this will work out better.
I'm no fan of Donald Trump but this was one of his rare Ws. At a NATO summit in 2018, he warned Europe about the dangers of dependency on Russian energy and basically bullied Germany into building an LNG plant, something that was critical to Europe after Russia invaded Ukraine 4 years later [1].
Biden as Vice President to Obama warned Europe of the same thing in 2016 [2] regarding Nord Stream 2.
So American administrations have consistently and repeatedly warned Europe about the dangers over 6+ years. So how can anyone argue that "[Russia would] never start a war in Europe" when the US said basically that?
[2]: https://www.dw.com/en/biden-warns-europe-against-dependency-...