[HN Gopher] TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S.
___________________________________________________________________
TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S.
Author : perihelions
Score : 435 points
Date : 2025-03-03 16:40 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| impish9208 wrote:
| Gift link: https://www.wsj.com/tech/trump-chip-maker-tsmc-
| expected-to-a...
| ViktorRay wrote:
| Thank you!
| internetter wrote:
| https://archive.is/fW91i
| croes wrote:
| I would be cautious. With a top notch chip factory there is no
| need to defend Taiwan against China.
| raverbashing wrote:
| I second this
|
| Didn't Trump terminate the Chips act?
| outlace wrote:
| 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.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| 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.
| tensor wrote:
| 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.
| braincat31415 wrote:
| USAID is a waste of money. Good riddance.
| gizzlon wrote:
| 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.
| bitsage wrote:
| Emergency and humanitarian aid wasn't stopped. Your own
| quote alludes to it.
| Sabinus wrote:
| 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?
| dboreham wrote:
| Another thing that it turns out was just "guidelines".
| lenerdenator wrote:
| Tell that to TikTok.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| 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
| jcranmer wrote:
| 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.)
| scarface_74 wrote:
| 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.
| dageshi wrote:
| Does anyone think the US would defend Taiwan at this point?
|
| I think that ship has sailed under the current administration.
| etiam wrote:
| 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.
| Clubber wrote:
| 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.
| mulmen wrote:
| Yes.
| WinstonSmith84 wrote:
| 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?)
| bilbo0s wrote:
| 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.
| Clubber wrote:
| >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.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| 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.
| throwworhtthrow wrote:
| 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.)
| bilbo0s wrote:
| 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.
| toyg wrote:
| _> 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.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| 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.
| anon291 wrote:
| Because there will always be engagements. There will
| always be some random rebel group attacking American
| ships in the middle east (we've been at war with various
| pirates in Somalia since the beginning of this country,
| and even before that). There will always be skirmishes
| and encroachments, terror attacks, etc.
| janalsncm wrote:
| > 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.
| greenavocado wrote:
| > The whole world police thing came after WWII
|
| _Laughs in Barbary Wars and Monroe Doctrine_
| Clubber wrote:
| Neither of those have to do with being the world's
| police.
| anon291 wrote:
| Barbary Wars were due to attacks on American ships.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Because at the end of WWII, there was a general
| recognition that oceans were no longer going to protect
| us. We would either have to participate in worldly
| affairs on an active basis, or eventually be destroyed,
| if not conquered.
|
| Given that we would be forced to 'participate,' with
| isolationism no longer being an option, it was logical
| enough for us to strive for domination.
|
| That actually worked pretty well, considering that we
| were the only genuine superpower left on earth at the
| dawn of the 21st century. It worked until our enemies
| figured out how to attack us from within by playing a
| literal Trump card.
| yks wrote:
| Against internal dissent and against the enemy of the day
| in the Western hemisphere (seems to be the plan).
| mulmen wrote:
| 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.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| > 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...
| anon291 wrote:
| We're talking about drafts, which would certainly occur
| if America and China went to war. Both countries would
| start attacking the mainland. Are you willing sacrifice
| your son's life for that?
| dullcrisp wrote:
| 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?
| Clubber wrote:
| 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.
| dullcrisp wrote:
| 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.
| Clubber wrote:
| 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.
| jltsiren wrote:
| 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| 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?)
| ashoeafoot wrote:
| Yes, by now, yes.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| 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.
| ashoeafoot wrote:
| 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.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| _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.
| mulmen wrote:
| 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.
| ashoeafoot wrote:
| That certainly was the perspective from WW1 to pearl
| harbor
| steve_gh wrote:
| Every country gets an army.
|
| The only choice is whose.
| silverquiet wrote:
| > 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.
| ashoeafoot wrote:
| They will be once they land.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| The nebulous reason was a small Mediterranean country
| feeling threatened.
| gosub100 wrote:
| We should have the troops wear Apple uniforms instead of
| green camo fatigues. Gotta make the ultimate sacrifice for
| our tech overlords.
| sirbutters wrote:
| 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.
| Clubber wrote:
| 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.
| senordevnyc wrote:
| 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.
| aurareturn wrote:
| A draft is highly unlikely.
|
| A draft is highly unlikely because the American people
| won't want to defend Asians that much.
| senordevnyc wrote:
| That's true of every conflict we've fought in for
| decades. And yet we still fought in them, without a
| draft, somehow.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| 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.
| anon291 wrote:
| Many people used to sign up for military service since
| their ancestors fought on American soil for American
| interests, and were actually raised under the presumption
| that this is the main purpose of the American army (or
| protecting _American_ interests abroad, such as
| protecting American vessels on international waters). As
| it 's become ever-more-apparent to the group most likely
| to enroll in the military (conservatives) that this is no
| longer the case, military enlistment has gone way down.
| suraci wrote:
| 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
| tiahura wrote:
| Back then, the counter-culture hadn't completely hollowed
| out the nation's soul.
| ttul wrote:
| Someone seems to have crept your profile, @suraci, and
| it's not looking good: https://limewire.com/d/77690b9f-1e
| c3-4e43-a485-76c82bc67ddd#...
| suraci wrote:
| 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
| 3ahsGG17 wrote:
| PDF exploit? Do not click! Creepy indeed, these new
| McCarthyite tactics.
| dismalaf wrote:
| War to the west in the current year means airstrikes and
| drones.
| hommelix wrote:
| 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.
| WinstonSmith84 wrote:
| 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.
| linotype wrote:
| 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.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| What type of help are you expecting?
| linotype wrote:
| I don't know, just seems sad that allies are so
| fairweather.
| pixelpoet wrote:
| 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...
| linotype wrote:
| Believe me, most Americans think of Europeans as allies.
| Sabinus wrote:
| Those 'most' Americans fail to vote in sufficient
| numbers.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| 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.
| Sabinus wrote:
| 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.
| LunaSea wrote:
| Europe did help in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria and now
| that Europe needs the US's help, silence.
| moltopoco wrote:
| 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.
| energy123 wrote:
| 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.
| dismalaf wrote:
| 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)...
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| 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.
| bitsage wrote:
| The US is pivoting from Europe to the Pacific precisely to
| better protect the likes of Taiwan. The Trump admin is filled
| with China hawks. Taiwan doesn't have trillions of dollars
| and hundreds of millions of people to fund its own defense,
| Europe does.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| I would not assume that TSMC leadership is 100% aligned with
| the national interests of Taiwan as a country.
| echelon wrote:
| 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.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Why couldn't that massive blockade just go around Taiwan is
| well?
| braincat31415 wrote:
| 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.
| corimaith wrote:
| 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.
| braincat31415 wrote:
| 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.
| senordevnyc wrote:
| 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.
| braincat31415 wrote:
| 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.
| senordevnyc wrote:
| 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.
| aurareturn wrote:
| You wrote this: That's not really how war
| works.
|
| 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?
| braincat31415 wrote:
| 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.
| aurareturn wrote:
| Some people here thinks the US is fighting Vietnam or
| Afghanistan where the US can hit them but they can't hit
| back.
| senordevnyc wrote:
| I served in the navy, actually, which I was proud to do.
| senordevnyc wrote:
| It's revealing that you can't differentiate between
| hitting military assets actively engaged in a conflict,
| and hitting civilian population centers on the other side
| of the world.
| bee_rider wrote:
| 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.
| senordevnyc wrote:
| War isn't a boolean.
| janalsncm wrote:
| 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.
| creer wrote:
| 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.
| usrusr wrote:
| "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.
| niceice wrote:
| Another question is whether it is defendable at this point.
| It's not clear that China doesn't have military superiority
| over that area.
| elteto wrote:
| 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.
| aurareturn wrote:
| 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.
| xlinux wrote:
| Exactly. Its the only card Taiwan holds once its gone America
| will never care about them
| halJordan wrote:
| These comments just ignore history. Tsmc wasn't even founded
| until 1987, let alone dominant. US commitments are from WW2.
| 1over137 wrote:
| 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.
| aurareturn wrote:
| 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.
| forgotoldacc wrote:
| 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."
| croes wrote:
| I think Trump already showed that history is not a reason
| for him
| ksec wrote:
| 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.
| emtel wrote:
| OTOH, If they have production outside of Taiwan, then they can
| more credibly threaten to destroy the Taiwanese fabs if China
| invades.
| croes wrote:
| But with an US fab that's a threat mainly to China, without
| it's global.
| creer wrote:
| One new fab - even if full size - cannot take on anywhere
| near world needs - even ex-China. So different threat, but
| yes.
| eagleislandsong wrote:
| > 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.
| nfw2 wrote:
| 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.
| aurareturn wrote:
| They already lost access.
| eagleislandsong wrote:
| 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.
| aurareturn wrote:
| 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.
| nfw2 wrote:
| 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.
| eagleislandsong wrote:
| > 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?
| nfw2 wrote:
| 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.
| aurareturn wrote:
| They are having trouble. They also can't send their
| designs to TSMC to fab on their 5, 3, and 2nm nodes.
| laluser wrote:
| 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.
| wordofx wrote:
| 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.
| eagleislandsong wrote:
| 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.)
| wordofx wrote:
| 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.
| eagleislandsong wrote:
| 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.
| wordofx wrote:
| I 100% agree.
| desumeku wrote:
| 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.
| manbart wrote:
| 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.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| 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?
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| 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".
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| I don't know what you mean. The PRC already has open access
| to the Pacific and trade routes to Japan and Korea.
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| 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.
| vondur wrote:
| A big difference with Taiwan vs Ukraine is that the US lets
| Taiwan purchase much more top of the line equipment.
| eagleislandsong wrote:
| 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.
| nickpsecurity wrote:
| "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.
| SecretDreams wrote:
| 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?
| eagleislandsong wrote:
| > 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.
| LunaSea wrote:
| Maybe Taiwan should consider chips to be a strategic
| advantage and refuse to sell them to the US for a while.
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| The horse already said that he will not defend Taiwan.
| lttlrck wrote:
| Doubtful that would ever happen. And all sides know it.
| dluan wrote:
| 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.
| fastball wrote:
| 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.
| voidfunc wrote:
| 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?
| mint2 wrote:
| 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.
| voidfunc wrote:
| 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.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| How's that huge Foxconn investment in Wisconsin going? I can't
| believe people are falling for the exact same scam again.
| jasonlotito wrote:
| 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.
| puppymaster wrote:
| Having been in Taiwan for 10 years, comments like these totally
| ignore the differences in personal traits and Cheng Xin
| 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?
| mbStavola wrote:
| What are the chances that this ends up like the Wisconsin Foxconn
| deal? Is there anything actually driving a follow through on
| investment?
| sct202 wrote:
| 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.
| aurareturn wrote:
| Less likely but could.
|
| Chip fab is much more valuable than putting iPhones together.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| 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.
| aurareturn wrote:
| What did they think a Foxconn factory is for? High tech
| what?
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Most people have no idea what a Foxconn is other than the
| 2 minute mention on local news.
| runako wrote:
| 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?
| 827a wrote:
| 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.
| jgab wrote:
| The equipment in chip fabs is highly sensitive to weather
| and natural disasters. So sites like Arizona, Austin,
| Oregon are chosen due to low prevalence of earthquakes no
| hurricanes etc.
|
| The fabs anyways don't ship chips to the devices they go
| into, they do to a separate site where they get tested,
| packaged and then are sent off.
|
| The reason to onshore this is not about scale but process
| capability and adding security to supply chain in case
| Taiwan gets in a conflict. It's not about scale but ability
| to produce high yielding chips at shrinking technology
| size, is vastly becoming a physics problem at smaller
| nodes.
|
| Reality is that Samsung and Intel could run a similar fab
| but their yields, efficiency and process development is
| lagging behind TSMC. So easier to onshore TSMC process here
| that help Intel learn how to speedrun transition to foundry
| model (producing others chip designs)
| runako wrote:
| > The fabs anyways don't ship chips to the devices they
| go into, they do to a separate site where they get
| tested, packaged and then are sent off.
|
| I see, but I think you are still skipping the major point
| that the chips need to be installed in a device to be
| useful. That device assembly is largely in Asia, and the
| US does not have the ready capacity to suddenly start
| assembling devices.
|
| > not about scale but process capability and adding
| security to supply chain in case Taiwan gets in a
| conflict
|
| > Samsung and Intel could run a similar fab but their
| yields, efficiency and process development
|
| If we don't need scale, then why couldn't Intel just
| produce the chips inefficiently in case of conflict? Or
| if this is about protecting the supply chain for consumer
| goods as well, then I am back to my initial question
| about siting chip production far from the places the
| chips are installed into devices.
| golergka wrote:
| > chip fab in Arizona, thousands of miles from the assembly
| lines where the chips will be used
|
| 1. Chips have a very high $/kg density, so logistics isn't
| go to change unit economics a lot. 2. These assembly lines
| are much easier to construct than chip fabs, so if there is
| any reason to keep the two close, it's not going to be a
| problem anyway.
| runako wrote:
| > logistics isn't go to change unit economics a lot
|
| Doesn't the shipping time matter, though? And haven't we
| recently seen that long supply lines are brittle?
|
| > These assembly lines are much easier to construct than
| chip fabs, so if there is any reason to keep the two
| close
|
| I was thinking also in terms of the scale of people
| required to operate them, plus the transport etc.
| infrastructure to keep them running. All that, and a
| hypothetical US factory would have labor costs 5x or
| higher. That would seem to make it an emergency-only
| scenario?
|
| I just don't see the scenario where such a fab would make
| economic sense.
| dom96 wrote:
| Why the US? Why not Europe? Ireland or UK?
| tensor wrote:
| 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!
| braincat31415 wrote:
| I doulbt anyone will build a factory in Europe. It won't be
| competitive because of the energy prices on the continent.
| tensor wrote:
| 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.
| braincat31415 wrote:
| 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.
| tensor wrote:
| 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.
| braincat31415 wrote:
| 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.
| tensor wrote:
| 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.
| braincat31415 wrote:
| 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.
| weberer wrote:
| Here's the real time state of Finland's power grid. Zoom
| out to the month view. Solar is pitiful this time of the
| year, and wind is horribly inconsistent. Some days the
| wind doesn't blow at all and the fossil fuel "co-
| generation" plants need to be spun up. You can't just
| ignore the demand for reliable, base load power.
|
| https://www.fingrid.fi/en/electricity-market/power-
| system/
| mardifoufs wrote:
| 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.
| tensor wrote:
| 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.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| I'm sorry but that's such an odd statement. One of the
| reasons people are saying that the US is currently
| falling or something is because they aren't as keen on
| defending Europe as they once were. The point is that
| Europe cannot even realistically defend itself.
|
| Euro nationalism is so weird to me. I can't think of any
| metric where the US is doing worst (a part from
| healthcare and other social issues but those have always
| been worse in the US). Like in what way do you think that
| Europe is somehow stronger than the US? By the way this
| is coming from someone who isn't american, it's just
| weird that you actually think that Europe's trajectory is
| somehow towards a thriving future but the US is on its
| way to fail.
|
| I remember the same doom and gloom and boasting from
| Europeans back in 2016, but it turns out that even with
| Trump Europe still didn't manage to outpace economically
| the US by 2020, or 2024. In fact the gap has widened.
| spicybbq wrote:
| Is chip manufacturing particularly energy intensive? I
| would expect that chip plants are not that price sensitive
| about electricity, within reason.
| braincat31415 wrote:
| It is.
| on_the_train wrote:
| The light source uses a lot of power to produce those few
| hundreds of watts of radiation
| magicalhippo wrote:
| 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/cli
| ent_serv...
|
| [2]:
| https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/6/24091367/semiconductor-
| man...
|
| [3]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pi
| i/S02786...
|
| [4]: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/202
| 0/c&e/pd...
| TFYS wrote:
| Prices in the nordics aren't that bad.
| braincat31415 wrote:
| 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.
| standardUser wrote:
| For any energy intensive industry there is always the
| option to build new wind and solar for relatively cheap.
| But labor is cheaper and less regulated in the US and we
| make it easy to hire skilled immigrants. Having a pro-coal
| president probably doesn't hurt (but having an anti-wind
| president might).
|
| I think the bigger reasons are the security and trade
| issues. The US has embraced protectionism and is
| withdrawing from security obligations, yet Taiwan requires
| both US trade and US security guarantees to survive. Unlike
| with Ukraine, no other powers look capable of filling those
| roles if Trump keeps pursuing his America First agenda.
| kgwxd wrote:
| Because the US will soon have the cheap labor needed to produce
| them.
| WinstonSmith84 wrote:
| 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.
| libertine wrote:
| 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.
| world2vec wrote:
| 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
| wdb wrote:
| 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.
| SecretDreams wrote:
| 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.
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| 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.
| namaria wrote:
| 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.
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| 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.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| Dude if Europe is stopping ASML from selling to the US Europe
| isn't going to be enforcing patent laws for the US.
| jryle70 wrote:
| 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
| perihelions wrote:
| Was it one of these?
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?query=asml%20llnl&type=comment
| Detrytus wrote:
| US has many military bases across EU, after such hostile act
| they might as well take control over the Netherlands
| alienthrowaway wrote:
| How big do you think those bases are, exactly? They are
| reliant in the host country.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| 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?
| qalmakka wrote:
| 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)
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Sure, but they'd turn the world against them. Or at least all
| of Europe. It'd be trivial to disable ASML's production
| process, too - as others have commented, they rely on tons of
| suppliers as well as a lot of local employees and knowledge.
|
| I do love armchair hypotheticals like that, but a few seconds
| of thinking will show that a hostile takeover of the country
| will not mean the US retains access to ASML's machines.
| jopsen wrote:
| 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.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Sure, but the US wants to put a minimum 25% tax on imports
| from Europe, that'll affect these machines as well.
| jopsen wrote:
| Doubly so if parts imported from the US are also subject to
| EU tariffs.
|
| But I'm not sure how much this will affect the costs of
| fabs?
| DeathArrow wrote:
| >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.
| procgen wrote:
| Then ASML gets Nord Stream'd.
| anon291 wrote:
| If that realistically happened, America would likely seize ASML
| assets in the United States and continue manufacture.
|
| I'm not entirely sure of the supply chain, but I'm fairly
| certain that ASML has significant operations and manufacturing
| in the United States. I'm in Portland and ASML has a large
| office here for obvious reasons.
| belter wrote:
| 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...
| Hajsgj wrote:
| 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.
| belter wrote:
| From the article: "TSMC plans to invest $65 billion to build
| three semiconductor fabs in north Phoenix, the largest
| investment in Arizona history."
| 3zqzet wrote:
| 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. "
| lesuorac wrote:
| 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.
| dustbunny wrote:
| How will this affect Intel?
| nblgbg wrote:
| I am a bit skeptical about all the announcements. Are companies
| really investing, or just making announcements? I wish it were
| the latter!
| forks wrote:
| I think (hope) you mean the former :-)
| smotched wrote:
| they are already under way. So you don't want investments into
| the US?
| yo_yo_yo-yo wrote:
| 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
| tyre wrote:
| "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.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| 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.
| yo_yo_yo-yo wrote:
| 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.
| re-thc wrote:
| > 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
| roenxi wrote:
| 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.
| justahuman74 wrote:
| 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
| throwaway290 wrote:
| > replaces Hong Kong as the gray area to do business
|
| explain?
| re-thc wrote:
| > 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.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| > 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
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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.
| re-thc wrote:
| > 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.
| luthus001 wrote:
| That's too simplistic. Even a dictator has to balance
| many things - the loyalty and competency of his generals,
| prevailing sentiments of his troops and of society in
| general, and much more. Large scale dissent is
| problematic even to authoritarians. An extended strike by
| key workers, like truck drivers, could cause outright
| collapse and regime change, so can a military coup by
| disgruntled troops.
|
| What Xi has said so far may have been misrepresented by
| the media, and exaggerated to rally public support for
| the new Cold War and for more military spending. What Xi
| actually said is he would not allow formal independence
| of Taiwan, and that he prefers closer
| relations/integration with Taiwan for an eventual
| "reunited" outcome, saying nothing of the status quo or
| that he would change it by force. For as long as the
| economic deterrence exists, I highly doubt that a war
| would happen over Taiwan barring one of 2 scenarios:
| 1)Taiwan declears formal independence by amending its
| Constitution, or 2) western troops, bases, or "security
| guarantees" are established over Taiwan
| dev1ycan wrote:
| 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
| abrookewood wrote:
| A Hong-Kong style government doesn't mean as much as it
| used to.
| justahuman74 wrote:
| TSMC is 100% ruined if they join China, it is the end of
| it process competitiveness.
| adastra22 wrote:
| > If I were China, I would give them relative economic
| independence if they...
|
| What authority do you think China has over Taiwan?
| tehjoker wrote:
| Both countries claim to be one China lol
| adastra22 wrote:
| This take is ignorant of the last 20 years of Taiwanese
| politics.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _what authority do you think China has over Taiwan?_
|
| Authority, none. Power, plenty.
| adastra22 wrote:
| They can try and find out.
| redmajor12 wrote:
| 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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...
| samlinnfer wrote:
| And do the winners of the Opium Wars have a verifiable
| historical claim to the land for thousands of years?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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.
| samlinnfer wrote:
| Oh I'm sorry, did you forget that it wasn't Han Chinese
| that laid claim to Tibet during the Qing dynasty, whose
| emperors were Manchus (even though Han was and still is
| the main ethnic group)?. But snark aside, your argument
| doesn't address my central point.
| gman83 wrote:
| 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.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| I old enough remember morons celebrating Taiwan's
| "independence" from England. Yea... about that though.
| Thing everyone logical knew would happen, happened.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Bingo, see Foxconn in Wisconsin.
| Sabinus wrote:
| 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.
| bruce511 wrote:
| For Foxconn see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconn_V
| alley_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.
| lurk2 wrote:
| Why would subsequent presidents allow Taiwan to maintain
| leverage over supply chains crucial to American national
| security?
| jopsen wrote:
| 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.
| cheema33 wrote:
| > 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.
| 0xDEAFBEAD wrote:
| >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%20300
| 7/P...
| eagleislandsong wrote:
| > We only promised to seek UN Security Council action
|
| And ended up voting _with_ Russia anyway.
| 0xDEAFBEAD wrote:
| Not back in 2022:
| https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/02/1112802
| areyousure wrote:
| 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.
| 0xDEAFBEAD wrote:
| That's not how I interpreted it: "...if Ukraine should
| become victim of an act of aggression or an object of a
| threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used."
| I interpreted that as either conventional aggression, or
| threat of nuclear aggression.
|
| The language does seem really ambiguous though. I'm
| surprised it wasn't written more clearly.
| jgilias wrote:
| Guess what.
|
| It's also a common misconception that NATO article 5th
| means immediate military action by rest of the alliance.
| It actually says that an armed attack against one shall
| be considered an attack against all, but crucially, the
| assistance provided is "what each of them deems
| necessary"
|
| With the current administration I'm not convinced the US
| assistance that it'd "deem necessary" would amount to
| anything more than a call to Vladimir Putin to see how
| best to help him.
| pyrale wrote:
| Whether or not it's a misconception, and whether or not
| the US are faithful to the treaty while weaseling out of
| helping Ukraine, is irrelevant.
|
| A treaty where the guarantor is known to give sketchy
| legal interpretations about why them backstabing you is
| actually faithful to the treaty they signed is barely
| more useful than a treaty where the guarantor won't honor
| their word.
|
| The ripple effect is already there: many NATO country are
| now wondering whether the alliance is worth the paper
| it's written on.
| lurk2 wrote:
| > Subsequent president might realize that America might
| want allies
|
| And to gain those allies they will give them control over
| these key supply lines so that said allies can dictate
| America's foreign policy?
| agumonkey wrote:
| 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.
| eagleislandsong wrote:
| > 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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.
| rjzzleep wrote:
| Guess which country shut down Taiwans nuclear program.
| eagleislandsong wrote:
| > 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...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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
| tokioyoyo wrote:
| 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _not like all Taiwanese hate all mainlanders_
|
| Good neighbours, strong fences. You don't need to hate
| your neighbour to appreciate sovereignty. If anything,
| returning to mutual respect between Taipei and Beijing, a
| stance which was being moved towards until Xi, should
| further cross-strait ties.
| nemo44x wrote:
| They probably already have them. There's no advantage to
| announcing that. Similar to Israel.
|
| Regardless there's very probably multiple USA nuclear
| subs surrounding the place.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| > _There's no advantage to announcing that_
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cmCKJi3CKGE&t=226s
|
| There's a huge reason for Taiwan to announce that: their
| primary opponent already has nuclear weapons!
|
| The reason Israel is heavily encouraged to maintain
| nuclear strategic ambiguity is an attempt to dissuade the
| entire Middle East from developing nuclear weapons in
| response.
| jgilias wrote:
| 1,5 months feels like 2 years these days.
|
| Besides, that rests on the assumption that the US is going
| to have a "free and fair" election in 2 and 4 years. Trump
| said loud and clear on the campaign trail that you need to
| come out and vote for him just this one last time. Won't
| need to vote afterwards at all, they'll fix it.
|
| This seems like one of the promises he'd be really inclined
| to hold, if he can.
| pj_mukh wrote:
| 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.
| ein0p wrote:
| 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.
| pj_mukh wrote:
| "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.
| ein0p wrote:
| 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?
| pj_mukh wrote:
| 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_i
| nvasion...
|
| 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.
| shigawire wrote:
| >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.
| emptysongglass wrote:
| You don't do anything for your argument by insulting
| people's intellect who don't share your opinion. Cut it
| out.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| >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.
| appointment wrote:
| The idea that Brazil, South Africa and fucking India
| would support the PRC against the USA is absurd.
| ein0p wrote:
| 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.
| fatbird wrote:
| _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.
| ein0p wrote:
| 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.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| 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.
| sjsdaiuasgdia wrote:
| 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.
| kelipso wrote:
| 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.
| sjsdaiuasgdia wrote:
| Irritating bullies is not a bad thing.
| kelipso wrote:
| Well, the US stopped Ukraine funding because of it, so
| seems it was a bad thing for them.
| sjsdaiuasgdia wrote:
| Yes, because the bullies (Trump, Musk) have allied with
| the bully (Putin).
|
| Zelensky correctly recognizes that appeasing bullies does
| not make the bullying stop. At best, it slightly delays
| the bullying.
|
| Much of the US population desperately needs to reach the
| same recognition.
| kelipso wrote:
| We collectively need to stop framing geopolitics in high
| school terms. It's embarrassing.
| ein0p wrote:
| He is not in a position to negotiate any "security
| agreement". The United States is unable to provide any
| real security agreement to a government that is quite
| obviously not interested in any real, lasting peace, one
| that sought repeatedly to drag us and Europe into WW3.
| Doing so is an open invitation to try and re-litigate the
| conflict (which the US/Nuland/USAID _created_ in 2013) a
| few years from now, this time with you and I in the
| trenches. "Soft" security guarantees, by establishing
| significant US interest in Ukraine's "minerals"
| (ephemeral though they may be), and therefore presence on
| the ground, was on the table, but Zelensky misread that
| as a robbery.
|
| Emotional thinking and platitudes about "bullies" are not
| really applicable here. You have to think about the
| eventualities that we could be affected by if things go
| sideways, and with the current set of characters in
| Ukraine, they most definitely will, and soon.
| sjsdaiuasgdia wrote:
| Putin started this war and he can end it whenever he
| wants to. Appeasing bullies does not encourage them to
| stop bullying.
| ein0p wrote:
| There's that emotional thinking again. _We_ started that
| war when we funded a coup there in 2013 and hand-
| picked[1] their rabidly anti-Russian government. We also
| funded and condoned their neo-Nazis, without whom none of
| this would work [2]. Mostly Russian-speaking Eastern
| Ukraine disagreed with that kind of thing. After all, it
| was mostly them who elected the president that we
| overthrew. West Ukraine started shelling east trying to
| subdue them, calling it an "anti-terror operation".
| Russia provided "lethal aid". Things escalated. The
| conflict did not start in 2022. Suggesting that we can
| just go ahead and build tactical nuke bases right next to
| where ~70% of Russia's population lives, and Russia
| should just roll over and let it happen, is idiotic and
| reckless.
|
| Here's John Mearsheimer telling you _exactly_ what was
| going to happen, in 2015:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUCCR4jAS3Y
|
| [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6bKivSjoAg
| fatbird wrote:
| As if Trump and Vance's demand that Zelensky abase
| himself in front of them isn't "emotional thinking"; as
| if cutting off military aid because Zelensky didn't bow
| and scrape isn't "emotional thinking".
|
| As if taking the hundreds of nuclear red lines Putin has
| laid down and allowed to be crossed without a nuclear
| response, isn't "emotional thinking".
| fatbird wrote:
| "Reading the room" meant "prostrating himself and kissing
| the ring", which might have been worth it if it meant
| actual guarantees, but it didn't. You said you don't
| believe there are huge deposits to be exploited, so what
| then is the value of a US "soft" interest in Ukraine's
| security? Especially when Trump could make the same deal
| with Putin so that he wins either way.
|
| No one in that room recognized more than Zelensky that
| worthlessness of American promises of security. What
| value then to humiliate oneself? Ukraine gave up its
| nuclear arsenal on American promises of security, and
| look where that got them.
|
| On the contrary, the display in the press conference
| _did_ do some good for Ukraine. There was an emergency
| summit in London that weekend where the heads of Europe
| agreed to step up their support for Ukraine, increase
| defence spending, and to work towards total independence
| from the US in 10 years. NATO is now a vestigial treaty
| that 's a foreign policy option rather than a commitment.
| Who's responsible now for pushing us closer to WW3?
| jgilias wrote:
| Bless you.
|
| Living 200km from the Russian border, I worry that 10
| years is far too long. If Putin "reads the room", he
| knows his best bet is to push things forward before the
| midterms. In case Tramp doesn't manage to rig the
| elections.
|
| So militarily, we might have less than 2 years.
|
| I really, really, really hope I'm wrong.
| fatbird wrote:
| 10 years is total independence. There's a lot of
| independence to be seized in the coming year (starting
| with not waiting for US decisions) and EU leaders seem to
| be quite enthusiastic about it.
|
| From analysts I follow, the feeling is that EU support
| will sustain Ukraine at least through 2025, with the
| greatest weakness being ammunition for Patriot and GLMRS
| systems (though thankfully those have decreased in
| importance as drones take over). And 2026 is when the
| cumulative damage to Russia's economy really snowballs.
| If Ukraine makes it through 2025, I'm relatively
| optimistic.
|
| My great fear in 2024 was the flagging support for
| Ukraine due to war-weariness and lack of a resolution,
| would push some parties towards a more passive,
| accommodationist outcome. We can thank Trump for this:
| the fire to see Ukraine win has been lit again.
|
| Slava Ukraini, my friend. Stay safe.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| >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.
| nomilk wrote:
| 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.
| _heimdall wrote:
| 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.
| jopsen wrote:
| > 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.
| nomilk wrote:
| 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.
| jopsen wrote:
| Maybe, it's also a good deterrent.
|
| And without it, Taiwan would probably press harder for
| nukes.
| underdown wrote:
| Putin already took the land, it's not an issue of handing
| over anything.
| dataflow wrote:
| > 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.
| Shank wrote:
| > 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.
| shipp02 wrote:
| 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.
| re-thc wrote:
| > 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).
| agumonkey wrote:
| 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
| ?
| roenxi wrote:
| 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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_.
| willvarfar wrote:
| The US cannot realistically technically stop missiles
| raining down on the fabs on Taiwan should China decide to
| do that.
| petesergeant wrote:
| > 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
| materiel 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.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| >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.
| petesergeant wrote:
| > How will they project power
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/16h4gw8/us_mili
| tar...
| jopsen wrote:
| > 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.
| chii wrote:
| > 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.
| jurip wrote:
| > 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.
| somenameforme wrote:
| 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_den
| sity_of_T...
|
| [2] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1412425/gdp-
| ppp-share-wo...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| >As is China in respect of energy.
|
| Aren't they buying cheap oil and natural gas from Russia?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| >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.
| jopsen wrote:
| Probably, maybe, who knows.
|
| If a collective west made transitive trade embargoes,
| anything could happen.
|
| But yes, the world is growing, and the west is a smaller
| piece of the pie than we used to be.
| PeterStuer wrote:
| 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.
| jayd16 wrote:
| > The US has a protectionist president
|
| We do?
| defrost wrote:
| You do, assuming you're a US citizen.
|
| See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_Uni
| ted_St...
|
| or: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/programs/grow
| thpol...
|
| etc.
| bamboozled wrote:
| _Protectionist: an advocate of the policy of shielding a
| country 's domestic industries from foreign competition by
| taxing imports._
|
| The T word...
| justahuman74 wrote:
| A vast nuclear weapons program is cheaper than $100b
| deagle50 wrote:
| It would not go unnoticed and would pretty much guarantee
| invasion.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Sweden built a bomb in secret. Invasion planning would
| not go unnoticed either.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| I think US can try to covertly move some hundreds of
| nuclear missiles in Taiwan and succeed until China
| notices.
| luthus001 wrote:
| Yes in theory and that's Taiwan's best bet. But the US
| would never go along with that because guarding Taiwan's
| democracy is not the main objective even as it is the
| main talking point. The main objective is US interests,
| which are not served by nuclear proliferation or by
| losing Taiwan as either a bargaining chip to extract
| concessions, or a chess piece in a proxy war to weaken
| China, the main rival to US global dominance. Taiwan's
| value as a bargaining chip or as an acceptable
| battleground to both sides for a controlled conflict, is
| unfortunately greater than it's value as a democracy
| KoftaBob wrote:
| They can ask for Israel's assistance, they managed to
| (relatively) covertly develop nuclear weapons without a
| major power getting in their way.
|
| Granted, the US president who was pushing the most for
| inspections of Israel's Dimona nuclear facility was JFK,
| who ended up no longer being a problem for them (how very
| convenient).
| araes wrote:
| Upvote on this just cause $100,000,000,000 is a ridiculous
| amount of money. The most advanced lithography machines
| that have even been advertised cost $380,000,000. Huge
| number of lithography machines for $100B. [1] And if you're
| not going for the completely most leading edge lithography,
| then the price drops incredibly rapidly. $150,000,000 or
| close rolloff.
|
| Really, personal opinion, yet America and most countries on
| Earth, should probably be able to get lithography machines
| cheaper than $380,000,000. However, that's an argument for
| the lithography industry. At an average Taiwanese salary of
| $18,000 / yr (NT$50,000 / mnth) that's 21,000 labor years /
| machine. Even with amortized development that seems like a
| lot.
|
| [1] https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-
| industry/manufacturing/asm...
| bamboozled wrote:
| extortion
| cheema33 wrote:
| > 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.
| nthingtohide wrote:
| > "Our continued protection of you is contingent on your
| investment in us".
|
| In 1971, Treasury Secretary John Connally famously remarked
| how the US dollar was "our currency, but your problem,"
| referring to how the US dollar was managed primarily for the
| US' interests despite it being the currency primarily used in
| global trade and global finance.
| tootie wrote:
| They may also calculate that a big announcement is all he
| wants and follow through is optional.
| raincole wrote:
| 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.
| swagasaurus-rex wrote:
| Taiwan is only reliant on the U.S. because their neighbor
| threatens them with invasion frequently
| jopsen wrote:
| > 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.
| raincole wrote:
| > 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...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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.
| jopsen wrote:
| > For the first time in modern history, we may see a
| system of alliances emerge that credibly counter American
| economic and military might.
|
| During the cold war, there were certainly planners in the
| west that thought the west would loose a conflict.
|
| So maybe not the first time.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Sorry, I should have said post-Cold War. The USSR
| obviously credibly countered the U.S.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| >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.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| >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.
| natch wrote:
| Kind of a random fact but speaking of "owned by the US"
| many of the leaders and ruling class hold US citizenship
| too.
| jopsen wrote:
| The west isn't full of US puppet governments. That's just
| propaganda.
|
| Most of us like the US. And we knowingly elect
| politicians who will promote a good relationship with the
| US.
| luthus001 wrote:
| A democracy yes but what percentage of Taiwanese media are
| in the pockets of NED and USAID? That, and the fact "feel
| good" narratives of idealism sell better than the cold hard
| reality of power struggles, dominance, control, and
| backroom dealings. Taiwanese polities suffer from some of
| the same issues US voters are familiar with - a choice of
| lesser evil from bad candidates, unaccountability of
| politicians once elected, polarized media and electorate,
| etc etc. All great features not bugs from the standpoint of
| someone (a lot of someones, both Chinese and US interests)
| seeking to divide and conquer from the outside
| safety1st wrote:
| 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
| MattGaiser wrote:
| > 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.
| SecretDreams wrote:
| This is an interesting, if not unhinged, take. But at least
| it's written well.
| hiddencost wrote:
| Buddy. They gutted the NIH&NSF and delayed the flu vaccine
| decision. This is not going to work out for you.
| yo_yo_yo-yo wrote:
| 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.
| foogazi wrote:
| > I can see elections results being regularly considered
| illegitimate.
|
| You think we'll still have elections?
| yo_yo_yo-yo wrote:
| > 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.
| appointment wrote:
| "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.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| 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.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > 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.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| 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).
| shigawire wrote:
| >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.
| baby_souffle wrote:
| The people who have the most to lose from addressing
| inequality are the people hoping to buy time blaming
| migrants.
| alienthrowaway wrote:
| > ...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.
| safety1st wrote:
| 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.
| ants_everywhere wrote:
| 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.
| riehwvfbk wrote:
| 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.
| LPisGood wrote:
| > 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.
| arandomusername wrote:
| > 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
|
| Plenty of time for Ukraine to re-arm as well. Ukraine is
| the one kidnapping men on the streets to send to the
| front line.
|
| > ROI of sending Ukraine our old equipment
|
| But that's not the only thing getting sent.
|
| > we would be abandoning an ally
|
| What alliance did US and Ukraine have? They were friendly
| but there wasn't any sort of alliance. No defense pact.
| LPisGood wrote:
| > Ukraine is the one kidnapping men on the streets to
| send to the front line
|
| Conscription as an enemy army marches through your
| borders is neither uncommon nor concerning.
|
| > But that's not the only thing getting sent.
|
| This line is essentially devoid of meaning without naming
| anything specific. The point is that what USA is sending
| is tremendous ROI in terms of damage to its enemies.
|
| Are you familiar with Budapest Memorandum? Even if not
| official allies with a mutual defense pact, United States
| had commitments and more importantly the following dual
| interests that support aiding Ukraine:
|
| 1.) Weakening Russia 2.) Global stabilization /
| aggression deterrence
| arandomusername wrote:
| > Conscription as an enemy army marches through your
| borders is neither uncommon nor concerning.
|
| Having to rely on forcing men to the frontline is a clear
| indicator that the war is not going in your favour and
| you may need time to rebuild. It's also questionably
| immoral - forcing someone to fight.
|
| > This line is essentially devoid of meaning without
| naming anything specific. The point is that what USA is
| sending is tremendous ROI in terms of damage to its
| enemies.
|
| US has spent over $100B, in return for what? How has the
| average American benefited?
|
| Are you okay with sacrificing hundred of thousands of
| Ukrainian lives to damage your enemies? Is that
| acceptable?
|
| > Are you familiar with Budapest Memorandum
|
| Yes. And it's not a defense pact. US followed through on
| all commitments it made.
| dralley wrote:
| >Are you okay with sacrificing hundred of thousands of
| Ukrainian lives to damage your enemies? Is that
| acceptable?
|
| The US is not "sacrificing Ukrainian lives". Russia will
| keep the war going with or without us. American support
| saves Ukrainian lives and makes better outcomes possible.
|
| Without American support, Russia doesn't stop, they grind
| faster and demand more consessions.
| arandomusername wrote:
| So do you support Trump's demand for ceasefire?
|
| > Russia will keep the war going with or without us
|
| Actually, Ukraine and Russia were close to signing a deal
| in Istanbul, but were pushed not to by US/UK - allegedly.
| but logically, without US(and EU) support, Ukraine would
| have been more inclined to sign the deal which would have
| avoided hundred of thousands of lost lives.
| dralley wrote:
| That is total horseshit. That "deal" which was never
| close to being signed would have both required Ukraine to
| almost entirely disarm and also allow Russia to veto any
| future military partnerships Ukraine might have including
| non-NATO ones.
|
| It was a surrender on a timer doomed to fail just like
| Munich 1938 did.
|
| It would inevitably have been violated just like the two
| Minsk agreements were, just like the Black Sea grain
| initiative was, just like the humanitarian ceasefires in
| Mariupol and Debaltseve were, just like Prigozhin's deal
| was - and a dozen others.
|
| Ukrainian politicians have called the "UK pressure"
| narrative nonsense. Negotiations were called off because
| of what happened in Bucha + promises of arms supplies.
|
| Your narrative is propaganda. Ukraine didn't want to sign
| that deal because it was a total shit deal made by
| someone who broke all their previous deals, and the West
| was giving them an opportunity for a better one.
| ants_everywhere wrote:
| > Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3
| years doesn't mean sympathy or treason.
|
| This is what I call the "just let Hitler have Poland"
| theory.
|
| Is it a good idea? You can't evaluate that without having
| an understanding of why an independent Ukraine is
| considered important internationally, what the function
| and reason of NATO is, what a third world war would
| realistically look like, what Europe and Asia would look
| like with an expanded totalitarian Russian empire, what
| AI-driven done warfare will look like, what the actual
| (vs merely rhetorical) threat of nuclear arms use is,
| what will happen with global climate goals if Russia is
| unopposed (considering Russia considers itself a
| potential "winner" if climate change intensifies), and
| what the famine/disease/refugee situation looks like if
| climate change does intensify.
|
| There are simply too many variables for random internet
| commenters to have an informed opinion on most of these
| things. And I would guess that even world leaders with
| full access to all the classified information can't be
| certain about most of these questions.
|
| But it does seem to me that an independent Ukraine (with
| its natural resources intact) is the ultimate
| Chesterton's Fence right now.
| csomar wrote:
| 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.
| zmgsabst wrote:
| 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!
| safety1st wrote:
| 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
| nthingtohide wrote:
| 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.
| tokioyoyo wrote:
| US only has 350M population.
| foogazi wrote:
| Plenty of room to grow
| tokioyoyo wrote:
| Through immigration, which almost every developed country
| is trying as well?
| foogazi wrote:
| Yes!
|
| But who is better at it than the USA ?
| branko_d wrote:
| 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.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| 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.
| branko_d wrote:
| > 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...
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| 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.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > 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.
| LPisGood wrote:
| 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.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| 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.
| LPisGood wrote:
| Globalization created the problem that manufacturing jobs
| were lost, but the overall wealth of the population still
| went up.
|
| That means the problem is where the money is.
| mindslight wrote:
| 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.
| luthus001 wrote:
| The global reserve currency does that to you. With
| countries around the world demanding and hoarding dollars
| for their own trading needs, what domestic industries can
| compete with the lucrative business of printing pieces of
| paper in exchange for real, imported goods? That the
| ultrarich monopolized the spoils of this business, does
| not make it bad business
| no_wizard wrote:
| 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
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > 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.
| safety1st wrote:
| Might have been worth reading if you hadn't kicked it off
| with an ad hominem. Bye!
| LPisGood wrote:
| It's still worth reading if you can look past it. The
| comment refutes your comment totally and in good detail.
| 827a wrote:
| 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".
| safety1st wrote:
| 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).
| foogazi wrote:
| 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 ?
| 827a wrote:
| 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.
| protocolture wrote:
| 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.
| 827a wrote:
| 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.
| diamondfist25 wrote:
| Ur delusional to think dems are taking anything
| 827a wrote:
| All the data available supports the conclusion that the
| majority of Americans prefer progressive policies. The
| problem for Democrats in 2024 was the candidate, and
| thus, turnout.
|
| - Biden won more popular votes in 2020 than any candidate
| ever (81.2M, versus Trump's 62.9M in 2016 and 77.3M in
| 2024).
|
| - Trump's second term was the first Republican
| presidential candidate since Bush's second term, 20 years
| prior, to win the popular vote; and Bush had 9/11 to
| campaign on.
|
| - If you discount that you have to go back to his father
| in 1988 to find a Republican Presidential candidate that
| won the popular vote. Seriously, again, I cannot stress
| this enough: Americans prefer progressive policies. We
| just tend to prefer cults of personality more.
|
| - Many congressional districts swung Republican in 2024
| by only four or five figures of votes, and Republicans
| only gained Congressional majority by a couple seats.
|
| - Its very likely the United States is currently
| experiencing or will soon experience a recession. Its
| likely this would have happened with or without Trump,
| but the person in charge gets the blame, and it'll be
| very difficult to fight that claim when tariffs have been
| such a hot topic.
|
| - Its also the case that DOGE's cutting of the Federal
| workforce has alienated a ton of Trump supporters who
| worked for the Federal government or related NGOs.
|
| I think this is pretty clear when looking at the
| administration's actions: They know that they have to
| move quick on a ton of stuff in these first two years,
| because they only have two years with Congressional
| majority. The last two years of Trump's presidency will
| be a Republican executive branch and Democrat congress,
| and nothing will get done. Then whatever happens in 2028
| will happen; hard to predict that far out.
|
| You can go read my other comments if you think this
| position is coming from some crazed TDS democratic
| lunatic; I'm not. I'm generally pretty moderate and
| understanding of the more complex macroeconomic and
| sociopolitical context which has influenced Trump's
| policies. This is just the facts; anyone with money to
| bet would absolutely be betting that the American left is
| more pissed than they've ever been, and the blue wave in
| 2026 is going to be pretty decisive.
| shigawire wrote:
| >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.
| protocolture wrote:
| 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?
| dukeyukey wrote:
| > 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.
| aiauthoritydev wrote:
| This is an announcement to make Trump happy. They are giving
| him all the good PR he wants.
| tayo42 wrote:
| 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?
| jopsen wrote:
| 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.
| alienthrowaway wrote:
| 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.
| wodenokoto wrote:
| 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.
| re-thc wrote:
| > 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.
| starspangled wrote:
| 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.
| yo_yo_yo-yo wrote:
| You significantly underestimate the importance of compute
| superiority for data synthesis for command & control.
| starspangled wrote:
| No I don't, and anyway US-aligned semiconductor design and
| fabrication is still superior to Chinese if TSMC did not
| exist.
| yo_yo_yo-yo wrote:
| 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...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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.
| yo_yo_yo-yo wrote:
| 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.
| nthingtohide wrote:
| Why aren't people questioning the Ukraine mineral
| narrative? Is the news story really solid? We heard
| similar stories about Afghanistan. Here are some
| counterpoints. This video points out articles by
| Bloomberg stating Ukraine has no such relevant mineral
| reserves.
|
| Ukraine's $500 billion rare earths scam: they don't
| exist, and we should know better
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tILXLxMTmgA
| starspangled wrote:
| > 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?
| GlobalFrog wrote:
| 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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.
| shellfishgene wrote:
| 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.
| cookiemonsieur wrote:
| 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.
| starspangled wrote:
| 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.
| starspangled wrote:
| > 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.
| ninetyninenine wrote:
| 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.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| If bad guys do something, it's bad. If good guys do the same
| thing, it's good.
| amelius wrote:
| We don't have slave camps with Uyghurs though.
| ninetyninenine wrote:
| Those were the result of public terrorist attacks on
| China from domestic terrorists to a scale even larger
| than 9/11. People were slaughtered and those camps are an
| immune reaction to that slaughter from China. The media
| hides this from you.
|
| China did an extreme move here. It's bad. It's not slave
| camps but more education camps or indoctrination camps.
| It's forced indoctrination into modern society.
|
| The thing with this is that it destroys cultures and
| eliminates freedoms but it is largely effective in the
| long run. Terrorist attacks no longer happen. People are
| not getting slaughtered by terrorist attacks anymore.
| Part of the question is which evil do you prefer more?
| There's no easy answer. But western propaganda paints
| only one side of the story here.
|
| Arguably there's less blood on government hands here for
| China. The resulting war after 9/11 killed far more
| innocents than the education camps.
|
| And it's not just this. When you make progress and
| societal well being putting it as a priority ahead of
| individual freedoms you get china building an entire
| network of rail systems in less then a decade when
| California can't even build a single high speed rail in 3
| decades because it obstructs some nimbys freedom to have
| a good view.
| OsrsNeedsf2P wrote:
| You should take a look at for-profit prisons in the US..
|
| [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_Un
| ited_St...
| nthingtohide wrote:
| Don't you know if people die from airstrikes done by a
| Democratic country, they go to heaven while they go to hell
| in case of Dictatorship. It is very common knowledge.
| dan_quixote wrote:
| You would be an excellent author of history books!
| 127 wrote:
| Given how US threw Ukraine under the bus, I don't think
| freedom or democracy are anywhere on the US foreign policy
| agenda.
|
| In fact, even genocide doesn't really move the needle given
| the Gaza push.
| osnium123 wrote:
| What does this mean for Intel's foundry efforts? Are they
| basically dead now?
| trhway wrote:
| Look at the recent rumor of Intel breakup - the large part is
| going to TSMC.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| 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.
| aurareturn wrote:
| 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.
| FpUser wrote:
| 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.
| aurareturn wrote:
| 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.
| koolba wrote:
| They must have a massive influence. I think its gross
| revenue is something like 10% of the GDP of the whole
| country.
| simondotau wrote:
| 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.
| aurareturn wrote:
| Now that righteousness and moral high grounds don't
| matter any more, it's the only thing keeping Taiwan safe.
|
| It's not the only thing because if China controls Taiwan,
| they'll eventually control SK, Japan, and PH as well.
| wordofx wrote:
| Taiwan government is the biggest shareholder of TSMC...
| FpUser wrote:
| Does not exclude my point of view. If things go sour they
| most likely be on the first plane to the US.
| wordofx wrote:
| 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.
| bee_rider wrote:
| 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.
| aurareturn wrote:
| 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.
| wordofx wrote:
| > China wants to retake Taiwan
|
| Take. They can't "retake" something they never had.
| aurareturn wrote:
| 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.
| zmgsabst wrote:
| 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.
| antifa wrote:
| > 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.
| alisonatwork wrote:
| > 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.
| zmgsabst wrote:
| 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.
| Sabinus wrote:
| >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.
| luthus001 wrote:
| "China" can "retake" an area previously under "China"
| control. The original post mentioned only "China", not
| the CCP, and that sentence was correct. What makes this
| scenario difficult to the Taiwanese people, is that the
| CCP is expected to absolutely refuse to step down or
| share power in exchange for "China" taking back control
| of Taiwan. It wants to be the unchallenged authoritarian
| ruler of China + Taiwan
| luthus001 wrote:
| CCP/PRC =! "China". It's a dynasty of China, one of many.
| Americans aren't generally familiar with the concept of
| dynasties, but the Europeans would be. When I was in
| France some years ago, I was told that France went
| through 2 kingdom phases and 5 republics in it's history,
| with the current iteration being the 5th Republic of
| France. The 5th Republic never owned a colony in what's
| now the US, but some previous iteration of "France" did,
| until they sold it to the US in the famous "Louisiana
| purchase". Thus, it is correct to say that "France" used
| to owned parts of what's now the US. Likewise, it is
| correct to say that "China" used to own Taiwan", even
| though the PRC/CCP never did.
|
| Most MSM stories on Taiwan take pains to point out the
| PRC/CCP have never controlled Taiwan. That is technically
| correct but intentionally misleading, counting on the
| (mostly American) readers to not understand the
| difference between a government/dynasty/regime of a
| country and the country itself, which has histories
| extending back beyond the founding of its current regime.
|
| The current demand of China to Taiwan, is that Taiwan
| must continue to claim itself as a rival regime to the
| PRC vying to control, and represent, all of China. What
| will trigger war is formal Taiwan "independence", defined
| as Taiwan rescinding claims on PRC territories and
| declaring itself a sovereign country independent from not
| just the PRC, but the ROC (Republic of China) or any
| other concept of "China" altogether
| wordofx wrote:
| 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.
| zmgsabst wrote:
| 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.)
| phs318u wrote:
| > 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.
| xuki wrote:
| 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?
| Stephen_0xFF wrote:
| 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?
| zmgsabst wrote:
| 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...
| aurareturn wrote:
| We'd blow up the fabs ourselves.
|
| 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.
| bavell wrote:
| Unless a series of unfortunate accidents occur at the
| TSMC fabs long before China can put them to use...
| xuki wrote:
| 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.
| DamnYuppie wrote:
| 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.
| jopsen wrote:
| 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.
| bee_rider wrote:
| 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.
| upbeat_general wrote:
| 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.
| pembrook wrote:
| 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.
| jopsen wrote:
| US action following a Taiwan invasion could be shoot a
| few missiles at the invasion fleet.
|
| Declare all coastal areas around China a conflict zone.
|
| Declare anyone trading with China can't trade with the
| US. If backed by allies, China could perhaps be boxed in.
|
| But, hey, who knows. It's entirely unclear what is
| possible.
|
| And much depends on whether Taiwan falls in 3 days, or
| stays in the fight for 3 years.
|
| Or so one would assume.. current administration is
| proving that they'll abandon freedom at minimal cost.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| 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.
| puppymaster wrote:
| 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.
| frankacter wrote:
| This new deal is 3 factories an two packaging facilities.
| imhoguy wrote:
| 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.
| drstewart wrote:
| Why won't European or Canada or Australia defend democracy
| and provide Taiwan security guarantees and protection?
| aurareturn wrote:
| 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.
| altacc wrote:
| 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.
| arandomusername wrote:
| Exactly. Even in Ukraine, Yanukovych was democratically
| elected [1] and US was potentially involved in
| overthrowing him [2]
|
| [1] https://www.oscepa.org/en/news-a-media/press-
| releases/press-...
|
| [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
| altacc wrote:
| 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.
| evo_9 wrote:
| I wonder what these comments would look like if this deal
| happened 2-3 years ago by Joe Biden.
| forgotoldacc wrote:
| A vastly different geopolitical situation would get vastly
| different comments.
| okdood64 wrote:
| 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.
| HamsterDan wrote:
| Do you really have to wonder? It's a huge win for the US. The
| comments would rightfully be calling it a huge win for the US.
| hereme888 wrote:
| Good! Come to America.
| munk-a wrote:
| 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.
| tnt128 wrote:
| 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.
| mu53 wrote:
| 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.
| android521 wrote:
| 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.
| re-thc wrote:
| > 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.
| rob74 wrote:
| 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).
| qwertox wrote:
| 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.
| cutemonster wrote:
| 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
| qwertox wrote:
| AI will, after all, become the second biggest weapon
| humanity has ever created.
| lupusreal wrote:
| That's only relevant to Putin's decision making processes
| if he shares that perspective.
| etiam wrote:
| "Artificial intelligence is the future, not only for
| Russia, but for all humankind," [...] "It comes with
| colossal opportunities, but also threats that are
| difficult to predict. Whoever becomes the leader in this
| sphere will become the ruler of the world."
|
| Vladimir Putin, 2017-09-01
|
| https://www.twz.com/14141/putin-says-whoever-has-the-
| best-ar...
| etiam wrote:
| Oh, and:
|
| "The most powerful AI chips in the world will be made
| right here in America and it'll be a big percentage of
| the chips made by this company (TSMC)"
|
| Donald Trump, 2025-03-04
|
| https://focustaiwan.tw/business/202503040017
| generic92034 wrote:
| In which regard?
| amelius wrote:
| > 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.
| NewJazz wrote:
| Have you seen Russia's laptops?
|
| https://www.anandtech.com/show/16827/russia-to-build-
| riscv-p...
| huijzer wrote:
| > 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.
| rob74 wrote:
| 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.
| gizmo wrote:
| Putin was popular in Russia in 2022 and his domestic
| enemies were weak. Putin didn't need a war to hold on to
| power. Wars are sometimes fought to distract from domestic
| problems, but that wasn't the case here. Putin has argued
| for more than 20 years that the Russia/Ukraine border was
| not determined correctly when the USSR fell and that the
| 1991 borders were "unfair" to Russia. Add to that Ukraine's
| cultural shift away from Russia, messy elections, NATO, and
| the belief that Russia would easily defeat Ukraine and it's
| pretty clear why Putin decided to invade in 2022. No reason
| to hypothesize alternative theories. Putin is still very
| popular especially among older generations despite the
| heavy cost of the war.
| xdennis wrote:
| > 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.
| netsharc wrote:
| > 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..
| darthrupert wrote:
| 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.
| Panoramix wrote:
| This is the most likely. With allies like the US, the old
| enemies don't look so bad anymore.
| wiseowise wrote:
| > 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.
| eagleislandsong wrote:
| > After 3 years
|
| With the current administration, perhaps 3 days?
| UberFly wrote:
| Just a reminder that the current administration just
| removed the "we don't recognize Taiwan as a sovereign
| nation" from the official state policy.
| eagleislandsong wrote:
| 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.
| toyg wrote:
| _> 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.
| eagleislandsong wrote:
| 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.
| stann wrote:
| Tell me this response was not generated by AI
| eagleislandsong wrote:
| 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.
| NewJazz wrote:
| Tell me to fuck off.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| Woah, this is pretty wild. I had to Google about it, but
| I found a reliable source:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyzy300vlzo
|
| Here is the exact quote: > The [US
| State] department's fact sheet on Taiwan-US relations
| earlier included the phrase "we do not support Taiwan
| independence" - this was removed last week as part of
| what it said was a "routine" update.
| sras-me wrote:
| Glad I had to scroll all this way down to reach reddit.
|
| Also, please take a look here as well,
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43252998
| rjzzleep wrote:
| 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.
| echoangle wrote:
| 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
| diamondfist25 wrote:
| Taiwanese here
|
| Taiwan Econ has stagnated for decades.
|
| Hence the top low birth rate in the world
|
| Avg salary of tw is 1.5k usd. The same as 20-30 yrs ago
| echoangle wrote:
| Just not true.
|
| Average monthly wage:
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/319845/taiwan-
| average-mo...
|
| 2000 - 42k NTD
|
| 2023 - 58k NTD
|
| Converted to USD:
|
| https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-
| spot/histo...
|
| https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-
| spot/histo...
|
| 2000 - 1270 USD
|
| 2023 - 1870 USD
| high_na_euv wrote:
| Only 50% increase? Thats very bad
| echoangle wrote:
| Well now were shifting the goalpost. That's not
| stagnation.
| throw84949499 wrote:
| 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.
| UberFly wrote:
| 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.
| re-thc wrote:
| > 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".
| barrenko wrote:
| ... the same thing will apply later on after the
| successful "non-invasion" of Taiwan.
| re-thc wrote:
| > ... 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.
| WhereIsTheTruth wrote:
| You got brainwashed
|
| https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12503/1
|
| "1982 U.S.-PRC Joint Communique/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 Communique, 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 communique
| 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.'""
| drodgers wrote:
| 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.
| momo_hn2025 wrote:
| 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.
| ekianjo wrote:
| They never invaded HK. HK was returned to China.
| drodgers wrote:
| > 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.
| ekianjo wrote:
| China has arguably excellent marine forces by now. Not sure
| the US would be able to counter that.
| alephnan wrote:
| > 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.
| qwertox wrote:
| 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.
| jacobp100 wrote:
| 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
| cookiemonsieur wrote:
| 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.
| CorrectHorseBat wrote:
| >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.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > 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
| CorrectHorseBat wrote:
| It's the reason why they did it, not the reason why they
| succeeded.
| etiam wrote:
| It's also not entirely irrelevant for why they succeeded.
|
| Existential threat arguably is a much better motivator
| for making the sacrifices necessary than "wanting".
| huijzer wrote:
| > 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.
| 3D30497420 wrote:
| 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.
| netsharc wrote:
| 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?
| ikurei wrote:
| 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.)
| kelipso wrote:
| 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.
| ptero wrote:
| A much bigger reason for the collapse was that the
| planned economy and distribution (plus military spending)
| failed to produce enough basic goods and quality of life
| for many started dropping.
|
| To the extent that party elite started building their
| own, parallel universe of food, summer camps for kids,
| apartments, shops, etc. closed to the ordinary people. It
| was clear to many people that the Soviet road, as
| followed, goes to a variant of a North Korea lifestyle.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| 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.
| alephnan wrote:
| > 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
| re-thc wrote:
| > 3) Other than human intellect, there is little in the
| way of natural resources to obtain out of Taiwan. It's
| economy is manufacturing and export driven.
|
| Why do people keep spreading misinformation?
|
| E.g. Taiwan grows and produces some of the best tea and
| coffee in the world. High end tea leaves costs more than
| some stock grants here. China tried for years to
| replicate it and has some success but definitely still
| far off.
|
| Taiwan is renown for many things - not just
| semiconductors. It's just you might not know about it. A
| lot of your every day life might have something to do
| with Taiwan.
| ac29 wrote:
| > 1) The USA does not have launchable nuclear weapons in
| neighboring countries to Taiwan that necessitate a buffer
|
| Existing US land and sea based nuclear weapons could hit
| targets in China in a matter of minutes. Being based
| closer to China/Taiwan might shouldnt matter in the age
| of ICBMs.
| bloomingkales wrote:
| 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.
| chmod775 wrote:
| 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.
| ozmodiar wrote:
| There are, or were, talks in Taiwan and China about the
| possibility of a "one party two systems" style
| unification similar to Hong Kong. It was pretty fringe
| but growing in popularity until China cracked down on
| Hong Kong. I don't know if it's much of a thing anymore,
| but I do know a couple of old Taiwanese that still
| believe in it.
| jonkoops wrote:
| 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.
| UltraSane wrote:
| 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.
| mik1998 wrote:
| Ukraine is far poorer than Russia.
| seunosewa wrote:
| He would like to keep it that way.
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| 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.
| dboreham wrote:
| It's not just that he couldn't stand it, but rather what
| it does to his position inside Russia. If your business
| model is to rabbit on about how wonderful Russia is, and
| how sucky all other countries are, if there's a more
| successful more free country next door containing almost
| the same kind of people, then your words are hollow.
| thorncorona wrote:
| Not really..
|
| USA will not have a hostile cuba, just as Russia won't
| have a hostile Ukraine, and China won't have a hostile
| Taiwan on its doorstep.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > USA will not have a hostile cuba
|
| USA will, from all signs, not only continue to have a
| hostile Cuba, but also _create_ a hostile Mexico.
|
| And that's even before considering the internal hostility
| to the regime that the deliberately-engineered major
| economic collapse--that is already happening despite
| numerous policies that will deepen it still being in the
| pipeline and not yet in place--will create.
|
| The US withdrawing from international engagement,
| trashing alliances, and trashing its own economy may
| enable _competing_ powers more space to dominate their
| own regions, but it doesn 't do anything to strengthen
| the US's regional position, it _radically_ weakens it.
| immibis wrote:
| And a hostile Canada!
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Not as much of a clear explicit threat to imminently
| engage in an armed invasion of Canada as the one to do so
| to Mexico, but, yes.
| vkou wrote:
| Ukraine was the poorest country in Europe, and by most
| metrics, worse off than Russia before the war.
|
| Sure, you can write all sorts of alt-history fanfiction
| about how great it would be if 2014 didn't happen, but
| that's just one of _many_ possible futures.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Leaving aside the war, Ukraine has many of the positive
| resources of the Baltics (just more so.) There is every
| reason to believe that an EU-aligned (or member) Ukraine
| would be an economic success story.
| gizmo wrote:
| This is basically the George Bush argument "they hate us
| because of our freedom". Totally absurd.
| ozmodiar wrote:
| They don't hate them, but it is an emberassment that a
| group from the same culture is so successful under a
| different political system that allows for more freedom.
| That combined with cultural revanchism about not breaking
| up the country (and having spent a lot of time there I
| can tell you it is strong) makes the existence of Taiwan
| as an independent nation a real sore point.
| gizmo wrote:
| I don't think the CCP views Taiwan as more successful
| than mainland China. The CCP position is that Taiwan is
| already part of China and by that logic Taiwanese success
| is automatically Chinese success. I agree that cultural
| revanchism plays a major role.
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| China is a democracy. It's literally what you're describing
| Taiwan as. That said I do agree that it does cause China's
| superiority to be called into question. Imagine if the
| Confederate states of America managed to take hold of Cuba
| and hold out.
|
| EDIT: I'm literally factually correct. In 5 of the 6
| indexes China has a Democracy score where as Brunei, an
| absolute monarchy, doesn't!
| eloisius wrote:
| More like the Union holding out for 70 years in Puerto
| Rico after the Confederates won. In what sense do you
| mean China is a democracy? I may be brainwashed on CIA
| propaganda, but as far as I understand only party-vetted
| candidates may stand for election.
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| Wait do you not know what the KMT did? They're a
| rightwing party that killed/disappeared 30k journalists
| and intellectuals in Taiwan. How in the world is that
| comparable to the "union"? (But also yes Puerto Rico
| might be a better example).
|
| In the sense that they're on the V-Dem index, they have
| election laws, they have voter rolls, they have voter
| turnout, etc. Yes they have one party, so you don't
| directly vote for the President, but neither do
| Americans.
| eloisius wrote:
| It's democratic because it's on the index? Every state is
| on the index. China ranks 177 out of 179 states on the
| index lol. So sure, where a perfect democracy score is
| 1.0, they score 0.015. It's not zero.
|
| Yes, the KMT dictatorship era was awful. You might be
| surprised to know that in Taiwan there are national
| holidays commemorating those persecuted by the KMT. The
| reason The ROC (Taiwan) is more aptly comparable to the
| Union when making an analogy to alternative American
| history is because it was the original, legitimate
| government of China and the PRC were the rebels, just
| like the USA and Confederacy.
| ebruchez wrote:
| You are confused. Look at Taiwan's present, not its long
| gone past. As I mentioned in another thread, during my
| last trip to Taiwan, I revisited the Chiang Kai-shek
| Memorial Hall, which features a museum where Chiang Kai-
| shek's life and rule are documented. The errors and
| brutality of his rule in particular are well-documented
| and preserved, officially accessible to all citizens and
| visitors. This is a wonderful example of transparency.
| You won't find anything like this in mainland China.
| xyzzy123 wrote:
| > China is a democracy
|
| You get to vote sometimes but there's only one party...
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| Democracy isn't when you have multiple parties. It's when
| you elect people to govern. Many americans think that
| America has a uniparty, despite all appearances.
| xyzzy123 wrote:
| I feel like you have it the wrong way around. There are a
| lot of political setups where you "elect someone" that
| are absolutely not democracies. I can be an authoritarian
| supreme leader who allows citizens to elect who will run
| their province (from my choice of candidates of course!)
| and I really don't think it's reasonable to claim that
| this situation is a "democracy".
|
| It's autocracy with democratic characteristics.
|
| I agree your criticisms of democracy in the US and Taiwan
| have some validity but in terms of deciding whether China
| might be a democracy or not they seem like whataboutism.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| Russia is a great example of this.
| jabiko wrote:
| > China is a democracy
|
| Regardless of which democracy index
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_indices) you
| consult, they all disagree with that statement.
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| V-dem, Bertelsmann, and EDI literally has scores for
| China. You'll notice places like Brunei, an absolute
| monarchy, isn't on the list.
|
| Because China is a democracy and Brunei is not a
| democracy.
| pqtyw wrote:
| Legally (according to their constitution) USSR was also a
| democracy. But that hardly meant much in practice. Of
| course the Chinese society is probably much "freer" than
| than the Soviet one was prior to Gorbachev's reforms but
| again.. an extremely low standard.
| jabiko wrote:
| > V-dem, Bertelsmann, and EDI literally has scores for
| China.
|
| I think you confuse being listed on those indices with
| being a democracy.
|
| On V-dem China takes place 177 of 179, the Bertelsmann
| index categorized China as "hard-line autocracy" and EDI
| categorizes it as "authoritarian"
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| "A list of democracies that don't score non-democracies"
| having China by definition means the indexes consider
| China a democracy.
| jabiko wrote:
| > "A list of democracies that don't score non-
| democracies"
|
| This definition is nowhere to be found. I assume it's
| your interpretation, which, as already said, is flawed.
|
| For example Saudi Arabia is listed on all of those
| indices even though its an absolute monarchy and the
| poster child for an autocracy.
| wildzzz wrote:
| China has a fig leaf of a democracy. It meets the
| simplest definition of a democracy, the citizens do get
| to vote on something. Compared to most of the developed
| world, it's a far cry from a liberal democracy that
| allows for dissenting positions and parties. China's
| flavor of governing is objectively neither good nor bad
| (they have managed to become a superpower after all) but
| it's nothing like the democracies of the West.
| shkkmo wrote:
| Brunei isn't on the Bertelsmann because it is small (<1
| million people), not because of its political structure.
|
| The EDI explicitly does not try to asses whether a
| country is democratic or not, but just allows relative
| comparisons. It also doesn't include smaller countries
| but doesn't have as clear of a cutoff.
|
| If you are going to use inclusion on one or more of these
| lists as an argument, you'll have actually cite where
| those lists use status as a democracy as a criteria for
| inclusion and how that is assessed.
| spookie wrote:
| If you consider a one party state authoritarian regime as
| powering the common people's will, then I guess it is.
| NickC25 wrote:
| China has "democracy" in the same way it has the freedom
| of speech.
|
| In China, you can vote for The Party, or, for The Party.
| Much like how in the USA, you can vote for the red wing
| of the Centralized Corporate Power Party, or the blue
| wing of the Centralized Corporate Power Party.
|
| Much like how in China, you have the freedom to stand in
| Tienanmen Square and shout "Down with the USA, long live
| Chairman Mao, long live The Party" much like you can do
| so in Times Square or in front of 1600 Penn or in
| downtown LA.
| immibis wrote:
| Sorry, your argument is that everything that isn't an
| absolute monarchy is a democracy?
| elif wrote:
| 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.
| re-thc wrote:
| > That humiliation pales in comparison to the damage done
| domestically as taiwan's defenses would necessitate a gross
| loss of life.
|
| There was life lost in Hong Kong. Potentially not the same
| amount, but yes lives were lost (not just what was
| mentioned in the media or from protests).
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Not only this, but also having direct access to the Pacific
| ocean for blue water operations (without getting detected
| when talking about submarines).
| jltsiren wrote:
| 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.
| m000 wrote:
| 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.
| jltsiren wrote:
| You are approaching this from the wrong direction.
|
| Air forces, navies, and drones cannot conquer a country.
| For that, you need ground forces with plenty of heavy
| equipment. Which can only cross the sea in slow and
| vulnerable ships. To stop them, you need long-distance
| firepower with large enough warheads. A carrier strike
| group is the least vulnerable way of delivering such
| firepower.
|
| The job of a carrier strike group would not be defending
| vulnerable targets, as in Israel or the Red Sea, but
| destroying them. Its job might not even be engaging the
| attacking forces. It could be a reserve force beyond the
| reach of the initial aerial campaign but still close enough
| to move in when the actual invasion starts. It could even
| be a force that remains neutral if the actual invasion
| never comes (unless China attacks it first).
| jjeaff wrote:
| I believe Biden said that the US plan, in the case of a Chinese
| invasion of Taiwan, would be to destroy the chip fabs.
| drodgers wrote:
| 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.
| ekianjo wrote:
| 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.
| nverno wrote:
| 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.
| bloomingkales wrote:
| 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.
| lupusreal wrote:
| 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.
| ecshafer wrote:
| The cultural revolution happened 50-60 years ago. What
| culture would change in Taiwan? Mainland and Taiwan
| already share a lot of media.
| ebruchez wrote:
| I think the GP meant "a" cultural revolution, not "the"
| cultural revolution. But yes, the CCP taking over Taiwan
| would erode and then try to erase the beautiful and
| diverse culture of Taiwan. Schools will teach obedience
| to the CCP. History will be rewritten. Free media and
| foreign media will be censored. The entire set of
| democratic institutions of Taiwan will be dismantled. And
| you can go on and on.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| I think this strategy could possible work with the US
| taking Greenland (although I think that plan has been
| abandoned) but there is no way that Taiwan would accept
| such a small amount.
| borsecplata wrote:
| Not everything is for sale, especially at this ridiculous
| price. Why would you think the taiwanese people are so
| poor that they would all betray their country for 100k?
| eagleislandsong wrote:
| > the taiwanese people are so poor that they would all
| betray their country for 100k?
|
| You'd be surprised. I'm not saying that all of them (or
| even most of them) will accept the payment, but there
| have been multiple cases of espionage committed by
| Taiwanese military personnel for _extremely_ trifling
| amounts of monetary reward from the Chinese. Here 's just
| one example:
| https://www.worldjournal.com/wj/story/121222/8572208
|
| Excerpt:
|
| "Jian Jing Diao Cha ,Li Hui Xin Chen Xing Xiao Di Zai Tai
| Bei Shi Zhong Shan Qu Fang Kuan Jie Chu Jun Ren ,2023Nian
| 6Yue Li Nu Yi Xin Bei Shi Lu Zhou Qu Rui Qing Gong Zhu
| Shen Fen Ji Zong Jiao Jiao Liu Ming Yi Zhi Ao Men ,Zai
| Dao Da Lu Jie Chu Guo An Qing Zi Ren Yuan ,Fan Tai Yi Jin
| Qian Yin You Que Qian Jun Ren .
|
| Li Nu Deng Ren Yao Qiu Jun Ren Jiao Chu Jun Ren Shen Fen
| Zheng Shen He Hou ,Chuan Zhi Fu Na Wu Xing Qi Pai She
| Xuan Gao Tou Jiang Ying Pian ,Hu Kou Hao [Zhong Guo Ren
| Bu Da Zhong Guo Ren ,Wo Fan Dui Zhan Zheng ] ,Yong
| TelegramChuan Song Jiao Fu Ying Pian [Yue Hou Ji Fen ]
| ,Tou Gong Wu Wen Shu ,Jiao Fu Hang Xian Tu , Yan Xi Shi
| Jian Deng Duo Xiang Jun Ji ,Shou Hui Yi Zi Liao Ji Mi
| Cheng Du Ji Jia ,Xi Shou Tong Pao Ke Ti Gao Bao Chou .
|
| Zhang , Lin , Liu , Wu , Peng , Li Yao Xing Ji Liang Ming
| Chen Xing Xian , Tui Yi Jun Ren She An ,Han Gai Lu Jun ,
| Hai Jun , Xian Bing Jun Guan , Shi Guan , Shi Bing ,Zui
| Gao Jie Wei Zhong Wei ,Jin Liu Huo Li 15Wan Yuan Tai Bi
| (Yue 4500Mei Yuan ),Qi Ta Ren Shang Wei Na Dao Fan Zui
| Suo De . "
|
| Translation:
|
| "According to the investigation by the police and
| prosecutors, Li Huixin's younger associate, surnamed
| Chen, was involved in lending money to military personnel
| in the Zhongshan District of Taipei City. In June 2023,
| Li traveled to Macau under the pretense of religious
| exchange and as the head of Ruixian Temple in Luzhou
| District, New Taipei City. From there, she went to
| mainland China and made contact with national security
| intelligence personnel. Upon returning to Taiwan, she
| used money to lure financially struggling military
| personnel.
|
| Li and her associates required military personnel to
| submit their military identification cards for
| verification. Afterward, they were asked to wear uniforms
| and film surrender videos while holding the Chinese five-
| star flag, chanting slogans such as "Chinese people do
| not fight Chinese people, I oppose war." These videos
| were then transmitted via Telegram with a self-destruct
| feature. The group also stole official documents and
| provided information such as flight paths and military
| exercise schedules. Bribes were paid based on the
| confidentiality level of the data, and recruiting fellow
| soldiers could increase rewards.
|
| The case involves active and retired military personnel
| with the surnames Zhang, Lin, Liu, Wu, Peng, Li, Yao, and
| two individuals surnamed Chen. The suspects come from
| various military branches, including the Army, Navy, and
| Military Police, spanning officers, non-commissioned
| officers, and enlisted soldiers. The highest-ranking
| officer involved was a lieutenant. Among them, only Liu
| received illicit gains amounting to _NT$150,000
| (approximately USD 4,500)_ , while the others had not yet
| received any criminal proceeds."
| Lerc wrote:
| There are two significant points to make about instances
| like this.
|
| Finding someone who meets Criteria X is a long way from
| finding either a Majority or even just enough of a
| minority to make a difference.
|
| When people believe their action will not make a
| difference, they pay less heed to the consequences of
| their actions. People will take money to do things if
| they don't think it will change much.
|
| There are probably plenty of gun runners who sell guns to
| rebels that would should they succeed in their rebellion
| it would be detrimental to the gun-running business.
| Nevertheless they would happily sell them guns to them
| while they think the rebellion is doomed.
|
| It's not always that simple though. Significant strategic
| decisions can involve projecting ineffectiveness to
| obtain the support of those who do not want you to be
| effective. Because of this, people have committed
| betrayals that have turned out to be far more significant
| than they imagined. I suspect this happens more often in
| fiction than real life, but fiction more frequently
| focuses on the significant. Real life produces the
| significant by having millions with the one in a million
| chance of being significant.
| lawgimenez wrote:
| I think you forgot that US has over 9 bases here, and we
| are less than a hundred miles below Taiwan.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bases_in_the_
| Phi...
| borsecplata wrote:
| There is no scenario possible in which china invades
| taiwan and "surprise" is involved. In ukraine it took
| months for russia to prepare at the border.
| drodgers wrote:
| 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.
| nmeofthestate wrote:
| 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.
| lupusreal wrote:
| Even if the PRC can't be _sure_ America would respond, a
| small risk of America responding has some deterrent
| effect. Hopefully enough.
| UltraSane wrote:
| Trump's extreme unpredictability might actually be a
| advantage in this scenario.
| seunosewa wrote:
| 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.
| sras-me wrote:
| > He favours the aggressors.
|
| What is your response to this video?
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD_KEFpuIro
|
| Transcript here: https://singjupost.com/transcript-
| jeffrey-sachs-on-the-geopo...
|
| >What was Putin's intention in the war? I can tell you
| what his intention was. It was to force Zelensky to
| negotiate neutrality. And that happened within seven days
| of the start of the invasion. You should understand this,
| not the propaganda that's written about this.
|
| >Oh, that they failed and he was going to take over
| Ukraine. Come on, ladies and gentlemen. Understand
| something basic. The idea was to keep NATO. And what is
| NATO?
|
| >It's the United States off of Russia's border. No more,
| no less. I should add one very important point. Why are
| they so interested? First, because if China or Russia
| decided to have a military base on the Rio Grande or in
| the Canadian border, not only would the United States
| freak out, we'd have war within about ten minutes.
| michpoch wrote:
| Well, the EU has a Russian military base at its border,
| and did not escalate any war because of that?
| sras-me wrote:
| I don't know, may be Russia see NATO + US as a much
| bigger threat than how NATO see Russia as a threat. Or
| may be NATO have some other ways of dealing with this
| threat.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| _I don 't know, may be Russia see NATO + US as a much
| bigger threat than how NATO see Russia as a threat._
|
| That's certainly true now, even if it wasn't true before.
| So why would Putin act in a way that was _absolutely
| guaranteed_ -- win, lose or draw -- to fortify and
| entrench NATO 's presence on Russia's borders?
|
| His NATO excuse never made any sense. Don't invade
| anybody, and you have nothing to fear from NATO.
| michpoch wrote:
| > may be Russia see NATO + US as a much bigger threat
| than how NATO see Russia as a threat
|
| Or maybe Russia see eastern and central Europe as their
| sphere of influence, which they lost. And now they're
| using any excuse to try to re-establish that.
|
| What kind of NATO danger did they expect from Georgia?
|
| Russia had zero reason to see de-militarised Europe as a
| threat.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Putin acts pretty rationally, just with flawed
| information. "Launching a full-scale invasion on the
| capital with the intention of negotiating neutrality" is
| a crazy plan he would never come up with. That's like
| beating someone up to get them to like you. The initial
| goal of the invasion was clearly to remove the
| democratically elected leadership of Ukraine, and then
| either incorporate it into Russia or (more likely) to
| install a puppet government that's more favorable of
| Russia.
|
| On day 7, the three-day military excursion to Kyiv had
| stalled, the Russian army was scrambling to establish
| supply routes and figure out logistics for a war that
| should have been over, and Putin was trying to convert a
| stalemate into something he could call a success. Nobody
| at the time would have claimed that his behavior on day 7
| was reflective of his plans on day 1, when days 3-7 were
| clearly not going his way.
| sras-me wrote:
| > "Launching a full-scale invasion on the capital with
| the intention of negotiating neutrality" is a crazy plan
| he would never come up with.
|
| That you really can't know, and
|
| >That's like beating someone up to get them to like you.
|
| Is a very flawed analogy.
| r721 wrote:
| >In 2022, Sachs appeared several times on one of the top-
| rated shows funded by the Russian government, hosted by
| Vladimir Solovyov, to call for Ukraine to negotiate and
| step away from its "maximalist demands" of removing
| Russia from Ukrainian territory.
|
| >Sachs has suggested that the U.S. was responsible for
| the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline. In February
| 2023, he was invited by the Russian government to address
| the United Nations Security Council about the topic.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs#War_in_Ukrain
| e
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >It was to force Zelensky to negotiate neutrality.
|
| Umm, no. Bullshit. That's my response. It's the 3rd time
| in a decade Putin pulled this off. Let's not pretend this
| is anything about NATO obligations. He wants to take back
| land he feels was always his (aka the most common reason
| for war)
| genman wrote:
| Liars going to lie, ehh? No, the reason for this
| milirarny operatia was to exterminate Ukrainian nation,
| erase it from the history. Destroy and disperse it. There
| is enough proof for this, starting with the Putin's
| manifest about non existence of Ukrainians.
|
| The only reason why Russia is so much against NATO is the
| article 5, because it makes attacking peaceful nations
| expensive and risky for Russia.
| nmeofthestate wrote:
| I'm struggling to think of a time when his erratic
| behaviour has paid off in the geopolitical arena.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| A smart friend suggested it triggers most rational
| leaders to be extra-cautious and may have a net-zero or
| even favourable impact on global politcs. We will see...
| trashtester wrote:
| Being unpredictable has advantages and also
| disadvantages, depending on setting.
|
| Though with an AI race going on and Musk practically
| living in the White House, I can't imagine the US would
| let China have Taiwan without a fight right now.
|
| Also, forcing TSMC to build a number of modern fabs in
| the US is sort of a warning to China to stay away AT
| LEAST until those fabs are done. If China attacks right
| now,I think we would see the full might of the US forces
| coming to their defense.
|
| AI right now has the same role as nukes had during the
| cold war. Nobody really knows how quickly it will
| develop, and many scenarios would allow those who get it
| first to take out all enemy nukes without much risk of
| receiving a retaliatory strike.
|
| For instance, AI may make it possible to build a
| virtually perfect missile defense against ICBMS, it may
| may allow perfect tracking of subs and other submarine
| threats, it may power drone swarms capabable of disabling
| any integrated air defense network, and even to destroy
| all enemy missile siles and nuclear subs whil minimizing
| loss of life.
|
| The US is not going to let China get there first, if they
| can stop it.
| snerbles wrote:
| > AI may make it possible to build a virtually perfect
| missile defense against ICBMS
|
| Massed ICBM defense is a matter of sheer volume - with
| the current GMD system the US can throw enough
| exoatmospheric kill vehicles (and THAAD to handle the
| leftovers) to counter a handful of re-entry vehicles from
| a smaller nuclear power like North Korea or Iran. Not
| hundreds (vs China) or _thousands_ (vs Russia) that you
| would see in a peer-level nuclear exchange where everyone
| has multi-megaton MIRVs, decoys, and SLBMs with _much_
| shorter flight times.
|
| Some fantasy future AI with the right sensors may
| perfectly track all of that sub-orbital mayhem. Without
| an enormous fleet of thousands of kill vehicles to
| actually defend against that threat, and the logistics to
| keep that fleet operational, it can do nothing about it.
| Building and supporting that sort of strategic defense is
| obscenely expensive, and as such it remains a Reagan-era
| fever dream.
| eagleislandsong wrote:
| > Musk practically living in the White House
|
| He's very much in favour of the CCP.
|
| Elon Musk suggests making Taiwan a 'special
| administrative zone' similar to Hong Kong (2022):
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/oct/08/elon-
| musk...
|
| Tesla commits to promoting 'core socialist values' in
| pledge with Chinese auto companies (2023):
| https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/tesla-commits-
| promoti...
|
| Tesla's path in China clears as Musk courts both Trump
| and Xi (2024):
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/nov/22/elon-
| musk...
|
| He and his mother are also wildly popular in China, and
| we all know how susceptible he is to flattery:
|
| The rise and rise of Maye Musk: China's love affair with
| Elon Musk's mother (2024):
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/dec/25/the-
| rise-...
| Iolaum wrote:
| What unpredictable things has Trump's administration done
| regarding states that were considered the US's
| adversaries before his administration took over?
| generic92034 wrote:
| https://gizmodo.com/trumps-defense-secretary-hegseth-
| orders-...
| NickC25 wrote:
| The CCP owns Trump.
|
| They could stroll into Taipei and Trump wouldn't lift a
| finger.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| > The CCP owns Trump.
|
| I'm not going to bat for Trump - I don't like the guy -
| but this seems provably false just based on the fact that
| Trump has already applied tariffs to Chinese imports. Not
| only that, he's ratcheting up those tariffs because
| Beijing has so far refused to come to the table. He seems
| to be continuing his 2016 policy of economically
| antagonizing the Chinese.
| DrunkOnPower wrote:
| For sure. Trump is no friend of China. Russia on the
| other hand...
| NickC25 wrote:
| Donald Trump's daughter literally is the only non Chinese
| to own patents in China without a local partner.
|
| Apple, Microsoft, LVMH, Volkswagon, Ferrari, etc don't
| have that.
|
| Donald Trump is also deep in debt to Chinese banks.
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| In a real shooting war, it would be suicidal for the US
| navy to go anywhere near Taiwan (at least early on in the
| war).
|
| China's arsenal of standoff weapons is orders of
| magnitude more potent than it was during the last Taiwan
| Straits Crisis.
| trashtester wrote:
| I heard war games indicate that the US would lose at
| least a few carriers if they try to defend Taiwan.
|
| That may be more than worth it if they succeed.
|
| Taiwan is not like Ukraine. As long as TSMC has monopoly
| on the latest AI chips, it's at least as important as
| access to oil.
| drodgers wrote:
| The fab capacity would be gone, even if the defence
| succeeded. The process knowledge embedded in TSMC might
| survive though to rebuild it quickly.
| SimbaOnSteroids wrote:
| In a war game you steel man your opponents capabilities.
| I highly doubt China's entirely green military does that
| much damage.
| lupusreal wrote:
| 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.
| eloisius wrote:
| Unfortunately energy security is not on Taiwan's side
| during a blockade. We only have one active nuclear energy
| plant here, a bit of wind and solar, but mostly imported
| coal and LNG. I think electricity rationing would happen
| more or less immediately.
| lurk2 wrote:
| > Always works
|
| Not even remotely true.
| kelipso wrote:
| 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.
| re-thc wrote:
| > Taiwan is ridiculously favourable terrain for the
| defenders; if they fight back, there can't be quick victory
|
| Not true. Just sneakily cut the submarine cables i.e.
| Internet before the "offical attack".
|
| Most of the comments talk about a blockade, but no need. I
| doubt a lot of things will function without Internet. There
| were discussions of Satellite but not confirmed.
| abirch wrote:
| I'm unsure of how many internet services Taiwan relies on
| outside of Taiwan? If the servers are on the island, my
| understanding is that they'll be fine. Unfortunately they
| won't be able to access Hacker News, but they should be
| able to bank, buy groceries, etc.
| re-thc wrote:
| > If the servers are on the island, my understanding is
| that they'll be fine.
|
| Taiwan doesn't have a huge data center capacity. A lot of
| services are in Hong Kong, Tokyo, Singapore, etc...
|
| Of the big clouds e.g. AWS is only opening a data center
| later this year.
|
| It's also not so simple. Even local servers / services
| might have all sorts of "needs" to phone "home" elsewhere
| e.g. for analytics. A lot of software might not have been
| tested and will crash. Even the big clouds might not work
| in isolation.
|
| Then there's also things like patches, updates, firmwares
| etc. A lot of things like kubernetes clusters may be set
| to auto update and crash. If you need a docker image the
| local CDN didn't cache then it is gone.
| lurk2 wrote:
| Why would this have any strategic impact on Taiwan's
| capacity to defend itself?
| borsecplata wrote:
| I'm quite certain taiwan is aware of this "kubernetes
| clusters" paradox and the military has the issue
| addressed.
| narrator wrote:
| 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.
| logifail wrote:
| > 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.
| dataviz1000 wrote:
| 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/
| UltraSane wrote:
| 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.
| olalonde wrote:
| > 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.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _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...
| silvestrov wrote:
| The problem with your argument is that in current times it is
| much more likely that China acts rationally than the US does.
|
| A better argument would be that when China has "good enough"
| chips then they don't care about chip production in Taiwan.
| They will only care about sea access. So if Taiwan ends up as
| completely destroyed rock, then that is ok for China. They
| will see it as a much better result than other parts of China
| breaking away and becoming independent.
| tyre wrote:
| > They will only care about sea access.
|
| This is not why the CCP cares about Taiwan.
|
| And they've cared quite a lot since before there were
| semiconductors.
| iwontberude wrote:
| To follow up, Taiwan literally blocks their ability to
| see and defend against attacks coming from behind the
| Taiwanese island. It's about observability and reducing
| easy beachheads.
| greedo wrote:
| It's about exerting political control.
| Iolaum wrote:
| Given the satellite assets China has I doubt it's true
| that Taiwan blocks China's abilities to see attacks
| coming from behind Taiwanese island.
| iwontberude wrote:
| This is specifically for missiles launched by submarines
| over Taiwan from just off the eastern coast.
| NickC25 wrote:
| On a more macro issue, it's also existential for the CCP
| because it shows the Chinese people (I'm talking the
| entire worldwide diaspora of people who call themselves
| Chinese) that there are indeed ways forward socially,
| culturally, technologically, economically, and most
| importantly, politically that are valuable to society
| that don't involve the CCP.
|
| Hong Kong was a threat because it showed Chinese people
| directly that economic growth was possible without the
| CCP.
| bloppe wrote:
| China has the biggest Navy in the world and they
| regularly circumnavigate Taiwan. They're not just sitting
| there on the mainland with binoculars wishing they could
| see what's on the other side.
| saghm wrote:
| > The problem with your argument is that in current times
| it is much more likely that China acts rationally than the
| US does.
|
| I don't think these options are exclusive; more than one
| party can act irrationally at the same time.
| DanielHB wrote:
| > The problem with your argument is that in current times
| it is much more likely that China acts rationally than the
| US does.
|
| Doesn't make his point less valid, in fact it makes it
| probably more valid. When other people are acting
| irrationally you might as well do so too since you can't
| predict what other people will do in response.
| jppittma wrote:
| 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?
| elric wrote:
| For the same reasons that demolishing Gaza, relocating its
| inhabitants, and letting someone else develop the land is
| utterly insane.
|
| People aren't random machines that can be moved willy-nilly.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| This lines up perfectly with Trump's policy on Palestine and
| Ukraine. "Let them take the land", who cares about the
| people?
| sho_hn wrote:
| One reason is that none of these factories can be built
| without European ASML machines, and given how the US is doing
| its absolute best to disrupt its relationship with Europe,
| maybe it would be time to stop selling them there and
| consider selling them to China instead.
| sam345 wrote:
| Because not exercising superpowers is what makes a superpower?
| credit_guy wrote:
| > the US is not going to help defend Taiwan, no matter who is
| in the White House.
|
| You are skipping a very important detail in the whole equation.
| The detail that teleportation was not invented yet. For China
| to take over Taiwan, they need to somehow place soldiers in
| Taiwan, and there's 100 miles of sea that complicate that.
|
| The war over Taiwan is going to be a complex chess match. US
| wants to keep being able to prevent China from crossing those
| 100 miles, and China wants to deny the US the ability to do
| that. US can perform sea and air patrols, but those are quite
| expensive, and China can try to make them even more expensive.
| The war is not going to have a clear starting date, like
| 24-Feb-2022. It's going to be a gradual increase of the
| invasion threat posed by China that will force the US to
| increase its local military posture. A certain type of blockade
| will happen, but it's going to be intentionally unclear how
| total the blockade will be. The US and its allies will try a
| measured response. China will try to create tensions it the US
| alliance. The US will try some sanctions. China will try to
| seed disinformation inside the US public debate sphere. Costs
| will ramp up. Etc, etc.
|
| But it's not going to be as simple as the US will look at the
| problem and will count the beans and call it quits.
| 127 wrote:
| Xi has said that if peaceful unification doesn't happen, it
| will happen through force. I think that's what he's going to
| do. People just love to cope around hard topics.
| rjmill wrote:
| I wonder if Bacardi might be a better analogue for what TSMC
| gets from this deal.
|
| Bacardi started a distillery in Puerto Rico (iirc, to sell in
| the US without tariffs) well before the Cuban Revolution. When
| the Cuban government seized Bacardi's assets, they were able to
| move everything to their other sites in Puerto Rico and Mexico.
|
| As you point out, I highly doubt this deal moves the needle on
| whether or not US provides military aid to Taiwan. But it does
| help give them more options if the situation in Taiwan becomes
| untenable.
| ever1337 wrote:
| > > If you believe the US will or should only act in its own
| interest, then its interest is to remain the only superpower.
|
| This is the error of non-Marxist 'realism'. The US is not a
| monolith with a single general interest. It is a class society
| with its own internal contradictions that play out, for one,
| internationally. There are legitimately diverging interests
| when it comes to the role of the United States abroad, and
| importantly, growing consciousness among classes which in some
| ways or others, view the institutions of the US' superpower-
| status as part and parcel of their own oppression domestically.
| par wrote:
| or a fourth perspective, you're undermining the importance of
| TSMC production/output, and the US would indeed go to war over
| it.
| misja111 wrote:
| > In this case, the US would be in a comfortable position to
| send aid and weapons to help Taiwan,
|
| Trump made clear last year already that in case of a Chinese
| invasion, the US would not support Taiwan militarily: they
| would answer with economic sanctions instead.
| belter wrote:
| Or just get a compromised President, and you spend just a few
| billion in joint ventures:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/28/business/ivanka-trump-chi...
| DanielHB wrote:
| It is hard to drill this in the mind of people who grew up
| under stable governments, but dictators have this terrible
| habit of sacrificing prosperity to gain control (often
| sacrificing the former without gaining the later). Being a
| dictator and surrounded by yes-man, they also tend to act less
| rationally and less predictably than your average democratic
| leader.
|
| History is full of kings who started terrible wars and got
| their countries screwed in the process. You can't apply game
| theory this kind of people.
| SalmoShalazar wrote:
| It sounds like you're trying to paint Xi as a dictator who is
| not a rational actor. This is quite obviously not accurate.
| jorts wrote:
| He is a dictator who has surrounded himself with yes men
| and purged everyone else.
| deeviant wrote:
| Were they talking about Xi? I assumed they were talking
| about the American dictator.
| gp wrote:
| This was my take, as well.
| DanielHB wrote:
| It is a spectrum not a yes/no answer.
| darkhorse222 wrote:
| He's probably rational, but he's certainly not
| democratically elected and has ousted all his enemies. What
| do you define as a dictator? He's accountable to no one.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Even rational actors may make bad decisions if they are
| badly informed, and given how risky it usually is to bring
| bad news to the emperor, chances are that Xi is fed with
| data that is a bit rosier than it should.
| nine_k wrote:
| It is rational for a dictator to increase their power at
| the expense of some prosperity of the populace. Communist
| rulers around the world exhibited this trait, but non-
| Communist rulers also did the same from times immemorial.
| thereddaikon wrote:
| China doesn't want Taiwan for TSMC. They want Taiwan because
| they see them as a rebellious province. In their mind, the
| Chinese civil war never ended and that island is the last
| bastion of the Kuomintang. One way I've heard it described in a
| way that is easier for Americans to understand is; Imagine at
| the end of the American Civil War, a confederate army retreated
| to an island like Cuba or Hawaii, they took it over and have
| been calling themselves the real America ever since.
|
| I'm not saying China is right in wanting to invade Taiwan. But
| that's closer to their real motivations than anything having to
| do with economics or technology. And its important to
| understand your potential adversaries motivations because that
| will inform their decisions and tactics.
| glenneroo wrote:
| You speak as if you have some special insider knowledge.
|
| I personally would guess that the 9-dash line also has
| something to do with them wanting to take Taiwan.
| thereddaikon wrote:
| Insider knowledge? Not really, unless you count asking
| actual chinese and taiwanese nationals what they think
| about it instead of assuming their world view is the same
| as my own.
| glenneroo wrote:
| Thanks for clarification. Do you believe nationals of
| these countries (or any country in the world) know what
| the CCP actually wants i.e. its true goals?
| bitmasher9 wrote:
| I think their true goals are pretty transparent, but the
| specifics of how they plan to achieve them are more
| secretive.
|
| The CCP primarily wants to gain power. Political,
| economic, and social. The levels of ambition probably
| vary by individuals inside the party, but generally
| involves a uniform level of control across all regions of
| China (including Taiwan from their point of view), and
| enough global power to give them a free hand in East
| Asia.
|
| Chinese nationals may put more emphasis on increasing
| prosperity. Taiwan nationals may put more emphasis on
| strict control and global power. Individual reactions
| largely vary. Out of both groups, limitations on personal
| liberties cause the harshest criticism of CCP, with the
| one child policy almost universally seen unfavorably.
| smaug7 wrote:
| This to me is the correct answer. A lot of times in war it's
| not about logic or reason, it's about emotion and feeling.
| Throughout Chinese history, a leader is only "legitimate" or
| dare I say, have the Mandate from Heaven, when they have
| unified the country under one banner. It is a stain on their
| authority that there is "rouge" state outside the CCP's
| control. They will do anything to unify their country for
| national pride.
| skyyler wrote:
| "rouge" means red
|
| "rogue" means rascal
| itishappy wrote:
| In context, both kinda work.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| I guess KMT had red on its flag, but definitely wasn't
| communist
| jagged-chisel wrote:
| Sometimes, we know just the word we want. And we know how
| to spell it. But we fat-finger it. Or our fingers trip.
| Or our brains just get the finger-tapping order a bit
| off.
|
| None of these things requires an education in using the
| incorrect word. "Irregardless"? Give 'em what for!
| Their/there/they're? A nice reminder. Swapped a couple
| letters is a plausible explanation? A simple correct
| spelling followed with a * would suffice.
|
| rogue*
| skyyler wrote:
| Yeah I wasn't trying to be insulting or anything. It's a
| common mistake and I haven't seen a clever mnemonic for
| it yet.
| MikeTheGreat wrote:
| How about:
|
| Rouge is red, you rascally rogue!
|
| No, no - don't bother, I'll see myself out :)
| saberience wrote:
| Jesus, you realize people just mistype things sometimes?
| It really annoys me when people feel like they have to
| come in and correct others this way, it's so
| condescending.
| grotorea wrote:
| This specific one is so common, are people actually
| mistyping or getting autocompleted? flashbacks to Rouge
| One
| zuminator wrote:
| Personally, I'm grateful to be corrected on a casual and
| anonymous forum if it saves me from making the same
| mistake on a formal document, condescension
| notwithstanding. My response to grammar cops is either,
| "Thank you!" if it was due to my ignorance, or "Oops,
| damned autocorrect/typo/ brain fart," if a lack of
| attention was at fault.
| booleandilemma wrote:
| And the worst are those people that make people feel bad
| for correcting spelling mistakes!
| null_deref wrote:
| I'm not sure I agree, Xi already proofed that he's a great
| political mind by his actions with in the inner politics of
| his own party. I think he'll treat the war with Taiwan
| rationally as the political tool that it can be. When the
| set of constraints and what he has to gain will be in his
| favor he may do it. I'm not an expert but I honestly can't
| not see him risk what he built for so many years for that
| amount of potential destabilization.
| CSSer wrote:
| This is an interesting theory. Under this line of
| political thinking, it's just as important that the U.S.
| project that they would come to help if the aim is
| political stability or maintaining the status quo.
| bentt wrote:
| Yes, communist nations especially need to protect the
| narrative that their way is the best way. Having the
| Taiwanese sitting off shore thriving outside of party
| control is embarrassing.
| eevilspock wrote:
| On a daily basis here on HN, capitalists and libertarians
| and others with the SV mindset work hard to protect the
| narrative that their way is the best way.
| orthecreedence wrote:
| I'm so happy to live in the US, a country without
| ceaseless propaganda about how our way of life is the
| best and our democracy is the best and our freedom is the
| only way and there is no alternative to unfettered
| capitalism.
| bentt wrote:
| I mean on one hand we can do better but on the other,
| last I checked there's not been a time where citizens
| were hauled off to prison in the US for disparaging
| capitalism. Closest we came was the red scare in the 50s
| and that was tame in comparison to what Stalin and Mao
| and Pol Pot and Castro and Ho Chi Minh and (do I need to
| keep going?) put their subjects through.
| skyyler wrote:
| >there's not been a time where citizens were hauled off
| to prison in the US for disparaging capitalism
|
| There is a time where American citizens are hauled off to
| prison to do slave labour. That time is right now.
| bentt wrote:
| For disparaging capitalism?
| skyyler wrote:
| In many cases, for nothing at all! Fabricated charges are
| extremely common in the American southeast.
| legitster wrote:
| It's worse than a rebellious province. It's a _more
| successful_ rebellious province.
|
| For China, they hold up all of these technical
| accomplishments and quality of life improvements they have
| made under their one party system. But now over here is
| Taiwan that never bought in and is doing even better! It
| undercuts all of their messaging.
|
| If the communist party could wave a magic wand, they would
| take Taiwan and not just extract wealth, but also pump out a
| lot of propaganda that says Taiwan is doing _even better_
| under party rule and Western-style democracy was holding it
| back.
| axus wrote:
| Hong Kong is a test case for what would happen to Taiwan
| (but with less shooting).
| knowitnone wrote:
| the US made China it's manufacturing arm and now the US
| wants to take that back? Kind of late. If China invades
| Taiwan, the US is to blame. Talk about putting all your
| eggs in one basket.
| xxpor wrote:
| And China made the US its source of income. The
| relationship works both ways. The consumer market in
| China is a disaster.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Hard to have a strong consumer market with 17%+ youth
| unemployment.
| xxpor wrote:
| And the reason there's 17%+ youth unemployment is because
| there's a weak consumer market!
|
| This is what happens when you structure your entire
| economy around exports: artificially weak currency,
| capital controls, artificially low wages, etc.
| dmoy wrote:
| Well also the 50%+ savings rate for a long time (down to
| the 30%s maybe ten years ago, then back up for awhile)
|
| If everyone in the US saved 30-50%+ it would not go well
| for our consumer market either.
| xxpor wrote:
| Absolutely.
| lupusreal wrote:
| > _If China invades Taiwan, the US is to blame_
|
| That's completely deranged. The CCP has intended to take
| Taiwan from day one. Before they even managed to drive
| the ROC out of mainland China they intended to take all
| of China, including Taiwan, and their failure to take
| Taiwan has never been something they were satisfied with.
|
| Manufacturing has nothing to do with it. America only has
| anything to do with it insofar as they have helped Taiwan
| resist the CCP so far.
| ithkuil wrote:
| Yeah that weird logic is all too common recently. I'll
| paraphrase:
|
| The ravenous wild beast is pounding at your door. The
| only thing standing before you and certain death is your
| front door that needs urgent repairs. You call your
| landlord begging for help but they say it's not their
| problem.
|
| The beast smashes through the door and eats you up.
|
| Some would agree that the landlord is to blame because of
| inaction. Some would argue instead that the landlord is
| not responsible for your problem. You should have not
| provoked the beast. Or fixed the door yourself. Or paid
| more rent etc.
|
| This framing only works of the wild beast has no agency
| at all. It's by definition wild and we all know what it
| will do and it can't help itself but being a man eating
| wild beast. It has no moral obligation to not be a man
| eating beast.
|
| But by applying this framing to Russia and CCP you're
| dehumanizing them. You're assuming that they are so evil
| they cannot possibly have any moral obligations and so
| the burden falls on third parties (or worse, you, their
| victim!) if they attack you!
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| > the US made China it's (sic) manufacturing arm..
|
| i think it's more accurate to give credit where earned:
| one thing the CCP did smart was _win_ foreign business
| (US Apple and Dell etc) by building the rentable factory
| system with deep dependable supply chains directly
| adjacent. That was uniquely able , globally, to compete
| and win business.
|
| The US didn't seemingly even think to do that, perhaps
| distracted by the Cold War?
| dehrmann wrote:
| US tariffs on China are worse for Taiwanese independence
| than TSMC building fabs in the US.
| nine_k wrote:
| Pray elaborate! What is the mechanism of that, in your
| opinion?
|
| (Not saying that the US policy is decent here, or
| anywhere else, under the current administration.)
| dehrmann wrote:
| The trade war reduces China's dependence on the US,
| whether through sales or holding US treasuries. This
| means China can invade Taiwan with less risk of economic
| sanctions. That said, without TSMC, and especially with
| the current administration, I doubt the US would step in.
| tdeck wrote:
| > they hold up all of these technical accomplishments and
| quality of life improvements they have made under their one
| party system. But now over here is Taiwan that never bought
| in
|
| Never bought in to one party rule huh? It seems like people
| forgot about the 38 years of martial law:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law_in_Taiwan
| Retric wrote:
| This isn't an abstract comparison. CCP mostly overthrew
| the existing government and Taiwan was a continuation of
| that existing system. So for that system be quantifiably
| better is an issue independent of things like elections.
|
| It's a clear demonstration that failures like the great
| Chinese famine simply wouldn't have happened if the
| communist revolution failed. That's a significant
| political issue, because people from that time period are
| still alive so they can't simply erase the memory of it.
| legitster wrote:
| Even so, this doesn't change the fact that anything that
| Maoists could take credit for was done better by the non-
| ideologue dictator next door.
|
| But the fact that the martial law came to an end largely
| democratically is good evidence that both democratic
| reform was easier outside of the CCCP, and that the
| Taiwanese single party rule was probably not as
| totalitarian as some people claim.
| r00fus wrote:
| > It's worse than a rebellious province. It's a more
| successful rebellious province.
|
| That statement just made me LOL. In what dimension other
| than foreign investment do you see Taiwan as more
| successful than China? In 2025, it's pretty clear that
| China has self sovereignty, is the world's factory, leads
| in BRICS, and isn't subject to the US empire.
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| Taiwan is 3x more prosperous per capita. PRC just has a
| lot more people.
| tazjin wrote:
| So Norway and maybe Monaco are more successful than the
| US?
| ithkuil wrote:
| there are multiple success metrics
| junipertea wrote:
| also, to answer the original question: yes they are
| dontlikeyoueith wrote:
| In improving the lives of their people?
|
| Yes, absolutely.
| nine_k wrote:
| North Korea has self sovereignty, space rockets, nuclear
| weapons, and sends its troops to a war overseas to
| project its power!
|
| South Korea is just much more successful at putting bread
| (and many other foods) on the tables of its citizens. It
| is also more advanced technologically, and, curiously,
| has a working democratic government instead of a
| hereditary single-party rule.
| legitster wrote:
| Per capita income? Percentage of people with
| education/clean running water/out of poverty? Things that
| actually matter to the daily lives of people?
|
| Yes, China has lifted millions of people out of poverty
| over the last few decades, but the median person in China
| is still vastly worse off than the median person in
| Taiwan.
| wnevets wrote:
| > China doesn't want Taiwan for TSMC. They want Taiwan
| because they see them as a rebellious province. In their
| mind, the Chinese civil war never ended and that island is
| the last bastion of the Kuomintang. One way I've heard it
| described in a way that is easier for Americans to understand
| is; Imagine at the end of the American Civil War, a
| confederate army retreated to an island like Cuba or Hawaii,
| they took it over and have been calling themselves the real
| America ever since.
|
| We know this version is closer to the truth because Mao tried
| to take Taiwan
| thereddaikon wrote:
| Its an imperfect analogy but I'm trying to illustrate an
| idea in a more relatable way. If you pick at the details it
| will fall apart.
| wnevets wrote:
| I'm trying to help further the analogy by pointing out
| the fact decades prior to TSMC existing Mao Zedong used
| forced in an attempt to take Taiwan.
| dehrmann wrote:
| > They want Taiwan because they see them as a rebellious
| province
|
| Is it really this, or is that just cover for it being in the
| first island chain?
| joeguilmette wrote:
| Yes except it's not as if they went to Cuba, it's more like
| the confederates fled to Long Island.
| genman wrote:
| You are unfortunately not understanding how you are being
| deceived. Confederate in this store didn't flee. They won
| and there really is the Real America on Long Island.
| preisschild wrote:
| > Imagine at the end of the American Civil War, a confederate
| army retreated to an island like Cuba or Hawaii, they took it
| over and have been calling themselves the real America ever
| since.
|
| In reality while the confederate states were part of the
| United States, the Republic of China (Taiwan) was never part
| of the Peoples Republic of China (communist China), its the
| reverse.
| CDRdude wrote:
| Analogies don't have to be 100% perfect. The Confederate
| analogy gets the point across just fine.
| genman wrote:
| It only deceives.
| nine_k wrote:
| > _a confederate army retreated to an island like Cuba_
|
| No, it's the other way around. Imagine that the South is
| victorious, and the last remnants of the North forces remain
| in, say, Long Island, calling themselves the original
| American Republic, claiming their lineage from the revolution
| of 1776. Technically they would be!
|
| The Taiwanese regime is a remnant of the original Republic of
| China established in 1914, and Kuomintang is one of the
| original democratic parties of that republic. The Communist
| regime are the "rebels" of the Communist revolution of 1949.
| But, as they say, a rebellion can never succeed, because if
| it does, it's called another way.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| > They want Taiwan because they see them as a rebellious
| province.
|
| We can argue about what the exact desire is - there's 100M
| people in the CCP - we'll probably never know an exact
| answer.
|
| The important thing is - China is willing to spend a LOT more
| money to take Taiwan than it is economically worth.
|
| So this idea that 1) China wants Taiwan for chips, 2) War
| would cost more than chips, 3) Therefore, Taiwan is logically
| safe - is a fallacy.
|
| The war in Ukraine is never going to pay off for Russia.
| They're not fighting that war to make money. They're fighting
| that war because a bunch of dick bags got together in a room
| and decided it was expedient for them for millions of people
| to lose their lives.
| rtkwe wrote:
| There's one big strategic thing the Ukraine war offers
| Russia and that's a nice balmy port and (if they'd managed
| the original 3 days to Kiev) removing a potential invasion
| front on it's juicy underbelly.
| genman wrote:
| The only reason Russia is against NATO is the article 5 -
| it makes attacking peaceful nations more expensive and
| risky for them. That is all there is.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The only reason Russia is against NATO is the article 5
|
| Nah, they are also against Article 4 (regional security),
| which while not as concrete of a commitment, applies much
| more broadly, and which leads to things like the current
| support for Ukraine, not just Article 5 (mutual defense),
| which only affects hem when they would want to target a
| NATO member's territory in and in a couple areas close to
| Europe or North America.
| greedo wrote:
| What port? They already have Crimea (since 2014) and the
| Black Sea isn't really 'balmy.'
| rtkwe wrote:
| It doesn't freeze which by Russian standards is balmy, an
| accidental shiboleth that trips up Russians pretending to
| be American online is they'll mention unprompted "warm
| water ports".[0]
|
| This invasion is partially an extension of their goal of
| securing Crimea with a more solid land connection rather
| than the more easily interrupted bridge connection that
| was their only connection until they pushed up to their
| current lines in Eastern Ukraine.
|
| [0] eg: https://preview.redd.it/least-obvious-russian-
| tweeting-about...
| thereddaikon wrote:
| I use China in this context to mean the Chinese state which
| given their system is interchangeable with the CCP. So you
| can subv in CCP in my statement or even Xi if you want
| since he is unequivocally running things.
|
| In the case of Ukraine, Russia's (read: the russian
| government which is synonymous with Putin who dictator in
| all but name) motivation is somewhat similar. But they
| don't see Ukraine as a rebellious province. They see it as
| a vassal state as they do all of the other former SSRs and
| members of the Warsaw pact. Putin and his nationalist group
| have a very old world view of things and a very specific
| concept of what their rightful sphere of influence is and
| what exactly it means to control it. This isn't even unique
| to them. After securing power, the Bolsheviks quickly
| attempted to bring former Russian imperial possessions back
| under their control. That included Ukraine, Poland and
| Finland. Poland and Finland were able to secure their
| independence, Ukraine was less fortunate. For all the talk
| of anti imperialism, they were just as imperial as their
| predecessors. So this is just russians being russians and
| an inability for their world view to evolve past the 19th
| century.
| jppope wrote:
| > "They're fighting that war because a bunch of dick bags
| got together in a room and decided it was expedient for
| them for millions of people to lose their lives."
|
| Pretty sure Putin needs to start wars, conflicts, terrorist
| events to maintain political stability. That is to say, he
| can't lose power because they'll kill him.
| dilyevsky wrote:
| China is basically circled on all sides by US-allied forces
| and with Taiwan being one it really limits their force
| projection capabilities in the Pacific. That's the actual
| pragmatic reason, not some ideology thing, imho
| dralley wrote:
| Everyone wants to think there is always a "pragmatic"
| reason. It helps to think that there is always a rational
| cause for everything, every decision that is made. And we
| map cynicism about our own politicians onto everyone else,
| thinking that surely they don't mean what they say either.
|
| There's not always a rational reason. Ideology and
| nationalism are real things. World leaders do not always
| act in "rational" ways, nor are they always playing 4D
| chess.
| RealityVoid wrote:
| Bingo! Trying to assign reason to emotional decisions is
| like reading tea leaves. And we're all subject to these
| emotional forces.
| gwd wrote:
| > Imagine at the end of the American Civil War, a confederate
| army retreated to an island like Cuba or Hawaii, they took it
| over and have been calling themselves the real America ever
| since.
|
| I mean, for a decade or so, try to re-unify, sure. But 75
| years later, with slavery abolished and a completely
| different governmental system? I'd like to think most
| Americans would have accepted the New Normal by that point.
| If anything this tells me how irrational Chinese and Russian
| attitudes are.
| slt2021 wrote:
| Taiwan's elites are Japanese, and they are universally
| despised on the mainland.
| hayst4ck wrote:
| There is no "reason" or justification. The decision to invade
| has already been made, all these explanations exist for the
| sole purpose of making it easier to do nothing about it when
| the invasion happens. Chinese people feel they way they are
| taught to feel.
|
| China's fundamental argument distilled to its most pure form
| is "we are strong enough to do this, what are you going to do
| about it?" A world where the strong do whatever they want
| because no one can do anything about it is not a world anyone
| should want to live in.
|
| All of the Chinese expressing these opinions from a position
| of safety can't seem to put themselves in the shoes of
| Taiwanese. The inhumanity of an invasion is being hidden by
| high level ideas like history.
|
| The American civil war comparison fails. No American sits and
| thinks about invading the UK to "complete" our revolution and
| that's much closer than your scenario.
| helixfelix wrote:
| Don't think you can single out China here.
|
| Brexit, electing Trump a 2nd time, Iraq war, Israeli
| occupation of Palestine. Pick your own examples
|
| Weve always been a world where propaganda wins and the
| strong ruling class do what they want, we should drop the
| pretense and hypocrisy that it was ever any other way.
| dikaio wrote:
| Are you implying Brexit and Trumps second term is due to
| propaganda?
| ta1243 wrote:
| Certainly these were due to social media manipulation
| peterbecich wrote:
| In my opinion it is a populist movement, and we should
| accept this hard truth. Trump is in office due to
| "manipulation" to the same extent that any speech is
| manipulation. He is a salesman and has sold his vision
| for the country successfully.
| booleandilemma wrote:
| There's a reason for everything, whether you like the
| reason or not.
| ge96 wrote:
| With the recent oval office meeting yeah... I am skeptical too
| now it sucks.
| Rapzid wrote:
| The West will continue to do two things.
|
| One, secure the supply of chips. Just look at what happened
| with COVID coinciding with increased TSMC fab demand from
| Apple, NVidia, and AMD.
|
| Two, prevent China from gaining the technology and expertise to
| make cutting edge chips. This is already happening and can be
| handled a number of different ways if China even wanted to try
| gaining this capability from Taiwan (debatable).
|
| Two doesn't really require defending Taiwan. One is the USAs
| primary economic concern.
|
| And I know this is hard to believe, but there are actually
| still people ideologically aligned with supporting democracies
| against invasion by fascist countries..
| anabab wrote:
| The West seems to be not that unitary nowadays. What would be
| the reason for the half with ASML to keep doing the second
| thing you have listed?
| chrisjc wrote:
| > In the worst-case scenario, they would be 2-3 years behind
| the cutting edge, which is not mission-critical.
|
| It's also worth considering how such an event might affect the
| US and allies. Would it slowdown, perhaps even halt certain
| operations/efforts for the US. For instance, all those chips
| the US needs to build supercomputers for "weather research". ;)
| vkou wrote:
| What allies will the US have in a few years?
| throwawayffffas wrote:
| > 1. China takes Taiwan quickly.
|
| That is extremely unlikely to happen, Taipei has invested a lot
| in defense, and until lately the public in Taiwan at least says
| they would fight[1]. It's extremely unlikely that they will
| fold so fast that the US won't have to get involved or to
| choose to not get involved.
|
| > 3. Taiwan successfully defends itself, repels the Chinese
| invasion, and possibly even takes back some territory.
|
| That won't happen either. China has an incredible manpower and
| material advantage, they are unlikely to be effectively
| defeated. Even if Taiwan can deny the channel and prevent a
| landing they will still be effectively blockaded.
|
| > 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.
|
| It will take weeks before we can tell if there is a stalemate
| or not, and the stalemate will not be stable. If the Americans
| try to provide aid they will have to cross the Chinese blockade
| and they will have to fight to do so.
|
| [1] https://www.dw.com/en/most-taiwanese-would-defend-island-
| aga...
| justin66 wrote:
| Speaking of blockade, the United States can (before or after
| hostilities between Taiwan and China begin) keep ships
| carrying oil, food, and animal feed from reaching China.
| lupusreal wrote:
| Nothing will happen unless China believes they can achieve a
| swift victory. It may turn out that they believe this, turn
| out to be wrong, and get themselves stuck in one of the other
| scenarios. As happened to Russia.
| tcmart14 wrote:
| I was gonna take some issue with point one until I read point
| to, which sounds like it addresses my thoughts. China could
| take Taiwan quickly, but it would come at a pretty high cost
| to Chinese forces. I personally don't think China is really
| that invested into conquering Taiwan militarily, the Chinese
| invasion has been 6-9 months away for 30 years now according
| to "foreign policy" experts on Chinese-Taiwan relations. You
| can find books in the 90s predicting an invasion happening
| the following fall just as you see in today's articles. While
| the Chinese government is far from benevolent, if you go
| based on history, its more likely the US invades Taiwan than
| China. Other than border disputes with India and teaming up
| with the US to handle Somali pirates, China hasnt really had
| any real military activity since their failed campaign
| against Vietnam 40-50 years ago. At least that I know of.
| Which I would say perhaps backs up one point you may. Chinese
| forces could be massively weaker than expected. War sucks,
| but the tiniest benefit you can at least attribute to US
| interventions is, we do have some real combat experienced
| folks. China doesn't have any actual combat experience other
| than the once in a blue moon Chinese and Indian forces pop
| shots across the border, but no real sustained campaign. But
| yea, as we have also seen. Regardless of military might,
| rooting out guerilla forces is the hardest. The Taiwanese
| government may fall with China installing a military
| governor, but if the Taiwanese resort to guerilla warfare, it
| will be hard for Chinese forces to keep total control and
| stability for a long time.
|
| Just my thoughts though based on my knowledge. If anyone has
| anything to add, would be glad to read and learn more.
| throwawayffffas wrote:
| I direct you to some foreign policy experts (war on the
| rocks)[1].
|
| While we can't know what the central party committee is
| thinking, we know what they are saying, Xi in a speech in
| 2021 set the priority of having the capability of taking
| Taiwan by force by 2027.[2] Additionally they are probably
| not building the largest navy in the world and the largest
| collection of civilian roll on roll off ships for show.
|
| I am not saying they will attack, but they definitely want
| to have it as an option.
|
| [1]. https://warontherocks.com/2025/02/is-the-peoples-
| liberation-...
|
| [2]. https://news.usni.org/2021/06/23/milley-china-wants-
| capabili...
| Apocryphon wrote:
| The 2027 date may be overblown, prone to hysterical
| misinterpretations:
|
| https://x.com/MikeBlack114/status/1571401031539367939
| toasterlovin wrote:
| Something I never see anybody discuss is that China is
| completely dependent on imported oil and the U.S. has the
| strongest Navy in the world. Unless I'm missing something,
| sanctioning oil deliveries to China should actually work in a
| way that sanctions don't really work against Russia, since
| Russia is a net energy exporter (bringing up Russia since I
| think that's the natural comparison for whether sanctions
| work). From my cursory research, China has a small petroleum
| reserve, hardly imports any oil via pipeline from Russia, and
| an industrial economy ceases to function almost immediately
| without oil.
| siliconc0w wrote:
| The official strategy is for Taiwan to turtle in the mountains
| and wait for coalition aid. There is a shitload of bases and
| weaponary in the area to repel a china invasion and Korea and
| Japan both know they're next if they let Taiwan fall.
|
| However I think Trump has basically given up the game and made
| it pretty plain that he has no desire to help Ukraine or Taiwan
| and will be happy to sign 'deals' giving them up, even if those
| deals basically give the autocrats everything they want - just
| enough vague 'rare earth'-style bullshit that he feels he can
| claim them as victories in the press.
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| Defend? Probably not... but it does give cover to absolutely
| annihilate mainland China and reduce it's ability to compete
| with the United States to nothing for decades if not forever.
| deepsun wrote:
| You assume that if it's not rational to start a war they would
| not start it.
|
| People in Ukraine and EU did the same mistake. Wars can start
| for no reason or for bogus "fake news" reasons. E.g. US can
| attack, say, Canada, at any time, there's no fundamental law of
| nature to prevent that.
| wrsh07 wrote:
| My impression was that the most likely scenario was China
| blockading Taiwan until forcing a surrender. In that case, the
| US and its allies would have time to respond although may be
| busy doing other things (eg responding to ships near
| Australia/NZ or Japan)
|
| Your situations seem possible but don't really cover any of the
| nuance of the real situation (see what China has been doing to
| the Philippines in the south china sea)
|
| A multiyear conflict with China would be difficult for the US.
| The manufacturing capacity and proximity would make a large
| category of aid difficult/impossible/useless. (Allies like SK
| or Japan could be more helpful in this situation)
| onepremise wrote:
| With the current administration, the US will just do the same
| thing they did to Ukraine. They will abandon them.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyJY_dq8_SM The Trump
| administration will take TSMC's technology and then leave them
| to fend for themselves. Just as they literally forced Ukraine
| to denuclearize and now they have no power to keep Russia in
| check. We promised to defend Ukraine, but now the Trump
| administration won't promise security when It was already
| promised. The same thing is going to happen to Taiwan as soon
| as the administration get's theirs. We can't trust the current
| administration to follow through with any of their promises.
|
| We are more likely to get pulled into a war with Russia and
| North Korea on the wrong side against Ukraine and the EU.
| Taiwan is a minor concern to what's taking place in our
| government right now. The very mere fact that Trump is siding
| and supporting Russian narratives, offering "gold cards" to
| Russian Ochlarchies, firing and gutting departments and
| agencies, including overwatch, should terrify everybody.
|
| Trump is just flooding the zone with shit as he continues to
| break apart all checks and balances while keeping everybody
| distracted.
| aibot923 wrote:
| Prediction: USA will NEVER put troops on the ground in Taiwan,
| particularly with the current admin. There is no risk/benefit
| analysis where fighting a war makes sense for the USA. The
| USA's posture is a bluff - it's willing to provide aid and
| maybe a blockade but not fight directly. It's primary goal is
| to protect other regional allies and chip access (which it can
| build domestically).
| rhubarbtree wrote:
| Not really sure how to read this, but to state it how most
| international commentators would put it:
|
| China wants Taiwan because they think it is part of China, and
| because China is building an empire.
|
| America would defend Taiwan because it wants to contain China,
| TSMC is an extra incentive.
|
| In the Trump administration, this calculus may change. Trump
| may well let China take Taiwan in the spirit of carving up the
| world between major powers. I believe this will now happen.
|
| In terms of invasion, it is far more likely China blurs the
| lines and blockades Taiwan, extracting concessions and using
| Russian-style tactics to take control without a real "war".
| This is one reason why Trump's policy in Ukraine is a disaster
| for the Taiwanese, as it confirms the efficacy and
| acceptability of such tactics.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| Honestly, the idea that the US would spill American blood and
| treasure to defend Taiwan has kind of sailed into the sunset
| with our current administration. It is very much America 1st,
| 2nd and 3rd. If Taiwan wishes to stay independent, they need to
| be able to defense themselves alone because the current admin
| will not probably not lift a finger if current events are any
| measure.
| PeterStuer wrote:
| 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.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| 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?
| tokioyoyo wrote:
| 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.
| aurareturn wrote:
| Because China stated has a law that states they will use
| military force if a peaceful reunification is "impossible".
| Right now, it's still possible. And if Taiwan plays its cards
| right, they can extend this for longer and buy more time.
|
| China wants to retake Taiwan without firing a shot.
| qaq wrote:
| Is that 100B like 500B stargate thingy or ... ?
| yujzgzc wrote:
| 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.
| altacc wrote:
| 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.
| gizzlon wrote:
| > 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)
| yujzgzc wrote:
| Perhaps, but in the event of a conflict, I have trouble
| imagining him insisting that US must send more weapons to
| Taiwan to continue fighting. I will be very curious to see
| the next polls on Taiwanese opinions re. unification as they
| face the fact that the US security umbrella is now leaky...
| af78 wrote:
| > China is on Trump's enemy list
|
| I hear that a lot, but is it true? I don't see signs that
| this Admin is doing anything to prepare for a confrontation
| with the PRC; rather, signs of the contrary: TikTok ban
| reversed, conciliatory tone towards Xi, talk about a 50%
| reduction in defense spending, even nuclear disarmament, not
| to mention the mess DOGE is doing at the DoD. And Musk has
| significant exposure in China.
|
| Of course, I'll be glad to stand corrected if I missed
| something.
| midasz wrote:
| Any and all promises made by the Trump administration mean
| nothing
| angry_octet wrote:
| I wonder how much Trump crypto they are going to have to buy to
| keep their country.
| neonsunset wrote:
| 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.
| stevetron wrote:
| It is my understanding that FABS require a lot of water. I don't
| think Arizona has enough water. I could be wrong, though. They
| keep a nuclear power plant running in AZ by piping in gray water
| for it.
| amusingimpala75 wrote:
| Intel has a fab nearby as well which is actually net positive
| for potable water because they take in waste water and purify
| it enough that it goes back into the supply after they're done
| using it.
| pavpanchekha wrote:
| Fabs recycle the water so it's not a big deal. A lot of water
| by industrial standards is not a lot of water by state
| standards, even if we're talking about a pretty desert-y state.
| petercooper wrote:
| Apparently it'll use the equivalent of about 12,000 homes worth
| of water _but_ have technology to recycle about 65% of their
| use, so ultimately ~5000 homes worth of water?
| https://eu.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/joannaallhands/...
| A lot but about 10% of current household growth in Arizona so
| they'll surely "find a way."
| TheGlav wrote:
| Recycling tech exists so that net-water use can be zero or near
| zero. It's a matter of spending the extra money on it: it's
| cheaper not to.
| angrytechie wrote:
| Even before getting into the geopolitics, isn't this almost
| exactly what the CHIPS act was supposed to do?
|
| You know, the one that the Trump team cut to shreds?
|
| This feels like it's all TV. Trump is doing what he's great at:
| slapping his name on work other people did in order to steal
| credit.
| dmix wrote:
| > You know, the one that the Trump team cut to shreds?
|
| I looked this up and sounds like they let probationary
| employees go (40/140 employees at dept of commerce CHIPS
| office) + 20 voluntarily resigned. I wonder if that was
| intentional or just the usual DOGE indiscriminate chaos.
|
| https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-chips-act-office-losing-191830...
|
| The article does claim:
|
| > The staff cuts, while significant, aren't as deep as some
| within the government and chip industry anticipated. In
| particular, they won't have a major impact on the teams
| responsible for negotiating with companies and evaluating their
| progress toward contractual benchmarks, a person familiar with
| the matter said. The chips office leadership urged against cuts
| to those departments in recent meetings with Lutnick.
|
| Addtionally, NIST's CHIPS office also had probationary
| cuts...CHIPS has two parts, one subsidizing companies via Dept
| of Commerce and a 2nd big investment in public sector research
| which NIST was doing.
|
| https://www.trendforce.com/news/2025/02/21/news-trumps-moves...
|
| It's also congress assigned money so they probably can't claw
| it back (legally), the legislative branch controls the purse.
| But they could slow walk it or try to change the rules.
| bitsage wrote:
| Trump has long boasted that he could have gotten semiconductor
| investments without subsidies. He would see it as a win if TSMC
| did the same thing, or even more, for free.
| jmyeet wrote:
| Underpinning a lot of Taiwan discourse is the idea that China has
| the capability to invade Taiwan. It does not. Nor do I think it
| actually wants to. China (IMHO) is happy to leave the Taiwan
| Question unanswered and unresolved.
|
| Roughly 100 miles of open ocean separates the Chinese mainland
| from Taiwan. It may as well be 10,000 miles. The difference is
| the same. That is an absolutely uncrossable gap for the Chinese
| military. Taiwan has a standing army of 150K+ and a million+
| reservists. I've seen estimates that China would need to land
| half a million troops to invade and occupy Taiwan, _minimum_.
| China simply does not have that amphibious capability.
|
| Beyond the direct military capability, you need supply lines. The
| logistical effort is so easily disrupted.
|
| On a clear day, you can see the white cliffs of Dover from Calais
| in France yet for 5+ years the German Army, being millions
| strong, was completley incapable of crossing that gap of roughly
| 17 miles. It took the Allies _years_ to muster the logistics
| necessary to invade Europe and it really took bad strategy by the
| Germans to allow that to happen (eg the whole Fortress Europa
| effort was silly and a complete waste of manpower). A wide enough
| river is sufficient barrier to stop even a modern army.
|
| Could China lob missiles at Taiwan? Sure, but to what end? Could
| they institute a naval blockade of Taiwan? Absolutely. But again,
| to what end? The American State Department will tell you it's
| because China is the Big Bad, the USSR 2.0. But just like with
| the USSR< the US likes to have an ideological foe to distract
| ordinary people from the fact that they're getting fleeced by the
| wealthy.
|
| It's worth adding that the official policy of the US government
| is the One China policy [1]. The US isn't actually interested in
| an independent Taiwan.
|
| So let's stop talking aobut invading Taiwan like it's a thing
| that's going to happen.
|
| What I suspect TSMC is doing here is hedging against a tarde war,
| diversifying their production and ingratiating itself with the US
| for when things like chip fabs become a sufficient national
| security interest that the US actually wants domestic supply
| and/or starts restricting what can be exported to Taiwan.
|
| [1]: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/understanding-the-one-
| chi...
| bitsage wrote:
| China definitely prefers the status quo. With both countries'
| rapidly aging demographics, a peaceful reunification might
| actually be feasible later this century. If Putin and Kim Jong
| Un are any indication, Xi is more likely to act if he thinks
| the status quo will be interrupted.
| billychuck21st wrote:
| Those thinking China vs Taiwan is like Russia vs Ukraine is
| greatly mistaken. The Chinese army after decades of build up is
| way stronger than Russia's, the enire PLA navy and airforce are
| built for a war with Taiwan. Ukraine still has Europe, Taiwan
| only has Japan, and has no border to any other countries. If the
| US wants to intervene, it must throw in its full weight, like the
| entire pacific fleet and some more, otherwise they won't be able
| to beat the PLA at its doorstep. With the current US
| administration, I can't imagine how it would do that "trade". I
| think it's far more likely the US will "sell" Taiwan to China for
| some deal that benefits the US financially or politicially.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| > I think it's far more likely the US will "sell" Taiwan to
| China for some deal that benefits the US financially or
| politicially.
|
| This will happen after USA extricates all the meaningful tech
| and re-homes the institutions and workforce required to
| maintain that tech to the USA mainland. Still probably a decade
| or two away, but likely.
| bloppe wrote:
| Why would China will wait for a decade? They've been very
| clear about wanting to invade by 2027
| xxpor wrote:
| They want to be ready to invade by 2027. Very different.
| bloppe wrote:
| I hope you're right, but I see no reason to be that
| optimistic.
| mtrovo wrote:
| If they're sure they can invade whenever they want, does it
| make sense to do it right now? What would they gain by
| sending all the good tech and researchers straight to the
| US? The longer they wait, the more advanced the tech they
| eventually steal might be. It's the golden goose story, but
| with a strategic rationale of when to kill the goose.
| bloppe wrote:
| It's not all about TSMC. The CCP has been very vocal
| about wanting to conquer Taiwan since long before TSMC
| even existed.
|
| Also, the longer they wait, the more tech gets
| transferred to the US, so even if it were all about TSMC,
| they would still be incentivized to act as soon as
| possible.
| r00fus wrote:
| Who says they'll invade by 2027? Some Washington think
| tank?
| ge96 wrote:
| entire fleet as in 7? that would be a lot of ships
|
| edit: ahh pacific
| bloppe wrote:
| Far more likely the US will "sell" Taiwan to China for some
| deal that greatly harms the US.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Maybe we'll get a steakhouse.
| bloppe wrote:
| That's our best case scenario.
| 1oooqooq wrote:
| it's not if i got the reference i think this was hinting
| at.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Steaks
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| Looks like yet another grift.
| bloppe wrote:
| Relatively speaking, that's still by far the best case
| scenario.
|
| We now live in a world of "how bad will it get".
| rozap wrote:
| I mean, it probably won't greatly harm a few special people
| in the US. I imagine they'll do quite well.
| hmmm-i-wonder wrote:
| Putting on my tinfoil hat here.
|
| One of the reasons Russia and China cooperate is because they
| also implicitly are supporting each others expansionist
| (reclaimationist? depending on point of view perhaps) stances,
| at least those not along shared borders.
|
| The current US administration is suddenly moving towards an
| expansionist narrative, as well as being supportive of Russian
| interest in Europe and much less antagonistic to China than it
| has been previously.
|
| Expecting this US administration to take ANY action opposing
| China or Russian interests that doesn't oppose its own going
| forward seems like betting no a dead horse.
| michpoch wrote:
| Russian army has plenty of combat experience. Russian weapons
| were export product and are battle tested.
|
| China has none of that.
|
| Russia brought soldiers from the far east to fight. How eager
| do you think Chinese will be to kill their fellow people in
| Taiwan? The communist government is not branding them as a
| enemy.
| golergka wrote:
| > Russian army has plenty of combat experience. Russian
| weapons were export product and are battle tested.
|
| Both Russian personell with real combat experience and
| russian weapons that have been sold to outside customers have
| run out in the first half a year of the war. Since late 2022,
| Russia is fighting with freshly mobilized troops that go from
| being civilians to dying in a meat attack in less than a week
| with no bootcamp and 1960s tanks from Soviet stockpiles.
| michpoch wrote:
| > Since late 2022, Russia is fighting with freshly
| mobilized troops that go from being civilians to dying in a
| meat attack
|
| The frontline troops - sure, but officers and up?
|
| Now think if the Chinese will be willing to take part in a
| meat-grinder war?
|
| > 1960s tanks from Soviet stockpiles.
|
| You mean in a battle-tested equipment. China got some-
| quality modernised soviet equipment with operators that
| never took part in any operations.
|
| China has certainly a weaker military than Russia before
| the war. And a society that might not be willing to die in
| millions to occupy a small island where their fellow people
| live, for no good reason other than political.
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| > The communist government is not branding them as a enemy.
|
| So decades of military theater from China regarding Taiwan is
| for no purpose?
| audunw wrote:
| Russia has energy independence and food security. China has
| neither. USA could achieve a lot just by blockading China,
| something China is in no position to challenge since most of
| their navy is a brown water navy.
|
| Yeah, they can probably fight fairly well for a year or two
| with their reserves (depending on how much of the reserves are
| actually there.. corruption is an issue). But after that they
| risk catastrophic destabilisation within China. People don't
| realise that Chinas main ongoing challenge is to keep mainland
| China itself stable. They spend much more on internal security
| than on external security. Chinas sabre rattling with Taiwan
| can be considered part of trying to maintain internal
| stability. It helps keep people focused on external enemies.
|
| Taiwan is also an order of magnitude more difficult to invade.
| The yearly window for invasion is fairly small. It's easy to
| see it coming. There's only a couple of beaches suitable to
| land an army on, and it will be blanketed with mines within an
| hour of seeing the first invasion ships crossing the strait.
|
| Ukraine has also demonstrated that a smaller nation can take
| out the entire navy of a bigger one with sea drones. Taiwan is
| now building their own drones.
|
| I think drones will favour the defender, even if China could
| make more of them. Especially when laser weapons can cheaply
| take out drone swarms trying to drop bombs on the defenders.
| The Taiwan strait will be impassable for any large ship, and
| you need to cross with a large ship and get boots on the ground
| to successfully invade.
| munificent wrote:
| I'll believe it when the check clears.
|
| In 2017, Trump and Scott Walker did a whole dog an pony show
| about how they convinced Foxconn to spend $10 billion in
| Wisconsin on a factory that was going to employ 13,000 people.
| Trump got a giant pile of good press about it.
|
| Then nothing happened, then the agreement was scaled down, then
| more delays. A couple of buildings were built then left empty and
| eventually sold off.
|
| But Trump supporters never followed up to see what happened. They
| just saw the initial press releases, declared a win, and forgot
| about the whole thing. Now we're doing it again.
| ge96 wrote:
| I feel like he always exaggerates everything "the best AI chip,
| the biggest, nobody even close" is that true... NVIDIA, Samsung,
| ASML, etc...
|
| Could learn from him, how to sell yourself
| diamond559 wrote:
| Yeah no, they will pair back their "plans" when the recession
| breaks out like every other company. Like we need way more
| chatbots and "ai" assistants... The bubble has burst.
| strangattractor wrote:
| You mean like Foxconn building LCDs in the US in his first
| term. The CEOs line up - bend the knee - 2 years later things
| change in the plans evaporate.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/policy/2019/4/26/18518650/foxconn-w...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-04 23:01 UTC)