The idea that the US protects Taiwan from a possible Chinese invasion over chips is one of those things that sounds believable but really isn't going to happen.
From China’s perspective, the cost of war is much higher than the cost of developing these chips themselves. In the worst-case scenario, they would be 2-3 years behind the cutting edge, which is not mission-critical. Most electronics (civilian or military) don’t really need cutting-edge chips, and China has already proven that they don’t need the latest chips to be a significant AI competitor.
From the US’s perspective, if a war with China were to break out now, there are only three possible scenarios:
1. China takes Taiwan quickly. In this case, there would be nothing for US to defend, and the US would have to try to take Taiwan back militarily—unlikely to happen.
2. Stalemate. Taiwanese people fight bravely, and Chinese forces turn out to be weaker than expected. In this case, the US would be in a comfortable position to send aid and weapons to help Taiwan, prolonging the war to weaken China. With some luck, a regime change could happen without firing a shot.
3. Taiwan successfully defends itself, repels the Chinese invasion, and possibly even takes back some territory—an unlikely scenario, but this is the only one where the US would send troops to help defend Taiwan. If the US gets involved at this stage, it secures a sure win, puts a military base on the island, and further cements its role as the protector of taiwan.
If you believe the US will or should only act in its own interest, then its interest is to remain the only superpower. Rushing into a war on foreign turf and losing is the quickest way to cede the Asia-Pacific region to China. So, despite what politicians might have you believe, the US is not going to help defend Taiwan, no matter who is in the White House.
> From China’s perspective, the cost of war is much higher than the cost of developing these chips themselves.
For China it’s not about the chips. It’s about getting rid of the humiliation that is having a small island, that was originally part of China, not be a part of China.
A 'small' island with one of the most successful and thriving democracies in the East, that has world class industry. China cannot have a successful democracy on their doorstep, it undermines their perception of absolute Chinese superiority.
This seems like one of Putin's motivations for invading Ukraine. He couldn't stand having a prosperous Ukraine aligned with the EU and the US that could foment discontent inside Russia.
What you mean like hong Kong? That humiliation pales in comparison to the damage done domestically as taiwan's defenses would necessitate a gross loss of life. Then consider the diplomatic posture of every major economy on the China sea.
And also a vibrant democracy, potentially serving as an example (foreign and domestic) that alternative political systems are an option and perhaps even desirable.
I have a strong impression there are similarities with Russia and Ukraine. Having a neighbor with a similar culture and overlapping histories that also has independent, democratic government was likely viewed as a direct threat to the Putin regime and one of the driving reasons for the invasion. I could see a similar calculation with Taiwan/China.
1) The USA does not have launchable nuclear weapons in neighboring countries to Taiwan that necessitate a buffer
2) Taiwan does not represent unprotected border territory. Heck, attacking it sustainedly would require significant and slow naval logistics
3) Other than human intellect, there is little in the way of natural resources to obtain out of Taiwan. It's economy is manufscturung and export driven.
Other than some nationalistic pride to recapture teritority, they are not much alike.
> Other than some nationalistic pride to recapture teritority, they are not much alike.
To add, Taiwan uses traditional Chinese and is more conservative to traditional Chinese culture. China abandoned all of that during the cultural revolution. There's been a recent nationalist push to embrace "traditional" Chinese identity, involving mainand Chinese people going to sites in Japan and elsewhere wearing "traditional" Chinese clothing.
Imagine the nationalistic outrage if someone wore a kimono in China. In practice, these traditional Chinese clothing are cheaply made cosplay from Taobao
Yeah, I subscribe to your theory too. It's odd how Putin and his defenders spout all sorts of theories about the evil of NATO and "the West", but if you (addressing the dictators here) have faith in your arguments, why suppress viewpoints that disagree with yours, with media company closures, network firewalls and threats of years in the gulag?
Because their argument, in which they do have faith, is that a cacophony of disagreeing viewpoints casting doubts on the common national project is hurtful, even if those doubts are unfounded and those viewpoints unsubstantiated.
I'm not defending autoritarianism or communism, but I think you're just not putting yourself in their shoes and looking at things from their POV. They supress other viewpoints not because they're afraid to be shown wrong, but because they believe it's best to supress them and not have people confused by enemy missinformation.
(Not an expert, but this is my impression from talking to both chinese and vietnamese people who defend or at least don't oppose their communist governments, and also spanish autoritarians who defend the Francoist regime. I used to think they were brainwashed/dumb/evil, and now I think their worldview makes a bit of sense, even if it's still misguided.)
One of the reasons for the collapse of the USSR was that the propaganda done by the US was better than the propaganda done by the Soviets. So it's not like there isn't a historical reason for this either.
Never underestimate the power of saving face. The Taiwan invasion had a dry run with how they handled Hong Kong. This is going to happen and my guess is it will be on Trump’s way out. That way it all gets done during the 2028 election season, and all the next President can do is pout.
It’s a win-win for Trump because he keeps China at bay for three years, which is good enough for him.
How are Taiwan and Hong Kong at all comparable? Hong Kong never had their own military, was never an independent nation, and was officially handed over from Britain to China in 1997. There was no armed invasion of Hong Kong - Chinese military was already garrisoned there for 25 years.
Invading Taiwan will never be an economically rational action. If it happens, it will be because of internal politics, personal/national myth-making etc.
Taiwan is ridiculously favourable terrain for the defenders; if they fight back, there can't be quick victory, and the US will be able to play merry hell with China's naval logistics from day 1 (obviously with escalating levels of firepower available over time as more resources move in-theatre).
China could secure a more reliable victory by expending most of it's ballistic missile inventory to incapacitate the US bases in Guam and Okinawa, but that would inexorably trigger WWIII.
I don't think that's accurate. The population is concentrated on the west coast, all that mountainous terrain is unpopulated. Also it's an island that's very close to China.
No need to go on the island to win. Just encircle it. A blockade. Always works and this has been the modus operandi to conquer fortresses and castles for millenia.
Time wouldn't be on their side though. China would need to effectively complete the invasion before the US navy had time to react. Even if it was considered unlikely the US would react, I doubt China would commit to an invasion they weren't certain they could win.
Would you subject your family to a Cultural Revolution in exchange for 100k? Add several zeros and assurances of safe passage out of the country and maybe you'd be onto something, but that's not going to happen for numerous reasons.
The PRC already buys the loyalty of who they can in Taiwan, but Taiwan nevertheless remains resolute.
Can we really be sure what the new 2025 version of the US would do in such a scenario? I highly doubt the new US is going to intervene in defence of any of its erstwhile allies.
He has been predictable in his handling of Ukraine and Israel. He favours the aggressors. He's also predictable in isolationism and wanting manufacturing moved back to America. None of this bodes well for Taiwan.
A blockade takes time to have an effect and that time gives US Navy SSNs time to start sinking the PLAN (in righteous response to the PLAN attacking merchant ships approaching Taiwan.)
For the PRCs invasion of Taiwan to work with minimal risk of excessive losses, they need to do it very quickly so that it's a fait accompli, minimizing the chance of any American response at all.
>The idea that the US protects Taiwan from a possible Chinese invasion over chips is one of those things that sounds believable but really isn't going to happen.
>From China’s perspective, the cost of war is much higher than the cost of developing these chips themselves.
You've got it completely backwards. China doesn't want Taiwan because it has the best chip manufacturing in the world. Taiwan has the best chip manufacturing in the world because China wants to invade them and they wanted to give the US a reason to defend them and China a reason not to. War with Taiwan will impact global chip supply even if China can produce their own, which their economy will feel.
My impression after spending month and half in Taiwan last year is that China wouldn't have to fire a single bullet to take over the country. The only thing that would stop China is a US president with the strength to put two aircraft carrier strike groups between the island and the mainland. [0] If China needed Taiwan strategically they can surround the island in two days and take it the next. I concluded China is only postering and it is the economic threat with its ASEAN trading partners and the EU that keeps it at bay. The ASML chip fab machines are designed to be remotely disabled so they are not getting chips. [1] There is nothing to be gained from attacking the island and that is the reason it hasn't happened.
The US is not going to help defend Taiwan is a fair thesis, but reciprocally, China is not going to attack Taiwan.
Even if Russia gets all of it's demands in the peacemaking process with Ukraine, that war has done permanent and lasting damage to it's economy and global position. For China to attack Taiwan, it would give up any hope of continuing it's healthy trends towards increased economic and political importance.
Eventually, Taiwan will re-join China when it is sufficiently strong. It's symbolism as a continued humiliation by the west is more useful as propaganda than an actual military target.
> continuing it's healthy trends towards increased economic and political importance.
They "just" need to flip the script: be the single superpower that all countries are dependant upon, and then take over Taiwan. And then announce "Does anyone have something to say about what I just did?", and enjoy the silence. Already China is investing all over Africa, buying their compliance (which is what the US also did in the past).
Thanks to Daddy Issues 1 (Musk) and 2 (Trump) in the White House, their path just got a lot easier.
The response of the Russian 2014 invasion of Crimea was also quite muted because the EU was dependant on Russia's energy..
The US is not going to defend Taiwan because of chips, but China is also not going to attack Taiwan because of chips - if they do, they'll attack it for the same reason Putin attacked Ukraine: an "us vs them" mentality helps keep dictators in power, and nothing creates such a mentality better than a war. We can only hope that China is sensible enough to see the downsides too, but the current international climate is not a real deterrent. And I have to admit China has a better claim to Taiwan than Russia to Ukraine - they never recognized Taiwan's independence, while Russia (together with the US and the UK) agreed in 1994 to guarantee Ukraine's security in exchange for it renouncing the ex-USSR nuclear weapons stationed on its territory (https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-put...) - and now they're "guaranteeing their security" by invading them.
Unfortunately, dictators don't care much about damage to it's economy as long as they continue to be in power. When they expand and occupy more land, they will look very good in their country's history book which is a huge motivation for dictators. That's the reason why nobody thought Putin would seriously consider invasion but he did. And China will definitely attack Taiwan when the timing is right. Even if a million people dies, Xi would still be considered a hero by most chinese people if he took back Taiwan.
Russia is out of the AI race. That has been lost and there's no way to reverse it.
If Russia wouldn't have started a war, it could have focused on building huge datacenters. It has all the energy it would have needed, now all it can do with it is sell it to China for cheap.
It remains to be seen if the person I think you are referring to is a non-dictator. He said he would be a "dictator on day one", and he sure was, but then he somehow forgot to revert to non-dictator mode...
Regarding "crashing real estate": actually, most other countries would love to have built enough to bring down real estate prices. Being able to afford a place to live is good for most people! But of course, investing in real estate makes you interested into increasing the value of your property, so you're now incentivized to stop more real estate being built (and also to stop anything else that might decrease the value of your property - thus NIMBYism).
> that war has done permanent and lasting damage to it's economy and global position
Assuming the Ukraine is forced to surrender and Russia keeps the territories, Russia's reputation will increase. They'll be able to say they fought NATO and won. Even today, people say with a serious face that Ukraine started the war and many believe it.
Russia is damaged, but if it's allowed to win, it will recover and become a beacon for the global authoritarians/south.
> Taiwanese people fight bravely, and Chinese forces turn out to be weaker than expected. In this case, the US would be in a comfortable position to send aid and weapons to help Taiwan, prolonging the war to weaken China. With some luck, a regime change could happen without firing a shot.
After 3 years of war they will sell it out to China. Taiwan started the war in the first place, actually.
Their posturing during peacetime does not translate into showing up during wartime.
In fact we have already seen how they cosy up to dictators during wartime. The USA spent decades and decades backing military coups and assassinating democratically elected leaders all over the world under the guise of fighting the Cold War only to suddenly do a U-turn and pander to Putin. Russia has won the Cold War without direct military confrontation with the US.
We have also seen how Trump's first administration betrayed the Afghan government by negotiating directly with the Taliban and locking the Afghan government out of the process. He's doing the same now with regards to the war in Ukraine.
If you know any Taiwanese people, ask them whether the removal of "we don't recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation" brings them any comfort in light of how the Trump administration is treating Zelensky and America's NATO allies. Ask them what they think of Trump's expansionist rhetoric about annexing Canada, one of America's most steadfast allies with centuries of friendship.
Talk is cheap, and Taiwan as well as America's other Pacific allies are beginning to see through it.
> Russia has won the Cold War without direct military confrontation with the US.
Let's not rewrite history just to score some cheap propaganda points: the USSR lost the Cold War, and lost it badly. Russia (or rather, putinism) might be winning Cold War II, or The Oligarchic Wars, or whatever you want to call this new conflict, but the actual Cold War ended in the 90s.
I apologise; it was not my intention to rewrite history. It was a rhetorical device, though I can see how I came across as trying to be revisionist. But you're right that it's important to be precise.
It was not. I'm a real person, and I'm genuinely willing to concede that I was sloppy in my choice of words. But I'm not sure how I can prove it to you.
> If you believe the US will or should only act in its own interest, then its interest is to remain the only superpower.
Not necessarily. Remaining the only superpower is far from guaranteed, especially looking at current economic and demographic trends. A better strategy might be to lead by example, establishing high standards that will set a benchmark for their successor.
> The idea that the US protects Taiwan from a possible Chinese invasion over chips is one of those things that sounds believable but really isn't going to happen.
I recently got (second-hand) one Taiwanese business perspective on this.
Background: A friend of mine runs an SME in Europe and one of their key suppliers is in Taiwan. Friend visits Taiwan regularly to maintain the relationship. The following conversation happened around a year ago.
My friend gets talking [in private, off the record, after a drink or three] to one of the Taiwanese managers, and the topic turns to China and the invasion scenario. My friend asked if the Taiwanese business had put any thought into what might happen (thinking maybe they've explored the business continuity angles).
The Taiwanese guy basically shrugged, and said that if the Chinese were to launch an invasion, "Taiwan is completely * * * *ed", there's nothing the US or anyone else could or would do to be able to prevent that. He apparently didn't seem up tight about, more resigned. No interest in trying to plan any kind of response, because they feel they'd be hit with overwhelming force and would be completely on their own for long enough that it would all be over.
My friend was and still is concerned about his business continuity, with his key supplier potentially going offline, so is quietly exploring his options.
You seem to be assuming that the invasion would happen by surprise. That's effectively impossible due to the scale of the operation. Especially because China is full of foreigners and the logistical effort would be impossible to hide.
If China decides to invade, everyone would likely know it weeks in advance. They just could not be sure if it's an actual invasion or a massive military exercise that simulates an invasion. And in either case, the US would have plenty of time to decide whether to commit additional carrier strike groups to the region before anything happens.
What would make carrier strike groups effective in the situation? Given their recent record in the defense of Israel and against the Yemeni Red Sea blockade, one could argue that their era is over. The two most likely outcomes from a carrier strike group engaging with China forces are either a humiliating retreat, or WW3. I think US are smart enough to keep them at bay. Maybe station one in the area for monitoring the situation and assisting evacuation of Americans.
If China has a seriously good-enough, home-made processor and storage chips, it could gain from a war with Taiwan. If this would mean to cripple the EU's and possibly also US's and to a lesser degree it's own economy through the absence of chips on the market, having that good-enough, home-made processor would be what keeps China afloat, while the rest drowns. And if it could get Taiwan and its chip manufacturing capabilities, it would have won the war with even bigger gains.
At least the EU has no way to survive without Taiwan selling them chips.
I've read that in war gaming a Chinese invasion of Taiwan the US can stop it BUT they usually lost TWO aircraft carriers. That would be almost 14,000 dead US soldiers.
I think a fourth option is rising its head: USA is becoming so weak geopolitically that being allied with them is becoming an incredibly bad position to be in.
Therefore I assume that it's possible that Taiwan will simply choose to integrate with mainland China. This would be a huge change in their sentiments for sure, but these things may happen when large wheels are turning.
> From China’s perspective, the cost of war is much higher than the cost of developing these chips themselves.
There are more reasons than chips.
First is Chinese nationalism. The Island of Taiwan has been under the control of various Chinese regimes over the centuries. Taking Taiwan is a rejection of the West and can be tied by to the "century of humiliation".
America has military posts in Korea, Japan, Phillipines blockading China's entrance to the larger Pacific Ocean. Having Taiwan would allow them to break this up.
On Taiwan is also a trove of Chinese art and antiques.
They are building hundreds of naval destroyers and multiple aircraft carriers to invade a tiny island? Nope. The CCP is prepping to be the world hegemon and take over the world with drone swarms and bioweapons.
The Taiwan game is like the "Gulf of America" trick that Trump played. It's a test to see if you're with the CCP or against the CCP diplomatically.
Why would China even invide Taiwan? It would destroy "their" infrastructure and kill "their" people! There are much better ways to remove US influence from Taiwan!
They can just put sanctions or even blockade Taiwan. And if China puts sanctions on US, and dumps its USD reserves, it can destroy US economy.
US is crazy about proxies fighting their "enemies" for them. This type of thinking needs to stop! This is not cold war anymore.
Why would China even invade Taiwan? For the same reasons they invaded and took Hong Kong. Because they have their own manifest destiny to reunify their country into what it once was. They don't care about the collateral damage to achieve this in the end.
In a multipolar world, historical ignorance leads to geopolitical disadvantage. One should be well-versed in history before offering opinions on these matters. While American power once allowed it to shape global order unilaterally, a truly multipolar reality requires deep historical understanding to avoid diplomatic failures.
> For the same reasons they invaded and took Hong Kong.
When was this a thing? Britain gave up control "voluntarily". There's been no military conflict whatsoever.
Yes, I get that there were changes in law, protests and all sorts of things but those all already happened when Hong Kong was part of China i.e. there was no "invasion".
As they negotiated establishment of diplomatic relations, the U.S. and PRC governments agreed to set aside the contentious issue of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. They took up that issue in the 1982 August 17 Communiqué, in which the PRC states “a fundamental policy of striving for peaceful reunification” with Taiwan, and the U.S. government states it “understands and appreciates” that policy. The U.S. government states in the 1982 communiqué that with those statements “in mind,” “it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan,” and “intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading, over a period of time, to a final resolution.” The U.S. government also declares “no intention” of “pursuing a policy of ‘two Chinas,’” meaning the PRC and the ROC, “or ‘one China, one Taiwan.’”"
The One China Policy was and remains a convenient status quo for all parties. The risk is that China decides that it's newfound economic and military might have changed that calculus.
An act of war, which the US would respond to with a freedom-of-navigation exercise backed up by the full might of US-PACOM. China would lose that standoff, which is why they're unlikely to do it unless they were confident of US non-involvement.
Russia has a fraction of the industrial capacity of China. Russia and Ukraine share several borders with multiple NATO countries, and Ukraine had integrated rail networks. Nevertheless Russia took 4 times the size of Taiwan and is taking more day by day.
Anyone that understands basic logistics and can read a map knows that this is not winnable. Not only that, but the undersecretary of state is the guy that advocated bombing TSMC. The US took a lot from Taiwan over the last 8 years and not even once did they even consider offering a free trade agreement in return. They made the Taiwan delegation visit a Zoo during the inauguration.
Singapore is allied with the west as well, but is taking a more neutral stance and a result have prospered many times over, while Taiwan has gone into total economic stagnation for decades. Where is all this moral posturing coming from? Let's look at reality and facts instead of reddit fantasies.
“Our continued protection of you is contingent on your investment in us”.
Taiwan is hugely reliant on US defense guarantees. The US has a protectionist president who likes big numbers in announcements and a base riled up about American production capacity.
Long-term this is bad for Taiwan since it reduces its leverage with the US in administrations with short-term geopolitics (or no real geopolitical talent.)
In the short-term, they might not have much choice.
> As soon as China catches a whiff of the program, it’s an instant invasion
This is correct and why any such project would need to be intensely covert and/or externally facilitated.
> doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) rests on both parties being left in guaranteed ruins
You don’t need MAD. Tehran isn’t aiming for MAD with America, and neither is Pyongyang. The threat of even a tactical retaliation has, to date, been sufficient to keep great powers at bay.
Oung is speaking the language of deterrence and non-proliferation; we are past that, unfortunately [1].
The risks don’t outweigh the potential benefits. Building a functional nuke isn’t an operation with a couple of laptops and internet connection. Also, Taiwanese economy is extremely tied to China. Things aren’t really black and white here. It’s not like all Taiwanese hate all mainlanders, nobody flies between countries and etc. Supermajority of people actually support status quo, rather than aiming for complete independence. It’s not an easy thing to balance.
Now that I’ve calmed down a bit, I agree with your assessment. The optics game is so important, but Taiwan is in an impossible situation.
If I were China, I would give them relative economic independence if they limit advanced process silicon to other countries and let Huawei and others monopolize the advanced nodes. The US at present does not appear to be a dependable partner.
Taiwan is composed of the refugee losers of the Chinese civil war. That gives them zero legitimacy to continue as anything but a breakaway state occupying a formerly Chinese province.
> Taiwan is composed of the refugee losers of the Chinese civil war
By this logic China should be returned to the winners of the Opium Wars [1]. No countries for losers! (To say nothing of the CCP’s inaction against Imperial Japan in WWII [2].)
Anyone can come up with reasons for stealing stuff based on decades, centuries or millennia-old gripes. What matters is where the people alive today live and how they identify. For good reason, the Taiwanese have been drifting away from China since Xi.
> do the winners of the Opium Wars have a verifiable historical claim to the land for thousands of years?
No. Similar to how the Han Chinese don’t have one to Tibet (and other parts of modern-day China).
Practically all land touched by humans has multiple verifiable historical claims to it. The further back we go, the more there are and the more ambiguous they become. The only thing we can say with certainty is who is there today. Every other path means violence and is honestly a bit stupid.
They've said so as much that they plan to give it a similar to hong kong style government if they wilingly join, and from the latest trump Q&A it almost confirms that once America has TSMC fabs running in their country they won't care to protect Taiwan.
Being a realist Taiwan joining China willingly under those conditions before they basically technology transfer to America and make themselves worth much less (In China's eye), is their best bet, or I would say if ASML wasn't a thing.
Sadly for Taiwan they are between a sword and a wall, ASML is required for them to continue innovating, if they were to annex themselves to China they would lose access to EUV and High NA EUV and basically lose their ability to produce sub 5nm semiconductors no matter how talented they are, and I don't think that SMEE in China is close to EUV let alone High NA EUV.
I understand this comment will upset some people but I tried to be a realist about what would happen if things were to hit the fan
China is huge, huge things don't do subtlety well over any long timeframe. It is hard enough to get people to do move in sync with clear communications, let alone when there are confusing signals.
If China says they want control of Taiwan, the base scenario is they are serious. The only thing holding them back is how expensive it is to execute on that want. Although since the action is off the Chinese coast and China appears to be stronger than the US right now I don't see how this ends well for Taiwan.
It's not just expense, it's generalized threat aversion.
Even if China can control the waters around them, they may find them selves boxed in. It doesn't take a lot of sunken cargo ships for operators to refuse to run the boats
Taiwan has most of its trade with China (like it or not).
There are numerous things that are e.g. illegal in China but "legal" in Taiwan and so Chinese business is conducted there e.g. online gambling sites.
Then there are plenty of Taiwanese companies that end up being a disguise for China 1 way or another e.g. to bypass sanctions (well so is Singapore as per recent news on nvidia gpu smuggling). 1 of the best examples is VIA technologies, that helped China create x86 CPUs back in the days.
A lot of Chinese gangs in Asia used to operate out of Hong Kong. When 1997 happened (i.e. return to China), most of them gave up or moved to other places like Taiwan since China has the death penalty.
> Taiwan has most of its trade with China (like it or not).
Does that make it a place for shady deals?
> There are numerous things that are e.g. illegal in China but "legal" in Taiwan and so Chinese business is conducted there e.g. online gambling sites
Gambling is illegal in Taiwan
> Then there are plenty of Taiwanese companies that end up being a disguise for China 1 way or another e.g. to bypass sanctions (well so is Singapore as per recent news on nvidia gpu smuggling). 1 of the best examples is VIA technologies, that helped China create x86 CPUs back in the days.
> Current administration is fast tracking nuclear prolifiacian.
This is correct. Gone are the days when countries could count on the US to provide some protection against illegal invasions. All nations without nukes have to be considering them seriously now. Sure, they signed the NPT. But agreements no longer mean what they used to. Russia violates most of the agreements it signs. US already trashed the Budapest memorandum that it signed in 1996. We were supposed to provide security to Ukraine in exchange for them giving up nukes.
>US already trashed the Budapest memorandum that it signed in 1996. We were supposed to provide security to Ukraine in exchange for them giving up nukes.
This is a common misconception. If you read the memorandum (it's rather short) you'll see it isn't true. We only promised to seek UN Security Council action. We went far beyond that.
Fair point. I only worry that trump might decide to play them both ways.. extort investments for protection, then reneg the help unilaterally on a whim.
> extort investments for protection, then reneg the help unilaterally on a whim
I would be surprised if he doesn't do this, judging by his long track record of not paying his contractors and business partners after receiving their goods and services.
But it's very worth pointing this out. The Taiwanese announcement is just an announcement. When a chip, any chip, rolls off the line (from this investment) let me know.
The reality is that in 4 years Trump will be gone. Building a plant will take longer than that. This is nothing more than good PR.
Plus Trump's administration (and his personal direction of the government) is likely weaker in policy and governance skills and experience so it'll be easier for TSMC to get away with stringing them along.
Is it a given that the US would come to Tawian's defence now (let alone in a few years, when the US is presumably less dependent on Taiwanese chips)?
I guess it comes down to how dependent on Taiwan's chips the US actually is (I don't know the answer to that).
The US isn't dependent on Ukraine and it's pressuring them to hand over land. If it turns out the US isn't dependent on Taiwan it could show similar indifference if China were to attempt to take it.
> Is it a given that the US would come to Tawian's defence now
In practice, probably yes, officially probably maybe. Giving a security guarantee would allow Taiwan to do provocative things, so hence, why there isn't a formal one.
If it actually came to be today, I guess the US would at-least offer token support. To (a) embargo China, (b) ensure chip facilities Taiwan aren't surrendered intact.
Both of which doesn't require winning a conflict, just making it painful.
'Security guarantee' conjures thoughts of defending a population and its cities from destruction, whereas what it actually means is the opposite: to ensure all items of value are fully destroyed before they're taken.
My understanding is that there are currently only three important chip makers, including Intel with all of their issues.
The world is largely dependent on TSMC, not only for the latest GPUs but also for embedded chips that we keep putting into everything from cars to toasters.
For me the questions isn't whether the US would help Taiwan because we're dependent on them. I wonder whether we actually have the backbone to step in militarily at all, and whether out military is as combat ready as we like to think they are.
> Taiwan is hugely reliant on US defense guarantees.
What I don't get is, in what universe is any US president going to engage militarily against China across the ocean, let alone the current one? The US population does not seem ecstatic to enter something that could turn into WWIII, which makes me feel that even a president in favor of this would quickly fail to do anything.
The US and the EU globalists have outsourced nearly all manufacturing to the east. Waging war on China is basically shooting yourself.
As if you needed more proof, covid hickup disruption of the supply chains were an ample demonstration.
The US gets this, and has now turned towards being less dependant. The EU still doesn't understand, or is willfully blind as an acknowledgement would mean giving up some fantasies they have.
Since the 70's the US' main export has been printed money, 'IP' and war. The first two are worthless if not backed by the threat of the third. Weapons is about the only thing dollars can buy if oil can be traded in other currencies.
BRICS is rapidly becoming a contender for a trade platform that they failed to stop.
You can't wage war in the manufacturer you rely on.
This means drastic changes in US policy are needed. This means returning to self sufficiency. This will take time even when you try to speedrun it.
> What I don't get is, in what universe is any US president going to engage militarily against China across the ocean
The whole premise of TSMC is that losing TSMC would cause such a global economic collapse that defending Taiwan is the only option to prevent this from happening. All high-performance computing is dependent on TSMC right now.
We could be plunged back into the horrible era that was ... the 2010s! There wouldn't be a global collapse if TSMC was lost. It'd be an inconvenience that sets the semiconductor industry back a decade or so. Most advanced technology hasn't had time to have an impact on the global economy yet and 98% of people won't notice much in practice if all the TSMC foundries exploded tomorrow. There'd maybe be some shortages while other companies build new foundries - although even then it isn't a given people would care. China seems to be about to flood the market with manufacturing capacity.
> whole premise of TSMC is that losing TSMC would cause such a global economic collapse that defending Taiwan is the only option to prevent this
This never works. The security through economy pitch. It has never, ever worked.
America was a reliable security guarantor. We promised to protect and had honour. Honour isn’t in the American cultural vocabulary anymore. So the guarantees are proven useless and everyone has to scramble back into realpolitik.
The question is, is it better to wage a massive war that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and many lives than to make an equal investment into the semi-conductor industry.
> The whole premise of TSMC is that losing TSMC would cause such a global economic collapse that defending Taiwan is the only option to prevent this from happening.
TSMC just hits the media often. If Taiwan goes the global economy will have way more problems than just TSMC. There is a long list of companies in many supply chains that would be impacted (not just computing).
I don't think this is quite how it would work. Taiwan isn't even remotely close to self sufficient on many critical things including food and energy. This means they are extremely vulnerable to a naval blockade, with no realistic means of combating it. And breaking such a blockade would probably be impossible. It's not just that they're a tiny little island right off the coast of China, but the geography of the island itself makes a blockade even more unstoppable. Most of the island is made up of inhospitable mountains, with a sliver of hospitable land mostly on one side, the side that faces China. This [1] is a population density map of Taiwan. China is as little as 80 miles to their West.
And by "free world" I guess you mean the anglosphere, gradually shrinking globalist parts of the EU, and perhaps Japan/South Korea. That's now less than 15% of the global population and declining. Economically BRICS overcame the G7 back in 2018 [2], and the difference has only grown far more stark since. The times have really changed a lot over the past ~20 years. I think the collapse of the USSR was probably the worst thing to ever happen to the US, because it gave us a taste of global hegemony that was never sustainable, yet left us addicted to its fleeting flavor.
> Taiwan isn't even remotely close to self sufficient on many critical things including food and energy. This means they are extremely vulnerable to a naval blockade
As is China in respect of energy.
Beijing knows this. But the timeline on which they become energy self sufficient unfortunately meshes poorly with their military demographics. Of course now, they have former American allies from which to recruit manpower if necessary.
which is why china is pre-emptively claiming ownership of the south china sea, in an attempt to prevent the ability for any blockades to form in the first place!
While on paper, the US makes "guarantees" about freedom of navigation, this is even less reliable than the toilet paper it is written on.
It is, but it also isn't, given the US forces on Okinawa, and also just generally in the region. The US military is not a force that exists for homeland defense, it's a force designed purely to project power across the ocean.
> engage militarily
This can mean a lot of things though. A steady flow of matériel and intelligence given to an island that's basically a giant and highly-defended mountain-range is going to go a very long way.
> is any US president
I mean in the last 150 years they've shown a remarkable willingness to intervene, more than once in proxy wars against the Chinese.
Curious why Taiwan would sign onto this, knowing how Ukraine is being treated vis a vis mineral rights. I realize Taiwan doesn't have any other options, but a "verbal offer" of future security guarantees from the Trump Admin aren't worth anything.
>a "verbal offer" of future security guarantees from the Trump Admin aren't worth anything.
They still think it's worth more than surrendering now to China.
While US is dependant of Taiwanese fabs, they will intervene if China tries to occupy Taiwan. But US is working towards not relying on Taiwan's fans, so US based security won't last long.
In the end, they'll either have to surrender or build nuclear deterrent fast and unnoticed.
I don't think there are any multi-trillion dollar deposits of any "minerals" there. If there were, Ukraine wouldn't be so poor. Even pre-war it was the poorest country in Europe per capita. One can argue that it was mostly due to their insane levels of corruption, but then again, if there were any multi-trillion dollar deposits of anything there, Western investors (including Hunter Biden, no doubt) would be all over them, and the country would be much richer than it was.
I think the whole "minerals" thing is a play. Trump gives Zelensky the "deal" he cannot accept even theoretically. Zelensky predictably plays the tough guy by telling him to pound sand. Trump throws Zelensky under the bus and negotiates repayment of loans with his (now scared) successor.
With respect to Taiwan, it is not really possible to "win" in any real sense against China in Taiwan. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a dimwit who can't even do cursory research on industrial capacities of the potential belligerents, not in terms of dollars, but in terms of units/tons/etc. That is where the comparison is very strongly not in our favor. Especially when it comes to shipbuilding.
Best case if things kick off (which I hope to god they do not) - only Taiwan gets destroyed, a-la Ukraine. Worst case - both US and China really go at it directly, full bore, and then we will lose due primarily to our weak industrial base, and far more extended logistics. Moreover, a lot of other countries will totally provide "lethal aid" and intelligence to China, if it needs it, in hopes of taking the hegemon down a few pegs. Nothing personal - just business, such alliances happen in every major war. The extreme case one of the sides feels they're gonna lose and presses the red button, in which case everyone dies in a fire.
All of these options are objectively extremely shitty and incompatible with prosperity, and in the extreme case, with survival. All of them mean millions of body bags for the parties involved, far more body bags than either country has ever seen.
Both Biden and Trump administrations understood this, hence the strong-arming the re-industrialization, especially in higher end fields, which started under Biden. The era where you could just get your stuff made elsewhere for pennies and then charge $$$ for it is coming to an end.
"Moreover, a lot of other countries will totally provide "lethal aid" and intelligence to China, if it needs it, in hopes of taking the hegemon down a few pegs."
This seems...not true. The Phillipines especially would like a word. Most of China's neighbors are begging for more American Hegemony (America is just not good at it anymore). China's industrial prowess is clear, but it's also true that. China (esp the CCP) has a lot more to lose from a direct confrontation with America. America could lose a president, China will lose a whole regime.
Depending on what they get from China in return, it might not be as absurd as you think. We're not talking direct participation here after all - China has more than enough people. Just some "lethal aid" if e.g. artillery stocks start running low. Another clever and relatively cheap way to extend us would be to stir up trouble where our troops are stationed in the Middle East, for example. This trouble could also use the "lethal aid" from third parties, who would not be directly involved in any fighting.
See the comment above about the intellectual faculties of people who think like you do. We had to hightail out of Afghanistan. What on earth makes you believe that we could win against a peer adversary, let alone do so without a draft or millions of body bags?
America would have to do nothing like invade Mainland China to topple the CCP. War is the authoritarian achilles heel since time immemorial and China knows it (Russia doesn't), otherwise they would've taken Taiwan 10 years ago. China's best case scenario is if it could find a way to take Taiwan like they took Hong Kong, on a technicality and relatively quietly.
P.S: I especially question the mental faculties of someone who can't see other angles to a problem. China's hegemony is the mainstream opinion, it's obvious. Maybe try to question what you're not seeing now.
Not really a good comparison. Trying to build a coalition of people who didn't really care vs supporting countries in the region who are highly motivated by their own self interest.
Zelensky predictably plays the tough guy by telling him to pound sand.
Zelensky flew to Washington to sign the agreement, and fully expected to--they waited an hour after the blown up press conference before being told to get out. Diplomatically, Zelensky wasn't even badly behaved in the press conference. Vance and Trump kept escalating the discussion. If there was a play, it was one constructed by Trump to give himself a reason to withdraw aid from Ukraine when he clearly wants to side with Putin.
Watch _the whole_ press conference, the entire 53 minutes, not the carefully selected morsels that CNN prepared for you in order to mislead. Zelensky failed to read the room, and 23 minutes or so into the conversation he started to self-immolate, something Trump and Vance gladly helped him with.
Big self immolate. Said that cease fire agreements wont work because they have evidently not worked so far as Russia keeps breaking them, they need security guarantees like NATO. I guess failing to read the room was not bootlicking enough and not surrendering to Putin as Trump already has.
I'd watched the whole thing live when it happened. I went back and watched from around 21min in to see what self-immolation you mean.
Sequence of events -
Trump downplays the need for security guarantees. "Security is maybe 2% of the problem, security is the easy part, I'm worried about getting the deal done."
A "reporter" from OAN asks a kiss-ass question that can be summarized as "President Trump, how amazing and courageous are you for negotiating with Putin?"
Trump gives a rambling answer including his usual vague statements of how the war wouldn't have existed if he'd been in power and then starts talking about Hamas for some reason.
There's a moment of levity where Trump says Zelensky's attire is fine.
Zelensky indicates he wants to respond to some of the earlier statements. He says Russia has broken many promises made in past negotiations and this is why security guarantees are actually critical to Ukraine.
"Reading the room" in this situation would mean "buying into the Putin-led narrative currently being peddled by the Trump administration."
Problem with this is a misunderstanding of what a press conference after a private discussion is supposed to be about. Zelensky was trying to negotiate and argue during the press conference, with the entire world watching. All the details about Trump not wanting security guarantees would presumably have been decided during the private meeting but Zelensky basically tried to argue his case with the media. That would irritate pretty much anyone.
TSMC factories on Taiwan are small fry in the scheme of things and won't really move the needle much, in terms of strategy. Samsung and Intel are pretty comparable in manufacturing capability, within a couple of years really. And most chips you find in cars and ships and missiles and satellites and jets aren't leading-edge either.
China is terrified of their access to the sea being blockaded. They'd gladly give up TSMC technology without a second thought and continue to bribe, beg, steal their way around sancations and barriers to semiconductor technology as they have been doing just fine up to now if they could occupy Taiwan for its strategic position to deny American access and defend the sea around their coast.
> How would you bock China's access to the sea along it's 14000 km coastline?
With missiles and submarines presumably.
> That woulde be a heck of a blockade, with or without Taiwan.
Of course, due to China's military build up around the sea. Due to their being afraid of said blockade. The one they want Taiwan and other disputed islands to help counter.
Exactly. We have a westerner bragging about blocking a 5000 years old country's access to the sea like it's a normal thing and they're not the intruder. Hilarious.
In the way Ukraine’s only card is its mineral wealth, sure.
Taiwan is the Belgium of the American security system. If our guarantees are useless there, they’re useless everywhere and new global security guarantors are needed. If Taiwan falls, moreover, China has unconstrained access to the Pacific. That brings the next conflict closer to American shores. It also threatens American naval power globally given our reliance on Korean and Japanese shipyards.
This branch of the discussion stems from my assertion that high-end compute is the enriched uranium of our time. I’m sorry I can’t defend this better. I feel US tech is busy making chatbots and deepfake video generators, and at best fancy overpriced drones like Anduril. This is not the future of warfare.
I have nothing to say about Ukraine. My original root comment is simply that weakening TSMC’s capacity by spreading it to the US is not in the interest of Taiwanese security. But as I responded elsewhere, this is probably just optics.
> But, I think I see where you’re going: the US preemptively destroying Taiwan’s fab capacity…
I'm not going anywhere. China would bomb TSMCs factories itself and spend hundreds of times more on an invasion and subsequent sanctions and costs than it spends on funding its own semiconductor development, if it meant it could control Taiwan. Taiwan's cards are that it is a linchpin for air and naval control of the South and East China seas, and that it is protected from invasion by a hundred miles of water and challenging geography. That's why China wants it. That's the card.
Blow up all TSMC's factories on Taiwan tomorrow and relocate its scientists and engineers and you think China would suddenly drop its ambitions to "reunify" and take control of the island? Since its alleged only card was gone?
My take is that it doesn’t even matter if Taipei has any card: this is not an economical/technological issue, it is an ideological one. China won’t blink an eye to invade if the conditions are right, because they want to unite their country, it is part of their identity. That might happen if anywhere else, there is a land grab. That won’t be Ukraine, because the US are not involved there, but if the US try to follow up on their claims about Greenland or Panama, Taipei is doomed within a month. As Trump is an adept of quid pro quo, that would mean a good deal for him, so the goal is to extract as much value from Taipei before letting them dead in the water.
The U.S. frames its deteriorating relationship with China as a fight for “human rights” and “democracy,” but from China’s perspective, that’s just a cover for a larger campaign to contain its rise. The real issue? The U.S. fears losing global dominance and is using trade wars, tech bans, military encirclement, and financial pressure to slow China down.
China doesn’t want direct military conflict—it prefers economic and technological competition. But it sees the U.S. as a declining power that refuses to accept a multipolar world. The U.S. labels China’s economic expansion “debt-trap diplomacy” while ignoring the IMF’s history of predatory loans. It bans Huawei and TikTok under “security concerns” while engaging in mass surveillance itself. It calls China’s South China Sea claims “aggressive” while surrounding China with military bases.
From Beijing’s view, the U.S. preaches rules it doesn’t follow. Human rights? Washington ignores Saudi Arabia but obsesses over Xinjiang. Democracy? The U.S. supports coups when convenient. Free markets? Only when American firms win.
China isn’t looking for war—it’s playing the long game. The U.S. can try to contain it, but economic gravity favors China’s rise. The more Washington pushes, the clearer its real motives become.
But all this stuff is a bluff. China will spill blood for Taiwan, the US will not. When there is a standoff the US will back down and it's Taiwan getting fucked by everybody.
> The thing about US "vassel" states is they don't have to do what the US says. And sometimes won't!
Yes, and then the US will force its way. It's quite funny that you even mentioned nukes. Taiwan did attempt to build nukes and the US destroyed the project.
> Taiwan did attempt to build nukes and the US destroyed the project
We “destroyed” it inasmuch as we said we won’t be friends if you do this. We didn’t threaten to invade.
America has resisted geopolitical balancing to date because we resisted the temptation of realpolitik. America’s allies are, on average, richer and more peaceful than her enemies. That’s now beginning to change. For the first time in modern history, we may see a system of alliances emerge that credibly counter American economic and military might.
I might have believed that a couple weeks ago. Mexico and Canada put a show on for the him about the tarrifs and they're still set to be in place tommrow. Why would anyone else play along now?
News headlines in 6 months "Trump announces trillion dollar free-trade deal with Russia" that will be "totally fair" and not "taking advantage of the US" like Canada, Mexico and the EU.
> I cannot even begin to imagine what madness has infected the Taiwanese government to allow this.
It's jumping to conclusion. There aren't even any details in the announcement. It could be old / "mature" tech or a list of other things. The latest nodes likely will still stay in Taiwan.
> US tariffs will not matter when you are blockaded and Chester Nimitz is very much dead.
The alternative was a pressure to buy / save Intel. Much worse.
Right now is a very interesting moment in that the future is crystal clear and yet so many people of all persuasions don't want to accept it for so many different reasons
* The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world, and ultimately renege on many of its security guarantees, with the underlying reason being that it can no longer afford to be world police and pay for all its entitlements
* This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world. US stocks will continue to be the best buys out there
* Ergo we are looking at another American century, or perhaps some kind of isolationist/Cold War-esque type of century since American political influence will decline, but China and Russia's colossal demographic problems will hinder them from making any serious bids for dominance
Objectively - it looks like another American century, but one where the whole world is diminished due to global collapse in the birth rate, and some nations are just less diminished than others (unless I am severely underestimating the impact of automation and AI)
And yes, many people will be unhappy, and there will be more war, and globalization has peaked
> Right now is a very interesting moment in that the future is crystal clear and yet so many people of all persuasions don't want to accept it for so many different reasons
Anyone who thinks the future is crystal clear is an extremely arrogant, and the narrative you present is inconsistent in ways which show an extremely poor understanding of the way international economics works.
> The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world
It hasn't granted "economic largesse" to the rest of the world, and to the extent that that term can be stretched to describe something that has been granted, it can't be clawed back; the (extremely small, compared to the size of the economy) amount of aid has largely been about establishing influence and soft power, and trade isn't largesse, its mutually beneficial. To withdraw from it weakens both sides, and the US generally withdrawing will hurt the US more than the rest of the world.
> This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world.
The kind of retreat from wide trade to mercantilist protectionism might be a relative "win" for the US (though it would still be an absolute loss for all parties, contracting the aggregate production possibilities curve as well as that for all nations), if the US engagement in "go it alone" idiocy convinced every other country to try the same thing, and if you were right that the US was the best prepared to go it alone.
But, more likely, were it to occur, while it would be an absolute loss for everyone compared to what things would be without it, it would end up a relative loss for the US, because most countries wouldn't try to follow the US in going it alone, and the US's retreat will just be looked at in mystified disbelief by other nations as they continue to reap the benefits of trade and the US fades and falls behind in every way.
1. I don't like the characterization of "go it alone" because it obviously implies adherence to some kind of extreme that simply isn't represented in reality. No one is shutting down the ports and firing ambassadors; if it were possible to quantify these things (it isn't), reducing global power projection from 100% to 80% is not "going it alone".
2. The true form of "economic largesse" the US has given the rest of the world is Security. Its come at great cost to the country; America has lost ~600,000 souls in conflict in the past 80 years. I'm not saying America has a unique claim to losing lives in battle, Russia and China and others can claim much more devastation, but America is unique in the sense that nearly none she's lost were in her home hemisphere.
9/11 was maybe the only attack since Pearl Harbor that a foreign adversary successfully executed on American soil; but the wars that followed were really a tipping point in American force projection. We'd already been fighting wars in the middle east, then you go back further with Vietnam... America is a country that's spent eighty years chasing the Moral Righteousness it felt when it helped win WW2 for the Allies. The American people are tired of it; her sons and daughters work two jobs, can't afford a home, yet are asked time-and-time again by the latest rich disconnected President to deploy across the world to fight for "Freedom". Or, now, to send a hundred billion in military aid to Ukraine.
I think that's the "clawing back" the poster was talking about: maybe the story of the next century is one where America still projects force globally, but toward the more specific goal of Peace rather than post-WW2-era Western Idealism, and with an expectation of economic cooperation. Money has, after all, been the American God for many decades now.
3. The idea that the rest of the world would simply continue on in the wake of some idealized "US full-on isolationist pull out" is not rooted in reality; and that's part of the reason why this is not happening on the extremes. The US has been a critical force for both War and Peace over the past 80 years. If the US hadn't sent a hundred billion dollars to Ukraine over the past three years, Russia would own the country and share a new, huge border with NATO ally Poland. Implicit and Explicit US security guarantees have stopped China from projecting naval power across Taiwan and other SEA countries. US Support of Israel has... well, the region would look very different if we weren't there, whether there would be more or less war is another debate. My point is: The suggestion that America would lose relatively to the rest of the world in this unrealistic, hypothetical scenario, is not rooted in reality. The far more likely outcome of this unlikely scenario is: War, amongst military peers, the worst and most bloody kind of war, while America enjoys massive oceans, a trillion dollar defensive military, the most economically prosperous natural resources on the planet, and neighbors who could never put up a fight.
No one wins, but America and her western hemisphere allies would lose the least. Fortunately: This is not what America, today, wants. Its not even what the Trump administration wants. Again, a reduction from 100% to 80% is not a "full-on isolationist pull-out".
Regarding your #2, yes you're right; the cost of playing world police was at the top of my mind when I wrote that.
The other equally important thing in my mind which seems to get a bit less popular attention is trade balances. There are certain countries the US is engaged with where A) the US puts very low tariffs on them and they do not reciprocate; meanwhile B) the US provides some form of economic assistance to them whether it may be through military support, contribution to NGOs etc.
Those specific relationships I think the US can and will eviscerate or at least play serious hardball when it renegotiates, because what is it gaining today? Do you want a CIA listening post in northern Thailand or do you want to home-shore production of some of the things you've been buying from them, creating some working class jobs along the way? The US is not a one party state so its direction on these questions may be unclear for a while, but I think I know how Trump, Gabbard, Rubio etc. will answer that question as the working class very much put them in office (and there are plenty of Democrats who would be sympathetic to this approach too -- they just seem to get sidelined by their party leadership a lot).
Allies are good for America. Trade is good for America. Isolation has never been good for anyone.
>The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world
The USA is going to stop bribing people to like them, an arrangement that suited the USA very well, but is difficult to articulate to seppos in general.
>This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world. US stocks will continue to be the best buys out there
This is a huge loss, but seems like a win for people who don't understand trade, supply and investment ie, seppos.
>Ergo we are looking at another American century
A Century of trying to keep a safe distance from the most armed nation doing its best north korea impersonation.
Let me make a prediction here.
1. The US is going to get more isolationist
2. Every time they face consequences of isolationism, they will simply declare that the problems were caused by not being isolationist enough, tearing up more trade agreements and generally just shifting away from the world.
"If they wont sell us good at price we like, we will just abandon international patent agreements" seems like its not far off after the tariffs.
3. This is a spiral that will end the modern USA as anyone knows it.
I am quite happy with this, as long as the seppos keep the nukes to themselves while they remove themselves from the planet economically.
Its easy to think in extremes, but the reality will be far more moderate than your characterization. Remember: US policies have a way of flip-flopping every two years as new Presidents and Senators take office, and its very likely that unless Trump can score some massive wins in 2025, Democrats will retake Congressional majority in 2026; the base is incited, if these comments are anything to look at.
But, the direction won't change: More isolationist, greater investment in homeland manufacturing and less global force projection, but still a significant and growing international trade presence, and a signatory to global security guarantees.
Here's how I put it: America bared the brunt three MAJOR, timeline-altering events in the past 25 years: 9/11, the global financial crisis, and COVID (I am not saying the rest of the world did not bare some of these, just that the US did). To think we'd just roll with the punches and there'd be no consequences of these is, frankly, ridiculous:
9/11 led to multiple forever wars that cost America an extreme amount of money and lives for almost no gain, not really even victory. Its lasting impact will be an America that is more hesitant to project force globally.
The GFC led to massive debt spending and an ongoing financial crisis that America still hasn't fully recovered from. Just when we were ramping up to start recovery, COVID hits and we do it all over again. Its lasting impact will be an America that is more hesitant to give away free stuff or take the raw end of trade deals.
This assumes USA was taken advantage of by globalization, which is not actually the case - USA benefitted disproportionally from it. USA's GDP growth is substantially based on the consumers (~70% compared to ~50% in the EU and other comparable countries), and that wouldn't have been possible if they could only consume what was produced in the USA.
But there were losers, mainly in manufacturing, and USA didn't assist them in the right way, allowed unprecedented levels of political corruption, allowed unhealthy levels of wealth inequality, allowed housing crisis, allowed obesity and health crisis etc...
Most of the USA's wounds are self-inflicted, but any good demagogue would not pass the opportunity to blame somebody else for it.
Globalization for the US was trading industrialization for financialization. Yay for the paper GDP gains, but most citizens got left behind - though they can by cheap imported cloths with their shrinking paychecks.
Can't build chips, can't make ships, can't make furniture, can't make clothes, can't make enough weapons to supply Ukraine, let alone for any real war. Globalization hollowed the capacity of the country.
True, but that's true for every country, even Taiwan. If ASML (Dutch company), Applied Materials, LAM Research, KLA, Synopsys, Cadence (US companies), Tokyo Electron, Shin-Etcu (Japan) and literally hundreds of other companies didn't cooperate, TSMC couldn't function either. BTW, that's why China can never "take over" TSMC - they can just make it defunct when all these other companies stop doing business with it after the invasion.
Basically, the planet is making chips, not any individual country.
> can't make ships,
I suggest you look-up the Jones Act and its unintended consequences.
And then think why American voters never consider this kind of stuff when voting.
> can't make furniture, can't make clothes,
Fair enough, though this is more a matter of what is economically viable vs. what is possible. There are economic losers, sure. But there are big winners too, most notably in the "tech" industry. It's incumbent on the US to smooth-out the transition for their own citizens, instead of allowing special interests and monopolies to run amok and incumbents to Gerrymander themselves into office.
Ultimately, American voters allowed this to happen, and when they saw the results, they fell for a demagogue.
> can't make enough weapons to supply Ukraine, let alone for any real war.
I hope you are not suggesting Russo-Ukrainian war is "not real". This is almost WW2-level stuff. I suggest you take a look at the photographic evidence of vehicle losses, keeping in mind that the actual losses are likely higher:
And how many of tanks was the US able to send to Ukraine? 31
And are we cranking up our industrial might to make more tanks? No, we aren't making any, not for Ukraine, not for US. Sometime in the 2030s we are supposed to have a modified and improved M1E3.
The success of the tech industry is orthogonal to globalization.
The issue with most citizens getting left behind has far less to do with globalization and far more with wealth concentration. The overall wealth in the country greatly increased, but pitiful distribution led to that situation.
Strongly disagree. If you had a middle class manufacturing job in the US, globalization meant you were competing globally against third world labor. Your job, your industry, left the country. This process contributes to wealth concentration, but wealth concentration isn't creating the problem, globalization is.
Citizens got left behind because of corrupt government policy that took the gains from cheap imports, centralized them into newly-created money (to make sure inflation still happened), and then dumped most of that new money into cheap loans for the financial industry, driving asset inflation and other financialization. This was the so-called "fiscal responsibility" of the past three+ decades - profligate handouts for the rich.
A sane alternative would have been for the government to spend the surplus on deliberate policy goals such as infrastructure development, preserving the industrial base, scientific research, forward looking renewable energy and less polluting processes, restoring the expectation of full time employment to 40 hours per household, etc. Distorting prices in those sectors in service of deliberate goals would have been much better than making housing unaffordable and calling it progress.
This analysis, if it can be called as such, misses the fact that the US is very, very politically divided, to the point where I can see elections results being regularly considered illegitimate. That perspective has been allowed to become reasonable, which is very, dangerous.
"US patriots" have fealty to an imagined version of the constitution that lets the Republicans do whatever they want. There is no reason to think this will change if the Republicans get even more fascist.
The "clawing back" isn't simply a withdraw of resources back to America, it also requires structural fixes within America (mostly looking at the wealth inequality), as well as properly address the nativist embers that are currently lit.
An America that successfully claws back, but does not address the internal weaknesses in time will have its own version of China's and Russia's demographic challenges.
> The "clawing back" isn't simply a withdraw of resources back to America, it also requires structural fixes within America (mostly looking at the wealth inequality), as well as properly address the nativist embers that are currently lit.
The political faction pushing this kind of thing (and viewing it as a clawback) is also the one fanning the nativist (and racist!) embers as political cover for while advancing policies that entrench wealth inequality, There is literally no significant faction both interested in this kind of "clawback" and interested in dealing with, rather than exploiting and exacerbating, the other things you point to.
Yeah, that's the problem eh? Both for the OP's projection, but also identifies the element that most centrist/technocratic political parties are missing.
You need to address the nativist tendencies in your country. You can't just bulldoze through them.
You need to address the wealth inequality.
And yes, I think you -are- allowed some degree of "clawback", especially if it helps address the other two issues. I think America specifically is allowed some degree of "clawback" (for example, a reduction or drawdown of military support to Europe).
For a country to be just to its own citizens, it does need to respect the citizen body's wishes about immigration (though it can also choose to attempt to shape those views to some degree). And it does need to address wealth inequality. And it -should- prioritize the welfare of its own citizen to those of its allies and trading partners (at least at a 1:1 basis).
Both of those concerns are valid, but America's geopolitical rivals have the same problems and are less well positioned to address them than America is.
> It also requires structural fixes within America (mostly looking at the wealth inequality)
I think the US will make some positive strides here soon - there is a real effort at the FTC and DOJ to reduce monopolization, consolidation and exclusive dealing, which are some of the primary drivers of wealth inequality. This began in a limited way under Trump's first administration (mainly tech focused), expanded in a big way under Biden, and every indication from the Trump admin is that they are substantially going to continue with the direction Biden went. Anti-trust is a dry topic so it doesn't get a lot of media attention. But the push here is real, it began in the executive branch, and we are starting to see it expand into the judicial branch as judges start to agree with the government's arguments. What is really significant is that both parties seem to support it to some degree so the momentum will be hard to stop.
> as well as properly address the nativist embers that are currently lit.
Could be a concern but as long as the US is a two party state, this is unlikely to become systemic, at least at the federal level, it is more likely to be a gory see-saw. The US will always be more immigrant friendly than its geopolitical rivals, it will always do a better job at importing new people and turning them into citizens and Americans than China or Russia does. Its native population also reproduces today at higher rates than the native populations of its rivals.
While I agree with what you are saying, the outcome is not quite as obvious/guaranteed. The US is clawing back and democrat/republic/kamala wouldn't change that reality, but the world is also not going to sit quiet. The outcome will depend on Europe, China and the rest of the un-aligned.
Uh what? That's not what's happening at all. Russia is basically in control of the US federal government via Trump and Musk, both of whom have widely reported sympathies with Putin's administration and interests.
Putin is busting out the US, Soprano's style. Trump has signaled acceptance of the Russian war of aggression and has also signaled that China can invade Taiwan. Russia and China are allies.
This is part of China getting a foothold in the American tech industry. Kind of a followup to Deepseek, but providing the Chinese government more access to US chips via a physical presence. The original Trump plan was for TSMC to literally take over Intel plants, but Intel told Trump to get stuffed.
Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason. It can also simply be a pragmatic decision.
The "getting stuffed" thing would be big words from a nearly bankrupt company, don't you think? Intel's investors will take whatever deal that gives them the biggest return on their dollar.
> Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason
I find it so hard to take this point seriously. Without security guarantees, you are asking Ukraine to “end the war” and give up massive territory and give Russia plenty of time to re-arm. They have broken treaties before.
Even still, why should the US care if Ukraine wants to keep defending itself from Russian aggression? They are a primary geopolitical rival and the ROI of sending Ukraine our old equipment to directly weaken them is massive compared to almost any other defense related use of it.
What’s more than this, we would be abandoning an ally and signaling that it is safe for countries to do these invasions without significant pushback. The destabilizing result of this will be felt around the world.
Now that it’s become untenable for great powers to fight and they’re all facing regional instability and domestic unrest (EU, US, RUS, CN), we’ll see a century of consolidation and realignment at the regional/continental scale.
ASEAN, China, E Asia, India, Russia; Middle East and South Asia; EU, UK, Russia; US, Canada, Latin America; South America (eg, Argentina, Brazil, and Ecuador); Africa (though, I’m less familiar with specifics there).
We’re seeing political upheaval in each region as states jockey for position in this new world order — now that international global order is dead (or at least, mortally wounded).
This is how I view the system in place for past few decades :
I consider US to be like brain of earth / humanity. Dollar Reserve Currency is like nerve signals. It can give that printed money to an African nation and make it buy wheat from Ukraine. Or give that money to Myanmar so that it can buy weapons from other countries. The whole setup is brilliant. Making one hand cooperate with another or hurt another if we extend the brain body analogy. US is holding a structural proverbial gun to other nations' head.
It is only a matter of time, when the body of humanity revolts against the excesses of brain's unrealistic demands.
A multipolar world order is a pretty good counter-take (parallel take?)! Most of the time I have my eye on Asia and it seems like a stretch for Korea, Japan, Philippines etc. to fall under the sway of a China in severe demographic decline - but much of SE Asia is definitely in play. And every region will play out differently
I tend to agree, with the exception of: I don't agree with the assertion that the US is broadly intending to renege on many of its security guarantees. I don't think that's a fair characterization on the Ukraine situation. If we had a security guarantee with Ukraine, it was the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, and we reneged on that under Obama in 2014 with Crimea, and under Biden in 2022 with the current war, but even Russia was a signatory to that and frankly its security guarantees were pretty weak anyway. Some say the economic, humanitarian, and military aid we've provided technically counts; its not like NATO Article 5 after all.
The more accurate framing, to me, feels like: America is going to ask for more from the world in return for its security guarantees. We're seeing this with the mineral rights in Ukraine, and now this TSMC investment. The world does not like this, because no one likes being asked to pay the bill at dinner when you're used to dad picking it up for the past 80 years, but that seems to be the priority.
This is ultimately healthy; as Starmer said this week, Europe needs to lead the effort in Ukraine, with US backing. A Europe that spends more on its own defense and is more independently capable of defending itself is a stronger Europe; this is what America wants, America wants strong allies across the pond, and it should be what Europeans want too.
But, as you allude to: Russia is not the threat some think they are, today. This war has decimated their offensive capability, thanks to US support over the past three years, and the geopolitical situation in eastern Europe right now is in a place where Europe, even with its diminished military capacity relative to the US, can actually lead security guarantees with Ukraine. But, the US will be there; America will get some mineral rights, and there will be some kind of peace deal organized in tranches where violation of tranche 1 means the EU military gets involved but violation of tranche 2 means you've woken the beast and the US gets involved too.
You're 100% right that there will be more wars, though. It just won't be the ones people expect. I don't think Taiwan will happen in the next decade; both sides have too much to lose. Ukraine & eastern Europe will calm down in the next six months. Longer term, I'd be more concerned about India and Pakistan or China, as that's an area of the world where the US has few existing security guarantees and direct allyships, but the military spending is ramping up.
Their first fab in Arizona is completed and ramping production and the second one's structure is in place so it's probably not likely to be vaporware, but they are probably going to be hyping up what they already have done and started.
These were early rumors, but I recall there being some hope that the first chips this factory would produce would be used for something made by Apple also in the United States, like the Mac Pro or something like the HomePod Mini.
Might be a silly question but considering the tensions between US and EU right now... What would happen to all these deals if ASML was was not allowed to sell their machines to US companies? I don't know enough to even speculate on these wild scenarios
I think that won't happen as ASML relies on a bunch of patents. Now I don't think American patents are valid abroad anyways. So probably shouldn't be a concern.
Patents alone aren't protecting ASML or other countries would have knocked it off by now. Trade secrets drive real innovation. You only patent what you think you can profitably protect.
This is me halfremembering recent comment on HN. It's structured so that the ip is owned by an American company that licenses to ASML or something like that.
ASML make laser sources in San Diego, without them there would be no EUV machines. So it isn't just patents. ASML as we know today wouldn't exist without US R&D and manufacturing.
I think people give too much importance to being 1-2 generation ahead. Even if TSMC dies(slowly), it won't affect the world too much if Samsung continues to stay one generation behind with Intel likely joining them.
TSMC has a massive 65% of the market. There is no way Samsung or any other player can plug that whole in terms of sheer capacity before a quite long investment cycle.
It's a bit naive to expect US bases in Europe to still be there in the next 20 years. First, Trump clearly wants to pull out of Europe, because the current Republican party has basically no interest in Europe whatsoever (and it may even be seen as an enemy by them - it's the embodiment of all the "social state" fears they harbour). Second, if the US stop cooperating with the EU on security and forces Europe to rearm, they would probably become redundant and an easy target for populist movements - especially when Trump is out and will be replaced by a less appealing figure. Meloni, ... won't be able to sell Trump as a role model to their voters for long if he really plans on fucking up the European economy; if there's little to be gained it's easier for populists and nationalist in general to just paint him as an enemy.
As a European there's been a lingering feeling of anti-Americanism in Europe that's been somewhat dormant for the last 30 years. It's clearly awakening now, and it risks going mainstream too, which would basically make the position of US bases untenable unless there's a direct reward for them (like, having security guarantees)
Trump involuntarily did more for Taiwan / mainland unification in one meeting with Zelensky than in all the years prior. Taiwanese now understand that they can't trust US to step up to their security commitments. If US won't do it for Europeans being savagely attacked by aggressive neighbors, they won't do it for Taiwanese being blockaded by mainland. At that point Taiwan tariffs and China tariffs will be the same. That was brandished as a powerful weapon about Hong Kong and didn't really do much.
The difference is that China is on Trump's enemy list, whereas he considers Russia's oligarchs to be potential business partners for his own oligarchy. Trump wants trade barriers to China but wants those with Russia to be removed.
> The difference is that China is on Trump's enemy list
Until the right Chinese person sucks up to Trump. Maybe someone with a less ..ehrm. . Asian look that Xi? (I don't know why, but Trump seems to admire Putin and despise Xi. . could be for all sorts of reasons, I guess)
It seems like this news predated Musk's agency taking an axe to CHIPS ACT staffing. It'll be curious to see if this ends up happening or if they pull the expansion when the subsidies are reduced.
TSMC was likely threatened by Trump to invest in America. TSMC likely didn't want to do this. However, because they will have more fabs in the US, they'll likely avoid the tariffs as part of the deal. Further more, TSMC will still make chips in case of of a China take over. The risk here is that the US will simply confiscate TSMC's fabs if China uses military action on Taiwan based on security measures. That's the worst case scenario for TSMC.
For Taiwan, it's a terrible deal because the money is not invested in Taiwan and the island becomes less important in the world. The "silicon shield" would also be broken and the Taiwanese government has zero control over fabs in the US.
It remains to be seen if this will truly happen. Perhaps TSMC will always keep its most cutting edge node in Taiwan. Perhaps they'll drag this out over the next 4 years in hopes that Trump's party gets voted out.
Because there's a big difference between the situations and you can't really judge a theoretical situation against an ongoing reality. Ukraine is an active war whereas Taiwan is a stalemate of sabre rattling and diplomatic posing. We don't know what each country will do if China invades Taiwan and this is part of what stops it happening.
The security guarantees for Ukraine stem from a 1994 agreement that assured some ex-USSR countries that they could safely give up their nuclear stockpile in return for guarantees that their sovereignty would be protected.
Europe supports Ukraine because it is in Europe, European countries were part of that agreement and European countries do not trust Russia. Not counting Belarus, there's 7 countries with direct borders to Russia, 4 of which used to be part of the USSR, 1 of which is being invaded and the other 3 wonder if they're next.
Whereas Taiwan is not in Europe and doesn't have any historical agreements with European countries.
Canada & Australia have cultural, racial and historical ties to Europe, so it is understandable they often align with Europe.
Because "defending democracy" is propaganda for the common people. It's always economics. The US/Europe will support or even install a dictator if the government is pro-western.
Yep, spreading democracy and freedom is PR. I think there's a historical preference to installing or supporting a dictator rather than a messy democracy. There's several cases where democratic elections delivered a government the US didn't agree with, so they orchestrated regime change.
I wonder if they don’t really believe we’d come to defend them regardless of the incentives, at this point. In that case, might as well try to avoid the tariffs.
If they send enough engineers over, we won’t actually learn how to make the chips. Then when the next election happens they can re-evaluate.
If China invades in the next four years, I guess… I dunno, at least they’ll have gotten some people out. It is a pretty bad situation, I guess they are just doing what they can.
The US will NOT engage in a hot war against China for Taiwan, that's for certain, regardless of who is president at that time. Why would they risk nuclear war for a bunch of people who are really far away from the US continent?
I think establishing a blockade is generally considered an act of war. Possibly a war crime if the intent is to starve civilians? (Not sure, this is way outside my wheelhouse). I’d expect it to be about as escalatory as using US ships to attack the mainland, more or less.
It’s not so much the people or the land, but rather what they can build. It’s the whole essence of the article. Not sure how far behind the West would fall if TSMC was controlled by the CCP. 5 years? 10?
If the key thing is to avoid China getting access to TSMC plants, I'm sure there are ways to do it without risking US troops. The West would have to live with inferior Intel nodes for a while, but it would be better than anything China could produce.
But it’s in Taiwans interest for us to continue to provide them arms, training, and build regional alliances to pressure China.
I’m also not as convinced the US wouldn’t respond, but it would depend on South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and ASEAN nations to call for such action — if they felt threatened enough by China’s actions in taking Taiwan and Philippine islands to declare war themselves.
Edit:
Including article discussing blowing up fabs and Taiwanese response that cutting off ASML and similar would be just as effective.
Nah. You're not thinking this through. That'd start WW3. China considers Taiwan as a province of theirs. Bombing anything in Taiwan by the US would be the same as bombing China itself to the Chinese government. If the US bombs China, expect China to declare war on the US. Have fun getting drafted in the military.
Not to mention it's the quickest way for Taiwanese people to completely turn on the US.
I assumed deterrence was in place and the chance of a taiwan invasion was quite low. After this week the chance of a taiwan invasion seems quite likely.
The U.S. absolutely defends Taiwan because losing it isn’t an option!
Taiwan currently produces over 85% of the world’s advanced semiconductors. Letting China take Taiwan would hand the CCP control over the global tech supply chain, crippling the U.S. economy and military. That’s a non starter.
No nation with anything to lose will be using nukes..EVER. The game has been understood for 75 years: mutual destruction means no winners. The U.S. has more nukes, better missiles, and full second-strike capability. China knows this, so nukes aren’t on the table.
The U.S. doesn’t need to invade just stop China’s invasion. Amphibious assaults are the hardest military operation, and China has zero real world experience in them or in fighting hot wars at all. We only need to sink their fleet or disrupt shipping to and from their ports. They know the risk, which is why they haven’t tried.
Now 5 years form now if we are much less dependent on them for semi-conductors that is a different story, but the realities of today. For now? Yeah, we throw down.
Also there is the scenario where China co-opts or influences Taiwans elections such that leadership moves back to a pro China stance. Not impossible, that would really put the US in a bind and I am not sure what would happen then but military engagements would seem much less likely.
> I wonder if they don’t really believe we’d come to defend them
I think every sensible ally of the US would now be developing (if they haven't already) contingency plans for any scenario in which they might get embroiled in that would (under previously agreed terms) require an ally to support them. Who can believe in an unconditional military alliance, when the US government is so nakedly prioritising economic transactionalism, even at the expense of their own long-term security (there's a reason countries get into alliances). This US government's handling of the Ukraine situation will undoubtedly turn out to have been the biggest geopolitical footgun for many a decade.
I wonder if they don’t really believe we’d come to defend them regardless of the incentives, at this point. In that case, might as well try to avoid the tariffs.
I think the Ukraine situation already signaled that to Taiwan.
Ultimately, China won't invade as long as Taiwan plays its cards right. China wants to retake Taiwan without firing a single shot and then quickly re-integrate Taiwan. As long as Taiwan doesn't do anything to provoke China like inviting Nancy Pelosi or voting in more pro-independence politicians.
I actually think these events decreases the chance of a Chinese invasion but increases the chance of a peaceful reunification because the Taiwanese government will look to rely less on the US and positive impression of the US is decreasing in Taiwan.
The island of Taiwan belonged to China at some point. No political statement needed and no need to rewrite history on HN comments.
Historically, Taiwan was governed by Chinese administrations for a significant period. In 1683, after defeating the Ming loyalists in Taiwan, the Qing dynasty extended its rule over the island, eventually incorporating it as part of its empire. By 1887, Taiwan was officially designated a province of China under Qing rule. However, following the First Sino-Japanese War, Taiwan was ceded to Japan in 1895. After World War II, Taiwan was placed under the administrative control of the Republic of China. Today, its status remains politically and historically complex, with ongoing debates over sovereignty.
For 200 years China did nothing with Taiwan. The Ming dynasty called it a ball of mud in the water not worth the effort of the Chinese people. The Qing dynasty did not allow anyone to travel to Taiwan because it was too unsafe to travel. The few people in Taiwan were constantly fighting with the local population. They failed to rule or control Taiwan. For 7 years prior to Japan invading they decided to call it a province. Despite having no control over it. Japan even said they were not convinced Taiwan belonged to China because there was next to nothing there, they put up no fight, and fled before Japan arrived. The PRC also called Taiwan an independent nation and advocated for Taiwan independence until the 1940s when the ROC took control of the island as the request of the allied forces who requested ROC administer Taiwan until they decided what to do with the island, because no one was convinced it ever belonged to China to begin with.
Taiwan is under the administration of the government which ruled China then — and has continued to rule Taiwan since before the revolution led by the CCP. That’s why their official name is the “Republic of China”.
The CCP never controlled Taiwan: it remained independent and under the previous regime. So the CCP would need to take Taiwan as their regime never controlled it.
> Both consider themselves the temporarily embarrassed rightful heir to the centuries old concept of China.
This is an outdated take that does not reflect the contemporary feelings of the Taiwanese people and at best only describes a facet of KMT party policy. Bear in mind the KMT does not hold a majority in the legislature - they had to form a coalition with a third party to do so - and the president is from the DPP, which explicitly considers Taiwan a sovereign nation and does not buy into the notion that Taiwan is secretly the real China.
With the exception that “take” is technically correct, as the area in question is a remnant of the already existing government which has maintained independence in a cease fire. Both claim the other, but facts still matter. You don’t “retake” an area that was never under your control.
The RoC lost mainland China to the CCP, but the CCP was never the owner of Taiwan.
I think his perspective is: "If the Qing were the Chinese Goverment and they had Taiwan, and the CCP is the Chinese Government does not have Taiwan, so they will be retaking the island".
His conviction speaks to the strength of the CCP narrative that they ARE China though.
I believe allowing China to seize Philippine islands without response was actually the appeasement which escalated the situation. (Along with raiding oil fields, etc of their other neighbors.)
It's not just the cutting edge node. Arizona chips will still be shipped back to Taiwan because TSMC only do Fan-out PoP packaging there. This will unlikely change for the next 5 factories. This is a good win win for everyone. Trump gets to parrot jobs back in america slogan, TSMC gets some extra money to scale out production to 64% of their revenue customer (US based) and Taiwan gets to keep what is really, really important.
I'm sure TSMC has a lot of influence over the Taiwanese government. However, the people of Taiwan aren't stupid in all of this. They know this is a horrible deal for them and would make sure their politicians hear about it.
Even that understates things. TSMC is Taiwan’s singular Trump card in geopolitical negotiations. Now that righteousness and moral high grounds don’t matter any more, it’s the only thing keeping Taiwan safe.
Exactly. China has held this position for a long time. Chip plant manufacturing is a recent development. China will eventually catch up with their own manufacturing in a decade or so. They don't care about the immediate short-term - they think in decades.
Not a position they held until after ROC went to Taiwan. Then they changed their tune. Remember. PRC advocated for Taiwan independence and considered Taiwan an independent nation until around 1940s.
Taiwan today has exactly the same territorial claims as China does -- in fact, Taiwan's are more expansive, since they use the eleven-dash line instead of the nine-dash line. The difference is that Taiwan has little to no ability to project force.
(My comment should not be read as an endorsement of the CCP's willingness to force Taiwan into a reunification.)
While that is true. The people of Taiwan and the government don’t care to make claims on China. The island literally just wants to live their life. But if they tried to change their constitution and remove any claim it would be seen as an “attempt” at independence and cause China to throw a hissy fit.
Pointing this out always looks like endorsement of the CPC as it’s always a point that is pointed out as justification to claim Taiwan is part of China.
Just to be 100% clear: I think the issue of Taiwanese independence should be fully determined by Taiwanese voters in a free and fair referendum without foreign interference -- not from the US, not from China, and not from anyone else.
My previous comment was meant to provide some context. It was not an endorsement of China's stance.
Even if the desire to absorb Taiwan is ideological, they would certainly also understand the severe practical implications of losing access to their chip production.
Chinese companies seem to not have much trouble getting a hold of advanced chips, despite the embargo. There is also very elastic demand for less advanced chips despite China's efforts towards autonomy.
Exactly. Some comments here seem to imply that it's somehow good (or at least not bad) for Taiwan's national security to transfer technology to the US because Taiwan can now more credibly threaten to destroy their fabs, completely missing the point that China wants to reunify with Taiwan with or without these fabs.
It's a complete misreading of the situation; the US is in fact actively undermining Taiwan's national security, both 1) by coercing Taiwan to transfer its technology and human capital and 2) by banning chip trade between Taiwan and China.
It's a complete misreading of the situation; the US is in fact actively undermining Taiwan's national security, both 1) by coercing Taiwan to transfer its technology and human capital and 2) by banning chip trade between Taiwan and China.
Yep, but Taiwan was always a sacrificial lamb to contain China's economic rise. Unfortunately, I don't think a lot of Taiwanese people realize that. I feel sorry for them because in any military conflict, they will feel the most pain, by far.
I agree the imposed embargo re advanced chips between Taiwan and China undermines Taiwan's national security but this contradicts the earlier point that China doesn't care at all about chips.
My apologies, I should have been more clear. Here is my read of the situation:
China doesn't care in the sense that the threat of destroying fabs isn't going to factor into the Chinese leadership's desire to reunify. The issue of reunification is ideological; many Chinese people themselves view Taiwan as a break-away province.
China also does care, at least a little bit, in the sense that having access to Taiwanese chips will free up some economic resources within China itself that could be used in another strategically important industry instead. Allowing chip trade between Taiwan and China also encourages some Chinese economic dependence on Taiwan, though still not a decisive factor in whether China wants to reunify (by force if needed). But it buys Taiwan a bit more time, at least for now.
Banning chip trade between China and Taiwan weakens Taiwan's national security because it immediately removes even that smidgen of Chinese economic dependence on Taiwan (thus possibly accelerating Chinese plans for reunification), and it makes Taiwan much more dependent on the US, which has in recent weeks thoroughly proven itself to be an unreliable partner.
This was my first thought when I heard about this. If Taiwan ever looks like it's going to fall, I think that there's going to be a massive concerted effort to extract all the talent and production equipment over to America so that it's not in China's hands.
Sure, TSMC would want to do that to salvage what they can. I wonder if the Taiwanese government is as keen on that arrangement though; TSMC plants are their biggest bargaining chip, and Trump has upending the entire world order mere weeks into his term.
China was also, in slightly crude terms, an underdeveloped and weak country in 1987. Japan was right next door and an absolutely massive economic powerhouse that eclipsed China. Japan's GDP was nearly 10x China's at the time.
The US had military bases in the Philippines at the time. They did and still have military bases in Japan. Taiwan was right in the pincers of the US, and China, having all the power and development of a mid-tier African country, would have no hope of taking the country without absolutely massive losses and possibly collapsing their government.
Now China is undoubtedly the most powerful country in Asia, in terms of both military strength and economic power. They could blockade Taiwan, fire a few missiles in strategic spots, and fight a war of attrition against the import-dependent island without having to put a single boot on the ground.
Ukraine made protection guarantees with the west in exchange for giving up a key aspect of its defense (nuclear weapons). Russia had collapsed and people assumed they weren't a major threat anymore. Now Ukraine has nothing to wield against Russia and the US is saying "Give us your minerals, and not in exchange for defense. Just give us your resources." Russians are dying by the thousands but their leadership still considers it worth the cost.
Now imagine the Chinese government. They see Taiwan giving the US government their most valuable resources. They see the US government having no interest in helping countries that they've partnered with for decades. They realize they don't have to shove tens of thousands into a meat grinder to get what they want. They realize that the one thing Taiwan could wield to make the world support their cause (chips and the risk of the global tech industry falling into chaos should manufacturing be interrupted) might be moved outside their borders. Not taking advantage of this opportunity would be China ignoring a huge sign that says "It's free real estate."
There is less of a reason to defend Taiwan. Doesn't mean the US won't try. Ultimately, the US wants to use Taiwan, Japan, SK, PH to contain China.
This is to re-secure the advanced chip supply in case a conflict actually breaks out in the pacific.
For China, taking Taiwan isn't really about TSMC. It's an ideology that stems from the century of humiliation. Furthermore, once they take Taiwan, SK, Japan, PH will eventually bow as well.
Fearmongering the American public into believing that it would happen is how Trump leveraged this deal, and how he spins it to his base that he wins yet another negotiation to make America stronger. Same playbook as the Apple and OpenAI/Oracle "investment" announcements.
I think the parent commenter was actually saying that it is unlikely the US was ever going to help Taiwan in the case of a Chinese invasion, regardless of admin.
Chips are but a tiny reason the US wants to maintain the independence and integrity of Taiwan. (The same can likely sadly be said of their democracy, given the US stance on Ukraine.)
Taiwanese independence is primarily about containing China's naval power projection and their ability to keep unimpeded shipping lanes open during times of war.
China can currently be easily blockaded, and within a few weeks of such blockades, their supplies of food and energy will be put under tremendous strain. That's why it's so important to the US Navy that China does not obtain Taiwan.
Fighting a war with a superpower that has that kind of Achilles heel is much easier.
It’s a nice line to say the US cares about democracies but I think history has shown that geopolitics trumps form of government every time. The US allies itself with dictatorships when it is expedient and overthrows democracies when it is expedient.
You are right that Taiwan makes it harder for China to project its navy, but chips are by far more important now. Building fabs in the US means we don’t have to defend Taiwan, because it’s looking less and less possible.
Also, China has a huge internal border, including a shared border with Russia. Even with a total naval blockade it would only increase food and energy costs. And sanctions won’t work, they didn’t even work with Russia and China is the number 1 trade partner globally.
What do you think it can be blockaded with? Submarines... barely. Carriers are sitting ducks these days, especially since China already has an equivalent of Russian Onix missiles and launch platforms. Subs won't cover the land corridor, and they will get all they need across the Russian border if it comes to that.
China will eventually get Taiwan without firing a shot. Pretending that the US can defend an island next to a Chinese border is a pipe dream.
The Taiwan Strait is around 180 KM long, UK to France is around 30 to 40 KM in comparison. That same strait is also not safe to traverse except for two periods each year, so if they are going to invade we will know beforehand.
China needs to win this quickly, because any sort of kinetic war is going to put freeze the global economy and likely cause a mass recession, while the USA (& India) can blockade China's supply and oil chains from the Middle East beyond their force projection. Russian-Chinese infrastructure in Siberia isn't well developed and could also easily destroyed with strategic weapons from Alaska. Not to mention the sheer logistics of sending and maintaining millions of men across the strait. One missile and those troops sink into the ocean.
Trying to do a blockade on Taiwan premature isn't a good idea either, because it's conversely giving the USA the first move to organize it's forces out of harm's way, and basically turns a signficant chunk of the PLAN into sitting ducks out at the sea. Most Chinese victories are predicated on the China quickly wiping out US assets in Japan, Korea and Guam, if they don't manage to do that and fail to achieve air superiority, their troop carriers are going to sitting ducks for drones and fighters in the air.
You are missing one thing: any weapons flying into China will result in stuff exploding in New York and Washington. US carriers will be sunk, and there is no appetite in the US for either scenario.
Anyway, the whole thing won't require a single shot. The island and the mainland have close economic ties; people that determine taiwanese policy are heavily invested in China. All the tough words that are being said are for public consumption.
A regional conflict over Taiwan is highly unlikely to result in ICBMs headed for NYC and DC, because China knows that’s effectively the end of modern China. And sinking carriers would also be a very risky escalation given the ability of the US and other allies to retaliate.
I do think you’re right that Taiwan will ultimately lose without much warfare, because Trump is a world-class coward and rolls over for every autocrat who looks in his direction.
If carriers are being used to help support Taiwan in this hypothetical, they are obviously fair game and sinking them isn’t escalatory, right? We don’t get to go to war and declare the troops fighting the war off limits to retaliation.
If that was how it worked, why wouldn’t China declare all their transport boats sacrosanct?
If we think our retaliation to getting a carrier sunk would be to end the world, we should probably not use them.
Strikes by the US inside China are highly unlikely for the same reason.
As for Trump, he is simply pragmatic. Taiwan is indefensible from the military standpoint. I would not count on allies too much, because Europe's remaining 1 1/2 soldiers cannot make any difference, and the UK can barely get its ships out of the harbor.
Anyway, all of this is just a show.
Strikes by the US on Chinese military facilities are vastly more likely than ICBM strikes against civilian population centers on the other side of the world, for obvious reasons.
Then you proceed to write that China can't sink US carriers that are there to destroy Chinese ships and kill Chinese people. Next, you say that the US bombing China would not cause ICBM nuclear warheads on US cities.
So how does war work? Only one side gets to fight?
Yep. The side that sits at the keyboard of a basement computer shooting at zombies.
Here is my suggestion to people who want the US to play part in Taiwan/China affair: they should take their broomsticks and volunteer. And that includes the war in Ukraine, too.
China currently would have a serious bad time economically, cut off from intl trade. So there are options in addition to military - if there was a will. The rest of the world would have a hard time without China intl trade but probably far more survivable.
And blockade options go both ways: China could blockade Taiwan? They have more and more attack submarines and anti-aircraft missiles - which may be good enough.
Back in the day we used to add [citation needed] to statements like that.
Sure, if anyone tried to blockade continental China (coastline from Vietnam to Korea!), controlling Taiwan would be helpful, but chances are it would not really make all that much of a difference. It's not exactly Gibraltar or the Bosporus.
The US has not been a good partner to Taiwan, truth be told. If you browse social media that are popular among the Taiwanese, you'll discover that there is quite a bit of resentment towards the US, because they see the US as coercing them into transferring their much-needed human and intellectual capital in world-class semicon technology. (E.g. ~50% of the staff now working at the Arizona fab are TSMC engineers who moved from Taiwan, because American workers allegedly do not have the requisite skills or work ethic.) And yet the US is not willing to reciprocate by transferring its military technology.
I'm sure Trump's disastrous meeting with Zelenskyy has greatly damaged confidence among the Taiwanese. At some point more and more Taiwanese might just decide that a mob boss who speaks their language is better than a mob boss who doesn't.
"Taiwan is the United States’ 7th-largest merchandise trading
partner ($158.6 billion in total goods trade), 10th-largest
export market ($42.3 billion), and 8th-largest source of
imports ($116.3 billion), according to 2024 U.S. data (and
when the European Union is considered as one trading
partner). "
Sounds like we've been a great partner with Taiwan. Also, wanting to trade on "business I.P." would make more sense if you mentioned we're already doing around $158 billion in business with them. Each side's businesses have a lot of mutual dependence where you'd want a higher production of chips that each side could trust. We had a supply shortage with fabs not long ago, too.
Whereas, military tech is a strategic advantage we owe to nobody. They can buy it or not. I'd rather they not be ripped off in the process. Helping us make cutting edge chips here is different than giving people weapons.
For example, I'm American. I'm allowed to have business, but not military, technology. I can probably license and operate a fab. I can't buy fighter jets at all. That's despite how Harrier jets as a solution to traffic congestion could boost my personal productivity.
For the Taiwanese, their semiconductor prowess is a strategic advantage for them. It's even informally known as the Silicon Shield. Taiwan's hope/expectation that US reciprocates with strategically important technology is perfectly reasonable.
The Silicon Shield is something the US is actively trying to undermine by coercing Taiwan to transfer its technology. In addition, every TSMC engineer that moves from Taiwan to the US is someone who isn't contributing to Taiwan's local Silicon Shield. And yes, "coercing" is the right word when you are a mafia-like superpower threatening 100% tariffs -- though at this stage I am not sure why the Taiwanese should hold out any hope that the US is a reliable or trustworthy guarantor of their security.
> They can buy it or not.
Obviously Taiwan cannot. The US refuses to sell F35 fighters to Taiwan. And even countries that do buy these weapons do not have full operational control -- e.g., the U.S. has the capability to remotely disable or restrict the functionality of F-35 fighter jets purchased by other countries.
> I'd rather they not be ripped off
Taiwan is getting ripped off. 1) Delivering equipment years behind schedule as well as 2) delivering moldy dilapidated equipment are forms of ripping off your customer. And in this case America's customer is too afraid to dare offend it.
Anyone who thought we would seriously defend Taiwan is a fool. Middle America routinely makes fun of Asian people, you think they're gonna be happy to send their kids to die for them?
Counterpoint they literally already did that and we weren’t less racist in the 60s and 70s. Personally I don’t think Trump would defend Taiwan but I object to such a disregard of history.
Unfortunately I have to agreed. Protection rackets seem to be pretty much the defining activity when Trump is allowed to run the show, but I doubt appeasement in itself is really going to buy Taiwan anything.
What's to stop him from taking the bribes and then just fabricating some of his trademark bullshit about how the Taiwanese "have been very unfair" and Xi's people were actually totally in the right all along.
The US right-wing has a large contingent that wants to pivot focus away from Europe and towards Asia.
The US abandoning European allies can be perceived through the lens of general isolationism (or even an outright support for fascism) but it can also be perceived as part of this pivot to Asia.
Time will tell. Elon Musk has so much of his net worth tied up in China, however, that I would bet more on abandonment. If Elon was out of the picture I'd bet more on support.
I'm not from or in the US, but I was mildly hopeful about the Taiwan situation when Marco Rubio was made part of the administration, as he seems to care more about the Pacific than Trump does. I think it's still a bit too early for defeatism.
Nope. The US is doing all it can to become irrelevant geopolitically in Europe, that's not to start a war with China with a very uncertain outcome. Economic ties is (was) the really last bastion that would have motivated the US to intervene.
Wild how quickly Europe has just given up on the US after all the money we’ve spent on them for decades. We need your help (a majority of sane Americans), not condemnation. If you don’t think Trump won’t do the same to you, you’re sorely mistaken.
Maybe they were never really allies to begin with, and have waited for Europe to become complacent enough to put down the hammer in our weakest moment.
Only a fool would expect America to come to their aid now, and we'd better hide our oil/minerals lest we get a double dose of dictator-flavoured freedom...
I mean, I think you can at least understand why directly interfering with the domestic politics of a representative democracy might be challenging.
And the Europeans are helping. Trump is not getting the straight forward quick foreign policy wins that he was chasing. Europe is going to keep sticking their "European peacekeeper" (however you want to characterize it) proposal into the Ukraine mix, and Putin is going to have a hard time swallowing that deal.
When the EU tariffs come, you can bet that EU is going to try to make it sting as much as possible.
But ultimately it's up to Americans to make the best of these opportunities.
Europe can't cure American political disease. The public discourse, general political education and health of American institutions is alarmingly bad. IMO it's unlikely that these trends will stop. America is suited to isolationism and Trump type views of the world aren't going away from the US voter mindset.
How could you? Trump declined to say he'd defend Poland or Lithuania, both NATO members, when asked by a reporter (obviously this was overshadowed by the Zelenskyy thing)...
Because putin demanded NATO roll back to 1990 borders in exchange for a Ukraine peace deal. So of course he wouldn't defend Poland or Lithuania, they won't be in NATO anymore.
Are you willing to get drafted and fight to defend Taiwan and whatever comes as a result of that? Are you willing to die for Taiwan, or have your kids die for Taiwan? Honest question.
that's I suppose the risk one is willing to take when enrolling into the army?.. You're raising though a very good point, the US army is really large and it's not clear anymore what its purpose is anymore (not against Russia anymore, not against China soon/anymore, then what for?)
Deploying the US army on US soil against US citizens would essentially be the end of the country. Whatever the outcome is would be a fundamentally different place. The military is an effective mechanism for pacifying the masses through employment.
> Deploying the US army on US soil against US citizens would essentially be the end of the country. Whatever the outcome is would be a fundamentally different place.
“And so I come full circle on this response and just want to encourage you with some substance that we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”[1]
I don't necessarily believe maintaining a ludicrously strong military for the purposes of defending our homeland is a bad idea. Maybe I'm just being silly, but like, why would you not want the strongest military you could possibly muster to defend your nation?
Maybe I'm thinking about it wrong? But I don't think so.
> why would you not want the strongest military you could possibly muster to defend your nation?
Because it comes at the opportunity cost of other things we could spend money on. For example, you could cut education to fund military even more, but it would eventually catch up to us.
I'm hesitant to even say this because it sounds so callous and naive, so with apologies in advance: how would one maintain a superior military if that military isn't involved in any aspect of combat for long stretches of time? To use a sports analogy, could you build a Super Bowl capable (American) football team if none of the players or coaches have done more than watch football on TV and played lots of flag football scrimmages amongst themselves?
(I'm wondering about this after reading today's NYT article about the escalating use of drone warfare in Ukraine.)
Between WWI and WWII, the US didn't get in any "hot practice". (Which is what I think you're talking about?) That didn't stop us from learning what we needed to know. Nor did it stop us from fielding a formidable military. The new technologies at the time were wielded by us to deadly effect. Carriers and tanks in particular. We didn't just sit around and get really good at digging trenches and moving dreadnoughts around.
The same will happen here. I guarantee you, the American military will be among the best in the world at employing the services of satellites, autonomous ordinance and surveillance, and cyber offensives.
You have concerns about our facility with drones? Be assured, we'll be able to work out how to create nightmarish swarms just as well as Europeans or Chinese can. We'll have the same facility with working with countermeasures and mitigating countermeasures as well.
> That didn't stop us from learning what we needed to know.
Actually, it did. At the beginning of its intervention, US weaponry and tactics were way below their European counterparts, even in nuclear research. The difference was made through sheer power of scale and speed of adaptation, not pre-war innovation.
In the same way, the US military is currently as good as it is precisely because it sees significant deployments very frequently (Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq), which means they learn hard lessons and develop technologies solving real problems, at a rate that no other military can match.
Looking at current Ukraine situation, the drone pilots are a couple of kilometers behind the front. The radio range of the drones is not that big. Yes there are higher tech ones, but there are still people exposed at the front.
We haven’t had a draft in decades, what makes you bring it up now? Are you implying that only people serving in the military should have a say in foreign policy?
Because if we go to war with China, they have a lot more people to throw at us than we have active in the military. Any slightly protracted war will require a draft. I'm sure you filled out your draft card when you turned 18 like I did, even when there was no draft. That's so if and when they needed to reinstate it, it would pick up almost seamlessly where it left off.
>Are you implying that only people serving in the military should have a say in foreign policy?
No, I'm implying before people rah rah to defend Taiwan, they actually understand what that means; it probably won't mean sending only active duty and reserves after a year or two and that a draft will most likely occur.
I do hope it wouldn’t come to that, but I also don’t think we can afford to immediately capitulate to any state with more manpower out of fear and still consider ourselves to be a world power.
If China has us completely militarily outmatched then of course we can’t afford to provoke them, but it’s not my sense that we’re ready to accept that currently.
I agree. What's the point of a massive military if you can't scare people with it? All I'm saying is we need to be careful what we wish for and understand what we are getting into. If congress thinks the population is itching to go to war, they might just get us into one (again).
Like you said, we haven't had a draft in decades. People might think we won't ever have one, and those people would be mistaken.
Naval warfare is more about hardware than manpower. American casualties in the Pacific Theater of WW2 were only ~100k dead and ~200k wounded.
The US alone would lose in that as well, because its shipbuilding capacity is minimal. But together with South Korea and Japan, it could compete against China on a level ground.
China has the ability to strike the American heartland, including naval production, in ways Japan did not.
We’re also at risk of losing strategic depth: how many more years of provocations from Washington do you think it would take a South American, Mexican or the Caribbean country to start letting Chinese drones, ships and missiles on their territory? (How confident are you in our intelligence community that this hasn’t already happened?)
The phrasing of your question makes it sound like you clearly do not think Taiwan is worth defending. Perhaps a more interesting question would be - where is the line for you to consider a war is worth fighting for? Is it only when your country is being attacked and you need to defend it? If so, take a guess what WW1 and WW2 would have looked like if everyone had that opinion.
You didn't answer the question. It's easy to send other people's kids to war (see Iraq, Afghanistan). It's a different problem when you have your own skin in the game.
>If so, take a guess what WW1 and WW2 would have looked like if everyone had that opinion.
WWI Would have been merely a local conflict between Austria and Serbia. WWII would have been about the same as it was historically, if it happened at all, see previous answer on WWI.
As an aside and ironically, both Wilson and FDR campaigned on not getting us into WWI and WWII.
I suspect there are not many outside your own acquaintances willing to have their children drafted to defend Taiwan.
Just being realistic. Americans were committed to these things because leadership committed us to these things and would make it illegal for us to get out of it. Given an actual choice, not many Americans would have willingly gone to, say, Vietnam. Maybe a few brainwashed anti-communists, but the average American thought, "Hey, not my circus, not my monkeys." I suspect even fewer would be willing to go fight for Taiwan.
The average American's attitude is, "Call me when they attack Hawaii." Until that point, most genuinely don't care. That's why Trump's current moves in Europe will be applauded by his base. Because people have severely overestimated the desire of the American every-man and -woman to defend foreign nations.
You can't give people a choice. If given a choice, they'll always say no.
You either fight far away or you fight at home. The choice to fight though is not yours to make. Its the choice of the defectors of law, of Despots and murderers. You can fight them today, while they rob you with a stick or tomorrow, when they have a gun. But fight you must.
That's just the sort of macho thinking that has caused so many military endeavors to fail throughout history. Maybe the politics is about soundbites like that one? I don't know? I'm not a politician. But the actual prosecution of a military conflict is about outcomes. Not soundbites.
Will there be a good outcome or not?
I mean, if it makes you feel any better, you can think of it this way. Our past has taught us that, without question, it is best to fight far away, but only after an enemy has been weakened by others.
I know how that sounds to many non-US citizens. But I'm just being honest about how the thinking in America has developed historically.
It looks like the war in Ukraine should be beneficial to the United States. We send some surplus equipment and ramp up ammo production (jobs!) while weakening a prominent geopolitical adversary all without spilling American blood.
Letting Ukraine fall will embolden Russia who will continue their march across Europe until it is necessary to spill American blood.
Similarly we may not have a choice in Taiwan. Japan and The Philippines at least aren’t keen to have an emboldened imperialist China in their backyards. If they intervene US aid at least will be in our best interest.
Isolationism is not a guaranteed ideal strategy in all situations. Looking only at boondoggles like Vietnam, Iraq 2, and Afghanistan doesn’t mean all US intervention is harmful to the national interest.
> Some folks are born made to wave the flag - Hoo, they're red, white and blue. And when the band plays "Hail to the chief", Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord
After seeing people convinced to send their children to the Middle East for more nebulous reasons, I wouldn't be surprised if a significant portion of the country can be found willing.
I’m guessing you haven’t served in the military, and aren’t really familiar with the projections of how a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is likely to unfold.
I would not be surprised if this was in the calculation. TSMC US is currently moving quite a bit faster and ahead of what TSMC originally planned. There is a possibility that TSMC US will only be 1 year behind in node development. With the added capacity, it will accelerate transition of Qualcomm, Broadcom, Nvidia, AMD etc to Fab on US soil.
Once that is even partly done. There is no reason Trump will send US troops to defend Taiwan.
I think that the deterrent is Taiwan destroying all their fabs before the Chinese get to them. This would severely affect the _entire_ world therefore there are strong incentives to keep Taiwan independent.
The US was defending Taiwan against China long before TSMC was founded. If anything I'd worry it goes the opposite way. In the status quo, if the Chinese military can prevent TSMC from operating or prevent their products from being exported, wouldn't the US almost have to capitulate in exchange for a chips deal?
That's the old way of thinking -- they're trying to do just that across the government and without some enforcement mechanism to make them send the checks, the practical result is that the President can indeed cancel pieces of legislation via impoundment.
Example 3 - CHIPS act would have had funding withheld if a Federal Court hadn't stepped in, but it's unclear what enforcement mechanism can force the funding to resume: https://archive.is/BxjHw
Sure, but a lot of people at NIST who were in charge of implementing the CHIPS act have been fired. He definitely seems to be doing all he can to sabotage the CHIPS act without needing any congressional action.
He sure seems to be able to just terminate legislation signed into law. He already did it with USAID, and is in the process of doing it to many other departments.
You like this rule being broken? Great, good for you.
What about the other rules? The ones protecting you and the country? Is due process not valuable any more? What protects us from people with bad or selfish intentions?
Yeah, kids starving and dying of cholera.. fuck em /s
> The Inspector General also warned that $489 million in humanitarian food aid was at risk of spoiling due to staff furloughs and unclear guidance. The Office of Presidential Personnel fired the Inspector General the next day, despite a law requiring 30 days notice to Congress before firing an Inspector General.
But DOGE has been trying to do effectively that for the past month, and has been distressingly successful at it. (For all that conservatives whined about the existence of an unaccountable deep state override elected officials making laws, that's basically an accurate description of DOGE.)
This comes so often in HN it is wild. Risking WW3 and killing millions just because Samsung is 2 years behind TSMC. To save a year we would set world decades or centuries back.
Isn't this bad news for Intel? Personally I'not sure. An on shore TSMC will certainly help Intel with easier access to knowledge and experienced researchers and workers. OTOH having a US based alternative to their fabs makes them less needed for a strategic pov.
China is Taiwan’s biggest trade partner. There’s no political will for China to attack Taiwan yet, as everything is just pointing towards China becoming so humongous in terms of power that Taiwan would fold without any bloodshed.
I hope they reconsider. The US does not appear to be a counterparty which can be trusted to follow through with their obligations anymore and this venture sounds quite risky.
Probably because Europe is not threatening them behind the scenes and perhaps offering money as well.
Diversifying chip manufacturing more globally is pretty crucial to maintaining the world order though. Sadly, having a fab in the US under the current administration is not helpful to the west in general. Getting TSMC or building an alternative to TSMC in Europe, UK, Canada, Australia, would be very smart.
I believe a lot of the machines TSMC depends on are even produced in Europe, so there should be room to make some deal!
Seems your average semiconductor foundry needs around 100MW[1] to 200MW[2] of electrical power to operate. The main consumption is down to refrigeration chillers[3].
Average US house uses about 12600kWh per year[4], or 1.44kW average across a year. So that means one foundry takes about what 70k to 140k houses would take.
It went up considerably because of nordic exports to the rest of Europe. They are producing enough for themselves, but not if they have to share.
It's the same reason why US gas prices are somewhat on the high side lately - a lot of it is exported to Europe, and the price differential is large enough to make this worth the trouble.
You realize that the US buys energy from Canada right? The US has no advantage on energy. Even in Europe, building more power capacity is simply a matter of wanting to.
Right. I do. The US buys a lot of it, and it is cheap.
As for Europe, you are right, partially it's a matter of a mindset, however there are objective reasons for expensive energy. France's access to cheap uranium is almost gone. Europe refuses to sign long-term russian gas delivery contracts and are buying spot which costs arm and leg (whatever is left of it). German power plants are shuttered. LNG imported from the US is very expensive.
Some German CEOs (I think Volkswagen if I recall correctly) said recently that Germany offers no competitive advantage these days. I agree.
Where do you think manufacturing will go? Energy is everything.
However hard it is, the decline of the US is going to force Europe and the rest of the western countries to build out replacements for US labour and goods. The US is simply not a reliable trading partner nor ally under the new administration. Energy will be built.
The US and European alliance was a marriage of convenience. One of the results of Ukrainian conflict was manufacturing moving from Europe to the US.
Energy has to be built from something, and Europe does not have it.
Europe has sun and wind. In the time it would take the US to build one nuclear plant Europe can build over 10x as much renewable capacity, for 1/10th the cost. As much as I'm pro environmental protection, the reality is that a lot of places are preferring renewables because they are cheaper and faster to build than traditional power plants for the same energy outputs. Even Texas is building tons of renewables for this reason.
So yes, energy will be built in Europe and elsewhere.
One word: BS. Germany energy shortages were in the news early this year, and last year, and the year before then. See this, for example: https://www.power-technology.com/news/germany-wind-power-sho... Germany and its renewables is just a laughing stock at this point. One cannot run an industry on renewables, and they are finding this out. There was already some talk about restarting nuclear power plants.
With your optimism, they would have tackled this problem already.
Texas already paid its price for their lack of investment in traditional generation facilities.
Its weird to claim that the US is in decline when discussing the EU. The fate of the EU is incredibly intertwined with that of the US. If one is in decline, the other is as well.
The fall of the US will absolutely harm other western countries yes. But we will build and eventually thrive, unlike the US if it remains on its current trajectory.
Currently everything points in the direction that capitulation would be the outcome of China invading Taiwan, with political pressure to eject any democratically elected leader in Taiwan for the sake of "negotiations".
It was what this administration did in Afghanistan, it's doing in Ukraine, and nothing tells us it will be different with Taiwan.
It seems unlikely to me that TSMC is both going to spend 100B on their own US operations and however many billions it would cost to acquire Intel's foundry division and set it up for TSMCs process. Though those rumours never made sense to me in the first place.
Seems more likely that the Trump admin was pressuring them to possibly invest in Intel, acquisition was briefly considered and instead this compromise of expanding their own US operations was chosen.
I expect INTC to retract back towards $18-19 from this news. Recent rally was largely based on hopium surrounding either TSMC investment/partnership or Broadcom/TSMC breakup and acquisition. Probably this kills the Broadcom deal as well. If I were Intel, I wouldn't wanna sell off the more successful chip design division if I couldn't also sell off the floundering foundry.
Having been in Taiwan for 10 years, comments like these totally ignore the differences in personal traits and 誠信 between Terry Guo and Morris Chang. TSMC and the entire upper management is build differently than Foxconn. After all, Arizona factory is about to be up and running no?
TSMC has followed through already in Arizona where they are actually producing. The CHIPS act has been fairly successful, and I know for a fact that there are other locations already being planned based on the Act. Granted, this administration could just decide to ignore all that, but I gather instead they will just take credit for something the previous administration did.
No, secretary of commerce Lutnick said that the $65 billion deal was Biden's and was subsidized by the US ($6 billion).
He then bragged that Trump extorted TSMC using tariffs and forced TSMC to invest another $100 billion to avoid tariffs.
The US is using tariffs to have other nations build "their" industry. After that work is done, these nations will be ready to become new theaters for US proxy wars.
"America um under the Biden Administration uh tsmc received a $6 billion Grant and that encouraged them to build 65 billion dollar so America gave tsmc 10% of the money to build here and now you're seeing the power of Donald Trump's presidency because tsmc the greatest manufacturer of chips in the world is coming to America with a hundred billion dollar investment and of course that is backed by the fact that they can come here because they can avoid paying tariffs so the idea is come to America build greatness in America."
TSMC never pays tariffs anyways, whomever did the importing does so companies like Apple, GM, Tesla, etc.
An announced deal really should be worthless politically, we've all seen Foxconn or Apple announce big investments during Trump's first presidency for them to just walk it back later.
Probably not too different if: Biden acted like Trump during his first 100 days, was extremely abrasive and disrespectful to Zelensky, told NATO the US isn't going forward with any more security commitments, and then this deal happened.
Gift link: https://www.wsj.com/tech/trump-chip-maker-tsmc-expected-to-a...
https://archive.is/fW91i
Thank you!
The idea that the US protects Taiwan from a possible Chinese invasion over chips is one of those things that sounds believable but really isn't going to happen.
From China’s perspective, the cost of war is much higher than the cost of developing these chips themselves. In the worst-case scenario, they would be 2-3 years behind the cutting edge, which is not mission-critical. Most electronics (civilian or military) don’t really need cutting-edge chips, and China has already proven that they don’t need the latest chips to be a significant AI competitor.
From the US’s perspective, if a war with China were to break out now, there are only three possible scenarios: 1. China takes Taiwan quickly. In this case, there would be nothing for US to defend, and the US would have to try to take Taiwan back militarily—unlikely to happen. 2. Stalemate. Taiwanese people fight bravely, and Chinese forces turn out to be weaker than expected. In this case, the US would be in a comfortable position to send aid and weapons to help Taiwan, prolonging the war to weaken China. With some luck, a regime change could happen without firing a shot. 3. Taiwan successfully defends itself, repels the Chinese invasion, and possibly even takes back some territory—an unlikely scenario, but this is the only one where the US would send troops to help defend Taiwan. If the US gets involved at this stage, it secures a sure win, puts a military base on the island, and further cements its role as the protector of taiwan.
If you believe the US will or should only act in its own interest, then its interest is to remain the only superpower. Rushing into a war on foreign turf and losing is the quickest way to cede the Asia-Pacific region to China. So, despite what politicians might have you believe, the US is not going to help defend Taiwan, no matter who is in the White House.
> From China’s perspective, the cost of war is much higher than the cost of developing these chips themselves.
You are being economically rational. Not all human decisions are done through that lens.
"Thucydides found that people go to war out of 'honor, fear, and interest.'” — Donald Kagan, On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Kagan
* https://acoup.blog/2019/12/05/collections-a-trip-through-thu...
Why not destroy the foundries, move all the TSMC employees to the US, rebuild them here (there is no surer investment), and let China have the land?
> From China’s perspective, the cost of war is much higher than the cost of developing these chips themselves.
For China it’s not about the chips. It’s about getting rid of the humiliation that is having a small island, that was originally part of China, not be a part of China.
A 'small' island with one of the most successful and thriving democracies in the East, that has world class industry. China cannot have a successful democracy on their doorstep, it undermines their perception of absolute Chinese superiority.
This seems like one of Putin's motivations for invading Ukraine. He couldn't stand having a prosperous Ukraine aligned with the EU and the US that could foment discontent inside Russia.
Ukraine is far poorer than Russia.
True, but Ukraine was on a very great trajectory, just like the baltic states. They were all proof that you don’t need the Russian federation.
He would like to keep it that way.
What you mean like hong Kong? That humiliation pales in comparison to the damage done domestically as taiwan's defenses would necessitate a gross loss of life. Then consider the diplomatic posture of every major economy on the China sea.
>For China it’s not about the chips.
Taiwan (the Island) is one of the China's (Republic of China ROC), mainland China is called "People's Republic of China" (PRC).
And also a vibrant democracy, potentially serving as an example (foreign and domestic) that alternative political systems are an option and perhaps even desirable.
I have a strong impression there are similarities with Russia and Ukraine. Having a neighbor with a similar culture and overlapping histories that also has independent, democratic government was likely viewed as a direct threat to the Putin regime and one of the driving reasons for the invasion. I could see a similar calculation with Taiwan/China.
1) The USA does not have launchable nuclear weapons in neighboring countries to Taiwan that necessitate a buffer
2) Taiwan does not represent unprotected border territory. Heck, attacking it sustainedly would require significant and slow naval logistics
3) Other than human intellect, there is little in the way of natural resources to obtain out of Taiwan. It's economy is manufscturung and export driven.
Other than some nationalistic pride to recapture teritority, they are not much alike.
> Other than some nationalistic pride to recapture teritority, they are not much alike.
To add, Taiwan uses traditional Chinese and is more conservative to traditional Chinese culture. China abandoned all of that during the cultural revolution. There's been a recent nationalist push to embrace "traditional" Chinese identity, involving mainand Chinese people going to sites in Japan and elsewhere wearing "traditional" Chinese clothing. Imagine the nationalistic outrage if someone wore a kimono in China. In practice, these traditional Chinese clothing are cheaply made cosplay from Taobao
Yeah, I subscribe to your theory too. It's odd how Putin and his defenders spout all sorts of theories about the evil of NATO and "the West", but if you (addressing the dictators here) have faith in your arguments, why suppress viewpoints that disagree with yours, with media company closures, network firewalls and threats of years in the gulag?
Because their argument, in which they do have faith, is that a cacophony of disagreeing viewpoints casting doubts on the common national project is hurtful, even if those doubts are unfounded and those viewpoints unsubstantiated.
I'm not defending autoritarianism or communism, but I think you're just not putting yourself in their shoes and looking at things from their POV. They supress other viewpoints not because they're afraid to be shown wrong, but because they believe it's best to supress them and not have people confused by enemy missinformation.
(Not an expert, but this is my impression from talking to both chinese and vietnamese people who defend or at least don't oppose their communist governments, and also spanish autoritarians who defend the Francoist regime. I used to think they were brainwashed/dumb/evil, and now I think their worldview makes a bit of sense, even if it's still misguided.)
One of the reasons for the collapse of the USSR was that the propaganda done by the US was better than the propaganda done by the Soviets. So it's not like there isn't a historical reason for this either.
Never underestimate the power of saving face. The Taiwan invasion had a dry run with how they handled Hong Kong. This is going to happen and my guess is it will be on Trump’s way out. That way it all gets done during the 2028 election season, and all the next President can do is pout.
It’s a win-win for Trump because he keeps China at bay for three years, which is good enough for him.
How are Taiwan and Hong Kong at all comparable? Hong Kong never had their own military, was never an independent nation, and was officially handed over from Britain to China in 1997. There was no armed invasion of Hong Kong - Chinese military was already garrisoned there for 25 years.
Invading Taiwan will never be an economically rational action. If it happens, it will be because of internal politics, personal/national myth-making etc.
Taiwan is ridiculously favourable terrain for the defenders; if they fight back, there can't be quick victory, and the US will be able to play merry hell with China's naval logistics from day 1 (obviously with escalating levels of firepower available over time as more resources move in-theatre).
China could secure a more reliable victory by expending most of it's ballistic missile inventory to incapacitate the US bases in Guam and Okinawa, but that would inexorably trigger WWIII.
I don't think that's accurate. The population is concentrated on the west coast, all that mountainous terrain is unpopulated. Also it's an island that's very close to China.
No need to go on the island to win. Just encircle it. A blockade. Always works and this has been the modus operandi to conquer fortresses and castles for millenia.
Time wouldn't be on their side though. China would need to effectively complete the invasion before the US navy had time to react. Even if it was considered unlikely the US would react, I doubt China would commit to an invasion they weren't certain they could win.
Why not buy them out? If you give everyone 100k it’s only 2.4 trillion. Or even better, just buy out the militant element.
Would you subject your family to a Cultural Revolution in exchange for 100k? Add several zeros and assurances of safe passage out of the country and maybe you'd be onto something, but that's not going to happen for numerous reasons.
The PRC already buys the loyalty of who they can in Taiwan, but Taiwan nevertheless remains resolute.
The US would respond to with a freedom-of-navigation exercise backed up by the full might of US-PACOM. China would lose that standoff.
Can we really be sure what the new 2025 version of the US would do in such a scenario? I highly doubt the new US is going to intervene in defence of any of its erstwhile allies.
Even if the PRC can't be sure America would respond, a small risk of America responding has some deterrent effect. Hopefully enough.
Trump's extreme unpredictability might actually be a advantage in this scenario.
He has been predictable in his handling of Ukraine and Israel. He favours the aggressors. He's also predictable in isolationism and wanting manufacturing moved back to America. None of this bodes well for Taiwan.
A blockade takes time to have an effect and that time gives US Navy SSNs time to start sinking the PLAN (in righteous response to the PLAN attacking merchant ships approaching Taiwan.)
For the PRCs invasion of Taiwan to work with minimal risk of excessive losses, they need to do it very quickly so that it's a fait accompli, minimizing the chance of any American response at all.
>The idea that the US protects Taiwan from a possible Chinese invasion over chips is one of those things that sounds believable but really isn't going to happen.
>From China’s perspective, the cost of war is much higher than the cost of developing these chips themselves.
You've got it completely backwards. China doesn't want Taiwan because it has the best chip manufacturing in the world. Taiwan has the best chip manufacturing in the world because China wants to invade them and they wanted to give the US a reason to defend them and China a reason not to. War with Taiwan will impact global chip supply even if China can produce their own, which their economy will feel.
> world because China wants to invade them and they wanted to give the US a reason to defend them and China a reason not to
Reverse logic much? If wanting the best electronics know how was just enough to get it, every country would have a TSMC like by now
My impression after spending month and half in Taiwan last year is that China wouldn't have to fire a single bullet to take over the country. The only thing that would stop China is a US president with the strength to put two aircraft carrier strike groups between the island and the mainland. [0] If China needed Taiwan strategically they can surround the island in two days and take it the next. I concluded China is only postering and it is the economic threat with its ASEAN trading partners and the EU that keeps it at bay. The ASML chip fab machines are designed to be remotely disabled so they are not getting chips. [1] There is nothing to be gained from attacking the island and that is the reason it hasn't happened.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis#199...
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/21/asml_kill_switch/
The US is not going to help defend Taiwan is a fair thesis, but reciprocally, China is not going to attack Taiwan.
Even if Russia gets all of it's demands in the peacemaking process with Ukraine, that war has done permanent and lasting damage to it's economy and global position. For China to attack Taiwan, it would give up any hope of continuing it's healthy trends towards increased economic and political importance.
Eventually, Taiwan will re-join China when it is sufficiently strong. It's symbolism as a continued humiliation by the west is more useful as propaganda than an actual military target.
> continuing it's healthy trends towards increased economic and political importance.
They "just" need to flip the script: be the single superpower that all countries are dependant upon, and then take over Taiwan. And then announce "Does anyone have something to say about what I just did?", and enjoy the silence. Already China is investing all over Africa, buying their compliance (which is what the US also did in the past).
Thanks to Daddy Issues 1 (Musk) and 2 (Trump) in the White House, their path just got a lot easier.
The response of the Russian 2014 invasion of Crimea was also quite muted because the EU was dependant on Russia's energy..
The US is not going to defend Taiwan because of chips, but China is also not going to attack Taiwan because of chips - if they do, they'll attack it for the same reason Putin attacked Ukraine: an "us vs them" mentality helps keep dictators in power, and nothing creates such a mentality better than a war. We can only hope that China is sensible enough to see the downsides too, but the current international climate is not a real deterrent. And I have to admit China has a better claim to Taiwan than Russia to Ukraine - they never recognized Taiwan's independence, while Russia (together with the US and the UK) agreed in 1994 to guarantee Ukraine's security in exchange for it renouncing the ex-USSR nuclear weapons stationed on its territory (https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-put...) - and now they're "guaranteeing their security" by invading them.
Unfortunately, dictators don't care much about damage to it's economy as long as they continue to be in power. When they expand and occupy more land, they will look very good in their country's history book which is a huge motivation for dictators. That's the reason why nobody thought Putin would seriously consider invasion but he did. And China will definitely attack Taiwan when the timing is right. Even if a million people dies, Xi would still be considered a hero by most chinese people if he took back Taiwan.
Russia is out of the AI race. That has been lost and there's no way to reverse it.
If Russia wouldn't have started a war, it could have focused on building huge datacenters. It has all the energy it would have needed, now all it can do with it is sell it to China for cheap.
> Russia is out of the AI race. That has been lost and there's no way to reverse it.
Huh, anybody with a laptop and an internet connection can be in the AI race within a few months if not weeks or days.
Have you seen Russia's laptops?
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16827/russia-to-build-riscv-p...
What does Putin care about AI? From his perspective, a war and making Russia bigger, and being the supreme commander, is more fun.
Remember, he's old, probably a bit tech incompetent (compared to most people here).
> [Russia] could have focused on building huge datacenters.
Maybe that's what you think is important (or even what is important), but Putin is a different creature
AI will, after all, become the second biggest weapon humanity has ever created.
That's only relevant to Putin's decision making processes if he shares that perspective.
> Unfortunately, dictators don't care much about damage to it's economy as long as they continue to be in power.
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted but you are completely right. I would refer people who don’t believe this to Stephen Kotkin or Sarah Palin.
> Unfortunately, dictators don't care much about damage to it's economy as long as they continue to be in power.
It's not a dictator issue. The stock markets have been crashing lately due to "non-dictators".
> Even if a million people dies, Xi would still be considered a hero by most chinese people if he took back Taiwan.
I doubt most Chinese people care. They have better things to worry about these days e.g. crashing real estate.
It remains to be seen if the person I think you are referring to is a non-dictator. He said he would be a "dictator on day one", and he sure was, but then he somehow forgot to revert to non-dictator mode...
Regarding "crashing real estate": actually, most other countries would love to have built enough to bring down real estate prices. Being able to afford a place to live is good for most people! But of course, investing in real estate makes you interested into increasing the value of your property, so you're now incentivized to stop more real estate being built (and also to stop anything else that might decrease the value of your property - thus NIMBYism).
> that war has done permanent and lasting damage to it's economy and global position
Assuming the Ukraine is forced to surrender and Russia keeps the territories, Russia's reputation will increase. They'll be able to say they fought NATO and won. Even today, people say with a serious face that Ukraine started the war and many believe it.
Russia is damaged, but if it's allowed to win, it will recover and become a beacon for the global authoritarians/south.
> Taiwanese people fight bravely, and Chinese forces turn out to be weaker than expected. In this case, the US would be in a comfortable position to send aid and weapons to help Taiwan, prolonging the war to weaken China. With some luck, a regime change could happen without firing a shot.
After 3 years of war they will sell it out to China. Taiwan started the war in the first place, actually.
> After 3 years
With the current administration, perhaps 3 days?
Just a reminder that the current administration just removed the "we don't recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation" from the official state policy.
Their posturing during peacetime does not translate into showing up during wartime.
In fact we have already seen how they cosy up to dictators during wartime. The USA spent decades and decades backing military coups and assassinating democratically elected leaders all over the world under the guise of fighting the Cold War only to suddenly do a U-turn and pander to Putin. Russia has won the Cold War without direct military confrontation with the US.
We have also seen how Trump's first administration betrayed the Afghan government by negotiating directly with the Taliban and locking the Afghan government out of the process. He's doing the same now with regards to the war in Ukraine.
If you know any Taiwanese people, ask them whether the removal of "we don't recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation" brings them any comfort in light of how the Trump administration is treating Zelensky and America's NATO allies. Ask them what they think of Trump's expansionist rhetoric about annexing Canada, one of America's most steadfast allies with centuries of friendship.
Talk is cheap, and Taiwan as well as America's other Pacific allies are beginning to see through it.
> Russia has won the Cold War without direct military confrontation with the US.
Let's not rewrite history just to score some cheap propaganda points: the USSR lost the Cold War, and lost it badly. Russia (or rather, putinism) might be winning Cold War II, or The Oligarchic Wars, or whatever you want to call this new conflict, but the actual Cold War ended in the 90s.
I apologise; it was not my intention to rewrite history. It was a rhetorical device, though I can see how I came across as trying to be revisionist. But you're right that it's important to be precise.
Tell me this response was not generated by AI
It was not. I'm a real person, and I'm genuinely willing to concede that I was sloppy in my choice of words. But I'm not sure how I can prove it to you.
Tell me to fuck off.
> If you believe the US will or should only act in its own interest, then its interest is to remain the only superpower.
Not necessarily. Remaining the only superpower is far from guaranteed, especially looking at current economic and demographic trends. A better strategy might be to lead by example, establishing high standards that will set a benchmark for their successor.
> The idea that the US protects Taiwan from a possible Chinese invasion over chips is one of those things that sounds believable but really isn't going to happen.
I recently got (second-hand) one Taiwanese business perspective on this.
Background: A friend of mine runs an SME in Europe and one of their key suppliers is in Taiwan. Friend visits Taiwan regularly to maintain the relationship. The following conversation happened around a year ago.
My friend gets talking [in private, off the record, after a drink or three] to one of the Taiwanese managers, and the topic turns to China and the invasion scenario. My friend asked if the Taiwanese business had put any thought into what might happen (thinking maybe they've explored the business continuity angles).
The Taiwanese guy basically shrugged, and said that if the Chinese were to launch an invasion, "Taiwan is completely * * * *ed", there's nothing the US or anyone else could or would do to be able to prevent that. He apparently didn't seem up tight about, more resigned. No interest in trying to plan any kind of response, because they feel they'd be hit with overwhelming force and would be completely on their own for long enough that it would all be over.
My friend was and still is concerned about his business continuity, with his key supplier potentially going offline, so is quietly exploring his options.
You seem to be assuming that the invasion would happen by surprise. That's effectively impossible due to the scale of the operation. Especially because China is full of foreigners and the logistical effort would be impossible to hide.
If China decides to invade, everyone would likely know it weeks in advance. They just could not be sure if it's an actual invasion or a massive military exercise that simulates an invasion. And in either case, the US would have plenty of time to decide whether to commit additional carrier strike groups to the region before anything happens.
What would make carrier strike groups effective in the situation? Given their recent record in the defense of Israel and against the Yemeni Red Sea blockade, one could argue that their era is over. The two most likely outcomes from a carrier strike group engaging with China forces are either a humiliating retreat, or WW3. I think US are smart enough to keep them at bay. Maybe station one in the area for monitoring the situation and assisting evacuation of Americans.
If China has a seriously good-enough, home-made processor and storage chips, it could gain from a war with Taiwan. If this would mean to cripple the EU's and possibly also US's and to a lesser degree it's own economy through the absence of chips on the market, having that good-enough, home-made processor would be what keeps China afloat, while the rest drowns. And if it could get Taiwan and its chip manufacturing capabilities, it would have won the war with even bigger gains. At least the EU has no way to survive without Taiwan selling them chips.
The EU makes the machines that make the chips
Also in Taiwan these machines are fitted with bombs that will detonate if they’re invaded
either way the chips aren't getting made and China is more equipped to survive this than the EU or the US for that matter.
I've read that in war gaming a Chinese invasion of Taiwan the US can stop it BUT they usually lost TWO aircraft carriers. That would be almost 14,000 dead US soldiers.
I think a fourth option is rising its head: USA is becoming so weak geopolitically that being allied with them is becoming an incredibly bad position to be in.
Therefore I assume that it's possible that Taiwan will simply choose to integrate with mainland China. This would be a huge change in their sentiments for sure, but these things may happen when large wheels are turning.
This is the most likely. With allies like the US, the old enemies don't look so bad anymore.
> From China’s perspective, the cost of war is much higher than the cost of developing these chips themselves.
There are more reasons than chips.
First is Chinese nationalism. The Island of Taiwan has been under the control of various Chinese regimes over the centuries. Taking Taiwan is a rejection of the West and can be tied by to the "century of humiliation".
America has military posts in Korea, Japan, Phillipines blockading China's entrance to the larger Pacific Ocean. Having Taiwan would allow them to break this up.
On Taiwan is also a trove of Chinese art and antiques.
I believe Biden said that the US plan, in the case of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, would be to destroy the chip fabs.
They are building hundreds of naval destroyers and multiple aircraft carriers to invade a tiny island? Nope. The CCP is prepping to be the world hegemon and take over the world with drone swarms and bioweapons.
The Taiwan game is like the "Gulf of America" trick that Trump played. It's a test to see if you're with the CCP or against the CCP diplomatically.
Why would China even invide Taiwan? It would destroy "their" infrastructure and kill "their" people! There are much better ways to remove US influence from Taiwan!
They can just put sanctions or even blockade Taiwan. And if China puts sanctions on US, and dumps its USD reserves, it can destroy US economy.
US is crazy about proxies fighting their "enemies" for them. This type of thinking needs to stop! This is not cold war anymore.
Why would China even invade Taiwan? For the same reasons they invaded and took Hong Kong. Because they have their own manifest destiny to reunify their country into what it once was. They don't care about the collateral damage to achieve this in the end.
In a multipolar world, historical ignorance leads to geopolitical disadvantage. One should be well-versed in history before offering opinions on these matters. While American power once allowed it to shape global order unilaterally, a truly multipolar reality requires deep historical understanding to avoid diplomatic failures.
> For the same reasons they invaded and took Hong Kong.
When was this a thing? Britain gave up control "voluntarily". There's been no military conflict whatsoever.
Yes, I get that there were changes in law, protests and all sorts of things but those all already happened when Hong Kong was part of China i.e. there was no "invasion".
... the same thing will apply later on after the successful "non-invasion" of Taiwan.
> ... the same thing will apply later on after the successful "non-invasion" of Taiwan.
Maybe. I never commented on if the situation is good - just that invasion is the wrong term. Perhaps it should be self-implosion.
They never invaded HK. HK was returned to China.
You got brainwashed
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12503/1
"1982 U.S.-PRC Joint Communiqué/Six Assurances
As they negotiated establishment of diplomatic relations, the U.S. and PRC governments agreed to set aside the contentious issue of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. They took up that issue in the 1982 August 17 Communiqué, in which the PRC states “a fundamental policy of striving for peaceful reunification” with Taiwan, and the U.S. government states it “understands and appreciates” that policy. The U.S. government states in the 1982 communiqué that with those statements “in mind,” “it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan,” and “intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading, over a period of time, to a final resolution.” The U.S. government also declares “no intention” of “pursuing a policy of ‘two Chinas,’” meaning the PRC and the ROC, “or ‘one China, one Taiwan.’”"
I don't see how the commenter is 'brainwashed'.
The One China Policy was and remains a convenient status quo for all parties. The risk is that China decides that it's newfound economic and military might have changed that calculus.
> even blockade Taiwan.
An act of war, which the US would respond to with a freedom-of-navigation exercise backed up by the full might of US-PACOM. China would lose that standoff, which is why they're unlikely to do it unless they were confident of US non-involvement.
China has arguably excellent marine forces by now. Not sure the US would be able to counter that.
Russia has a fraction of the industrial capacity of China. Russia and Ukraine share several borders with multiple NATO countries, and Ukraine had integrated rail networks. Nevertheless Russia took 4 times the size of Taiwan and is taking more day by day.
Anyone that understands basic logistics and can read a map knows that this is not winnable. Not only that, but the undersecretary of state is the guy that advocated bombing TSMC. The US took a lot from Taiwan over the last 8 years and not even once did they even consider offering a free trade agreement in return. They made the Taiwan delegation visit a Zoo during the inauguration.
Singapore is allied with the west as well, but is taking a more neutral stance and a result have prospered many times over, while Taiwan has gone into total economic stagnation for decades. Where is all this moral posturing coming from? Let's look at reality and facts instead of reddit fantasies.
Are you talking about a different Taiwan? In what world is the economy of Taiwan stagnating for decades?
Look at the growth in GDP and GDP per capita here and tell me that’s stagnation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Taiwan
I cannot even begin to imagine what madness has infected the Taiwanese government to allow this. I feel so sorry for a great, entrepreneurial people.
US tariffs will not matter when you are blockaded and Chester Nimitz is very much dead.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43123628
“Our continued protection of you is contingent on your investment in us”.
Taiwan is hugely reliant on US defense guarantees. The US has a protectionist president who likes big numbers in announcements and a base riled up about American production capacity.
Long-term this is bad for Taiwan since it reduces its leverage with the US in administrations with short-term geopolitics (or no real geopolitical talent.)
In the short-term, they might not have much choice.
They only need to make this appear real for 4, maybe 2 years, and can then reevaluate.
I'd guess they looked at their options and decided this was the best hedge.
> they only need to make this appear real for 4, maybe 2 years, and can then reevaluate
Taipei needs nukes. There simply isn’t another guarantor of sovereign security anymore.
> Taipei needs nukes
This essay explains very lucidly why it's not as straightforward as you think: https://taipology.substack.com/p/no-nukes-are-not-going-to-s...
> As soon as China catches a whiff of the program, it’s an instant invasion
This is correct and why any such project would need to be intensely covert and/or externally facilitated.
> doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) rests on both parties being left in guaranteed ruins
You don’t need MAD. Tehran isn’t aiming for MAD with America, and neither is Pyongyang. The threat of even a tactical retaliation has, to date, been sufficient to keep great powers at bay.
Oung is speaking the language of deterrence and non-proliferation; we are past that, unfortunately [1].
[1] https://mondediplo.com/2022/04/03nuclear
The risks don’t outweigh the potential benefits. Building a functional nuke isn’t an operation with a couple of laptops and internet connection. Also, Taiwanese economy is extremely tied to China. Things aren’t really black and white here. It’s not like all Taiwanese hate all mainlanders, nobody flies between countries and etc. Supermajority of people actually support status quo, rather than aiming for complete independence. It’s not an easy thing to balance.
Guess which country shut down Taiwans nuclear program.
Now that I’ve calmed down a bit, I agree with your assessment. The optics game is so important, but Taiwan is in an impossible situation.
If I were China, I would give them relative economic independence if they limit advanced process silicon to other countries and let Huawei and others monopolize the advanced nodes. The US at present does not appear to be a dependable partner.
China broke promises about "One country, two systems" in Hong Kong, so I don't think Taiwan can count on any promises made there either.
> If I were China, I would give them relative economic independence if they...
What authority do you think China has over Taiwan?
> what authority do you think China has over Taiwan?
Authority, none. Power, plenty.
They can try and find out.
Taiwan is composed of the refugee losers of the Chinese civil war. That gives them zero legitimacy to continue as anything but a breakaway state occupying a formerly Chinese province.
> Taiwan is composed of the refugee losers of the Chinese civil war
By this logic China should be returned to the winners of the Opium Wars [1]. No countries for losers! (To say nothing of the CCP’s inaction against Imperial Japan in WWII [2].)
Anyone can come up with reasons for stealing stuff based on decades, centuries or millennia-old gripes. What matters is where the people alive today live and how they identify. For good reason, the Taiwanese have been drifting away from China since Xi.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War
[2] https://thediplomat.com/2014/09/the-ccp-didnt-fight-imperial...
And do the winners of the Opium Wars have a verifiable historical claim to the land for thousands of years?
> do the winners of the Opium Wars have a verifiable historical claim to the land for thousands of years?
No. Similar to how the Han Chinese don’t have one to Tibet (and other parts of modern-day China).
Practically all land touched by humans has multiple verifiable historical claims to it. The further back we go, the more there are and the more ambiguous they become. The only thing we can say with certainty is who is there today. Every other path means violence and is honestly a bit stupid.
Both countries claim to be one China lol
This take is ignorant of the last 20 years of Taiwanese politics.
They've said so as much that they plan to give it a similar to hong kong style government if they wilingly join, and from the latest trump Q&A it almost confirms that once America has TSMC fabs running in their country they won't care to protect Taiwan.
Being a realist Taiwan joining China willingly under those conditions before they basically technology transfer to America and make themselves worth much less (In China's eye), is their best bet, or I would say if ASML wasn't a thing.
Sadly for Taiwan they are between a sword and a wall, ASML is required for them to continue innovating, if they were to annex themselves to China they would lose access to EUV and High NA EUV and basically lose their ability to produce sub 5nm semiconductors no matter how talented they are, and I don't think that SMEE in China is close to EUV let alone High NA EUV.
I understand this comment will upset some people but I tried to be a realist about what would happen if things were to hit the fan
A Hong-Kong style government doesn't mean as much as it used to.
TSMC is 100% ruined if they join China, it is the end of it process competitiveness.
> If I were China
I wonder if China actually benefits from this drama and rather not claim Taiwan (despite what they say out loud).
It's currently:
- the best place to show military might (the "drills")
- the best place to continue a proxy war with the US / EU
- replaces Hong Kong as the gray area to do business
China is huge, huge things don't do subtlety well over any long timeframe. It is hard enough to get people to do move in sync with clear communications, let alone when there are confusing signals.
If China says they want control of Taiwan, the base scenario is they are serious. The only thing holding them back is how expensive it is to execute on that want. Although since the action is off the Chinese coast and China appears to be stronger than the US right now I don't see how this ends well for Taiwan.
It's not just expense, it's generalized threat aversion.
Even if China can control the waters around them, they may find them selves boxed in. It doesn't take a lot of sunken cargo ships for operators to refuse to run the boats
> replaces Hong Kong as the gray area to do business
explain?
> explain?
Taiwan has most of its trade with China (like it or not).
There are numerous things that are e.g. illegal in China but "legal" in Taiwan and so Chinese business is conducted there e.g. online gambling sites.
Then there are plenty of Taiwanese companies that end up being a disguise for China 1 way or another e.g. to bypass sanctions (well so is Singapore as per recent news on nvidia gpu smuggling). 1 of the best examples is VIA technologies, that helped China create x86 CPUs back in the days.
A lot of Chinese gangs in Asia used to operate out of Hong Kong. When 1997 happened (i.e. return to China), most of them gave up or moved to other places like Taiwan since China has the death penalty.
> Taiwan has most of its trade with China (like it or not).
Does that make it a place for shady deals?
> There are numerous things that are e.g. illegal in China but "legal" in Taiwan and so Chinese business is conducted there e.g. online gambling sites
Gambling is illegal in Taiwan
> Then there are plenty of Taiwanese companies that end up being a disguise for China 1 way or another e.g. to bypass sanctions (well so is Singapore as per recent news on nvidia gpu smuggling). 1 of the best examples is VIA technologies, that helped China create x86 CPUs back in the days.
Citation needed
> wonder if China actually benefits from this drama and rather not claim Taiwan
China does. Xi does not. Trump has been the bailout to Xi that China’s wolf warriors and Putin were to America after the Iraq & Afghanistan wars.
> China does. Xi does not.
At the end of the day the leadership is who makes the decisions. The notion of a "country" does not.
Why would subsequent presidents allow Taiwan to maintain leverage over supply chains crucial to American national security?
Subsequent president might realize that America might want allies, and if so they'll attempt to appear reliable.
Current administration is fast tracking nuclear prolifiacian. A future president might want to stop such trends.
> Current administration is fast tracking nuclear prolifiacian.
This is correct. Gone are the days when countries could count on the US to provide some protection against illegal invasions. All nations without nukes have to be considering them seriously now. Sure, they signed the NPT. But agreements no longer mean what they used to. Russia violates most of the agreements it signs. US already trashed the Budapest memorandum that it signed in 1996. We were supposed to provide security to Ukraine in exchange for them giving up nukes.
>US already trashed the Budapest memorandum that it signed in 1996. We were supposed to provide security to Ukraine in exchange for them giving up nukes.
This is a common misconception. If you read the memorandum (it's rather short) you'll see it isn't true. We only promised to seek UN Security Council action. We went far beyond that.
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P...
You are correct that the Memorandum is rather short.
The promise to seek UN Security Council action is only in case Ukraine is attacked with nuclear weapons.
[delayed]
> We only promised to seek UN Security Council action
And ended up voting with Russia anyway.
Not back in 2022: https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/02/1112802
Fair point. I only worry that trump might decide to play them both ways.. extort investments for protection, then reneg the help unilaterally on a whim.
> extort investments for protection, then reneg the help unilaterally on a whim
I would be surprised if he doesn't do this, judging by his long track record of not paying his contractors and business partners after receiving their goods and services.
Bingo, see Foxconn in Wisconsin.
For Foxconn see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconn_Valley_Science_and_T...
But it's very worth pointing this out. The Taiwanese announcement is just an announcement. When a chip, any chip, rolls off the line (from this investment) let me know.
The reality is that in 4 years Trump will be gone. Building a plant will take longer than that. This is nothing more than good PR.
Plus Trump's administration (and his personal direction of the government) is likely weaker in policy and governance skills and experience so it'll be easier for TSMC to get away with stringing them along.
Is it a given that the US would come to Tawian's defence now (let alone in a few years, when the US is presumably less dependent on Taiwanese chips)?
I guess it comes down to how dependent on Taiwan's chips the US actually is (I don't know the answer to that).
The US isn't dependent on Ukraine and it's pressuring them to hand over land. If it turns out the US isn't dependent on Taiwan it could show similar indifference if China were to attempt to take it.
> Is it a given that the US would come to Tawian's defence now
In practice, probably yes, officially probably maybe. Giving a security guarantee would allow Taiwan to do provocative things, so hence, why there isn't a formal one.
If it actually came to be today, I guess the US would at-least offer token support. To (a) embargo China, (b) ensure chip facilities Taiwan aren't surrendered intact.
Both of which doesn't require winning a conflict, just making it painful.
This is both very accurate and very depressing.
'Security guarantee' conjures thoughts of defending a population and its cities from destruction, whereas what it actually means is the opposite: to ensure all items of value are fully destroyed before they're taken.
Maybe, it's also a good deterrent.
And without it, Taiwan would probably press harder for nukes.
My understanding is that there are currently only three important chip makers, including Intel with all of their issues.
The world is largely dependent on TSMC, not only for the latest GPUs but also for embedded chips that we keep putting into everything from cars to toasters.
For me the questions isn't whether the US would help Taiwan because we're dependent on them. I wonder whether we actually have the backbone to step in militarily at all, and whether out military is as combat ready as we like to think they are.
Putin already took the land, it’s not an issue of handing over anything.
> Taiwan is hugely reliant on US defense guarantees.
What I don't get is, in what universe is any US president going to engage militarily against China across the ocean, let alone the current one? The US population does not seem ecstatic to enter something that could turn into WWIII, which makes me feel that even a president in favor of this would quickly fail to do anything.
The US and the EU globalists have outsourced nearly all manufacturing to the east. Waging war on China is basically shooting yourself.
As if you needed more proof, covid hickup disruption of the supply chains were an ample demonstration.
The US gets this, and has now turned towards being less dependant. The EU still doesn't understand, or is willfully blind as an acknowledgement would mean giving up some fantasies they have.
Since the 70's the US' main export has been printed money, 'IP' and war. The first two are worthless if not backed by the threat of the third. Weapons is about the only thing dollars can buy if oil can be traded in other currencies. BRICS is rapidly becoming a contender for a trade platform that they failed to stop.
You can't wage war in the manufacturer you rely on.
This means drastic changes in US policy are needed. This means returning to self sufficiency. This will take time even when you try to speedrun it.
> What I don't get is, in what universe is any US president going to engage militarily against China across the ocean
The whole premise of TSMC is that losing TSMC would cause such a global economic collapse that defending Taiwan is the only option to prevent this from happening. All high-performance computing is dependent on TSMC right now.
We could be plunged back into the horrible era that was ... the 2010s! There wouldn't be a global collapse if TSMC was lost. It'd be an inconvenience that sets the semiconductor industry back a decade or so. Most advanced technology hasn't had time to have an impact on the global economy yet and 98% of people won't notice much in practice if all the TSMC foundries exploded tomorrow. There'd maybe be some shortages while other companies build new foundries - although even then it isn't a given people would care. China seems to be about to flood the market with manufacturing capacity.
> whole premise of TSMC is that losing TSMC would cause such a global economic collapse that defending Taiwan is the only option to prevent this
This never works. The security through economy pitch. It has never, ever worked.
America was a reliable security guarantor. We promised to protect and had honour. Honour isn’t in the American cultural vocabulary anymore. So the guarantees are proven useless and everyone has to scramble back into realpolitik.
Intel/Samsung are behind. That is a fact.
The question is, is it better to wage a massive war that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and many lives than to make an equal investment into the semi-conductor industry.
Is this all because US are afraid China will own the world through HPC/AI ?
How many of us really depend on the latest cpu to survive ?
The US cannot realistically technically stop missiles raining down on the fabs on Taiwan should China decide to do that.
> The whole premise of TSMC is that losing TSMC would cause such a global economic collapse that defending Taiwan is the only option to prevent this from happening.
TSMC just hits the media often. If Taiwan goes the global economy will have way more problems than just TSMC. There is a long list of companies in many supply chains that would be impacted (not just computing).
> What I don't get is, in what universe is any US president going to engage militarily against China across the ocean, let alone the current one?
A managed escalation would blockade China, or at least ensure the rest of the free world never trades with China again.
Similarly, a local conflict could ensure chip facilities in Taiwan aren't surrendered intact.
The US doesn't have to win a hot conflict. Just start a cold war.
I still think the US has allies in Europe that would sanction China indefinitely. They'd probably also show up with something, if called.
I don't think this is quite how it would work. Taiwan isn't even remotely close to self sufficient on many critical things including food and energy. This means they are extremely vulnerable to a naval blockade, with no realistic means of combating it. And breaking such a blockade would probably be impossible. It's not just that they're a tiny little island right off the coast of China, but the geography of the island itself makes a blockade even more unstoppable. Most of the island is made up of inhospitable mountains, with a sliver of hospitable land mostly on one side, the side that faces China. This [1] is a population density map of Taiwan. China is as little as 80 miles to their West.
And by "free world" I guess you mean the anglosphere, gradually shrinking globalist parts of the EU, and perhaps Japan/South Korea. That's now less than 15% of the global population and declining. Economically BRICS overcame the G7 back in 2018 [2], and the difference has only grown far more stark since. The times have really changed a lot over the past ~20 years. I think the collapse of the USSR was probably the worst thing to ever happen to the US, because it gave us a taste of global hegemony that was never sustainable, yet left us addicted to its fleeting flavor.
[1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_density_of_T...
[2] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1412425/gdp-ppp-share-wo...
> Taiwan isn't even remotely close to self sufficient on many critical things including food and energy. This means they are extremely vulnerable to a naval blockade
As is China in respect of energy.
Beijing knows this. But the timeline on which they become energy self sufficient unfortunately meshes poorly with their military demographics. Of course now, they have former American allies from which to recruit manpower if necessary.
>As is China in respect of energy.
Aren't they buying cheap oil and natural gas from Russia?
> Aren't they buying cheap oil and natural gas from Russia?
Most of China’s energy arrives by sea. That makes them intensely vulnerable to blockade.
> blockade China
which is why china is pre-emptively claiming ownership of the south china sea, in an attempt to prevent the ability for any blockades to form in the first place!
While on paper, the US makes "guarantees" about freedom of navigation, this is even less reliable than the toilet paper it is written on.
>A managed escalation would blockade China, or at least ensure the rest of the free world never trades with China again.
And how will the free world replace goods and raw materials they now buy from China?
Apart from NATO countries all the rest will continue to do business with China. They do not care about the quarells between US, EU and China.
> I still think the US has allies in Europe that would sanction China indefinitely. They'd probably also show up with something, if called.
China only needs to wait for a couple of years for Musk, Trump and Vance to have destroyed any remnants of the alliances, though.
> across the ocean
It is, but it also isn't, given the US forces on Okinawa, and also just generally in the region. The US military is not a force that exists for homeland defense, it's a force designed purely to project power across the ocean.
> engage militarily
This can mean a lot of things though. A steady flow of matériel and intelligence given to an island that's basically a giant and highly-defended mountain-range is going to go a very long way.
> is any US president
I mean in the last 150 years they've shown a remarkable willingness to intervene, more than once in proxy wars against the Chinese.
>The US military is not a force that exists for homeland defense, it's a force designed purely to project power across the ocean
How will they project power? With aircraft carriers? China can destroy those in hours once in close range.
China has more ships than US and 100x shipbuilding capacity.
> How will they project power
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/16h4gw8/us_militar...
A vast nuclear weapons program is cheaper than $100b
It would not go unnoticed and would pretty much guarantee invasion.
I think US can try to covertly move some hundreds of nuclear missiles in Taiwan and succeed until China notices.
Sweden built a bomb in secret. Invasion planning would not go unnoticed either.
> The US has a protectionist president
We do?
You do, assuming you're a US citizen.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St...
or: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/programs/growthpol...
etc.
Protectionist: an advocate of the policy of shielding a country's domestic industries from foreign competition by taxing imports.
The T word...
Curious why Taiwan would sign onto this, knowing how Ukraine is being treated vis a vis mineral rights. I realize Taiwan doesn't have any other options, but a "verbal offer" of future security guarantees from the Trump Admin aren't worth anything.
>a "verbal offer" of future security guarantees from the Trump Admin aren't worth anything.
They still think it's worth more than surrendering now to China.
While US is dependant of Taiwanese fabs, they will intervene if China tries to occupy Taiwan. But US is working towards not relying on Taiwan's fans, so US based security won't last long.
In the end, they'll either have to surrender or build nuclear deterrent fast and unnoticed.
I don't think there are any multi-trillion dollar deposits of any "minerals" there. If there were, Ukraine wouldn't be so poor. Even pre-war it was the poorest country in Europe per capita. One can argue that it was mostly due to their insane levels of corruption, but then again, if there were any multi-trillion dollar deposits of anything there, Western investors (including Hunter Biden, no doubt) would be all over them, and the country would be much richer than it was.
I think the whole "minerals" thing is a play. Trump gives Zelensky the "deal" he cannot accept even theoretically. Zelensky predictably plays the tough guy by telling him to pound sand. Trump throws Zelensky under the bus and negotiates repayment of loans with his (now scared) successor.
With respect to Taiwan, it is not really possible to "win" in any real sense against China in Taiwan. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a dimwit who can't even do cursory research on industrial capacities of the potential belligerents, not in terms of dollars, but in terms of units/tons/etc. That is where the comparison is very strongly not in our favor. Especially when it comes to shipbuilding.
Best case if things kick off (which I hope to god they do not) - only Taiwan gets destroyed, a-la Ukraine. Worst case - both US and China really go at it directly, full bore, and then we will lose due primarily to our weak industrial base, and far more extended logistics. Moreover, a lot of other countries will totally provide "lethal aid" and intelligence to China, if it needs it, in hopes of taking the hegemon down a few pegs. Nothing personal - just business, such alliances happen in every major war. The extreme case one of the sides feels they're gonna lose and presses the red button, in which case everyone dies in a fire.
All of these options are objectively extremely shitty and incompatible with prosperity, and in the extreme case, with survival. All of them mean millions of body bags for the parties involved, far more body bags than either country has ever seen.
Both Biden and Trump administrations understood this, hence the strong-arming the re-industrialization, especially in higher end fields, which started under Biden. The era where you could just get your stuff made elsewhere for pennies and then charge $$$ for it is coming to an end.
"Moreover, a lot of other countries will totally provide "lethal aid" and intelligence to China, if it needs it, in hopes of taking the hegemon down a few pegs."
This seems...not true. The Phillipines especially would like a word. Most of China's neighbors are begging for more American Hegemony (America is just not good at it anymore). China's industrial prowess is clear, but it's also true that. China (esp the CCP) has a lot more to lose from a direct confrontation with America. America could lose a president, China will lose a whole regime.
>The Phillipines especially would like a word.
BRICS will support China. Most of the unaligned countries will do the same.
It will be US, EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, Philippines against the rest of the world.
And it's not so much about military might as is about industrial capacity, raw materials and logistics.
The idea that Brazil, South Africa and fucking India would support the PRC against the USA is absurd.
Depending on what they get from China in return, it might not be as absurd as you think. We're not talking direct participation here after all - China has more than enough people. Just some "lethal aid" if e.g. artillery stocks start running low. Another clever and relatively cheap way to extend us would be to stir up trouble where our troops are stationed in the Middle East, for example. This trouble could also use the "lethal aid" from third parties, who would not be directly involved in any fighting.
See the comment above about the intellectual faculties of people who think like you do. We had to hightail out of Afghanistan. What on earth makes you believe that we could win against a peer adversary, let alone do so without a draft or millions of body bags?
America would have to do nothing like invade Mainland China to topple the CCP. War is the authoritarian achilles heel since time immemorial and China knows it (Russia doesn't), otherwise they would've taken Taiwan 10 years ago. China's best case scenario is if it could find a way to take Taiwan like they took Hong Kong, on a technicality and relatively quietly.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_Russian_invasion...
P.S: I especially question the mental faculties of someone who can't see other angles to a problem. China's hegemony is the mainstream opinion, it's obvious. Maybe try to question what you're not seeing now.
>had to hightail out of Afghanistan.
Not really a good comparison. Trying to build a coalition of people who didn't really care vs supporting countries in the region who are highly motivated by their own self interest.
You don't do anything for your argument by insulting people's intellect who don't share your opinion. Cut it out.
Zelensky predictably plays the tough guy by telling him to pound sand.
Zelensky flew to Washington to sign the agreement, and fully expected to--they waited an hour after the blown up press conference before being told to get out. Diplomatically, Zelensky wasn't even badly behaved in the press conference. Vance and Trump kept escalating the discussion. If there was a play, it was one constructed by Trump to give himself a reason to withdraw aid from Ukraine when he clearly wants to side with Putin.
Watch _the whole_ press conference, the entire 53 minutes, not the carefully selected morsels that CNN prepared for you in order to mislead. Zelensky failed to read the room, and 23 minutes or so into the conversation he started to self-immolate, something Trump and Vance gladly helped him with.
Big self immolate. Said that cease fire agreements wont work because they have evidently not worked so far as Russia keeps breaking them, they need security guarantees like NATO. I guess failing to read the room was not bootlicking enough and not surrendering to Putin as Trump already has.
I'd watched the whole thing live when it happened. I went back and watched from around 21min in to see what self-immolation you mean.
Sequence of events -
Trump downplays the need for security guarantees. "Security is maybe 2% of the problem, security is the easy part, I'm worried about getting the deal done."
A "reporter" from OAN asks a kiss-ass question that can be summarized as "President Trump, how amazing and courageous are you for negotiating with Putin?"
Trump gives a rambling answer including his usual vague statements of how the war wouldn't have existed if he'd been in power and then starts talking about Hamas for some reason.
There's a moment of levity where Trump says Zelensky's attire is fine.
Zelensky indicates he wants to respond to some of the earlier statements. He says Russia has broken many promises made in past negotiations and this is why security guarantees are actually critical to Ukraine.
"Reading the room" in this situation would mean "buying into the Putin-led narrative currently being peddled by the Trump administration."
Fuck that.
Problem with this is a misunderstanding of what a press conference after a private discussion is supposed to be about. Zelensky was trying to negotiate and argue during the press conference, with the entire world watching. All the details about Trump not wanting security guarantees would presumably have been decided during the private meeting but Zelensky basically tried to argue his case with the media. That would irritate pretty much anyone.
Irritating bullies is not a bad thing.
extortion
> Taiwan is hugely reliant on US defense guarantees.
US provided security guarantees to Ukraine in 1996, when it signed the Budapest memorandum. Ukraine gave up its nukes in return.
It appears that US doesn't honor its agreements.
Trump also signed free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico in his first term. But trampled on it in his second term.
TSMC factories on Taiwan are small fry in the scheme of things and won't really move the needle much, in terms of strategy. Samsung and Intel are pretty comparable in manufacturing capability, within a couple of years really. And most chips you find in cars and ships and missiles and satellites and jets aren't leading-edge either.
China is terrified of their access to the sea being blockaded. They'd gladly give up TSMC technology without a second thought and continue to bribe, beg, steal their way around sancations and barriers to semiconductor technology as they have been doing just fine up to now if they could occupy Taiwan for its strategic position to deny American access and defend the sea around their coast.
How would you bock China's access to the sea along it's 14000 km coastline? That woulde be a heck of a blockade, with or without Taiwan.
> How would you bock China's access to the sea along it's 14000 km coastline?
With missiles and submarines presumably.
> That woulde be a heck of a blockade, with or without Taiwan.
Of course, due to China's military build up around the sea. Due to their being afraid of said blockade. The one they want Taiwan and other disputed islands to help counter.
Exactly. We have a westerner bragging about blocking a 5000 years old country's access to the sea like it's a normal thing and they're not the intruder. Hilarious.
What are you talking about? You think I'm a westerner bragging about blocking something that isn't even blocked and I'm an intruder?
All I said was that China is terrified of naval blockade, which it is. You're the one being hilarious here.
> TSMC factories on Taiwan are small fry in the scheme of things and won't really move the needle much
We’re in an era of personal politics. Taipei should be angling for prioritising indigenous, cutting-edge chip production to Musk’s xAI.
You significantly underestimate the importance of compute superiority for data synthesis for command & control.
No I don't, and anyway US-aligned semiconductor design and fabrication is still superior to Chinese if TSMC did not exist.
TSMC is the only card Taiwan has, hence your argument doesn’t hold water.
But, I think I see where you’re going: the US preemptively destroying Taiwan’s fab capacity…
> TSMC is the only card Taiwan has
In the way Ukraine’s only card is its mineral wealth, sure.
Taiwan is the Belgium of the American security system. If our guarantees are useless there, they’re useless everywhere and new global security guarantors are needed. If Taiwan falls, moreover, China has unconstrained access to the Pacific. That brings the next conflict closer to American shores. It also threatens American naval power globally given our reliance on Korean and Japanese shipyards.
This branch of the discussion stems from my assertion that high-end compute is the enriched uranium of our time. I’m sorry I can’t defend this better. I feel US tech is busy making chatbots and deepfake video generators, and at best fancy overpriced drones like Anduril. This is not the future of warfare.
I have nothing to say about Ukraine. My original root comment is simply that weakening TSMC’s capacity by spreading it to the US is not in the interest of Taiwanese security. But as I responded elsewhere, this is probably just optics.
> TSMC is the only card Taiwan has,
No it isn't.
> But, I think I see where you’re going: the US preemptively destroying Taiwan’s fab capacity…
I'm not going anywhere. China would bomb TSMCs factories itself and spend hundreds of times more on an invasion and subsequent sanctions and costs than it spends on funding its own semiconductor development, if it meant it could control Taiwan. Taiwan's cards are that it is a linchpin for air and naval control of the South and East China seas, and that it is protected from invasion by a hundred miles of water and challenging geography. That's why China wants it. That's the card.
Blow up all TSMC's factories on Taiwan tomorrow and relocate its scientists and engineers and you think China would suddenly drop its ambitions to "reunify" and take control of the island? Since its alleged only card was gone?
My take is that it doesn’t even matter if Taipei has any card: this is not an economical/technological issue, it is an ideological one. China won’t blink an eye to invade if the conditions are right, because they want to unite their country, it is part of their identity. That might happen if anywhere else, there is a land grab. That won’t be Ukraine, because the US are not involved there, but if the US try to follow up on their claims about Greenland or Panama, Taipei is doomed within a month. As Trump is an adept of quid pro quo, that would mean a good deal for him, so the goal is to extract as much value from Taipei before letting them dead in the water.
Maybe the Taiwanese scorched factory policy could include overseas plants.
Let’s not forget that Taiwan has a lot of production in China. Foxconn is taiwanese.
The U.S. frames its deteriorating relationship with China as a fight for “human rights” and “democracy,” but from China’s perspective, that’s just a cover for a larger campaign to contain its rise. The real issue? The U.S. fears losing global dominance and is using trade wars, tech bans, military encirclement, and financial pressure to slow China down.
China doesn’t want direct military conflict—it prefers economic and technological competition. But it sees the U.S. as a declining power that refuses to accept a multipolar world. The U.S. labels China’s economic expansion “debt-trap diplomacy” while ignoring the IMF’s history of predatory loans. It bans Huawei and TikTok under “security concerns” while engaging in mass surveillance itself. It calls China’s South China Sea claims “aggressive” while surrounding China with military bases.
From Beijing’s view, the U.S. preaches rules it doesn’t follow. Human rights? Washington ignores Saudi Arabia but obsesses over Xinjiang. Democracy? The U.S. supports coups when convenient. Free markets? Only when American firms win.
China isn’t looking for war—it’s playing the long game. The U.S. can try to contain it, but economic gravity favors China’s rise. The more Washington pushes, the clearer its real motives become.
But all this stuff is a bluff. China will spill blood for Taiwan, the US will not. When there is a standoff the US will back down and it's Taiwan getting fucked by everybody.
If bad guys do something, it's bad. If good guys do the same thing, it's good.
We don't have slave camps with Uyghurs though.
If we give them the doubt of benefit: TSMC is just appeasing Trump and will delay the actual investment as much as possible.
If we face the reality: Taiwan is a vassal state. The decision makers are simply owned by the US.
> If we face the reality: Taiwan is a vassal state. The decision makers are simply owned by the US.
The thing about US "vassel" states is they don't have to do what the US says. And sometimes won't!
It's a classic Russian talking point that Ukraine has no agency. You're making the same argument for Taiwan.
Taiwan doesn't have to accept a US deal they don't like. They could build nukes. They could opt to do nothing and run the risk of invasion.
It's a democracy, Taiwan has agency. Even if, they have good reasons to make friends with the US.
> The thing about US "vassel" states is they don't have to do what the US says. And sometimes won't!
Yes, and then the US will force its way. It's quite funny that you even mentioned nukes. Taiwan did attempt to build nukes and the US destroyed the project.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/01/asia/taiwan-cia-informant...
> Taiwan did attempt to build nukes and the US destroyed the project
We “destroyed” it inasmuch as we said we won’t be friends if you do this. We didn’t threaten to invade.
America has resisted geopolitical balancing to date because we resisted the temptation of realpolitik. America’s allies are, on average, richer and more peaceful than her enemies. That’s now beginning to change. For the first time in modern history, we may see a system of alliances emerge that credibly counter American economic and military might.
>Taiwan did attempt to build nukes and the US destroyed the project.
US loves Taiwan so much, they won't allow them to build independence and rely less on US provided security.
>Taiwan doesn't have to accept a US deal they don't like.
Unless its leaders and ruling class are owned by US. It wouldn't be the first time US is directing some puppet governments.
Kind of a random fact but speaking of “owned by the US” many of the leaders and ruling class hold US citizenship too.
Taiwan is only reliant on the U.S. because their neighbor threatens them with invasion frequently
This is an announcement to make Trump happy. They are giving him all the good PR he wants.
I might have believed that a couple weeks ago. Mexico and Canada put a show on for the him about the tarrifs and they're still set to be in place tommrow. Why would anyone else play along now?
No to mention that NAFTA was renegotiated under Trumps first term.
Still it might be cheaper to just give him worthless wins with no follow thru.
News headlines in 6 months "Trump announces trillion dollar free-trade deal with Russia" that will be "totally fair" and not "taking advantage of the US" like Canada, Mexico and the EU.
> I cannot even begin to imagine what madness has infected the Taiwanese government to allow this.
It's jumping to conclusion. There aren't even any details in the announcement. It could be old / "mature" tech or a list of other things. The latest nodes likely will still stay in Taiwan.
> US tariffs will not matter when you are blockaded and Chester Nimitz is very much dead.
The alternative was a pressure to buy / save Intel. Much worse.
Right now is a very interesting moment in that the future is crystal clear and yet so many people of all persuasions don't want to accept it for so many different reasons
* The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world, and ultimately renege on many of its security guarantees, with the underlying reason being that it can no longer afford to be world police and pay for all its entitlements
* This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world. US stocks will continue to be the best buys out there
* Ergo we are looking at another American century, or perhaps some kind of isolationist/Cold War-esque type of century since American political influence will decline, but China and Russia's colossal demographic problems will hinder them from making any serious bids for dominance
Objectively - it looks like another American century, but one where the whole world is diminished due to global collapse in the birth rate, and some nations are just less diminished than others (unless I am severely underestimating the impact of automation and AI)
And yes, many people will be unhappy, and there will be more war, and globalization has peaked
> Right now is a very interesting moment in that the future is crystal clear and yet so many people of all persuasions don't want to accept it for so many different reasons
Anyone who thinks the future is crystal clear is an extremely arrogant, and the narrative you present is inconsistent in ways which show an extremely poor understanding of the way international economics works.
> The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world
It hasn't granted "economic largesse" to the rest of the world, and to the extent that that term can be stretched to describe something that has been granted, it can't be clawed back; the (extremely small, compared to the size of the economy) amount of aid has largely been about establishing influence and soft power, and trade isn't largesse, its mutually beneficial. To withdraw from it weakens both sides, and the US generally withdrawing will hurt the US more than the rest of the world.
> This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world.
The kind of retreat from wide trade to mercantilist protectionism might be a relative "win" for the US (though it would still be an absolute loss for all parties, contracting the aggregate production possibilities curve as well as that for all nations), if the US engagement in "go it alone" idiocy convinced every other country to try the same thing, and if you were right that the US was the best prepared to go it alone.
But, more likely, were it to occur, while it would be an absolute loss for everyone compared to what things would be without it, it would end up a relative loss for the US, because most countries wouldn't try to follow the US in going it alone, and the US's retreat will just be looked at in mystified disbelief by other nations as they continue to reap the benefits of trade and the US fades and falls behind in every way.
Couple notes:
1. I don't like the characterization of "go it alone" because it obviously implies adherence to some kind of extreme that simply isn't represented in reality. No one is shutting down the ports and firing ambassadors; if it were possible to quantify these things (it isn't), reducing global power projection from 100% to 80% is not "going it alone".
2. The true form of "economic largesse" the US has given the rest of the world is Security. Its come at great cost to the country; America has lost ~600,000 souls in conflict in the past 80 years. I'm not saying America has a unique claim to losing lives in battle, Russia and China and others can claim much more devastation, but America is unique in the sense that nearly none she's lost were in her home hemisphere.
9/11 was maybe the only attack since Pearl Harbor that a foreign adversary successfully executed on American soil; but the wars that followed were really a tipping point in American force projection. We'd already been fighting wars in the middle east, then you go back further with Vietnam... America is a country that's spent eighty years chasing the Moral Righteousness it felt when it helped win WW2 for the Allies. The American people are tired of it; her sons and daughters work two jobs, can't afford a home, yet are asked time-and-time again by the latest rich disconnected President to deploy across the world to fight for "Freedom". Or, now, to send a hundred billion in military aid to Ukraine.
I think that's the "clawing back" the poster was talking about: maybe the story of the next century is one where America still projects force globally, but toward the more specific goal of Peace rather than post-WW2-era Western Idealism, and with an expectation of economic cooperation. Money has, after all, been the American God for many decades now.
3. The idea that the rest of the world would simply continue on in the wake of some idealized "US full-on isolationist pull out" is not rooted in reality; and that's part of the reason why this is not happening on the extremes. The US has been a critical force for both War and Peace over the past 80 years. If the US hadn't sent a hundred billion dollars to Ukraine over the past three years, Russia would own the country and share a new, huge border with NATO ally Poland. Implicit and Explicit US security guarantees have stopped China from projecting naval power across Taiwan and other SEA countries. US Support of Israel has... well, the region would look very different if we weren't there, whether there would be more or less war is another debate. My point is: The suggestion that America would lose relatively to the rest of the world in this unrealistic, hypothetical scenario, is not rooted in reality. The far more likely outcome of this unlikely scenario is: War, amongst military peers, the worst and most bloody kind of war, while America enjoys massive oceans, a trillion dollar defensive military, the most economically prosperous natural resources on the planet, and neighbors who could never put up a fight.
No one wins, but America and her western hemisphere allies would lose the least. Fortunately: This is not what America, today, wants. Its not even what the Trump administration wants. Again, a reduction from 100% to 80% is not a "full-on isolationist pull-out".
Regarding your #2, yes you're right; the cost of playing world police was at the top of my mind when I wrote that.
The other equally important thing in my mind which seems to get a bit less popular attention is trade balances. There are certain countries the US is engaged with where A) the US puts very low tariffs on them and they do not reciprocate; meanwhile B) the US provides some form of economic assistance to them whether it may be through military support, contribution to NGOs etc.
Those specific relationships I think the US can and will eviscerate or at least play serious hardball when it renegotiates, because what is it gaining today? Do you want a CIA listening post in northern Thailand or do you want to home-shore production of some of the things you've been buying from them, creating some working class jobs along the way? The US is not a one party state so its direction on these questions may be unclear for a while, but I think I know how Trump, Gabbard, Rubio etc. will answer that question as the working class very much put them in office (and there are plenty of Democrats who would be sympathetic to this approach too -- they just seem to get sidelined by their party leadership a lot).
Might have been worth reading if you hadn't kicked it off with an ad hominem. Bye!
It’s still worth reading if you can look past it. The comment refutes your comment totally and in good detail.
Allies are good for America. Trade is good for America. Isolation has never been good for anyone.
>The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world
The USA is going to stop bribing people to like them, an arrangement that suited the USA very well, but is difficult to articulate to seppos in general.
>This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world. US stocks will continue to be the best buys out there
This is a huge loss, but seems like a win for people who don't understand trade, supply and investment ie, seppos.
>Ergo we are looking at another American century
A Century of trying to keep a safe distance from the most armed nation doing its best north korea impersonation.
Let me make a prediction here.
1. The US is going to get more isolationist 2. Every time they face consequences of isolationism, they will simply declare that the problems were caused by not being isolationist enough, tearing up more trade agreements and generally just shifting away from the world. "If they wont sell us good at price we like, we will just abandon international patent agreements" seems like its not far off after the tariffs. 3. This is a spiral that will end the modern USA as anyone knows it.
I am quite happy with this, as long as the seppos keep the nukes to themselves while they remove themselves from the planet economically.
>as long as the seppos keep the nukes to themselves while they remove themselves from the planet economically.
Big gamble, especially when we gut the DoE.
Hoping they lose the capability to maintain those nukes for that very reason.
I mean, they already had to pay to rediscover fogbank once right?
Its easy to think in extremes, but the reality will be far more moderate than your characterization. Remember: US policies have a way of flip-flopping every two years as new Presidents and Senators take office, and its very likely that unless Trump can score some massive wins in 2025, Democrats will retake Congressional majority in 2026; the base is incited, if these comments are anything to look at.
But, the direction won't change: More isolationist, greater investment in homeland manufacturing and less global force projection, but still a significant and growing international trade presence, and a signatory to global security guarantees.
Here's how I put it: America bared the brunt three MAJOR, timeline-altering events in the past 25 years: 9/11, the global financial crisis, and COVID (I am not saying the rest of the world did not bare some of these, just that the US did). To think we'd just roll with the punches and there'd be no consequences of these is, frankly, ridiculous:
9/11 led to multiple forever wars that cost America an extreme amount of money and lives for almost no gain, not really even victory. Its lasting impact will be an America that is more hesitant to project force globally.
The GFC led to massive debt spending and an ongoing financial crisis that America still hasn't fully recovered from. Just when we were ramping up to start recovery, COVID hits and we do it all over again. Its lasting impact will be an America that is more hesitant to give away free stuff or take the raw end of trade deals.
This assumes USA was taken advantage of by globalization, which is not actually the case - USA benefitted disproportionally from it. USA's GDP growth is substantially based on the consumers (~70% compared to ~50% in the EU and other comparable countries), and that wouldn't have been possible if they could only consume what was produced in the USA.
But there were losers, mainly in manufacturing, and USA didn't assist them in the right way, allowed unprecedented levels of political corruption, allowed unhealthy levels of wealth inequality, allowed housing crisis, allowed obesity and health crisis etc...
Most of the USA's wounds are self-inflicted, but any good demagogue would not pass the opportunity to blame somebody else for it.
Globalization for the US was trading industrialization for financialization. Yay for the paper GDP gains, but most citizens got left behind - though they can by cheap imported cloths with their shrinking paychecks.
Can't build chips, can't make ships, can't make furniture, can't make clothes, can't make enough weapons to supply Ukraine, let alone for any real war. Globalization hollowed the capacity of the country.
> Can't build chips
True, but that's true for every country, even Taiwan. If ASML (Dutch company), Applied Materials, LAM Research, KLA, Synopsys, Cadence (US companies), Tokyo Electron, Shin-Etcu (Japan) and literally hundreds of other companies didn't cooperate, TSMC couldn't function either. BTW, that's why China can never "take over" TSMC - they can just make it defunct when all these other companies stop doing business with it after the invasion.
Basically, the planet is making chips, not any individual country.
> can't make ships,
I suggest you look-up the Jones Act and its unintended consequences.
And then think why American voters never consider this kind of stuff when voting.
> can't make furniture, can't make clothes,
Fair enough, though this is more a matter of what is economically viable vs. what is possible. There are economic losers, sure. But there are big winners too, most notably in the "tech" industry. It's incumbent on the US to smooth-out the transition for their own citizens, instead of allowing special interests and monopolies to run amok and incumbents to Gerrymander themselves into office.
Ultimately, American voters allowed this to happen, and when they saw the results, they fell for a demagogue.
> can't make enough weapons to supply Ukraine, let alone for any real war.
I hope you are not suggesting Russo-Ukrainian war is "not real". This is almost WW2-level stuff. I suggest you take a look at the photographic evidence of vehicle losses, keeping in mind that the actual losses are likely higher:
Attack On Europe: Documenting Russian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine (main battle tanks: 3786, total: 20577) https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...
Attack On Europe: Documenting Ukrainian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine (main battle tanks: 1092, total: 7965) https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...
And how many of tanks was the US able to send to Ukraine? 31
And are we cranking up our industrial might to make more tanks? No, we aren't making any, not for Ukraine, not for US. Sometime in the 2030s we are supposed to have a modified and improved M1E3.
The success of the tech industry is orthogonal to globalization.
> No, we aren't making any, not for Ukraine, not for US.
GDLS in the US is making new-build M1A2 SEPv3 tanks for Poland and Australia.
The issue with most citizens getting left behind has far less to do with globalization and far more with wealth concentration. The overall wealth in the country greatly increased, but pitiful distribution led to that situation.
Strongly disagree. If you had a middle class manufacturing job in the US, globalization meant you were competing globally against third world labor. Your job, your industry, left the country. This process contributes to wealth concentration, but wealth concentration isn't creating the problem, globalization is.
Citizens got left behind because of corrupt government policy that took the gains from cheap imports, centralized them into newly-created money (to make sure inflation still happened), and then dumped most of that new money into cheap loans for the financial industry, driving asset inflation and other financialization. This was the so-called "fiscal responsibility" of the past three+ decades - profligate handouts for the rich.
A sane alternative would have been for the government to spend the surplus on deliberate policy goals such as infrastructure development, preserving the industrial base, scientific research, forward looking renewable energy and less polluting processes, restoring the expectation of full time employment to 40 hours per household, etc. Distorting prices in those sectors in service of deliberate goals would have been much better than making housing unaffordable and calling it progress.
There’s a saying attributed (though may not actually be) to Winston Churchill
Americans will always do the right after they do everything else first
It seems accurate to our national history, in broad strokes at least
This analysis, if it can be called as such, misses the fact that the US is very, very politically divided, to the point where I can see elections results being regularly considered illegitimate. That perspective has been allowed to become reasonable, which is very, dangerous.
> I can see elections results being regularly considered illegitimate.
You think we’ll still have elections?
> You think we’ll still have elections
If you throw away democracy do you still have a USA to speak of?
I think the answer to that is no, though perhaps I am mistaken that every US patriot has fealty to the constitution.
"US patriots" have fealty to an imagined version of the constitution that lets the Republicans do whatever they want. There is no reason to think this will change if the Republicans get even more fascist.
The "clawing back" isn't simply a withdraw of resources back to America, it also requires structural fixes within America (mostly looking at the wealth inequality), as well as properly address the nativist embers that are currently lit.
An America that successfully claws back, but does not address the internal weaknesses in time will have its own version of China's and Russia's demographic challenges.
> The "clawing back" isn't simply a withdraw of resources back to America, it also requires structural fixes within America (mostly looking at the wealth inequality), as well as properly address the nativist embers that are currently lit.
The political faction pushing this kind of thing (and viewing it as a clawback) is also the one fanning the nativist (and racist!) embers as political cover for while advancing policies that entrench wealth inequality, There is literally no significant faction both interested in this kind of "clawback" and interested in dealing with, rather than exploiting and exacerbating, the other things you point to.
Yeah, that's the problem eh? Both for the OP's projection, but also identifies the element that most centrist/technocratic political parties are missing.
You need to address the nativist tendencies in your country. You can't just bulldoze through them.
You need to address the wealth inequality.
And yes, I think you -are- allowed some degree of "clawback", especially if it helps address the other two issues. I think America specifically is allowed some degree of "clawback" (for example, a reduction or drawdown of military support to Europe).
For a country to be just to its own citizens, it does need to respect the citizen body's wishes about immigration (though it can also choose to attempt to shape those views to some degree). And it does need to address wealth inequality. And it -should- prioritize the welfare of its own citizen to those of its allies and trading partners (at least at a 1:1 basis).
>You need to address the nativist tendencies in your country. You can't just bulldoze through them.
>You need to address the wealth inequality.
I'd suggest that you solve the former with the latter. The nativist tendencies are stoked by economic insecurity.
The people who have the most to lose from addressing inequality are the people hoping to buy time blaming migrants.
> ...in time will have its own version of China's and Russia's demographic challenges
They have a plan for that: birth control will be made illegal or access highly curtailed, starting with the "abortive" ones as the foot-in-the-door.
Both of those concerns are valid, but America's geopolitical rivals have the same problems and are less well positioned to address them than America is.
> It also requires structural fixes within America (mostly looking at the wealth inequality)
I think the US will make some positive strides here soon - there is a real effort at the FTC and DOJ to reduce monopolization, consolidation and exclusive dealing, which are some of the primary drivers of wealth inequality. This began in a limited way under Trump's first administration (mainly tech focused), expanded in a big way under Biden, and every indication from the Trump admin is that they are substantially going to continue with the direction Biden went. Anti-trust is a dry topic so it doesn't get a lot of media attention. But the push here is real, it began in the executive branch, and we are starting to see it expand into the judicial branch as judges start to agree with the government's arguments. What is really significant is that both parties seem to support it to some degree so the momentum will be hard to stop.
> as well as properly address the nativist embers that are currently lit.
Could be a concern but as long as the US is a two party state, this is unlikely to become systemic, at least at the federal level, it is more likely to be a gory see-saw. The US will always be more immigrant friendly than its geopolitical rivals, it will always do a better job at importing new people and turning them into citizens and Americans than China or Russia does. Its native population also reproduces today at higher rates than the native populations of its rivals.
> The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world
If anything it's the other way around - the world has granted America incredible economic concessions. America has decided it doesn't want them.
While I agree with what you are saying, the outcome is not quite as obvious/guaranteed. The US is clawing back and democrat/republic/kamala wouldn't change that reality, but the world is also not going to sit quiet. The outcome will depend on Europe, China and the rest of the un-aligned.
This is an interesting, if not unhinged, take. But at least it's written well.
Interesting that it matches what I see as the flip from rights-based to might makes right world
If you have the nukes why suffer weaker countries?
If you depend on Canada for oil why even have a Canada ?
If you have to pay to defend Taiwan for their chips bring the chips over, leave Taiwan outside
Why should Panama have a say in global trade ?
> it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world
Except the rest of the world doesn't need to go it alone.
US only has 350M population.
Plenty of room to grow
Through immigration, which almost every developed country is trying as well?
Uh what? That's not what's happening at all. Russia is basically in control of the US federal government via Trump and Musk, both of whom have widely reported sympathies with Putin's administration and interests.
Putin is busting out the US, Soprano's style. Trump has signaled acceptance of the Russian war of aggression and has also signaled that China can invade Taiwan. Russia and China are allies.
This is part of China getting a foothold in the American tech industry. Kind of a followup to Deepseek, but providing the Chinese government more access to US chips via a physical presence. The original Trump plan was for TSMC to literally take over Intel plants, but Intel told Trump to get stuffed.
Any sources for all this?
Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason. It can also simply be a pragmatic decision.
The "getting stuffed" thing would be big words from a nearly bankrupt company, don't you think? Intel's investors will take whatever deal that gives them the biggest return on their dollar.
> Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason
I find it so hard to take this point seriously. Without security guarantees, you are asking Ukraine to “end the war” and give up massive territory and give Russia plenty of time to re-arm. They have broken treaties before.
Even still, why should the US care if Ukraine wants to keep defending itself from Russian aggression? They are a primary geopolitical rival and the ROI of sending Ukraine our old equipment to directly weaken them is massive compared to almost any other defense related use of it.
What’s more than this, we would be abandoning an ally and signaling that it is safe for countries to do these invasions without significant pushback. The destabilizing result of this will be felt around the world.
Multipolar world order:
Now that it’s become untenable for great powers to fight and they’re all facing regional instability and domestic unrest (EU, US, RUS, CN), we’ll see a century of consolidation and realignment at the regional/continental scale.
ASEAN, China, E Asia, India, Russia; Middle East and South Asia; EU, UK, Russia; US, Canada, Latin America; South America (eg, Argentina, Brazil, and Ecuador); Africa (though, I’m less familiar with specifics there).
We’re seeing political upheaval in each region as states jockey for position in this new world order — now that international global order is dead (or at least, mortally wounded).
Exciting times!
This is how I view the system in place for past few decades :
I consider US to be like brain of earth / humanity. Dollar Reserve Currency is like nerve signals. It can give that printed money to an African nation and make it buy wheat from Ukraine. Or give that money to Myanmar so that it can buy weapons from other countries. The whole setup is brilliant. Making one hand cooperate with another or hurt another if we extend the brain body analogy. US is holding a structural proverbial gun to other nations' head.
It is only a matter of time, when the body of humanity revolts against the excesses of brain's unrealistic demands.
A multipolar world order is a pretty good counter-take (parallel take?)! Most of the time I have my eye on Asia and it seems like a stretch for Korea, Japan, Philippines etc. to fall under the sway of a China in severe demographic decline - but much of SE Asia is definitely in play. And every region will play out differently
I tend to agree, with the exception of: I don't agree with the assertion that the US is broadly intending to renege on many of its security guarantees. I don't think that's a fair characterization on the Ukraine situation. If we had a security guarantee with Ukraine, it was the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, and we reneged on that under Obama in 2014 with Crimea, and under Biden in 2022 with the current war, but even Russia was a signatory to that and frankly its security guarantees were pretty weak anyway. Some say the economic, humanitarian, and military aid we've provided technically counts; its not like NATO Article 5 after all.
The more accurate framing, to me, feels like: America is going to ask for more from the world in return for its security guarantees. We're seeing this with the mineral rights in Ukraine, and now this TSMC investment. The world does not like this, because no one likes being asked to pay the bill at dinner when you're used to dad picking it up for the past 80 years, but that seems to be the priority.
This is ultimately healthy; as Starmer said this week, Europe needs to lead the effort in Ukraine, with US backing. A Europe that spends more on its own defense and is more independently capable of defending itself is a stronger Europe; this is what America wants, America wants strong allies across the pond, and it should be what Europeans want too.
But, as you allude to: Russia is not the threat some think they are, today. This war has decimated their offensive capability, thanks to US support over the past three years, and the geopolitical situation in eastern Europe right now is in a place where Europe, even with its diminished military capacity relative to the US, can actually lead security guarantees with Ukraine. But, the US will be there; America will get some mineral rights, and there will be some kind of peace deal organized in tranches where violation of tranche 1 means the EU military gets involved but violation of tranche 2 means you've woken the beast and the US gets involved too.
You're 100% right that there will be more wars, though. It just won't be the ones people expect. I don't think Taiwan will happen in the next decade; both sides have too much to lose. Ukraine & eastern Europe will calm down in the next six months. Longer term, I'd be more concerned about India and Pakistan or China, as that's an area of the world where the US has few existing security guarantees and direct allyships, but the military spending is ramping up.
Buddy. They gutted the NIH&NSF and delayed the flu vaccine decision. This is not going to work out for you.
What are the chances that this ends up like the Wisconsin Foxconn deal? Is there anything actually driving a follow through on investment?
Their first fab in Arizona is completed and ramping production and the second one's structure is in place so it's probably not likely to be vaporware, but they are probably going to be hyping up what they already have done and started.
Less likely but could.
Chip fab is much more valuable than putting iPhones together.
Not being snarky here, but what is the benefit of a chip fab in Arizona, thousands of miles from the assembly lines where the chips will be used?
I get why it would be important for niche (e.g. defense) applications, but is TSMC scale really needed?
These were early rumors, but I recall there being some hope that the first chips this factory would produce would be used for something made by Apple also in the United States, like the Mac Pro or something like the HomePod Mini.
Initially Foxconn was touted as thousands of high tech high paying jobs until it was revealed that it was just assembly jobs. We'll see what happens.
What did they think a Foxconn factory is for? High tech what?
Most people have no idea what a Foxconn is other than the 2 minute mention on local news.
Might be a silly question but considering the tensions between US and EU right now... What would happen to all these deals if ASML was was not allowed to sell their machines to US companies? I don't know enough to even speculate on these wild scenarios
There are parts manufactured around the world (including the US), and the lithography machines are NOT the only step with only one vendor.
US/EU economies are too intertwined to be decoupled. Just distancing the US economy from China is hard.
>What would happen to all these deals if ASML was was not allowed to sell their machines to US companies?
That is not going to happen since ASML depends itself on some US supplied tech.
What should worry EU is US building capability of their own and sabotage ASML.
I think that won't happen as ASML relies on a bunch of patents. Now I don't think American patents are valid abroad anyways. So probably shouldn't be a concern.
Patents alone aren't protecting ASML or other countries would have knocked it off by now. Trade secrets drive real innovation. You only patent what you think you can profitably protect.
This is me halfremembering recent comment on HN. It's structured so that the ip is owned by an American company that licenses to ASML or something like that.
Was it one of these?
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=asml%20llnl&type=comment
Dude if Europe is stopping ASML from selling to the US Europe isn't going to be enforcing patent laws for the US.
ASML make laser sources in San Diego, without them there would be no EUV machines. So it isn't just patents. ASML as we know today wouldn't exist without US R&D and manufacturing.
https://www.asml.com/en/company/about-asml/cymer
I think people give too much importance to being 1-2 generation ahead. Even if TSMC dies(slowly), it won't affect the world too much if Samsung continues to stay one generation behind with Intel likely joining them.
TSMC has a massive 65% of the market. There is no way Samsung or any other player can plug that whole in terms of sheer capacity before a quite long investment cycle.
US has many military bases across EU, after such hostile act they might as well take control over the Netherlands
It's a bit naive to expect US bases in Europe to still be there in the next 20 years. First, Trump clearly wants to pull out of Europe, because the current Republican party has basically no interest in Europe whatsoever (and it may even be seen as an enemy by them - it's the embodiment of all the "social state" fears they harbour). Second, if the US stop cooperating with the EU on security and forces Europe to rearm, they would probably become redundant and an easy target for populist movements - especially when Trump is out and will be replaced by a less appealing figure. Meloni, ... won't be able to sell Trump as a role model to their voters for long if he really plans on fucking up the European economy; if there's little to be gained it's easier for populists and nationalist in general to just paint him as an enemy.
As a European there's been a lingering feeling of anti-Americanism in Europe that's been somewhat dormant for the last 30 years. It's clearly awakening now, and it risks going mainstream too, which would basically make the position of US bases untenable unless there's a direct reward for them (like, having security guarantees)
How big do you think those bases are, exactly? They are reliant in the host country.
LOL. Do you think a few thousand soldiers can beat a country's military?
And what makes you think EU countries won't kick out US soldiers until then?
Trump involuntarily did more for Taiwan / mainland unification in one meeting with Zelensky than in all the years prior. Taiwanese now understand that they can't trust US to step up to their security commitments. If US won't do it for Europeans being savagely attacked by aggressive neighbors, they won't do it for Taiwanese being blockaded by mainland. At that point Taiwan tariffs and China tariffs will be the same. That was brandished as a powerful weapon about Hong Kong and didn't really do much.
The difference is that China is on Trump's enemy list, whereas he considers Russia's oligarchs to be potential business partners for his own oligarchy. Trump wants trade barriers to China but wants those with Russia to be removed.
> The difference is that China is on Trump's enemy list
Until the right Chinese person sucks up to Trump. Maybe someone with a less ..ehrm. . Asian look that Xi? (I don't know why, but Trump seems to admire Putin and despise Xi. . could be for all sorts of reasons, I guess)
It seems like this news predated Musk's agency taking an axe to CHIPS ACT staffing. It'll be curious to see if this ends up happening or if they pull the expansion when the subsidies are reduced.
An ok deal for TSMC, terrible deal for Taiwan.
Why?
TSMC was likely threatened by Trump to invest in America. TSMC likely didn't want to do this. However, because they will have more fabs in the US, they'll likely avoid the tariffs as part of the deal. Further more, TSMC will still make chips in case of of a China take over. The risk here is that the US will simply confiscate TSMC's fabs if China uses military action on Taiwan based on security measures. That's the worst case scenario for TSMC.
For Taiwan, it's a terrible deal because the money is not invested in Taiwan and the island becomes less important in the world. The "silicon shield" would also be broken and the Taiwanese government has zero control over fabs in the US.
It remains to be seen if this will truly happen. Perhaps TSMC will always keep its most cutting edge node in Taiwan. Perhaps they'll drag this out over the next 4 years in hopes that Trump's party gets voted out.
My European gut feeling for a few years now is that Taiwan will be given...cought....sold to China, once all critical stuff is made on USA soil.
Why won't European or Canada or Australia defend democracy and provide Taiwan security guarantees and protection?
Because there's a big difference between the situations and you can't really judge a theoretical situation against an ongoing reality. Ukraine is an active war whereas Taiwan is a stalemate of sabre rattling and diplomatic posing. We don't know what each country will do if China invades Taiwan and this is part of what stops it happening.
The security guarantees for Ukraine stem from a 1994 agreement that assured some ex-USSR countries that they could safely give up their nuclear stockpile in return for guarantees that their sovereignty would be protected.
Europe supports Ukraine because it is in Europe, European countries were part of that agreement and European countries do not trust Russia. Not counting Belarus, there's 7 countries with direct borders to Russia, 4 of which used to be part of the USSR, 1 of which is being invaded and the other 3 wonder if they're next.
Whereas Taiwan is not in Europe and doesn't have any historical agreements with European countries.
Canada & Australia have cultural, racial and historical ties to Europe, so it is understandable they often align with Europe.
Because "defending democracy" is propaganda for the common people. It's always economics. The US/Europe will support or even install a dictator if the government is pro-western.
Yep, spreading democracy and freedom is PR. I think there's a historical preference to installing or supporting a dictator rather than a messy democracy. There's several cases where democratic elections delivered a government the US didn't agree with, so they orchestrated regime change.
I wonder if they don’t really believe we’d come to defend them regardless of the incentives, at this point. In that case, might as well try to avoid the tariffs.
If they send enough engineers over, we won’t actually learn how to make the chips. Then when the next election happens they can re-evaluate.
If China invades in the next four years, I guess… I dunno, at least they’ll have gotten some people out. It is a pretty bad situation, I guess they are just doing what they can.
The US will NOT engage in a hot war against China for Taiwan, that's for certain, regardless of who is president at that time. Why would they risk nuclear war for a bunch of people who are really far away from the US continent?
You don't risk nuclear war by shooting a few conventional missiles and establishing a blockade.
(A) China would suffer intensely under a blockade.
(B) A few missiles could ensure chip facilities are surrendered intact.
(C) Even a short conflict where a few missiles hits boats invading Taiwan would ensure the rest of the world never trades with China.
Point being: The US doesn't have to win, don't have to fight with everything, just make the invasion hard and isolate China in a new cold war.
I think establishing a blockade is generally considered an act of war. Possibly a war crime if the intent is to starve civilians? (Not sure, this is way outside my wheelhouse). I’d expect it to be about as escalatory as using US ships to attack the mainland, more or less.
Not a war crime, China has plenty of agriculture.
See the Cuban missile crisis. It is an act of war but certainly not as escalatory as direct attack.
Chinese agriculture is heavily dependent on fertilizer and energy imports. A blockade would easily result in famine.
In fact the history of China is just constant famines.
It’s not so much the people or the land, but rather what they can build. It’s the whole essence of the article. Not sure how far behind the West would fall if TSMC was controlled by the CCP. 5 years? 10?
If the key thing is to avoid China getting access to TSMC plants, I'm sure there are ways to do it without risking US troops. The West would have to live with inferior Intel nodes for a while, but it would be better than anything China could produce.
Unless a series of unfortunate accidents occur at the TSMC fabs long before China can put them to use...
We’d blow up the fabs ourselves.
But it’s in Taiwans interest for us to continue to provide them arms, training, and build regional alliances to pressure China.
I’m also not as convinced the US wouldn’t respond, but it would depend on South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and ASEAN nations to call for such action — if they felt threatened enough by China’s actions in taking Taiwan and Philippine islands to declare war themselves.
Edit:
Including article discussing blowing up fabs and Taiwanese response that cutting off ASML and similar would be just as effective.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-would-destroy-taiwan-semi...
Not to mention it's the quickest way for Taiwanese people to completely turn on the US.
I assumed deterrence was in place and the chance of a taiwan invasion was quite low. After this week the chance of a taiwan invasion seems quite likely.
The U.S. absolutely defends Taiwan because losing it isn’t an option!
Taiwan currently produces over 85% of the world’s advanced semiconductors. Letting China take Taiwan would hand the CCP control over the global tech supply chain, crippling the U.S. economy and military. That’s a non starter.
No nation with anything to lose will be using nukes..EVER. The game has been understood for 75 years: mutual destruction means no winners. The U.S. has more nukes, better missiles, and full second-strike capability. China knows this, so nukes aren’t on the table.
The U.S. doesn’t need to invade just stop China’s invasion. Amphibious assaults are the hardest military operation, and China has zero real world experience in them or in fighting hot wars at all. We only need to sink their fleet or disrupt shipping to and from their ports. They know the risk, which is why they haven’t tried.
Now 5 years form now if we are much less dependent on them for semi-conductors that is a different story, but the realities of today. For now? Yeah, we throw down.
Also there is the scenario where China co-opts or influences Taiwans elections such that leadership moves back to a pro China stance. Not impossible, that would really put the US in a bind and I am not sure what would happen then but military engagements would seem much less likely.
> I wonder if they don’t really believe we’d come to defend them
I think every sensible ally of the US would now be developing (if they haven't already) contingency plans for any scenario in which they might get embroiled in that would (under previously agreed terms) require an ally to support them. Who can believe in an unconditional military alliance, when the US government is so nakedly prioritising economic transactionalism, even at the expense of their own long-term security (there's a reason countries get into alliances). This US government's handling of the Ukraine situation will undoubtedly turn out to have been the biggest geopolitical footgun for many a decade.
Ultimately, China won't invade as long as Taiwan plays its cards right. China wants to retake Taiwan without firing a single shot and then quickly re-integrate Taiwan. As long as Taiwan doesn't do anything to provoke China like inviting Nancy Pelosi or voting in more pro-independence politicians.
I actually think these events decreases the chance of a Chinese invasion but increases the chance of a peaceful reunification because the Taiwanese government will look to rely less on the US and positive impression of the US is decreasing in Taiwan.
> China wants to retake Taiwan
Take. They can’t “retake” something they never had.
The island of Taiwan belonged to China at some point. No political statement needed and no need to rewrite history on HN comments.
For 200 years China did nothing with Taiwan. The Ming dynasty called it a ball of mud in the water not worth the effort of the Chinese people. The Qing dynasty did not allow anyone to travel to Taiwan because it was too unsafe to travel. The few people in Taiwan were constantly fighting with the local population. They failed to rule or control Taiwan. For 7 years prior to Japan invading they decided to call it a province. Despite having no control over it. Japan even said they were not convinced Taiwan belonged to China because there was next to nothing there, they put up no fight, and fled before Japan arrived. The PRC also called Taiwan an independent nation and advocated for Taiwan independence until the 1940s when the ROC took control of the island as the request of the allied forces who requested ROC administer Taiwan until they decided what to do with the island, because no one was convinced it ever belonged to China to begin with.
Taiwan is under the administration of the government which ruled China then — and has continued to rule Taiwan since before the revolution led by the CCP. That’s why their official name is the “Republic of China”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_(1912%E2%80%...
The CCP never controlled Taiwan: it remained independent and under the previous regime. So the CCP would need to take Taiwan as their regime never controlled it.
You’re the one rewriting history.
> Taiwan is under the administration of the government which ruled China
Both consider themselves the temporarily embarrassed rightful heir to the centuries old concept of China.
The distinction between take/retake in this scenario is a shallow attempt to peacock your political opinion for everyone to see.
> Both consider themselves the temporarily embarrassed rightful heir to the centuries old concept of China.
This is an outdated take that does not reflect the contemporary feelings of the Taiwanese people and at best only describes a facet of KMT party policy. Bear in mind the KMT does not hold a majority in the legislature - they had to form a coalition with a third party to do so - and the president is from the DPP, which explicitly considers Taiwan a sovereign nation and does not buy into the notion that Taiwan is secretly the real China.
So is the insistence on “retake”.
With the exception that “take” is technically correct, as the area in question is a remnant of the already existing government which has maintained independence in a cease fire. Both claim the other, but facts still matter. You don’t “retake” an area that was never under your control.
The RoC lost mainland China to the CCP, but the CCP was never the owner of Taiwan.
>but the CCP was never the owner of Taiwan.
I think his perspective is: "If the Qing were the Chinese Goverment and they had Taiwan, and the CCP is the Chinese Government does not have Taiwan, so they will be retaking the island".
His conviction speaks to the strength of the CCP narrative that they ARE China though.
I believe allowing China to seize Philippine islands without response was actually the appeasement which escalated the situation. (Along with raiding oil fields, etc of their other neighbors.)
It's not just the cutting edge node. Arizona chips will still be shipped back to Taiwan because TSMC only do Fan-out PoP packaging there. This will unlikely change for the next 5 factories. This is a good win win for everyone. Trump gets to parrot jobs back in america slogan, TSMC gets some extra money to scale out production to 64% of their revenue customer (US based) and Taiwan gets to keep what is really, really important.
This new deal is 3 factories an two packaging facilities.
Maybe TSMC has big influence over Taiwan's government or just outright owns key politicians under the table.
When / if TSMC secures that all lifecycle for advanced large scale chip manufacturing is in the US, Taiwan might find themselves in very iffy waters.
I'm sure TSMC has a lot of influence over the Taiwanese government. However, the people of Taiwan aren't stupid in all of this. They know this is a horrible deal for them and would make sure their politicians hear about it.
They must have a massive influence. I think its gross revenue is something like 10% of the GDP of the whole country.
Even that understates things. TSMC is Taiwan’s singular Trump card in geopolitical negotiations. Now that righteousness and moral high grounds don’t matter any more, it’s the only thing keeping Taiwan safe.
Taiwan government is the biggest shareholder of TSMC…
Does not exclude my point of view. If things go sour they most likely be on the first plane to the US.
You stated:
> Maybe TSMC has big influence over Taiwan's government or just outright owns key politicians under the table.
I’m pointing out this is just plain Wrong. TSMC was created by the government and invested in by the people.
I would be cautious. With a top notch chip factory there is no need to defend Taiwan against China.
OTOH, If they have production outside of Taiwan, then they can more credibly threaten to destroy the Taiwanese fabs if China invades.
> they can more credibly threaten to destroy the Taiwanese fabs if China invades
China's interest in Taiwan is ideological. It is not at all determined by whether the Taiwanese destroy their own fabs in the event of an invasion.
Exactly. China has held this position for a long time. Chip plant manufacturing is a recent development. China will eventually catch up with their own manufacturing in a decade or so. They don't care about the immediate short-term - they think in decades.
Not a position they held until after ROC went to Taiwan. Then they changed their tune. Remember. PRC advocated for Taiwan independence and considered Taiwan an independent nation until around 1940s.
Taiwan today has exactly the same territorial claims as China does -- in fact, Taiwan's are more expansive, since they use the eleven-dash line instead of the nine-dash line. The difference is that Taiwan has little to no ability to project force.
(My comment should not be read as an endorsement of the CCP's willingness to force Taiwan into a reunification.)
While that is true. The people of Taiwan and the government don’t care to make claims on China. The island literally just wants to live their life. But if they tried to change their constitution and remove any claim it would be seen as an “attempt” at independence and cause China to throw a hissy fit.
Pointing this out always looks like endorsement of the CPC as it’s always a point that is pointed out as justification to claim Taiwan is part of China.
Just to be 100% clear: I think the issue of Taiwanese independence should be fully determined by Taiwanese voters in a free and fair referendum without foreign interference -- not from the US, not from China, and not from anyone else.
My previous comment was meant to provide some context. It was not an endorsement of China's stance.
I 100% agree.
Even if the desire to absorb Taiwan is ideological, they would certainly also understand the severe practical implications of losing access to their chip production.
They already lost access.
Chinese companies seem to not have much trouble getting a hold of advanced chips, despite the embargo. There is also very elastic demand for less advanced chips despite China's efforts towards autonomy.
They are having trouble. They also can't send their designs to TSMC to fab on their 5, 3, and 2nm nodes.
Exactly. Some comments here seem to imply that it's somehow good (or at least not bad) for Taiwan's national security to transfer technology to the US because Taiwan can now more credibly threaten to destroy their fabs, completely missing the point that China wants to reunify with Taiwan with or without these fabs.
It's a complete misreading of the situation; the US is in fact actively undermining Taiwan's national security, both 1) by coercing Taiwan to transfer its technology and human capital and 2) by banning chip trade between Taiwan and China.
I agree the imposed embargo re advanced chips between Taiwan and China undermines Taiwan's national security but this contradicts the earlier point that China doesn't care at all about chips.
> China doesn't care at all about chips
My apologies, I should have been more clear. Here is my read of the situation:
China doesn't care in the sense that the threat of destroying fabs isn't going to factor into the Chinese leadership's desire to reunify. The issue of reunification is ideological; many Chinese people themselves view Taiwan as a break-away province.
China also does care, at least a little bit, in the sense that having access to Taiwanese chips will free up some economic resources within China itself that could be used in another strategically important industry instead. Allowing chip trade between Taiwan and China also encourages some Chinese economic dependence on Taiwan, though still not a decisive factor in whether China wants to reunify (by force if needed). But it buys Taiwan a bit more time, at least for now.
Banning chip trade between China and Taiwan weakens Taiwan's national security because it immediately removes even that smidgen of Chinese economic dependence on Taiwan (thus possibly accelerating Chinese plans for reunification), and it makes Taiwan much more dependent on the US, which has in recent weeks thoroughly proven itself to be an unreliable partner.
Is there anything I'm missing?
This was my first thought when I heard about this. If Taiwan ever looks like it's going to fall, I think that there's going to be a massive concerted effort to extract all the talent and production equipment over to America so that it's not in China's hands.
Sure, TSMC would want to do that to salvage what they can. I wonder if the Taiwanese government is as keen on that arrangement though; TSMC plants are their biggest bargaining chip, and Trump has upending the entire world order mere weeks into his term.
But with an US fab that’s a threat mainly to China, without it’s global.
One new fab - even if full size - cannot take on anywhere near world needs - even ex-China. So different threat, but yes.
Exactly. Its the only card Taiwan holds once its gone America will never care about them
These comments just ignore history. Tsmc wasn't even founded until 1987, let alone dominant. US commitments are from WW2.
China was also, in slightly crude terms, an underdeveloped and weak country in 1987. Japan was right next door and an absolutely massive economic powerhouse that eclipsed China. Japan's GDP was nearly 10x China's at the time.
The US had military bases in the Philippines at the time. They did and still have military bases in Japan. Taiwan was right in the pincers of the US, and China, having all the power and development of a mid-tier African country, would have no hope of taking the country without absolutely massive losses and possibly collapsing their government.
Now China is undoubtedly the most powerful country in Asia, in terms of both military strength and economic power. They could blockade Taiwan, fire a few missiles in strategic spots, and fight a war of attrition against the import-dependent island without having to put a single boot on the ground.
Ukraine made protection guarantees with the west in exchange for giving up a key aspect of its defense (nuclear weapons). Russia had collapsed and people assumed they weren't a major threat anymore. Now Ukraine has nothing to wield against Russia and the US is saying "Give us your minerals, and not in exchange for defense. Just give us your resources." Russians are dying by the thousands but their leadership still considers it worth the cost.
Now imagine the Chinese government. They see Taiwan giving the US government their most valuable resources. They see the US government having no interest in helping countries that they've partnered with for decades. They realize they don't have to shove tens of thousands into a meat grinder to get what they want. They realize that the one thing Taiwan could wield to make the world support their cause (chips and the risk of the global tech industry falling into chaos should manufacturing be interrupted) might be moved outside their borders. Not taking advantage of this opportunity would be China ignoring a huge sign that says "It's free real estate."
There is less of a reason to defend Taiwan. Doesn't mean the US won't try. Ultimately, the US wants to use Taiwan, Japan, SK, PH to contain China.
This is to re-secure the advanced chip supply in case a conflict actually breaks out in the pacific.
For China, taking Taiwan isn't really about TSMC. It's an ideology that stems from the century of humiliation. Furthermore, once they take Taiwan, SK, Japan, PH will eventually bow as well.
So what? USA has been a close ally of Canada for over a century, and they are throwing that out the window. They can throw Taiwan out the window too.
Doubtful that would ever happen. And all sides know it.
Fearmongering the American public into believing that it would happen is how Trump leveraged this deal, and how he spins it to his base that he wins yet another negotiation to make America stronger. Same playbook as the Apple and OpenAI/Oracle "investment" announcements.
I think the parent commenter was actually saying that it is unlikely the US was ever going to help Taiwan in the case of a Chinese invasion, regardless of admin.
Chips are but a tiny reason the US wants to maintain the independence and integrity of Taiwan. (The same can likely sadly be said of their democracy, given the US stance on Ukraine.)
Taiwanese independence is primarily about containing China's naval power projection and their ability to keep unimpeded shipping lanes open during times of war.
China can currently be easily blockaded, and within a few weeks of such blockades, their supplies of food and energy will be put under tremendous strain. That's why it's so important to the US Navy that China does not obtain Taiwan.
Fighting a war with a superpower that has that kind of Achilles heel is much easier.
It’s a nice line to say the US cares about democracies but I think history has shown that geopolitics trumps form of government every time. The US allies itself with dictatorships when it is expedient and overthrows democracies when it is expedient.
You are right that Taiwan makes it harder for China to project its navy, but chips are by far more important now. Building fabs in the US means we don’t have to defend Taiwan, because it’s looking less and less possible.
Also, China has a huge internal border, including a shared border with Russia. Even with a total naval blockade it would only increase food and energy costs. And sanctions won’t work, they didn’t even work with Russia and China is the number 1 trade partner globally.
What do you think it can be blockaded with? Submarines... barely. Carriers are sitting ducks these days, especially since China already has an equivalent of Russian Onix missiles and launch platforms. Subs won't cover the land corridor, and they will get all they need across the Russian border if it comes to that.
China will eventually get Taiwan without firing a shot. Pretending that the US can defend an island next to a Chinese border is a pipe dream.
The Taiwan Strait is around 180 KM long, UK to France is around 30 to 40 KM in comparison. That same strait is also not safe to traverse except for two periods each year, so if they are going to invade we will know beforehand.
China needs to win this quickly, because any sort of kinetic war is going to put freeze the global economy and likely cause a mass recession, while the USA (& India) can blockade China's supply and oil chains from the Middle East beyond their force projection. Russian-Chinese infrastructure in Siberia isn't well developed and could also easily destroyed with strategic weapons from Alaska. Not to mention the sheer logistics of sending and maintaining millions of men across the strait. One missile and those troops sink into the ocean.
Trying to do a blockade on Taiwan premature isn't a good idea either, because it's conversely giving the USA the first move to organize it's forces out of harm's way, and basically turns a signficant chunk of the PLAN into sitting ducks out at the sea. Most Chinese victories are predicated on the China quickly wiping out US assets in Japan, Korea and Guam, if they don't manage to do that and fail to achieve air superiority, their troop carriers are going to sitting ducks for drones and fighters in the air.
You are missing one thing: any weapons flying into China will result in stuff exploding in New York and Washington. US carriers will be sunk, and there is no appetite in the US for either scenario.
Anyway, the whole thing won't require a single shot. The island and the mainland have close economic ties; people that determine taiwanese policy are heavily invested in China. All the tough words that are being said are for public consumption.
That’s not really how war works.
A regional conflict over Taiwan is highly unlikely to result in ICBMs headed for NYC and DC, because China knows that’s effectively the end of modern China. And sinking carriers would also be a very risky escalation given the ability of the US and other allies to retaliate.
I do think you’re right that Taiwan will ultimately lose without much warfare, because Trump is a world-class coward and rolls over for every autocrat who looks in his direction.
If carriers are being used to help support Taiwan in this hypothetical, they are obviously fair game and sinking them isn’t escalatory, right? We don’t get to go to war and declare the troops fighting the war off limits to retaliation.
If that was how it worked, why wouldn’t China declare all their transport boats sacrosanct?
If we think our retaliation to getting a carrier sunk would be to end the world, we should probably not use them.
Strikes by the US inside China are highly unlikely for the same reason. As for Trump, he is simply pragmatic. Taiwan is indefensible from the military standpoint. I would not count on allies too much, because Europe's remaining 1 1/2 soldiers cannot make any difference, and the UK can barely get its ships out of the harbor. Anyway, all of this is just a show.
Strikes by the US on Chinese military facilities are vastly more likely than ICBM strikes against civilian population centers on the other side of the world, for obvious reasons.
You wrote this:
Then you proceed to write that China can't sink US carriers that are there to destroy Chinese ships and kill Chinese people. Next, you say that the US bombing China would not cause ICBM nuclear warheads on US cities.So how does war work? Only one side gets to fight?
Yep. The side that sits at the keyboard of a basement computer shooting at zombies.
Here is my suggestion to people who want the US to play part in Taiwan/China affair: they should take their broomsticks and volunteer. And that includes the war in Ukraine, too.
Some people here thinks the US is fighting Vietnam or Afghanistan where the US can hit them but they can't hit back.
China currently would have a serious bad time economically, cut off from intl trade. So there are options in addition to military - if there was a will. The rest of the world would have a hard time without China intl trade but probably far more survivable.
And blockade options go both ways: China could blockade Taiwan? They have more and more attack submarines and anti-aircraft missiles - which may be good enough.
"China can currently be easily blockaded"
Back in the day we used to add [citation needed] to statements like that.
Sure, if anyone tried to blockade continental China (coastline from Vietnam to Korea!), controlling Taiwan would be helpful, but chances are it would not really make all that much of a difference. It's not exactly Gibraltar or the Bosporus.
Why couldn't that massive blockade just go around Taiwan is well?
A big difference with Taiwan vs Ukraine is that the US lets Taiwan purchase much more top of the line equipment.
Taiwan is still not allowed to buy F35 fighters. And the weapons they are allowed to buy from the US are delivered late and of poor quality:
Taiwan Is Getting Its U.S. Weaponry—but Years Behind Schedule: https://www.wsj.com/world/asia/taiwan-is-getting-its-u-s-wea...
U.S. delivered "wet and moldy body armor" to Taiwan, Pentagon watchdog says: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-wet-moldy-body-armor-to-tai...
The US has not been a good partner to Taiwan, truth be told. If you browse social media that are popular among the Taiwanese, you'll discover that there is quite a bit of resentment towards the US, because they see the US as coercing them into transferring their much-needed human and intellectual capital in world-class semicon technology. (E.g. ~50% of the staff now working at the Arizona fab are TSMC engineers who moved from Taiwan, because American workers allegedly do not have the requisite skills or work ethic.) And yet the US is not willing to reciprocate by transferring its military technology.
I'm sure Trump's disastrous meeting with Zelenskyy has greatly damaged confidence among the Taiwanese. At some point more and more Taiwanese might just decide that a mob boss who speaks their language is better than a mob boss who doesn't.
"Taiwan is the United States’ 7th-largest merchandise trading partner ($158.6 billion in total goods trade), 10th-largest export market ($42.3 billion), and 8th-largest source of imports ($116.3 billion), according to 2024 U.S. data (and when the European Union is considered as one trading partner). "
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10256
Sounds like we've been a great partner with Taiwan. Also, wanting to trade on "business I.P." would make more sense if you mentioned we're already doing around $158 billion in business with them. Each side's businesses have a lot of mutual dependence where you'd want a higher production of chips that each side could trust. We had a supply shortage with fabs not long ago, too.
Whereas, military tech is a strategic advantage we owe to nobody. They can buy it or not. I'd rather they not be ripped off in the process. Helping us make cutting edge chips here is different than giving people weapons.
For example, I'm American. I'm allowed to have business, but not military, technology. I can probably license and operate a fab. I can't buy fighter jets at all. That's despite how Harrier jets as a solution to traffic congestion could boost my personal productivity.
> military tech is a strategic advantage
For the Taiwanese, their semiconductor prowess is a strategic advantage for them. It's even informally known as the Silicon Shield. Taiwan's hope/expectation that US reciprocates with strategically important technology is perfectly reasonable.
The Silicon Shield is something the US is actively trying to undermine by coercing Taiwan to transfer its technology. In addition, every TSMC engineer that moves from Taiwan to the US is someone who isn't contributing to Taiwan's local Silicon Shield. And yes, "coercing" is the right word when you are a mafia-like superpower threatening 100% tariffs -- though at this stage I am not sure why the Taiwanese should hold out any hope that the US is a reliable or trustworthy guarantor of their security.
> They can buy it or not.
Obviously Taiwan cannot. The US refuses to sell F35 fighters to Taiwan. And even countries that do buy these weapons do not have full operational control -- e.g., the U.S. has the capability to remotely disable or restrict the functionality of F-35 fighter jets purchased by other countries.
> I'd rather they not be ripped off
Taiwan is getting ripped off. 1) Delivering equipment years behind schedule as well as 2) delivering moldy dilapidated equipment are forms of ripping off your customer. And in this case America's customer is too afraid to dare offend it.
All of the most novel aspects of modern fighters lie in control systems and sensors driven by modern fabs.
I'm not clear why you think the two are different from an ability to wheel and deal standpoint other than because that's big bros narrative?
I would not assume that TSMC leadership is 100% aligned with the national interests of Taiwan as a country.
Anyone who thought we would seriously defend Taiwan is a fool. Middle America routinely makes fun of Asian people, you think they're gonna be happy to send their kids to die for them?
Counterpoint they literally already did that and we weren’t less racist in the 60s and 70s. Personally I don’t think Trump would defend Taiwan but I object to such a disregard of history.
Those were wars to kill big scary Communism! Things have changed a bit since then.
No comment on Korea, but Vietnam wasn't exactly popular.
Does anyone think the US would defend Taiwan at this point?
I think that ship has sailed under the current administration.
Unfortunately I have to agreed. Protection rackets seem to be pretty much the defining activity when Trump is allowed to run the show, but I doubt appeasement in itself is really going to buy Taiwan anything. What's to stop him from taking the bribes and then just fabricating some of his trademark bullshit about how the Taiwanese "have been very unfair" and Xi's people were actually totally in the right all along.
The US right-wing has a large contingent that wants to pivot focus away from Europe and towards Asia.
The US abandoning European allies can be perceived through the lens of general isolationism (or even an outright support for fascism) but it can also be perceived as part of this pivot to Asia.
Time will tell. Elon Musk has so much of his net worth tied up in China, however, that I would bet more on abandonment. If Elon was out of the picture I'd bet more on support.
I'm not from or in the US, but I was mildly hopeful about the Taiwan situation when Marco Rubio was made part of the administration, as he seems to care more about the Pacific than Trump does. I think it's still a bit too early for defeatism.
Nope. The US is doing all it can to become irrelevant geopolitically in Europe, that's not to start a war with China with a very uncertain outcome. Economic ties is (was) the really last bastion that would have motivated the US to intervene.
Wild how quickly Europe has just given up on the US after all the money we’ve spent on them for decades. We need your help (a majority of sane Americans), not condemnation. If you don’t think Trump won’t do the same to you, you’re sorely mistaken.
What type of help are you expecting?
I don’t know, just seems sad that allies are so fairweather.
Maybe they were never really allies to begin with, and have waited for Europe to become complacent enough to put down the hammer in our weakest moment.
Only a fool would expect America to come to their aid now, and we'd better hide our oil/minerals lest we get a double dose of dictator-flavoured freedom...
Believe me, most Americans think of Europeans as allies.
Those 'most' Americans fail to vote in sufficient numbers.
I mean, I think you can at least understand why directly interfering with the domestic politics of a representative democracy might be challenging.
And the Europeans are helping. Trump is not getting the straight forward quick foreign policy wins that he was chasing. Europe is going to keep sticking their "European peacekeeper" (however you want to characterize it) proposal into the Ukraine mix, and Putin is going to have a hard time swallowing that deal.
When the EU tariffs come, you can bet that EU is going to try to make it sting as much as possible.
But ultimately it's up to Americans to make the best of these opportunities.
Europe can't cure American political disease. The public discourse, general political education and health of American institutions is alarmingly bad. IMO it's unlikely that these trends will stop. America is suited to isolationism and Trump type views of the world aren't going away from the US voter mindset.
How could you? Trump declined to say he'd defend Poland or Lithuania, both NATO members, when asked by a reporter (obviously this was overshadowed by the Zelenskyy thing)...
Because putin demanded NATO roll back to 1990 borders in exchange for a Ukraine peace deal. So of course he wouldn't defend Poland or Lithuania, they won't be in NATO anymore.
Are you willing to get drafted and fight to defend Taiwan and whatever comes as a result of that? Are you willing to die for Taiwan, or have your kids die for Taiwan? Honest question.
that's I suppose the risk one is willing to take when enrolling into the army?.. You're raising though a very good point, the US army is really large and it's not clear anymore what its purpose is anymore (not against Russia anymore, not against China soon/anymore, then what for?)
Against internal dissent and against the enemy of the day in the Western hemisphere (seems to be the plan).
Deploying the US army on US soil against US citizens would essentially be the end of the country. Whatever the outcome is would be a fundamentally different place. The military is an effective mechanism for pacifying the masses through employment.
> Deploying the US army on US soil against US citizens would essentially be the end of the country. Whatever the outcome is would be a fundamentally different place.
“And so I come full circle on this response and just want to encourage you with some substance that we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”[1]
[1] https://apnews.com/article/project-2025-trump-american-revol...
Not trying to be flip or anything, but why can't it just be to defend the US? From anyone who may come.
Serious question.
>why can't it just be to defend the US?
It was that way for most of our existence (and empire building). The whole world police thing came after WWII.
And that wasn't a terrible idea.
I don't necessarily believe maintaining a ludicrously strong military for the purposes of defending our homeland is a bad idea. Maybe I'm just being silly, but like, why would you not want the strongest military you could possibly muster to defend your nation?
Maybe I'm thinking about it wrong? But I don't think so.
> why would you not want the strongest military you could possibly muster to defend your nation?
Because it comes at the opportunity cost of other things we could spend money on. For example, you could cut education to fund military even more, but it would eventually catch up to us.
I'm hesitant to even say this because it sounds so callous and naive, so with apologies in advance: how would one maintain a superior military if that military isn't involved in any aspect of combat for long stretches of time? To use a sports analogy, could you build a Super Bowl capable (American) football team if none of the players or coaches have done more than watch football on TV and played lots of flag football scrimmages amongst themselves?
(I'm wondering about this after reading today's NYT article about the escalating use of drone warfare in Ukraine.)
Between WWI and WWII, the US didn't get in any "hot practice". (Which is what I think you're talking about?) That didn't stop us from learning what we needed to know. Nor did it stop us from fielding a formidable military. The new technologies at the time were wielded by us to deadly effect. Carriers and tanks in particular. We didn't just sit around and get really good at digging trenches and moving dreadnoughts around.
The same will happen here. I guarantee you, the American military will be among the best in the world at employing the services of satellites, autonomous ordinance and surveillance, and cyber offensives.
You have concerns about our facility with drones? Be assured, we'll be able to work out how to create nightmarish swarms just as well as Europeans or Chinese can. We'll have the same facility with working with countermeasures and mitigating countermeasures as well.
> That didn't stop us from learning what we needed to know.
Actually, it did. At the beginning of its intervention, US weaponry and tactics were way below their European counterparts, even in nuclear research. The difference was made through sheer power of scale and speed of adaptation, not pre-war innovation.
In the same way, the US military is currently as good as it is precisely because it sees significant deployments very frequently (Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq), which means they learn hard lessons and develop technologies solving real problems, at a rate that no other military can match.
This is just untrue.
But hey, if you believe it, my pointing out the flaws in the arguments is not likely to change your mind. So I’ll just politely disagree with you.
You have a good evening sir or ma’am.
War to the west in the current year means airstrikes and drones.
Looking at current Ukraine situation, the drone pilots are a couple of kilometers behind the front. The radio range of the drones is not that big. Yes there are higher tech ones, but there are still people exposed at the front.
We haven’t had a draft in decades, what makes you bring it up now? Are you implying that only people serving in the military should have a say in foreign policy?
Because if we go to war with China, they have a lot more people to throw at us than we have active in the military. Any slightly protracted war will require a draft. I'm sure you filled out your draft card when you turned 18 like I did, even when there was no draft. That's so if and when they needed to reinstate it, it would pick up almost seamlessly where it left off.
>Are you implying that only people serving in the military should have a say in foreign policy?
No, I'm implying before people rah rah to defend Taiwan, they actually understand what that means; it probably won't mean sending only active duty and reserves after a year or two and that a draft will most likely occur.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_global_manpower_fit_fo...
Even with a full, aggressive draft, we'll need allies who are also willing to draft their citizens.
I do hope it wouldn’t come to that, but I also don’t think we can afford to immediately capitulate to any state with more manpower out of fear and still consider ourselves to be a world power.
If China has us completely militarily outmatched then of course we can’t afford to provoke them, but it’s not my sense that we’re ready to accept that currently.
I agree. What's the point of a massive military if you can't scare people with it? All I'm saying is we need to be careful what we wish for and understand what we are getting into. If congress thinks the population is itching to go to war, they might just get us into one (again).
Like you said, we haven't had a draft in decades. People might think we won't ever have one, and those people would be mistaken.
Naval warfare is more about hardware than manpower. American casualties in the Pacific Theater of WW2 were only ~100k dead and ~200k wounded.
The US alone would lose in that as well, because its shipbuilding capacity is minimal. But together with South Korea and Japan, it could compete against China on a level ground.
China has the ability to strike the American heartland, including naval production, in ways Japan did not.
We’re also at risk of losing strategic depth: how many more years of provocations from Washington do you think it would take a South American, Mexican or the Caribbean country to start letting Chinese drones, ships and missiles on their territory? (How confident are you in our intelligence community that this hasn’t already happened?)
When you sign up for the military, if you know anything about history, you know that you will probably not be fighting on US soil.
The phrasing of your question makes it sound like you clearly do not think Taiwan is worth defending. Perhaps a more interesting question would be - where is the line for you to consider a war is worth fighting for? Is it only when your country is being attacked and you need to defend it? If so, take a guess what WW1 and WW2 would have looked like if everyone had that opinion.
You didn't answer the question. It's easy to send other people's kids to war (see Iraq, Afghanistan). It's a different problem when you have your own skin in the game.
>If so, take a guess what WW1 and WW2 would have looked like if everyone had that opinion.
WWI Would have been merely a local conflict between Austria and Serbia. WWII would have been about the same as it was historically, if it happened at all, see previous answer on WWI.
As an aside and ironically, both Wilson and FDR campaigned on not getting us into WWI and WWII.
Yes, by now, yes.
I suspect there are not many outside your own acquaintances willing to have their children drafted to defend Taiwan.
Just being realistic. Americans were committed to these things because leadership committed us to these things and would make it illegal for us to get out of it. Given an actual choice, not many Americans would have willingly gone to, say, Vietnam. Maybe a few brainwashed anti-communists, but the average American thought, "Hey, not my circus, not my monkeys." I suspect even fewer would be willing to go fight for Taiwan.
The average American's attitude is, "Call me when they attack Hawaii." Until that point, most genuinely don't care. That's why Trump's current moves in Europe will be applauded by his base. Because people have severely overestimated the desire of the American every-man and -woman to defend foreign nations.
You can't give people a choice. If given a choice, they'll always say no.
You either fight far away or you fight at home. The choice to fight though is not yours to make. Its the choice of the defectors of law, of Despots and murderers. You can fight them today, while they rob you with a stick or tomorrow, when they have a gun. But fight you must.
Every country gets an army.
The only choice is whose.
You either fight far away or you fight at home.
That's just the sort of macho thinking that has caused so many military endeavors to fail throughout history. Maybe the politics is about soundbites like that one? I don't know? I'm not a politician. But the actual prosecution of a military conflict is about outcomes. Not soundbites.
Will there be a good outcome or not?
I mean, if it makes you feel any better, you can think of it this way. Our past has taught us that, without question, it is best to fight far away, but only after an enemy has been weakened by others.
I know how that sounds to many non-US citizens. But I'm just being honest about how the thinking in America has developed historically.
It looks like the war in Ukraine should be beneficial to the United States. We send some surplus equipment and ramp up ammo production (jobs!) while weakening a prominent geopolitical adversary all without spilling American blood.
Letting Ukraine fall will embolden Russia who will continue their march across Europe until it is necessary to spill American blood.
Similarly we may not have a choice in Taiwan. Japan and The Philippines at least aren’t keen to have an emboldened imperialist China in their backyards. If they intervene US aid at least will be in our best interest.
Isolationism is not a guaranteed ideal strategy in all situations. Looking only at boondoggles like Vietnam, Iraq 2, and Afghanistan doesn’t mean all US intervention is harmful to the national interest.
> Some folks are born made to wave the flag - Hoo, they're red, white and blue. And when the band plays "Hail to the chief", Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord
After seeing people convinced to send their children to the Middle East for more nebulous reasons, I wouldn't be surprised if a significant portion of the country can be found willing.
The nebulous reason was a small Mediterranean country feeling threatened.
They will be once they land.
I’m guessing you haven’t served in the military, and aren’t really familiar with the projections of how a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is likely to unfold.
A draft is highly unlikely.
Yes.
We should have the troops wear Apple uniforms instead of green camo fatigues. Gotta make the ultimate sacrifice for our tech overlords.
I guess the same question was raised before the Korean War and the Vietnam War
and it was also get downvoted
I have to say, americans love wars, it's some kind of american spirit
wars made american great, wars will make american great again
Someone seems to have crept your profile, @suraci, and it's not looking good: https://limewire.com/d/77690b9f-1ec3-4e43-a485-76c82bc67ddd#...
that's awesome, but why "it's not looking good"? oh, because it 'strongly suggests' that i'm a 'Chinese State Actor'
I'm a chinese living in china, i'm interest topics abt china, how strange
instead of reading some 'analysis reports' by sponsored medias and think tanks, now you leant to read ones by LLMs, such a progress
Do I look like a devil that tempts innocent Americans/Westerners to be corrupt to you?
be vigilant, we're everywhere
PDF exploit? Do not click! Creepy indeed, these new McCarthyite tactics.
Back then, the counter-culture hadn't completely hollowed out the nation's soul.
I would not be surprised if this was in the calculation. TSMC US is currently moving quite a bit faster and ahead of what TSMC originally planned. There is a possibility that TSMC US will only be 1 year behind in node development. With the added capacity, it will accelerate transition of Qualcomm, Broadcom, Nvidia, AMD etc to Fab on US soil.
Once that is even partly done. There is no reason Trump will send US troops to defend Taiwan.
Another question is whether it is defendable at this point. It's not clear that China doesn't have military superiority over that area.
I think that the deterrent is Taiwan destroying all their fabs before the Chinese get to them. This would severely affect the _entire_ world therefore there are strong incentives to keep Taiwan independent.
Taiwan is not destroying their own fabs. You read too much into propaganda. It's a stupid thing to do for Taiwanese people.
Further more, China doesn't care about TSMC. It's a nice bonus. But re-taking Taiwan is an ideology.
The US was defending Taiwan against China long before TSMC was founded. If anything I'd worry it goes the opposite way. In the status quo, if the Chinese military can prevent TSMC from operating or prevent their products from being exported, wouldn't the US almost have to capitulate in exchange for a chips deal?
Capitulate? The US aren't going into a direct war against the PRC even if Taiwan is invaded.
The play is to create trouble to the PRC, to bar open access to Pacific and to control trade routes to Japan/Korea.
The US do not care about Taiwan beyond its "usefulness".
I don’t know what you mean. The PRC already has open access to the Pacific and trade routes to Japan and Korea.
I second this
Didn't Trump terminate the Chips act?
The president can’t just unilaterally cancel a piece of legislation already signed into law. But maybe he gets the new congress to repeal it.
That's the old way of thinking -- they're trying to do just that across the government and without some enforcement mechanism to make them send the checks, the practical result is that the President can indeed cancel pieces of legislation via impoundment.
Example 1 - Trying to take $20 billion from Citi: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5161849-inflat...
Example 2 - The pause preempting the defunding of USAID: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/reev...
Example 3 - CHIPS act would have had funding withheld if a Federal Court hadn't stepped in, but it's unclear what enforcement mechanism can force the funding to resume: https://archive.is/BxjHw
Sure, but a lot of people at NIST who were in charge of implementing the CHIPS act have been fired. He definitely seems to be doing all he can to sabotage the CHIPS act without needing any congressional action.
He sure seems to be able to just terminate legislation signed into law. He already did it with USAID, and is in the process of doing it to many other departments.
USAID is a waste of money. Good riddance.
You like this rule being broken? Great, good for you.
What about the other rules? The ones protecting you and the country? Is due process not valuable any more? What protects us from people with bad or selfish intentions?
Yeah, kids starving and dying of cholera.. fuck em /s
> The Inspector General also warned that $489 million in humanitarian food aid was at risk of spoiling due to staff furloughs and unclear guidance. The Office of Presidential Personnel fired the Inspector General the next day, despite a law requiring 30 days notice to Congress before firing an Inspector General.
Tell that to TikTok.
He's not constitutionally able to do so.
But DOGE has been trying to do effectively that for the past month, and has been distressingly successful at it. (For all that conservatives whined about the existence of an unaccountable deep state override elected officials making laws, that's basically an accurate description of DOGE.)
You know TikTok is back in App Stores with Oracle hosting content even though all of that is illegal?
Trump is ignoring the law now.
Another thing that it turns out was just "guidelines".
This comes so often in HN it is wild. Risking WW3 and killing millions just because Samsung is 2 years behind TSMC. To save a year we would set world decades or centuries back.
The horse already said that he will not defend Taiwan.
Isn't this bad news for Intel? Personally I'not sure. An on shore TSMC will certainly help Intel with easier access to knowledge and experienced researchers and workers. OTOH having a US based alternative to their fabs makes them less needed for a strategic pov.
If anything, this move might motivate China to attack Taiwan ASAP.
They already lost access to Taiwanese chips, why would they let US to build capacity?
China is Taiwan’s biggest trade partner. There’s no political will for China to attack Taiwan yet, as everything is just pointing towards China becoming so humongous in terms of power that Taiwan would fold without any bloodshed.
I am a bit skeptical about all the announcements. Are companies really investing, or just making announcements? I wish it were the latter!
I think (hope) you mean the former :-)
Good! Come to America.
Any and all promises made by the Trump administration mean nothing
I hope they reconsider. The US does not appear to be a counterparty which can be trusted to follow through with their obligations anymore and this venture sounds quite risky.
Is that 100B like 500B stargate thingy or ... ?
Why the US? Why not Europe? Ireland or UK?
Probably because Europe is not threatening them behind the scenes and perhaps offering money as well.
Diversifying chip manufacturing more globally is pretty crucial to maintaining the world order though. Sadly, having a fab in the US under the current administration is not helpful to the west in general. Getting TSMC or building an alternative to TSMC in Europe, UK, Canada, Australia, would be very smart.
I believe a lot of the machines TSMC depends on are even produced in Europe, so there should be room to make some deal!
I doulbt anyone will build a factory in Europe. It won't be competitive because of the energy prices on the continent.
Is chip manufacturing particularly energy intensive? I would expect that chip plants are not that price sensitive about electricity, within reason.
Seems your average semiconductor foundry needs around 100MW[1] to 200MW[2] of electrical power to operate. The main consumption is down to refrigeration chillers[3].
Average US house uses about 12600kWh per year[4], or 1.44kW average across a year. So that means one foundry takes about what 70k to 140k houses would take.
[1]: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_serv...
[2]: https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/6/24091367/semiconductor-man...
[3]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02786...
[4]: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/c&e/pd...
It is.
The light source uses a lot of power to produce those few hundreds of watts of radiation
Prices in the nordics aren't that bad.
It went up considerably because of nordic exports to the rest of Europe. They are producing enough for themselves, but not if they have to share. It's the same reason why US gas prices are somewhat on the high side lately - a lot of it is exported to Europe, and the price differential is large enough to make this worth the trouble.
You realize that the US buys energy from Canada right? The US has no advantage on energy. Even in Europe, building more power capacity is simply a matter of wanting to.
Right. I do. The US buys a lot of it, and it is cheap.
As for Europe, you are right, partially it's a matter of a mindset, however there are objective reasons for expensive energy. France's access to cheap uranium is almost gone. Europe refuses to sign long-term russian gas delivery contracts and are buying spot which costs arm and leg (whatever is left of it). German power plants are shuttered. LNG imported from the US is very expensive.
Some German CEOs (I think Volkswagen if I recall correctly) said recently that Germany offers no competitive advantage these days. I agree.
Where do you think manufacturing will go? Energy is everything.
However hard it is, the decline of the US is going to force Europe and the rest of the western countries to build out replacements for US labour and goods. The US is simply not a reliable trading partner nor ally under the new administration. Energy will be built.
The US and European alliance was a marriage of convenience. One of the results of Ukrainian conflict was manufacturing moving from Europe to the US. Energy has to be built from something, and Europe does not have it.
Europe has sun and wind. In the time it would take the US to build one nuclear plant Europe can build over 10x as much renewable capacity, for 1/10th the cost. As much as I'm pro environmental protection, the reality is that a lot of places are preferring renewables because they are cheaper and faster to build than traditional power plants for the same energy outputs. Even Texas is building tons of renewables for this reason.
So yes, energy will be built in Europe and elsewhere.
One word: BS. Germany energy shortages were in the news early this year, and last year, and the year before then. See this, for example: https://www.power-technology.com/news/germany-wind-power-sho... Germany and its renewables is just a laughing stock at this point. One cannot run an industry on renewables, and they are finding this out. There was already some talk about restarting nuclear power plants.
With your optimism, they would have tackled this problem already.
Texas already paid its price for their lack of investment in traditional generation facilities.
Its weird to claim that the US is in decline when discussing the EU. The fate of the EU is incredibly intertwined with that of the US. If one is in decline, the other is as well.
The fall of the US will absolutely harm other western countries yes. But we will build and eventually thrive, unlike the US if it remains on its current trajectory.
1- The US might be (might have been) the only country which would intervene if Taiwan were invaded by China.
2- The US is also the only country which threatens the world with tariffs for political concessions
Maybe TSMC will go to Europe as well, but for now it makes a lot of sense why they choose the US.
Currently everything points in the direction that capitulation would be the outcome of China invading Taiwan, with political pressure to eject any democratically elected leader in Taiwan for the sake of "negotiations".
It was what this administration did in Afghanistan, it's doing in Ukraine, and nothing tells us it will be different with Taiwan.
Because the US will soon have the cheap labor needed to produce them.
I wonder how much Trump crypto they are going to have to buy to keep their country.
What does this mean for Intel’s foundry efforts? Are they basically dead now?
Look at the recent rumor of Intel breakup - the large part is going to TSMC.
It seems unlikely to me that TSMC is both going to spend 100B on their own US operations and however many billions it would cost to acquire Intel's foundry division and set it up for TSMCs process. Though those rumours never made sense to me in the first place.
Seems more likely that the Trump admin was pressuring them to possibly invest in Intel, acquisition was briefly considered and instead this compromise of expanding their own US operations was chosen.
I expect INTC to retract back towards $18-19 from this news. Recent rally was largely based on hopium surrounding either TSMC investment/partnership or Broadcom/TSMC breakup and acquisition. Probably this kills the Broadcom deal as well. If I were Intel, I wouldn't wanna sell off the more successful chip design division if I couldn't also sell off the floundering foundry.
How's that huge Foxconn investment in Wisconsin going? I can't believe people are falling for the exact same scam again.
Having been in Taiwan for 10 years, comments like these totally ignore the differences in personal traits and 誠信 between Terry Guo and Morris Chang. TSMC and the entire upper management is build differently than Foxconn. After all, Arizona factory is about to be up and running no?
TSMC has followed through already in Arizona where they are actually producing. The CHIPS act has been fairly successful, and I know for a fact that there are other locations already being planned based on the Act. Granted, this administration could just decide to ignore all that, but I gather instead they will just take credit for something the previous administration did.
How will this affect Intel?
This deal had been agreed before...
"TSMC plans to invest $65 billion to build three semiconductor fabs in north Phoenix, the largest investment in Arizona history." - https://www.azfamily.com/2024/11/16/tsmc-arizona-secures-fun...
No, secretary of commerce Lutnick said that the $65 billion deal was Biden's and was subsidized by the US ($6 billion).
He then bragged that Trump extorted TSMC using tariffs and forced TSMC to invest another $100 billion to avoid tariffs.
The US is using tariffs to have other nations build "their" industry. After that work is done, these nations will be ready to become new theaters for US proxy wars.
From the article: "TSMC plans to invest $65 billion to build three semiconductor fabs in north Phoenix, the largest investment in Arizona history."
Sigh. From the horse's mouth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa7MH1zLEYU
Lutnick:
"America um under the Biden Administration uh tsmc received a $6 billion Grant and that encouraged them to build 65 billion dollar so America gave tsmc 10% of the money to build here and now you're seeing the power of Donald Trump's presidency because tsmc the greatest manufacturer of chips in the world is coming to America with a hundred billion dollar investment and of course that is backed by the fact that they can come here because they can avoid paying tariffs so the idea is come to America build greatness in America."
But that horse doesn't sound reliable.
TSMC never pays tariffs anyways, whomever did the importing does so companies like Apple, GM, Tesla, etc.
An announced deal really should be worthless politically, we've all seen Foxconn or Apple announce big investments during Trump's first presidency for them to just walk it back later.
I wonder what these comments would look like if this deal happened 2-3 years ago by Joe Biden.
A vastly different geopolitical situation would get vastly different comments.
Probably not too different if: Biden acted like Trump during his first 100 days, was extremely abrasive and disrespectful to Zelensky, told NATO the US isn't going forward with any more security commitments, and then this deal happened.
Context matters.