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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
Please stop saying things like this. It doesn't help anyone.
To not express the idea.
[dead]
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.
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 port" as a notable feature.[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...
> 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.
> "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.
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.
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.
> 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.
You're fooling yourself if you don't think we live in, and have always lived in, this world.
Citizens like me, living in a relatively just society, can tell ourselves the world is not like this because of our daily lives, but the reality is if some group of people even stronger doesn't care, the strong get to do what they want.
I thought the whole Russia/Ukraine thing snapped people back into the reality of the world we live in, and I'm quite amazed that there are still people that don't realize this is how the world is, and always will, be.
One can recognize (correctly or not) something being true without wanting it to be true.
I find this particular "You shall believe that things are how we think they ought to be" conformism quite baffling - it's obviously wrong.
> You're fooling yourself if you don't think we live in, and have always lived in, this world.
While I agree it is different now because everything is in the spotlight and you can’t get away with things like you used to. So not sure I would go as far as “always will be”.
Also not sure there is a need to say how amazed one is about one other’s opinion, since it belittles it.
Freedom is a function of solidarity -- each man's willingness to sacrifice for his fellow man. If some are willing to make the sacrifice you can be free. If none are willing to make the sacrifice then all will die a slave. Unfortunately this means that some of the architects of a world we want to live in won't get to experience it.
Everything has a reason. Xi didn't make that decision for the lulz. The reason is they see Taiwan as part of China and in active rebellion. Simple as. That doesn't make it right, but that explains why they are doing it. You don't have to accept that but that's what actual chinese and taiwanese nationals have told me and I'm inclined to believe them.
There's a reason for everything, whether you like the reason or not.
its a world of occasional regional nuclear exchange
[flagged]
Certainly these were due to social media manipulation
i honestly cannot believe an intelligent person can just boil it all down to this and be satisfied with it.
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.
"rouge" means red
"rogue" means rascal
I guess KMT had red on its flag, but definitely wasn’t communist
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.
This specific one is so common, are people actually mistyping or getting autocompleted? flashbacks to Rouge One
And the worst are those people that make people feel bad for correcting spelling mistakes!
There are also many people that continue to make easily correctable mistakes because they don't know any better.
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.
There have been many periods of Chinese history with multiple competing dynasties, including transition periods. The Later Jin, for example, who became the Qing, took three generations to defeat the Ming dynasty; and they had been around since before the Song dynasty.
THe lands and territories also wax and waned throughout the centuries. A map of the territories controlled by the Qing at its peak is vastly different than that of the Tang or that of the Han dynasty.
This is more like the game of weiqi than it is the game of chess. The endgame isn't necessarily a decisive action with a win condition, but more of an accumulation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The entire justification for Musk's DOGE & MAGA is that the status quo in the USA is not good and needs to be torn down.
From my observation, the West suffers from the opposite of Chinese or Indian nationalism, in excessive self-flagellation to the point of self-destructiveness. Critical Theory, Identity Politics, Woke, Anti-Woke, Postmodernism (both left & right), etc would be immediately crushed in those nationalist societies, they are very much a unique artifact of the Western order.
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.
On the other hand, historically speaking, the various dynasties of China had been able tightly control markets when it was one of the jewels of the Silk Roads.
I prefer a free market myself, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking there isn't a narrative being pushed by people who profit off of free markets or capitalism.
> 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
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.
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.
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
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.
On the contrary - i don't see the value in playing couch psychoanalyst when there's a perfectly legit realpolitik reason available.
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.
Hong Kong is a test case for what would happen to Taiwan (but with less shooting).
> 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.
Chinese people know that Taiwan is only what it is because of money pumped by the US into the little island. It has always been the strategy of Western countries to support little states in the vicinity of enemy countries as a way to contain and divide the nation.
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.
So Norway and maybe Monaco are more successful than the US?
> 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:
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.
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.
I mean, it depends on what you mean by "rebellious". There is a lot more nuance than that. From the Kuomingtang's perspective, the CCP are the rebels.
One piece of history is that after Sun Yat-Sen died, his successor Chang Kai Shek purged the Kuomingtang of any socialist, community, and otherwise left-leaning members of their assembly. When some members escaped the purge, this sowed the seeds of the CCP that came to fruit after fighting off the Japanese during WWII.
When the Kuomingtang retreated to Taiwan, it was not run as a republic or a democratic society. Martial law ended in 1987 and a second political party did not appear until it was illegally formed in 1986. The Kuomingtang and its coalition continues to identify with China -- the civilization -- whereas the DDP-lead coalition is done with that and wants their own national identity of Taiwain.
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.
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!
> 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?
Hard to have a strong consumer market with 17%+ youth unemployment.
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.)
> 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.
It is a great analogy. However, in this case, that small island was taken by China even before the American Civil War. To put it into perspective, it was during the time when Isaac Newton was working on gravity.
And one episode of Open To Debate [1] argued Taiwan is the worst possible place to confront China:
> I used to give battlefield tours at Gettysburg, an extraordinary place. ... a certain cavalry General John Buford ... surveyed the ground and he knew right away he looked at the hills and said, this is good ground, ... The geography favors us. Well, I want to tell you folks, he saved our country that with that appreciation. But this is the opposite. This is bad ground. This is the worst possible place to confront China
> and have been calling themselves the real America ever since
This isn't really the situation with Taiwan though. The main reason Taiwan is still officially called the Republic of China is because changing that will likely trigger the PRC.
> I'm not saying China is right in wanting to invade Taiwan.
I find it very surprising that a lot of otherwise intelligent people have trouble with telling endorsement from explanation. Like when I tell people about some political (or not) figure's opinions and worldviews, I'm somehow defending them. I'm not! I'm doing it exactly to
> understand your potential adversaries' motivations
Happens all the time on the internet.
Yes except it’s not as if they went to Cuba, it’s more like the confederates fled to Long Island.
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.
I won’t push back on that. I wasn’t trying to assign one side as victor or morally superior by comparing the Taiwanese to the Confederates.
> 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.
> 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?
It is really that. It's part of their country (according to them).
> 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.
Taiwan's elites are Japanese, and they are universally despised on the mainland.
> 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.
Analogies don’t have to be 100% perfect. The Confederate analogy gets the point across just fine.
Not really, because it likes to the conflate the negative connotations of the confederates and their slavery to the ROC, when it's more like if the Union Government was in a civil war with the Confederates with the Union controlling most of the land, but then the British/Mexicans/Canadians, etc invaded and the Union broke it's back holding that back, then when the invaders finally retreated the Confederates were able to reorganize and defeat the Union, so then it would be the Union that retreat to Long Island or something.
Instead of doing blind analogies, it would be alot better just to directly describe the events of what occurred, but that's going to be inconvenient for the CCP and their supporters to introduce some nuance into the conversations.
It only deceives.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[flagged]
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.
He is a dictator who has surrounded himself with yes men and purged everyone else.
This looks more like a description of Trump...
It is a spectrum not a yes/no answer.
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.
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.
[flagged]
This was my take, as well.
Invading Taiwan will never be an economically rational action. If it happens, it will be because of internal politics, personal/national myth-making etc.
Taiwan is ridiculously favourable terrain for the defenders; if they fight back, there can't be quick victory, and the US will be able to play merry hell with China's naval logistics from day 1 (obviously with escalating levels of firepower available over time as more resources move in-theatre).
China could secure a more reliable victory by expending most of it's ballistic missile inventory to incapacitate the US bases in Guam and Okinawa, but that would inexorably trigger WWIII.
I don't think that's accurate. The population is concentrated on the west coast, all that mountainous terrain is unpopulated. Also it's an island that's very close to China.
I can't comment on their impartiality, but a policy research organisation ran a detailed war gaming simulation of an amphibious invasion by China 24 times in 2023.
> In most scenarios, the United States/Taiwan/Japan defeated a conventional amphibious invasion by China and maintained an autonomous Taiwan. However, this defense came at high cost. The United States and its allies lost dozens of ships, hundreds of aircraft, and tens of thousands of servicemembers. Taiwan saw its economy devastated. Further, the high losses damaged the U.S. global position for many years. China also lost heavily, and failure to occupy Taiwan might destabilize Chinese Communist Party rule.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/first-battle-next-war-wargamin...
[flagged]
> It's extremely unlikely to ever happen. I think westerners are simply projecting their own war mongering tendencies on their rivals.
Talk to Xi then: "Xi says no one can stop China's 'reunification' with Taiwan":
* https://www.reuters.com/world/china/xi-says-no-one-can-stop-...
You sound word for word like you are regurgitating CCP rhetoric of Victor Gao
The CCP talks constantly about unifying Taiwan
I see you posting anti-Western comments all over the place but amidst your irrational hate you are forgetting history.
Originally, the US was the protector of almost all Asian countries from Japanese Imperialism, an axis power allied with Nazi Germany. How are people like you forgetting the rape of Nanjing or the mass killings of civilians by the Japanese across the Philippines and many other places? How are you forgetting Japanese imperial occupation of Taiwan and Korea? How and WHY are you forgetting Japanese Unit 731 [1]?
Ironically, the government which fled to Taiwan was ousted by a Communist revolution and chased into exile. How likely do you think is it that this operation, destablilising China, was funded and supported by the communist Soviet Union?
Writing that "US is the intruder" in your other comments completely dismisses history and is a ridiculous show of brainwashed anti-Western propaganda spread by Putin, Xi, Trump and such authoritarian dictators.
Of course a whole lot more happened after 1945 and American war crimes in Vietnam and elsewhere are part of that. As a European, I am aware of American cultural and military hegemony but I much rather argue with raging capitalists about workers rights compared to raging authoriatarian communists who kill everybody not on their ideological side.
Given all that, I am also glad that Europe is now moving to emanciapte from the dependency on American security infrastructure but that doesn't mean NATO should stop or that the US should stop being allies with European nations. Trump gets his goal of spending less for European security but that comes with the loss of hegemonial influence.
[flagged]
The point, I guess, is that we had and still have mass organized protests against what happened in Iraq and Gaza. Some leaders paid a political price for that.
The US denounced Japan's invasion of Manchuria in 1931 and refused to recognize that as new Japanese territory. A military response was not then considered, but to say that nobody in the US cared is false.
Edit: More so, the fact that America's initial response to Japan's imperialism was diplomatic rather than military undermines the narrative that America was just using Japan as a pretext to cover for America's own imperial ambition. America, far from leaping at an opportunity to invade Asia, was committed to diplomatic resolution of the matter until Japan's imperial ambitions drove them to directly attack the American military, forcing America to respond in kind.
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.
> Always works
Not even remotely true.
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Even if the PRC can't be sure America would respond, a small risk of America responding has some deterrent effect. Hopefully enough.
Trump's extreme unpredictability might actually be a advantage in this scenario.
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.
A country is much less dependent on imports for survival than a castle.
> 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.
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.
You seem to believe that military networks are slapped together with off-the-shelf SaaS apps, or that military software contracts don't specify that all that "e.g. for analytics" crap has to be pulled out of the build, or that they don't test these things regularly.
Have you ever worked on a military contract? Or even just a regular government contract? It's a whole other type of sales, contracting, and fulfillment process.
Why would this have any strategic impact on Taiwan's capacity to defend itself?
I'm quite certain taiwan is aware of this "kubernetes clusters" paradox and the military has the issue addressed.
> 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...
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
It's about exerting political control.
> 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.
> 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.
> From China’s perspective, the cost of war is much higher than the cost of developing these chips themselves.
For China it’s not about the chips. It’s about getting rid of the humiliation that is having a small island, that was originally part of China, not be a part of China.
A 'small' island with one of the most successful and thriving democracies in the East, that has world class industry. China cannot have a successful democracy on their doorstep, it undermines their perception of absolute Chinese superiority.
This doesn't really make sense, the Chinese standard of living has risen to very comfortable levels over the past couple decades. There aren't throngs of desperately poor Chinese people longing for the capitalist democratic paradise over in Taiwan.
If anything, China's rising wealth and living standard is a threat to the United States' sense of superiority. I don't see the US saying "Screw it, let's try totalitarianism" if it wasn't falling behind.
This is basically the George Bush argument "they hate us because of our freedom". Totally absurd.
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.
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.
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.
He would like to keep it that way.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
If you consider a one party state authoritarian regime as powering the common people's will, then I guess it is.
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.
Sorry, your argument is that everything that isn't an absolute monarchy is a democracy?
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.
> 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).
Not only this, but also having direct access to the Pacific ocean for blue water operations (without getting detected when talking about submarines).
And also a vibrant democracy, potentially serving as an example (foreign and domestic) that alternative political systems are an option and perhaps even desirable.
I have a strong impression there are similarities with Russia and Ukraine. Having a neighbor with a similar culture and overlapping histories that also has independent, democratic government was likely viewed as a direct threat to the Putin regime and one of the driving reasons for the invasion. I could see a similar calculation with Taiwan/China.
1) The USA does not have launchable nuclear weapons in neighboring countries to Taiwan that necessitate a buffer
2) Taiwan does not represent unprotected border territory. Heck, attacking it sustainedly would require significant and slow naval logistics
3) Other than human intellect, there is little in the way of natural resources to obtain out of Taiwan. It's economy is manufscturung and export driven.
Other than some nationalistic pride to recapture teritority, they are not much alike.
> Other than some nationalistic pride to recapture teritority, they are not much alike.
To add, Taiwan uses traditional Chinese and is more conservative to traditional Chinese culture. China abandoned all of that during the cultural revolution. There's been a recent nationalist push to embrace "traditional" Chinese identity, involving mainand Chinese people going to sites in Japan and elsewhere wearing "traditional" Chinese clothing. Imagine the nationalistic outrage if someone wore a kimono in China. In practice, these traditional Chinese clothing are cheaply made cosplay from Taobao
> 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.
> 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.
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?
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.
[flagged]
If we want to argue historically, is it not more that the Taiwanese government is a more direct successor of the historical China? So maybe China should really be part of Taiwan? Or should it belong back to the Japanese?
Just goes to show how ridiculous arguments by "history" are.
"history" is what's trotted out when the right of self-determination needs to be ignored.
As though a people have no right to change their minds about their affiliation or government.
Taiwanese can decide to be more "Chinese" or not via votes. That's the main difference between Taiwan and China.
There's only the small issue that the people who live there don't want to be Chinese!
Considering they are one of the most democratic countries in the world (as per The Economist Democracy Index), even outranking the United States, I think they are more than capable of determining themselves what their future should be through their right of self-determination.
Is Ireland historically and culturally British? Sort of.
Is Czechia historically and culturally German? Sort of.
Is Ukraine historically and culturally Russian? Sort of.
Is Pakistan historically and culturally Indian? Sort of.
Once you have to ignore the wishes of the population and resort to historical arguments, forced reunification becomes a conquest.
I certainly wouldn't like my own government to start expansive wars into, say, Silesia, because it used to belong to the Czech crown for 500 years. But I have a say in this. The Chinese population might not.
I bet you're located in the USA? Because nowhere else in the world would anyone even think that somehow logic, sanity and common sense should be suspended just because Israel is mentioned in a conversation.
No problem. Neither of the current populations in Israel should have the right to ethnically cleanse the other one, regardless of historic demography in 1900 AD or 1 AD.
You're Chinese police aren't you? This seems to be the whataboutism script Chinese bots have been using on other social media platforms in recent months.
I don't support Israel. I just find it too obvious the way you try to shortcircuit and distract away from accusations towards the CCP by moving the point of contention elsewhere. Yes, America can be hypocrital but it doesn't change what people have said here about the CCP.
why don't let taiwan decide if they want to be ruled by ccp instead ?
Then China very much is the intruder in Tibet.
With that line of reasoning, you'll justify the CCP when they invade Vietnam after it's done with Taiwan.
Free Tibet first.
Never underestimate the power of saving face. The Taiwan invasion had a dry run with how they handled Hong Kong. This is going to happen and my guess is it will be on Trump’s way out. That way it all gets done during the 2028 election season, and all the next President can do is pout.
It’s a win-win for Trump because he keeps China at bay for three years, which is good enough for him.
How are Taiwan and Hong Kong at all comparable? Hong Kong never had their own military, was never an independent nation, and was officially handed over from Britain to China in 1997. There was no armed invasion of Hong Kong - Chinese military was already garrisoned there for 25 years.
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.
> 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.
> 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...
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.
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...
The 2027 date may be overblown, prone to hysterical misinterpretations:
I think it's more likely that over the next few years US power fades in the region and Taiwan strikes a bargain with China. The Taiwanese are extremely pragmatic when it comes to these sorts of things, and I somehow doubt they'll enter into a conflict they know they can't win. China is also pragmatic and would be willing to allow Taiwan significant autonomy if they can on paper say they've reunited Taiwan with the motherland.
In my opinion, the most likely scenario is that China will ramp up pressure with "gray zone" actions, (exercises of the coast, election interference, propaganda, cyber attacks, air defense zone and airspace incursions, overflights over straits islands), while at the same time pushing for negotiations for peaceful reunification.
Essentially salami slicing Taiwan sovereignty, in order to undermine their authority and erode their red lines without triggering a conflict, and attempting to demonstrate resistance as futile.
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.
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.
My impression after spending month and half in Taiwan last year is that China wouldn't have to fire a single bullet to take over the country. The only thing that would stop China is a US president with the strength to put two aircraft carrier strike groups between the island and the mainland. [0] If China needed Taiwan strategically they can surround the island in two days and take it the next. I concluded China is only postering and it is the economic threat with its ASEAN trading partners and the EU that keeps it at bay. The ASML chip fab machines are designed to be remotely disabled so they are not getting chips. [1] There is nothing to be gained from attacking the island and that is the reason it hasn't happened.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis#199...
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/21/asml_kill_switch/
The US is not going to help defend Taiwan is a fair thesis, but reciprocally, China is not going to attack Taiwan.
Even if Russia gets all of it's demands in the peacemaking process with Ukraine, that war has done permanent and lasting damage to it's economy and global position. For China to attack Taiwan, it would give up any hope of continuing it's healthy trends towards increased economic and political importance.
Eventually, Taiwan will re-join China when it is sufficiently strong. It's symbolism as a continued humiliation by the west is more useful as propaganda than an actual military target.
> 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.
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.
> Unfortunately, dictators don't care much about damage to it's economy as long as they continue to be in power.
It's not a dictator issue. The stock markets have been crashing lately due to "non-dictators".
> Even if a million people dies, Xi would still be considered a hero by most chinese people if he took back Taiwan.
I doubt most Chinese people care. They have better things to worry about these days e.g. crashing real estate.
It remains to be seen if the person I think you are referring to is a non-dictator. He said he would be a "dictator on day one", and he sure was, but then he somehow forgot to revert to non-dictator mode...
Regarding "crashing real estate": actually, most other countries would love to have built enough to bring down real estate prices. Being able to afford a place to live is good for most people! But of course, investing in real estate makes you interested into increasing the value of your property, so you're now incentivized to stop more real estate being built (and also to stop anything else that might decrease the value of your property - thus NIMBYism).
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.
AI will, after all, become the second biggest weapon humanity has ever created.
Have you seen Russia's laptops?
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16827/russia-to-build-riscv-p...
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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..
> Taiwanese people fight bravely, and Chinese forces turn out to be weaker than expected. In this case, the US would be in a comfortable position to send aid and weapons to help Taiwan, prolonging the war to weaken China. With some luck, a regime change could happen without firing a shot.
After 3 years of war they will sell it out to China. Taiwan started the war in the first place, actually.
> After 3 years
With the current administration, perhaps 3 days?
Just a reminder that the current administration just removed the "we don't recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation" from the official state policy.
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.> 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.
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
>The idea that the US protects Taiwan from a possible Chinese invasion over chips is one of those things that sounds believable but really isn't going to happen.
>From China’s perspective, the cost of war is much higher than the cost of developing these chips themselves.
You've got it completely backwards. China doesn't want Taiwan because it has the best chip manufacturing in the world. Taiwan has the best chip manufacturing in the world because China wants to invade them and they wanted to give the US a reason to defend them and China a reason not to. War with Taiwan will impact global chip supply even if China can produce their own, which their economy will feel.
> world because China wants to invade them and they wanted to give the US a reason to defend them and China a reason not to
Reverse logic much? If wanting the best electronics know how was just enough to get it, every country would have a TSMC like by now
It's the reason why they did it, not the reason why they succeeded.
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".
I think a fourth option is rising its head: USA is becoming so weak geopolitically that being allied with them is becoming an incredibly bad position to be in.
Therefore I assume that it's possible that Taiwan will simply choose to integrate with mainland China. This would be a huge change in their sentiments for sure, but these things may happen when large wheels are turning.
This is the most likely. With allies like the US, the old enemies don't look so bad anymore.
[flagged]
> From China’s perspective, the cost of war is much higher than the cost of developing these chips themselves.
There are more reasons than chips.
First is Chinese nationalism. The Island of Taiwan has been under the control of various Chinese regimes over the centuries. Taking Taiwan is a rejection of the West and can be tied by to the "century of humiliation".
America has military posts in Korea, Japan, Phillipines blockading China's entrance to the larger Pacific Ocean. Having Taiwan would allow them to break this up.
On Taiwan is also a trove of Chinese art and antiques.
I 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.
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.
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..
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?
You mean the half still aligned with Ukraine against Putin?
Team democracy tech only. Everyone seems aligned on that.
Will never happen during Xi's life.
You seem to be assuming that the invasion would happen by surprise. That's effectively impossible due to the scale of the operation. Especially because China is full of foreigners and the logistical effort would be impossible to hide.
If China decides to invade, everyone would likely know it weeks in advance. They just could not be sure if it's an actual invasion or a massive military exercise that simulates an invasion. And in either case, the US would have plenty of time to decide whether to commit additional carrier strike groups to the region before anything happens.
What would make carrier strike groups effective in the situation? Given their recent record in the defense of Israel and against the Yemeni Red Sea blockade, one could argue that their era is over. The two most likely outcomes from a carrier strike group engaging with China forces are either a humiliating retreat, or WW3. I think US are smart enough to keep them at bay. Maybe station one in the area for monitoring the situation and assisting evacuation of Americans.
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).
The underlying assumption is that the US intends to escalate to a full-scale war if China does not back off. If China does not believe in that, the US Navy is just a bunch of expensive but inconsequential toys that can be safely ignored.
If the deterrent works and China does not invade due to the risk of a major war, it's the best-case outcome. If it fails and a war breaks out, massive casualties are likely. Wars are usually not as one-sided as the ones the US has fought in the past decades. But it would not be WW3, as most countries have no reasons to get involved.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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)
If China has a seriously good-enough, home-made processor and storage chips, it could gain from a war with Taiwan. If this would mean to cripple the EU's and possibly also US's and to a lesser degree it's own economy through the absence of chips on the market, having that good-enough, home-made processor would be what keeps China afloat, while the rest drowns. And if it could get Taiwan and its chip manufacturing capabilities, it would have won the war with even bigger gains. At least the EU has no way to survive without Taiwan selling them chips.
The EU makes the machines that make the chips
Also in Taiwan these machines are fitted with bombs that will detonate if they’re invaded
either way the chips aren't getting made and China is more equipped to survive this than the EU or the US for that matter.
I still suspect the long con is that we'll see peaceful reunification.
The RoC is very import dependent, and we're staring down the barrel of some major swings in world trade. Will they be able to compensate if the US economy slips into a new Great Depression and drags much of the West with it? Will the US be as interested in honouring blank-cheque defence promises when inflation is 16% and unemployment 20%?
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).
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.
> 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". ;)
What allies will the US have in a few years?
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...
Is there a name for this argumentation "there are three options 2 are obvious nonsense so whatever i dream up in the third one must be true"? Kind of like no true scotsman...
There are a lot more options than these 3 - especially related to the middle one - that would play out differently
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.
> We are more likely to get pulled into a war with Russia and North Korea on the wrong side against Ukraine and the EU
No, we are not.
I've heard experienced weiqi (go) players use the metaphor that Taiwan is a Ko fight between China and US. That is, the threat of capture is used to exert influence and pressure elsewhere.
> The idea that the West protects Ukraine from a possible Russian invasion over land/culture is one of those things that sounds believable but really isn't going to happen.
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.
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.
The stand off is the point. It gives nationalistic talking points to the government leaders, and a reason to write big checks to defense contractors.
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.
With the recent oval office meeting yeah... I am skeptical too now it sucks.
Because not exercising superpowers is what makes a superpower?
or a fourth perspective, you're undermining the importance of TSMC production/output, and the US would indeed go to war over it.
> > 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.
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.
> 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.
I believe Biden said that the US plan, in the case of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, would be to destroy the chip fabs.
[dead]
They are building hundreds of naval destroyers and multiple aircraft carriers to invade a tiny island? Nope. The CCP is prepping to be the world hegemon and take over the world with drone swarms and bioweapons.
The Taiwan game is like the "Gulf of America" trick that Trump played. It's a test to see if you're with the CCP or against the CCP diplomatically.
Why 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?
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.
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.
This lines up perfectly with Trump’s policy on Palestine and Ukraine. “Let them take the land”, who cares about the people?
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.
> even blockade Taiwan.
An act of war, which the US would respond to with a freedom-of-navigation exercise backed up by the full might of US-PACOM. China would lose that standoff, which is why they're unlikely to do it unless they were confident of US non-involvement.
China has arguably excellent marine forces by now. Not sure the US would be able to counter that.
China is still modernising. They're outproducing the US in terms of new equipment, but flows aren't stocks, and the US also has decades of refinement and experience to draw on in comparison to China's zilch.
Don't get me wrong: the trend is towards Chinese dominance, but I don't think we're close yet. China would have to throw everything at Taiwan, and it would turn into a shooting gallery.
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.
> For the same reasons they invaded and took Hong Kong.
When was this a thing? Britain gave up control "voluntarily". There's been no military conflict whatsoever.
Yes, I get that there were changes in law, protests and all sorts of things but those all already happened when Hong Kong was part of China i.e. there was no "invasion".
> ... the same thing will apply later on after the successful "non-invasion" of Taiwan.
Maybe. I never commented on if the situation is good - just that invasion is the wrong term. Perhaps it should be self-implosion.
You got brainwashed
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12503/1
"1982 U.S.-PRC Joint Communiqué/Six Assurances
As they negotiated establishment of diplomatic relations, the U.S. and PRC governments agreed to set aside the contentious issue of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. They took up that issue in the 1982 August 17 Communiqué, in which the PRC states “a fundamental policy of striving for peaceful reunification” with Taiwan, and the U.S. government states it “understands and appreciates” that policy. The U.S. government states in the 1982 communiqué that with those statements “in mind,” “it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan,” and “intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading, over a period of time, to a final resolution.” The U.S. government also declares “no intention” of “pursuing a policy of ‘two Chinas,’” meaning the PRC and the ROC, “or ‘one China, one Taiwan.’”"
Yeah, now a open question, what's worse:
- reuniting with China
- getting your only industry stolen by the USA
Quick, you have less than 5 years to answer
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.
This sounds like Ai nonsense. What does this even mean?
They never invaded HK. HK was returned to China.
Russia has a fraction of the industrial capacity of China. Russia and Ukraine share several borders with multiple NATO countries, and Ukraine had integrated rail networks. Nevertheless Russia took 4 times the size of Taiwan and is taking more day by day.
Anyone that understands basic logistics and can read a map knows that this is not winnable. Not only that, but the undersecretary of state is the guy that advocated bombing TSMC. The US took a lot from Taiwan over the last 8 years and not even once did they even consider offering a free trade agreement in return. They made the Taiwan delegation visit a Zoo during the inauguration.
Singapore is allied with the west as well, but is taking a more neutral stance and a result have prospered many times over, while Taiwan has gone into total economic stagnation for decades. Where is all this moral posturing coming from? Let's look at reality and facts instead of reddit fantasies.
Are you talking about a different Taiwan? In what world is the economy of Taiwan stagnating for decades?
Look at the growth in GDP and GDP per capita here and tell me that’s stagnation:
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
Only 50% increase? Thats very bad
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.
“Our continued protection of you is contingent on your investment in us”.
Taiwan is hugely reliant on US defense guarantees. The US has a protectionist president who likes big numbers in announcements and a base riled up about American production capacity.
Long-term this is bad for Taiwan since it reduces its leverage with the US in administrations with short-term geopolitics (or no real geopolitical talent.)
In the short-term, they might not have much choice.
They only need to make this appear real for 4, maybe 2 years, and can then reevaluate.
I'd guess they looked at their options and decided this was the best hedge.
> they only need to make this appear real for 4, maybe 2 years, and can then reevaluate
Taipei needs nukes. There simply isn’t another guarantor of sovereign security anymore.
> 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].
> 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.
Guess which country shut down Taiwans nuclear program.
Now that I’ve calmed down a bit, I agree with your assessment. The optics game is so important, but Taiwan is in an impossible situation.
If I were China, I would give them relative economic independence if they limit advanced process silicon to other countries and let Huawei and others monopolize the advanced nodes. The US at present does not appear to be a dependable partner.
I old enough remember morons celebrating Taiwan’s “independence” from England. Yea… about that though. Thing everyone logical knew would happen, happened.
A Hong-Kong style government doesn't mean as much as it used to.
TSMC is 100% ruined if they join China, it is the end of it process competitiveness.
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.
> replaces Hong Kong as the gray area to do business
explain?
> 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.
> what authority do you think China has over Taiwan?
Authority, none. Power, plenty.
Both countries claim to be one China lol
Why would subsequent presidents allow Taiwan to maintain leverage over supply chains crucial to American national security?
> 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.
> 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?
Fair point. I only worry that trump might decide to play them both ways.. extort investments for protection, then reneg the help unilaterally on a whim.
> extort investments for protection, then reneg the help unilaterally on a whim
I would be surprised if he doesn't do this, judging by his long track record of not paying his contractors and business partners after receiving their goods and services.
Bingo, see Foxconn in Wisconsin.
For Foxconn see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconn_Valley_Science_and_T...
But it's very worth pointing this out. The Taiwanese announcement is just an announcement. When a chip, any chip, rolls off the line (from this investment) let me know.
The reality is that in 4 years Trump will be gone. Building a plant will take longer than that. This is nothing more than good PR.
Plus Trump's administration (and his personal direction of the government) is likely weaker in policy and governance skills and experience so it'll be easier for TSMC to get away with stringing them along.
You're being awfully generous thinking this needs to look real for years. If similar big announcements are any guide then the administration will have moved onto some other shiny object in a matter of days or weeks and will never return for any followup.
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.
Is it a given that the US would come to Tawian's defence now (let alone in a few years, when the US is presumably less dependent on Taiwanese chips)?
I guess it comes down to how dependent on Taiwan's chips the US actually is (I don't know the answer to that).
The US isn't dependent on Ukraine and it's pressuring them to hand over land. If it turns out the US isn't dependent on Taiwan it could show similar indifference if China were to attempt to take it.
> Is it a given that the US would come to Tawian's defence now
In practice, probably yes, officially probably maybe. Giving a security guarantee would allow Taiwan to do provocative things, so hence, why there isn't a formal one.
If it actually came to be today, I guess the US would at-least offer token support. To (a) embargo China, (b) ensure chip facilities Taiwan aren't surrendered intact.
Both of which doesn't require winning a conflict, just making it painful.
Maybe, it's also a good deterrent.
And without it, Taiwan would probably press harder for nukes.
that's a nonsensically optimistic view given current events. It's far more likely that there is no security guarantee in a treaty form precisely because the US does not intend to help Taiwan.
My understanding is that there are currently only three important chip makers, including Intel with all of their issues.
The world is largely dependent on TSMC, not only for the latest GPUs but also for embedded chips that we keep putting into everything from cars to toasters.
For me the questions isn't whether the US would help Taiwan because we're dependent on them. I wonder whether we actually have the backbone to step in militarily at all, and whether out military is as combat ready as we like to think they are.
Putin already took the land, it’s not an issue of handing over anything.
> Taiwan is hugely reliant on US defense guarantees.
What I don't get is, in what universe is any US president going to engage militarily against China across the ocean, let alone the current one? The US population does not seem ecstatic to enter something that could turn into WWIII, which makes me feel that even a president in favor of this would quickly fail to do anything.
The US and the EU globalists have outsourced nearly all manufacturing to the east. Waging war on China is basically shooting yourself.
As if you needed more proof, covid hickup disruption of the supply chains were an ample demonstration.
The US gets this, and has now turned towards being less dependant. The EU still doesn't understand, or is willfully blind as an acknowledgement would mean giving up some fantasies they have.
Since the 70's the US' main export has been printed money, 'IP' and war. The first two are worthless if not backed by the threat of the third. Weapons is about the only thing dollars can buy if oil can be traded in other currencies. BRICS is rapidly becoming a contender for a trade platform that they failed to stop.
You can't wage war in the manufacturer you rely on.
This means drastic changes in US policy are needed. This means returning to self sufficiency. This will take time even when you try to speedrun it.
> What I don't get is, in what universe is any US president going to engage militarily against China across the ocean
The whole premise of TSMC is that losing TSMC would cause such a global economic collapse that defending Taiwan is the only option to prevent this from happening. All high-performance computing is dependent on TSMC right now.
We could be plunged back into the horrible era that was ... the 2010s! There wouldn't be a global collapse if TSMC was lost. It'd be an inconvenience that sets the semiconductor industry back a decade or so. Most advanced technology hasn't had time to have an impact on the global economy yet and 98% of people won't notice much in practice if all the TSMC foundries exploded tomorrow. There'd maybe be some shortages while other companies build new foundries - although even then it isn't a given people would care. China seems to be about to flood the market with manufacturing capacity.
> whole premise of TSMC is that losing TSMC would cause such a global economic collapse that defending Taiwan is the only option to prevent this
This never works. The security through economy pitch. It has never, ever worked.
America was a reliable security guarantor. We promised to protect and had honour. Honour isn’t in the American cultural vocabulary anymore. So the guarantees are proven useless and everyone has to scramble back into realpolitik.
> 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).
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 ?
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.
The US cannot realistically technically stop missiles raining down on the fabs on Taiwan should China decide to do that.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> I still think the US has allies in Europe that would sanction China indefinitely. They'd probably also show up with something, if called.
China only needs to wait for a couple of years for Musk, Trump and Vance to have destroyed any remnants of the alliances, though.
> across the ocean
It is, but it also isn't, given the US forces on Okinawa, and also just generally in the region. The US military is not a force that exists for homeland defense, it's a force designed purely to project power across the ocean.
> engage militarily
This can mean a lot of things though. A steady flow of matériel and intelligence given to an island that's basically a giant and highly-defended mountain-range is going to go a very long way.
> is any US president
I mean in the last 150 years they've shown a remarkable willingness to intervene, more than once in proxy wars against the Chinese.
> How will they project power
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/16h4gw8/us_militar...
A vast nuclear weapons program is cheaper than $100b
It would not go unnoticed and would pretty much guarantee invasion.
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).
Sweden built a bomb in secret. Invasion planning would not go unnoticed either.
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
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...
> “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.
They may also calculate that a big announcement is all he wants and follow through is optional.
> The US has a protectionist president
We do?
You do, assuming you're a US citizen.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St...
or: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/programs/growthpol...
etc.
Protectionist: an advocate of the policy of shielding a country's domestic industries from foreign competition by taxing imports.
The T word...
> 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.
Curious why Taiwan would sign onto this, knowing how Ukraine is being treated vis a vis mineral rights. I realize Taiwan doesn't have any other options, but a "verbal offer" of future security guarantees from the Trump Admin aren't worth anything.
>a "verbal offer" of future security guarantees from the Trump Admin aren't worth anything.
They still think it's worth more than surrendering now to China.
While US is dependant of Taiwanese fabs, they will intervene if China tries to occupy Taiwan. But US is working towards not relying on Taiwan's fans, so US based security won't last long.
In the end, they'll either have to surrender or build nuclear deterrent fast and unnoticed.
I don't think there are any multi-trillion dollar deposits of any "minerals" there. If there were, Ukraine wouldn't be so poor. Even pre-war it was the poorest country in Europe per capita. One can argue that it was mostly due to their insane levels of corruption, but then again, if there were any multi-trillion dollar deposits of anything there, Western investors (including Hunter Biden, no doubt) would be all over them, and the country would be much richer than it was.
I think the whole "minerals" thing is a play. Trump gives Zelensky the "deal" he cannot accept even theoretically. Zelensky predictably plays the tough guy by telling him to pound sand. Trump throws Zelensky under the bus and negotiates repayment of loans with his (now scared) successor.
With respect to Taiwan, it is not really possible to "win" in any real sense against China in Taiwan. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a dimwit who can't even do cursory research on industrial capacities of the potential belligerents, not in terms of dollars, but in terms of units/tons/etc. That is where the comparison is very strongly not in our favor. Especially when it comes to shipbuilding.
Best case if things kick off (which I hope to god they do not) - only Taiwan gets destroyed, a-la Ukraine. Worst case - both US and China really go at it directly, full bore, and then we will lose due primarily to our weak industrial base, and far more extended logistics. Moreover, a lot of other countries will totally provide "lethal aid" and intelligence to China, if it needs it, in hopes of taking the hegemon down a few pegs. Nothing personal - just business, such alliances happen in every major war. The extreme case one of the sides feels they're gonna lose and presses the red button, in which case everyone dies in a fire.
All of these options are objectively extremely shitty and incompatible with prosperity, and in the extreme case, with survival. All of them mean millions of body bags for the parties involved, far more body bags than either country has ever seen.
Both Biden and Trump administrations understood this, hence the strong-arming the re-industrialization, especially in higher end fields, which started under Biden. The era where you could just get your stuff made elsewhere for pennies and then charge $$$ for it is coming to an end.
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.
>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.
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?
extortion
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.
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.
If bad guys do something, it's bad. If good guys do the same thing, it's good.
You would be an excellent author of history books!
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.
We don't have slave camps with Uyghurs though.
You should take a look at for-profit prisons in the US..
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_St...
OK, but I can't help thinking of this quote:
"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons."
And the US didn't start camps after 9/11.
TSMC factories on Taiwan are small fry in the scheme of things and won't really move the needle much, in terms of strategy. Samsung and Intel are pretty comparable in manufacturing capability, within a couple of years really. And most chips you find in cars and ships and missiles and satellites and jets aren't leading-edge either.
China is terrified of their access to the sea being blockaded. They'd gladly give up TSMC technology without a second thought and continue to bribe, beg, steal their way around sancations and barriers to semiconductor technology as they have been doing just fine up to now if they could occupy Taiwan for its strategic position to deny American access and defend the sea around their coast.
How would you bock China's access to the sea along it's 14000 km coastline? That woulde be a heck of a blockade, with or without Taiwan.
> How would you bock China's access to the sea along it's 14000 km coastline?
With missiles and submarines presumably.
> That woulde be a heck of a blockade, with or without Taiwan.
Of course, due to China's military build up around the sea. Due to their being afraid of said blockade. The one they want Taiwan and other disputed islands to help counter.
Why block the whole thing when all shipping traffic goes through 3 chokepoints and the chinese navy is brown water at best?
Exactly. We have a westerner bragging about blocking a 5000 years old country's access to the sea like it's a normal thing and they're not the intruder. Hilarious.
What are you talking about? You think I'm a westerner bragging about blocking something that isn't even blocked and I'm an intruder?
All I said was that China is terrified of naval blockade, which it is. You're the one being hilarious here.
> TSMC factories on Taiwan are small fry in the scheme of things and won't really move the needle much
We’re in an era of personal politics. Taipei should be angling for prioritising indigenous, cutting-edge chip production to Musk’s xAI.
> Samsung and Intel are pretty comparable in manufacturing capability, within a couple of years really.
Thank you for making it so easy to completely ignore the rest of your comment.
Easy to assume you could only respond with that because you are incapable of providing a coherent response to the quoted point or any of the others.
You significantly underestimate the importance of compute superiority for data synthesis for command & control.
No I don't, and anyway US-aligned semiconductor design and fabrication is still superior to Chinese if TSMC did not exist.
> TSMC is the only card Taiwan has
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.
> 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?
> 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.
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.
Its a total waste to try to quietly appease. If they want something out of the current administration they need to humiliate it and then barely give it enough to save face.
This is an announcement to make Trump happy. They are giving him all the good PR he wants.
I might have believed that a couple weeks ago. Mexico and Canada put a show on for the him about the tarrifs and they're still set to be in place tommrow. Why would anyone else play along now?
No to mention that NAFTA was renegotiated under Trumps first term.
Still it might be cheaper to just give him worthless wins with no follow thru.
News headlines in 6 months "Trump announces trillion dollar free-trade deal with Russia" that will be "totally fair" and not "taking advantage of the US" like Canada, Mexico and the EU.
If we give them the doubt of benefit: TSMC is just appeasing Trump and will delay the actual investment as much as possible.
If we face the reality: Taiwan is a vassal state. The decision makers are simply owned by the US.
> If we face the reality: Taiwan is a vassal state. The decision makers are simply owned by the US.
The thing about US "vassel" states is they don't have to do what the US says. And sometimes won't!
It's a classic Russian talking point that Ukraine has no agency. You're making the same argument for Taiwan.
Taiwan doesn't have to accept a US deal they don't like. They could build nukes. They could opt to do nothing and run the risk of invasion.
It's a democracy, Taiwan has agency. Even if, they have good reasons to make friends with the US.
> The thing about US "vassel" states is they don't have to do what the US says. And sometimes won't!
Yes, and then the US will force its way. It's quite funny that you even mentioned nukes. Taiwan did attempt to build nukes and the US destroyed the project.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/01/asia/taiwan-cia-informant...
> 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.
>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.
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
>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.
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.
Kind of a random fact but speaking of “owned by the US” many of the leaders and ruling class hold US citizenship too.
Taiwan is only reliant on the U.S. because their neighbor threatens them with invasion frequently
[flagged]
I'm surprised by the level of brigading anything even remotely political experiences on this forum. I understood the setup is vulnerable to it by nature, but it's just so blatant.
Troll harder, wumao
exactly
Right now is a very interesting moment in that the future is crystal clear and yet so many people of all persuasions don't want to accept it for so many different reasons
* The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world, and ultimately renege on many of its security guarantees, with the underlying reason being that it can no longer afford to be world police and pay for all its entitlements
* This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world. US stocks will continue to be the best buys out there
* Ergo we are looking at another American century, or perhaps some kind of isolationist/Cold War-esque type of century since American political influence will decline, but China and Russia's colossal demographic problems will hinder them from making any serious bids for dominance
Objectively - it looks like another American century, but one where the whole world is diminished due to global collapse in the birth rate, and some nations are just less diminished than others (unless I am severely underestimating the impact of automation and AI)
And yes, many people will be unhappy, and there will be more war, and globalization has peaked
> Right now is a very interesting moment in that the future is crystal clear and yet so many people of all persuasions don't want to accept it for so many different reasons
Anyone who thinks the future is crystal clear is an extremely arrogant, and the narrative you present is inconsistent in ways which show an extremely poor understanding of the way international economics works.
> The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world
It hasn't granted "economic largesse" to the rest of the world, and to the extent that that term can be stretched to describe something that has been granted, it can't be clawed back; the (extremely small, compared to the size of the economy) amount of aid has largely been about establishing influence and soft power, and trade isn't largesse, its mutually beneficial. To withdraw from it weakens both sides, and the US generally withdrawing will hurt the US more than the rest of the world.
> This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world.
The kind of retreat from wide trade to mercantilist protectionism might be a relative "win" for the US (though it would still be an absolute loss for all parties, contracting the aggregate production possibilities curve as well as that for all nations), if the US engagement in "go it alone" idiocy convinced every other country to try the same thing, and if you were right that the US was the best prepared to go it alone.
But, more likely, were it to occur, while it would be an absolute loss for everyone compared to what things would be without it, it would end up a relative loss for the US, because most countries wouldn't try to follow the US in going it alone, and the US's retreat will just be looked at in mystified disbelief by other nations as they continue to reap the benefits of trade and the US fades and falls behind in every way.
Couple notes:
1. I don't like the characterization of "go it alone" because it obviously implies adherence to some kind of extreme that simply isn't represented in reality. No one is shutting down the ports and firing ambassadors; if it were possible to quantify these things (it isn't), reducing global power projection from 100% to 80% is not "going it alone".
2. The true form of "economic largesse" the US has given the rest of the world is Security. Its come at great cost to the country; America has lost ~600,000 souls in conflict in the past 80 years. I'm not saying America has a unique claim to losing lives in battle, Russia and China and others can claim much more devastation, but America is unique in the sense that nearly none she's lost were in her home hemisphere.
9/11 was maybe the only attack since Pearl Harbor that a foreign adversary successfully executed on American soil; but the wars that followed were really a tipping point in American force projection. We'd already been fighting wars in the middle east, then you go back further with Vietnam... America is a country that's spent eighty years chasing the Moral Righteousness it felt when it helped win WW2 for the Allies. The American people are tired of it; her sons and daughters work two jobs, can't afford a home, yet are asked time-and-time again by the latest rich disconnected President to deploy across the world to fight for "Freedom". Or, now, to send a hundred billion in military aid to Ukraine.
I think that's the "clawing back" the poster was talking about: maybe the story of the next century is one where America still projects force globally, but toward the more specific goal of Peace rather than post-WW2-era Western Idealism, and with an expectation of economic cooperation. Money has, after all, been the American God for many decades now.
3. The idea that the rest of the world would simply continue on in the wake of some idealized "US full-on isolationist pull out" is not rooted in reality; and that's part of the reason why this is not happening on the extremes. The US has been a critical force for both War and Peace over the past 80 years. If the US hadn't sent a hundred billion dollars to Ukraine over the past three years, Russia would own the country and share a new, huge border with NATO ally Poland. Implicit and Explicit US security guarantees have stopped China from projecting naval power across Taiwan and other SEA countries. US Support of Israel has... well, the region would look very different if we weren't there, whether there would be more or less war is another debate. My point is: The suggestion that America would lose relatively to the rest of the world in this unrealistic, hypothetical scenario, is not rooted in reality. The far more likely outcome of this unlikely scenario is: War, amongst military peers, the worst and most bloody kind of war, while America enjoys massive oceans, a trillion dollar defensive military, the most economically prosperous natural resources on the planet, and neighbors who could never put up a fight.
No one wins, but America and her western hemisphere allies would lose the least. Fortunately: This is not what America, today, wants. Its not even what the Trump administration wants. Again, a reduction from 100% to 80% is not a "full-on isolationist pull-out".
> 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
Endless misdirection of targeted greedy promises and opportunism did. The coins launched right before the election blew through the emoluments clause, and the tweet threatening removal of funding from universities with "illegal" protests is targeting the first amendment along with news organizations that are feeling the pressure.
The opposition will be but a token, and the bargaining power of the average person is the ultimate target for destruction.
Might have been worth reading if you hadn't kicked it off with an ad hominem. Bye!
It’s still worth reading if you can look past it. The comment refutes your comment totally and in good detail.
Allies are good for America. Trade is good for America. Isolation has never been good for anyone.
>The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world
The USA is going to stop bribing people to like them, an arrangement that suited the USA very well, but is difficult to articulate to seppos in general.
>This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world. US stocks will continue to be the best buys out there
This is a huge loss, but seems like a win for people who don't understand trade, supply and investment ie, seppos.
>Ergo we are looking at another American century
A Century of trying to keep a safe distance from the most armed nation doing its best north korea impersonation.
Let me make a prediction here.
1. The US is going to get more isolationist 2. Every time they face consequences of isolationism, they will simply declare that the problems were caused by not being isolationist enough, tearing up more trade agreements and generally just shifting away from the world. "If they wont sell us good at price we like, we will just abandon international patent agreements" seems like its not far off after the tariffs. 3. This is a spiral that will end the modern USA as anyone knows it.
I am quite happy with this, as long as the seppos keep the nukes to themselves while they remove themselves from the planet economically.
>as long as the seppos keep the nukes to themselves while they remove themselves from the planet economically.
Big gamble, especially when we gut the DoE.
Hoping they lose the capability to maintain those nukes for that very reason.
I mean, they already had to pay to rediscover fogbank once right?
Its easy to think in extremes, but the reality will be far more moderate than your characterization. Remember: US policies have a way of flip-flopping every two years as new Presidents and Senators take office, and its very likely that unless Trump can score some massive wins in 2025, Democrats will retake Congressional majority in 2026; the base is incited, if these comments are anything to look at.
But, the direction won't change: More isolationist, greater investment in homeland manufacturing and less global force projection, but still a significant and growing international trade presence, and a signatory to global security guarantees.
Here's how I put it: America bared the brunt three MAJOR, timeline-altering events in the past 25 years: 9/11, the global financial crisis, and COVID (I am not saying the rest of the world did not bare some of these, just that the US did). To think we'd just roll with the punches and there'd be no consequences of these is, frankly, ridiculous:
9/11 led to multiple forever wars that cost America an extreme amount of money and lives for almost no gain, not really even victory. Its lasting impact will be an America that is more hesitant to project force globally.
The GFC led to massive debt spending and an ongoing financial crisis that America still hasn't fully recovered from. Just when we were ramping up to start recovery, COVID hits and we do it all over again. Its lasting impact will be an America that is more hesitant to give away free stuff or take the raw end of trade deals.
>US policies have a way of flip-flopping every two years
Yes but until the trump era, things remained relatively consistent in terms of international relations.
Flipping on and off 25% tariffs (or even the threat of) is going to have a long term effect regardless.
Flipping on and off the level of interest in international norms, is going to have a long term effect.
And its already ratcheted, things are going to be worse this term than Trumps last term. The next MAGA presidents term is going to be worse again.
Just because its not a paved road doesn't mean you aren't going down a hill.
For me however, this might just be the justification we need to close Pine Gap and US access to the joint submarine radio in WA.
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.
This assumes USA was taken advantage of by globalization, which is not actually the case - USA benefitted disproportionally from it. USA's GDP growth is substantially based on the consumers (~70% compared to ~50% in the EU and other comparable countries), and that wouldn't have been possible if they could only consume what was produced in the USA.
But there were losers, mainly in manufacturing, and USA didn't assist them in the right way, allowed unprecedented levels of political corruption, allowed unhealthy levels of wealth inequality, allowed housing crisis, allowed obesity and health crisis etc...
Most of the USA's wounds are self-inflicted, but any good demagogue would not pass the opportunity to blame somebody else for it.
Globalization for the US was trading industrialization for financialization. Yay for the paper GDP gains, but most citizens got left behind - though they can by cheap imported cloths with their shrinking paychecks.
Can't build chips, can't make ships, can't make furniture, can't make clothes, can't make enough weapons to supply Ukraine, let alone for any real war. Globalization hollowed the capacity of the country.
And how many of tanks was the US able to send to Ukraine? 31
And are we cranking up our industrial might to make more tanks? No, we aren't making any, not for Ukraine, not for US. Sometime in the 2030s we are supposed to have a modified and improved M1E3.
The success of the tech industry is orthogonal to globalization.
The 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
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.
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.
There’s a saying attributed (though may not actually be) to Winston Churchill
Americans will always do the right after they do everything else first
It seems accurate to our national history, in broad strokes at least
This analysis, if it can be called as such, misses the fact that the US is very, very politically divided, to the point where I can see elections results being regularly considered illegitimate. That perspective has been allowed to become reasonable, which is very, dangerous.
> I can see elections results being regularly considered illegitimate.
You think we’ll still have elections?
"US patriots" have fealty to an imagined version of the constitution that lets the Republicans do whatever they want. There is no reason to think this will change if the Republicans get even more fascist.
The "clawing back" isn't simply a withdraw of resources back to America, it also requires structural fixes within America (mostly looking at the wealth inequality), as well as properly address the nativist embers that are currently lit.
An America that successfully claws back, but does not address the internal weaknesses in time will have its own version of China's and Russia's demographic challenges.
> The "clawing back" isn't simply a withdraw of resources back to America, it also requires structural fixes within America (mostly looking at the wealth inequality), as well as properly address the nativist embers that are currently lit.
The political faction pushing this kind of thing (and viewing it as a clawback) is also the one fanning the nativist (and racist!) embers as political cover for while advancing policies that entrench wealth inequality, There is literally no significant faction both interested in this kind of "clawback" and interested in dealing with, rather than exploiting and exacerbating, the other things you point to.
>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.
> ...in time will have its own version of China's and Russia's demographic challenges
They have a plan for that: birth control will be made illegal or access highly curtailed, starting with the "abortive" ones as the foot-in-the-door.
Both of those concerns are valid, but America's geopolitical rivals have the same problems and are less well positioned to address them than America is.
> It also requires structural fixes within America (mostly looking at the wealth inequality)
I think the US will make some positive strides here soon - there is a real effort at the FTC and DOJ to reduce monopolization, consolidation and exclusive dealing, which are some of the primary drivers of wealth inequality. This began in a limited way under Trump's first administration (mainly tech focused), expanded in a big way under Biden, and every indication from the Trump admin is that they are substantially going to continue with the direction Biden went. Anti-trust is a dry topic so it doesn't get a lot of media attention. But the push here is real, it began in the executive branch, and we are starting to see it expand into the judicial branch as judges start to agree with the government's arguments. What is really significant is that both parties seem to support it to some degree so the momentum will be hard to stop.
> as well as properly address the nativist embers that are currently lit.
Could be a concern but as long as the US is a two party state, this is unlikely to become systemic, at least at the federal level, it is more likely to be a gory see-saw. The US will always be more immigrant friendly than its geopolitical rivals, it will always do a better job at importing new people and turning them into citizens and Americans than China or Russia does. Its native population also reproduces today at higher rates than the native populations of its rivals.
While I agree with what you are saying, the outcome is not quite as obvious/guaranteed. The US is clawing back and democrat/republic/kamala wouldn't change that reality, but the world is also not going to sit quiet. The outcome will depend on Europe, China and the rest of the un-aligned.
This is an interesting, if not unhinged, take. But at least it's written well.
> 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.
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 ?
> 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.
Multipolar world order:
Now that it’s become untenable for great powers to fight and they’re all facing regional instability and domestic unrest (EU, US, RUS, CN), we’ll see a century of consolidation and realignment at the regional/continental scale.
ASEAN, China, E Asia, India, Russia; Middle East and South Asia; EU, UK, Russia; US, Canada, Latin America; South America (eg, Argentina, Brazil, and Ecuador); Africa (though, I’m less familiar with specifics there).
We’re seeing political upheaval in each region as states jockey for position in this new world order — now that international global order is dead (or at least, mortally wounded).
Exciting times!
This is how I view the system in place for past few decades :
I consider US to be like brain of earth / humanity. Dollar Reserve Currency is like nerve signals. It can give that printed money to an African nation and make it buy wheat from Ukraine. Or give that money to Myanmar so that it can buy weapons from other countries. The whole setup is brilliant. Making one hand cooperate with another or hurt another if we extend the brain body analogy. US is holding a structural proverbial gun to other nations' head.
It is only a matter of time, when the body of humanity revolts against the excesses of brain's unrealistic demands.
A multipolar world order is a pretty good counter-take (parallel take?)! Most of the time I have my eye on Asia and it seems like a stretch for Korea, Japan, Philippines etc. to fall under the sway of a China in severe demographic decline - but much of SE Asia is definitely in play. And every region will play out differently
Uh what? That's not what's happening at all. Russia is basically in control of the US federal government via Trump and Musk, both of whom have widely reported sympathies with Putin's administration and interests.
Putin is busting out the US, Soprano's style. Trump has signaled acceptance of the Russian war of aggression and has also signaled that China can invade Taiwan. Russia and China are allies.
This is part of China getting a foothold in the American tech industry. Kind of a followup to Deepseek, but providing the Chinese government more access to US chips via a physical presence. The original Trump plan was for TSMC to literally take over Intel plants, but Intel told Trump to get stuffed.
Any sources for all this?
Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason. It can also simply be a pragmatic decision.
The "getting stuffed" thing would be big words from a nearly bankrupt company, don't you think? Intel's investors will take whatever deal that gives them the biggest return on their dollar.
> 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.
> 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.
US only has 350M population.
Plenty of room to grow
Yes!
But who is better at it than the USA ?
I tend to agree, with the exception of: I don't agree with the assertion that the US is broadly intending to renege on many of its security guarantees. I don't think that's a fair characterization on the Ukraine situation. If we had a security guarantee with Ukraine, it was the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, and we reneged on that under Obama in 2014 with Crimea, and under Biden in 2022 with the current war, but even Russia was a signatory to that and frankly its security guarantees were pretty weak anyway. Some say the economic, humanitarian, and military aid we've provided technically counts; its not like NATO Article 5 after all.
The more accurate framing, to me, feels like: America is going to ask for more from the world in return for its security guarantees. We're seeing this with the mineral rights in Ukraine, and now this TSMC investment. The world does not like this, because no one likes being asked to pay the bill at dinner when you're used to dad picking it up for the past 80 years, but that seems to be the priority.
This is ultimately healthy; as Starmer said this week, Europe needs to lead the effort in Ukraine, with US backing. A Europe that spends more on its own defense and is more independently capable of defending itself is a stronger Europe; this is what America wants, America wants strong allies across the pond, and it should be what Europeans want too.
But, as you allude to: Russia is not the threat some think they are, today. This war has decimated their offensive capability, thanks to US support over the past three years, and the geopolitical situation in eastern Europe right now is in a place where Europe, even with its diminished military capacity relative to the US, can actually lead security guarantees with Ukraine. But, the US will be there; America will get some mineral rights, and there will be some kind of peace deal organized in tranches where violation of tranche 1 means the EU military gets involved but violation of tranche 2 means you've woken the beast and the US gets involved too.
You're 100% right that there will be more wars, though. It just won't be the ones people expect. I don't think Taiwan will happen in the next decade; both sides have too much to lose. Ukraine & eastern Europe will calm down in the next six months. Longer term, I'd be more concerned about India and Pakistan or China, as that's an area of the world where the US has few existing security guarantees and direct allyships, but the military spending is ramping up.
Buddy. They gutted the NIH&NSF and delayed the flu vaccine decision. This is not going to work out for you.
I was surprised to learn Taiwan has dabbled in nuclear weapons in the past. They actually got caught developing them and had to swear they'd stop.
Given that the US is doing a professional wrestling 'heel turn' and is now The Bad Guys, I wouldn't be surprised if, like NK, they just come out and announce that they have nukes. Honestly, and this is bad for the world but smart in a game theory sense, I think a lot of countries that depended on the US being a force for stability either go the Israel route ("We won't say if we have nukes or not" wink) or just announce that they have them and do public tests to prove it.
Nuclear proliferation is the only logical response to this administration. Tripling the number of nuclear armed countries will greatly increase the odds of a hot conflict breaking out which risks the safety of everyone in the world. Of course this fairly straightforward calculus seems beyond what trump/musk are capable of and they are actively working to make Americans safer and less prosperous is countless ways.
They might not care. Musk (et al) seem to be addicted to risk taking.
The drugs probably help.
He and Trump share an enormous amount of plainly evident narcissistic traits, which are effective in business but fatal combined with toxic, quixotic ideology. Impulsivity is among those features.
Narcissists embrace and promote tribalism, which shores their power and volatilises their circles and communities. As conflicts arise, individuals are forced to take side. It is better for the narcissist to lead a battle to disaster than to be the benign civilian in a country at peace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disor...
Safer? Do you mean the opposite?
The certainty of a war right now vs maybe a nuke tomorrow?
Surely you can see that's an easy choice. And if you can't perhaps read one of the articles on Bucha?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict...
Pretty much all these conflicts are pretty limited and there's very few states focused on war (whereas before Nukes in the 20th century essentially all of Europe and Asia was focused on war, constantly)
So yes, I find the idea that the nuclear weapons threat is preventing a LOT of wider wars and is responsible for the most peaceful period ever in human history pretty convincing.
When it comes to relations between states, arguments go between capitalism and war (ie. just taking what you want vs trade)
I get that capitalism (selling/exporting their oil) brought Soviets enormous success and taking what they want in war brought the USSR down. And yet, despite that, here we are with Russia and Ukraine. You'd think recent Russian history would convince anyone the Ukraine conflict is not worth it, obviously not for Ukraine, but also not for Russia. It's an easy argument to make that for Russia abandoning the war today, just going home right now, will provide more rewards for Russia and Russians than a complete victory would bring, even if that victory ALSO came today ... and yet nobody thinks Russia will abandon the fight. As for their ability to wage war, the sad truth is, Putin has conquered more people than he lost, and Russia has conquered more minerals' than they lost in equipment. If Putin wants to use both resources to create more war, he will be able to do so.
Something very similar can be said about China and Taiwan. Not having a conflict is obviously the best option ... and yet, there's very little doubt that conflict will erupt in a few years, not decades.
Whoops, yep I definitely meant "less safe"
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a nuke is with a good guy with a nuke."
No good guy ever had nuke.
At some point having nukes might not make a difference though. To quote the mean, when everyone is special nobody is anymore, and having proxy access to nukes could be enough as a deterrent (e.g. being in an alliance that triggers a nuclear response in case of nuclear attack should be enough ?)
The problem is that wars inevitably break out between countries. They are bad enough with conventional means, but wars with nuclear arsenals can quickly scale to unimagineable catastrophies.
This the reason no nukes were dropped since WW2, and why I also think the next mass massacre won't be from nukes but any other mean that won't have the same international framework.
Vietnam wasn't nukes, and it wasn't just a fluke. Gaza wasn't nuked, yet the whole area is now flat.
Eh "when everyone is special nobody is anymore" is strongly not true when it comes to nukes and MAD. This is obvious.
> This is obvious
In your own response you've extended the subject to MAD. And there are dozens of other factors that will impact a country's geopolitical position.
None of this is obvious.
I don't understand what makes the US "The Bad Guys" in the same sentence that mentions North Korea and China?
In the recent Ukraine vote (condemning the Russian invasion) at the UN the US voted with North Korea and Russia.
Even China and Iran didn't vote with Russia on that one, they abstained.
> When it came to the vote, Ukraine’s version passed by 93 votes to 18. The US voted against, alongside Russia, marking a major shift of its position on the conflict and previous votes.
> The US version was also adopted (93 in favour, eight against and 73 abstentions), but Member States also voted to add the European Union amendments with 60 in favour, 18 against and 81 abstentions.
What is the endgame in that world, keep sending weapons? At some point there won't be anyone left to fight. At some point a concession will need to be made, and those concessions can lead to better times.
There is no world where NATO/US invade Russia. That is literally the end of the world.
I agree, I think only a tiny number of additional weapons need to be given to Ukraine.
Perhaps two dozen Trident missiles equipped with nuclear warheads would be all that's really necessary. Russia is only invading because Ukraine believed it would honor its word in the Budapest Memorandum, which was why it surrendered its key strategic defense. With that agreement breached, Ukraine deserves its deterrents back.
I also agree that a concession will need to be made, and I think that's very appropriate. Reparations need to be paid for the war of aggression, and those guilty of war crimes need to be given fair trials by international tribunals.
I don't think they were equating the US to North Korea (where is China mentioned?), but saying that since the US can no longer be relies on for protection (instead of the sheriff we're at best the anti-hero that will maybe protect you if there's something in it for us). This means countries need to put up a stronger front themselves since there's no larger stabilizing force to rely on.
It's interesting, because I'm sure Trump and Musk take advantage of the benefits that the regulated market provide (even when they just ignore it to their benefit because most others don't), but I'm not sure they've really considered what it means when that stability and security is gone, in more than a "I'm the biggest so I'll be okay" type of sense. There's a lot of positive externalities from that stability that maybe they are discounting too much (such as a relatively peaceful world, since it's been a while since we had a World War).
Agreed that stability is super important.
So much so in fact that you’d think more rich countries would help pay to maintain it.
But yet here we are…
Bear in mind that after WW2 the US didn’t want European countries arming up too much, and was quite happy to pick up the slack and set the pace. Eisenhower in particular was pretty clear he didn’t want a heavily armed Germany or Italy, for reasons that should be obvious, and was Dubious about France. It was the US that wrote the heavily pacifist Japanese constitution.
US didn't want other countries to have a large military ( which includes nuclear with a Russian neighbour) power.
Germany didn't want that role too, as one of the biggest economies in Europe, because of... History.
Germany just enabled 1 trillion in spending for the military. That's historical
1,7 trillion of the Norway fund will be enabled ( partially ofc), that's entire Russia's GDP alone.
Threatening to annex Greenland ( Denmark)
Threatening to annex Canada and start a trade war to try to compulse them. Invoking Canadian nationalism instead. Note: he arranged the previous "trade deal" he claims to hate now.
Starting a trade war with Mexico, this is actually a source of Fentanyl and I can understand.
Camerading with dictators ( Russia), voting the same as them in the UN. Claiming Russia isn't the aggressor ( wtf), even China didn't agree with it.
Threatening a country being attacked and bullying it's president. Taking advantage of the situation to bully them for resource extraction.
Threatening Europe and stability in Europe:
Threatening Germany and interfering publicly with it's elections.
Threatening the UK and interfering publicly with it's elections
Disrespecting NATO and it's citizens who have died when US invoked article 5 on 9/11
US is getting more and more hate from literally everywhere in a very short time because of Trump. A lot is changing very quickly and it won't take 4 years until Trump is gone. We're 6 weeks in...
The entire world is pretty sure that Trump & Vance will take the US in a dictatorship. A lot of this is smoke and mirrors to keep everyone distracted and busy in the mean time ( personal opinion)
Pointer: just look at Tesla in Europe. Some countries are reporting a 45% drop in Tesla sales while the EV market expanded 40%...
Eg. Tesla sales dropped 70% in Canada in January. 81 % in Australia, 60% in Germany, ...
When people will stop US subscriptions ( eg. Netflix) and it's becoming noticable ( eg. Stocks). That will be a point of no return (eg. I think it's already going to be visible from Canada).
6 hours later:
- re-iterated threats about Greenland ( one way or another we'll get it)
- tarrifs India
- tarrifs South Korea
- tarrifs China ( that one I get)
- Seize Panama canal ( forgot that)
- threatening US students and schools for protesting
- removing a black congressmen from Trump's speech
- banned intelligence sharing to Ukraine
Ho boy, at this rate. No one will be left from US allies within months.
Which one is wrong?
( Then it goes quiet )
Add Moldova
> US is getting more and more hate from literally everywhere in a very short time because of that. A lot is changing very quick and it won't take 4 years until Trump is gone. > The entire world is pretty sure that Trump will take the US in a dictatorship and is going to loosen ties.
Do you have a source for this or is it just some vibey rant? That last part seems ridiculous.
What seems ridiculous about it? Aggressive expansion of presidential power. A compliant judiciary that just handed the president immunity while in office. Constant comments about not having elections 'next time around'. Erosion of first amendment rights. Concentrated media ownership. Constant outright lies while in office.
He is giving many good reasons to be anxious or concerned. Are these normal behaviors? Is his conduct likely to weaken our institutions, rather then strengthen them?
The lack of self-awareness and celebratory exclusion of most of humanity from this assertion is deeply concerning.
Is there a reason that you consider people in vietnam, indonesia, the philippines, slovakia, mali, and dozens of other countries that are recent/ongoing victims of the rapacious and ultra-violent "good europeans" or the liberal-imperial US in recent ( < 100 years ago) history to be either:
A) Not part of the world (since you're explaining the GP statement about the world)
B) Or are somehow a self-evidently inferior subspecies for whom you assume it is impossible for people on HN to be friends with?
If you use "all the people in the world" and "a handful of majority-white former or current imperial-colonial powers" interchangeably, I don't see how anyone can assume in good faith that you're not carrying water for a set of very unpleasant european ideas used to rationalize dehumanization.
Russia is a part of Europe and loves the US (or at least Trump) right now.
My concern about checking my own circle is that it is an inherently biased approach. I'll add that I'm not the biggest Trump fan. In fact, according to the political compass tool (take with a grain of salt, I guess) I'm quite liberal. If I go to a liberal circle, of course they're going to confirm this rhetoric that Trump is going to take the US in a dictatorship.
Al Green was being disruptive and frankly let his emotions get the best of him. There were even democrats who voted in favor of his censure.
Your point about removing bureaucracy and installing loyalists is solid. Though, to say it is exactly how a dictator becomes a dictator is of course an oversimplification. There's more to it than just that.
Also, keep in mind that this is happening within a democratic framework. Removing bureaucracy and installing loyalists can be done in pursuit of objectives other than obtaining dictatorial power:
- Margaret Thatcher in the UK reduced government size through privatizations and appointed conservative loyalists to implement her policies, operating within democracy and stepping down after her term.
- Nelson Mandela in South Africa transformed the bureaucracy from apartheid to a democratic system, installing officials loyal to the new democratic vision, and served two terms before stepping down.
- Ronald Reagan in the US cut regulations and appointed conservative officials to support his economic policies, also within democratic bounds.
In all of these, removing bureaucracy and installing loyalists was framed as efforts to enhance efficiency or fight corruption, not to consolidate absolute power.
Now, Trump is no Nelson Mandela. On the flip side, he is no Adolf Hitler.
There is a lot of alarmist rhetoric going around (such as "Trump will take the US in a dictatorship") that I think will prevent people from seeing what is actually happening (be it good or bad).
That is my attempt at being rational while being bombarded with propaganda from both left and right.
He has "joked" numerous times about his third term. It looks like he's preparing the ground for a Putin-style forever presidency.
He said publicly during the election that if he won “you won’t have to vote anymore” several times, including on a Fox interview.
During protests in his first presidency in 2020 he asked his security advisors “Can’t you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?”
Combined with his persistent attempts to overturn the result when he lost to Biden, and retribution against Repubican election officials that certified Biden wins, and I’m frankly confused what isn’t clear about what’s going on.
Is it not obvious? Unless you're deliberately ignoring world events, what in the last few weeks could make you think they're the good guys?!
Hysteria, lack of perspective and blood lust.
maybe the way we killed 10-20% of North Korea's population for a start
https://theintercept.com/2017/05/03/why-do-north-koreans-hat...
I think it’s Eurocentric to imply that China is morally inferior to the US. Yes the United States have more personal liberties, but China has less wealth inequality. While the US is more democratic, we have had many questionable elections in our history. Most notably in favor of the victor, Nixon committed treason by sabotaging peace talks in order to influence the ‘68 election [0]. Giving more recent examples of questionable elections would be too controversial and political for HN.
When discussing nuclear proliferation, North Korea is pretty much the worst example and should be mentioned.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/nixon-tried-t...
"More personal liberties" is a very charitable way of framing the fact that is China highly authoritarian, repressive, and non-democratic.
I don't really want to defend the US here, God knows we have no shortage of extremely serious flaws, but the PRC is much, much worse.
As much progress as china as made, they definitely do not have less wealth inequality than the US. Rural China is still incredibly poor
Nitpick: I assume you really meant US centric and not "Eurocentric", as as you point out european countries are more in the middle of it and look at each camps from a distance while being involved with all of them.
In practical terms, we can see how Huawei is not banned in the EU, the EU isn't in a tariff war with China either, while it's also not a clear Chinese ally, also having a independant stance from the US in most geopolitical fights.
I actually meant Eurocentric because it emphasizes the values of the renaissance and enlightenment writers of Europe.
> I think it’s Eurocentric to imply that China is morally inferior to the US.
Apart from the genocide of the Uighur, the brutal oppression of Tibet, the complete lack of even the pretense of democratic rights, the total lack of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and on and on. Last I checked not wanting your ethnicity eliminated or brutally repressed isn’t just a European thing.
Taiwan can still blow up their TSMC plants and fire conventional missiles at the three gorges damn to inflict near nuclear results on China.
Neither of which would achieve any strategic goals. TSMC is only important because Western economies crave cutting edge silicon and causing a natural disaster by destroying the dam would not only strengthen the resolve of the Chinese public but alienate the rest of the world.
TSMC chips are used in basically everything military - computers obviously, but also tanks, planes, carriers, signals....
Taiwan would be quite invested in TSMC being a supplier of these.
> They prefer mature, well-designed, and reliable products because it's a matter of life and death - and development takes years.
First, the history of chip design and manufacturing is the history of modern weapons design[0]. As long as chips have existed we've been sticking them in brand spanking new weapons systems precisely because it's a matter of life and death. Chip makers of all kinds live and die by defense contracts.
"Because it's a matter of life and death" as a roadblock only makes sense if you don't think about it at all. If I offload some of my SIGINT processing to my brand new 3nm nodes and they don't work, won't my scheduler just mark them bad and reallocate the work back to the machines I had before? If my first shipment of 3nm drone chips doesn't deliver as promised, I've still got my existing inventory of 5nm drones and plenty of suppliers. You balance the inherent riskiness of new technology via redundancy, not avoidance.
> A 2025 tank isn't going to use chips made using TSMC's cutting-edge 3nm node.
No shit. But 2025 servers can, so can 2025 drones, so can 2025 bombs, so can 2025 satellites. Do you think whoever figures out how to communicate via quantum entanglement[1] is going to just not do it because "it's a matter of life and death"? Hell no. They're going to use it to run circles around their enemies while it's working, and they'll fall back to older communication channels when it isn't working.
[0] https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0310bombs/ [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-reaches-new...
Deterrence is in and of itself a strategic goal.
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.
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.
It's true that right now China's navy is much weaker than the US'. However, there are a few factors in China's favor here:
* China is building new navy ships at a much faster pace than the US
* China has LUDICROUSLY more total shipbuilding capacity overall than the US, like more than 200x as much
* China has a semi-militarized militia fleet that they already make use of that they can call on to help ferry soldiers around
* In a war around Taiwan, China would be able to commit essentially its whole fleet, while the US would still have to be concerned around interests in other parts of the globe. Plus the obvious home field logistical advantage in maintenance/repair being close by.
The US will still be much stronger in terms of navy for other parts of the world for a long time yet, but if it's a fight close to China, I think China may surpass the US in effective power within the next decade.
> There’s only a couple of beaches suitable to land an army on
China's been building some new vessels designed to mitigate this (sorry for linking to a video but it's the best source I've seen for this): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klkpk_hO4FQ
I remember reading on Wikipedia that Taiwan imports large amounts of oil and NG for its electricity grid, and it only has 1 week of buffered capacity.
That seems like it was be very easy to exploit. Modern society especially dense cities doesn’t seem very resilient to lack of power.
Some of your points were true 10 years ago but not any more. China has basic food secuirty, ie. there's enough rice and grain to feed the population. What it doesn't have enough is food for livestocks which means no steak at war time, but hardly a fatal blow. China gets most of its oil and gas from Russia, given what we know about Putin it's hard to see Russia cut off the pipeline to help US. Even if they do, I don't think it's enough to stop the war machine, 1/3 of China's electricity is generated by renewable energy, they also have a lot of coal, the reason they built the gas pipeline with Russia is to move away from coal. Chinese navy is no longer a brown water navy, the 3rd aircraft carrier will be battle ready in the next couple of years and the 4th one is being built.
The assumption of US and allies completely blockade China's coast is very unrealistic, it's more likely the allied fleet will try to stop a blockage of PLA on Taiwan, which won't last a few months without external supply. And in term of drones, China is also a big player in the field. I don't think Taiwan has advantage on that. Ukraine can wreck blacksea fleet because it was a very out of date navy, unfortunately you can't say that to the Chinese one.
Difficult to land might be the only defence Taiwan has.
Far more likely the US will "sell" Taiwan to China for some deal that greatly harms the US.
Maybe we'll get a steakhouse.
That's our best case scenario.
Relatively speaking, that's still by far the best case scenario.
We now live in a world of "how bad will it get".
Looks like yet another grift.
I mean, it probably won't greatly harm a few special people in the US. I imagine they'll do quite well.
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.
> 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.
Why would China will wait for a decade? They've been very clear about wanting to invade by 2027
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.
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.
They want to be ready to invade by 2027. Very different.
I hope you're right, but I see no reason to be that optimistic.
Who says they'll invade by 2027? Some Washington think tank?
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> The communist government is not branding them as a enemy.
So decades of military theater from China regarding Taiwan is for no purpose?
entire fleet as in 7? that would be a lot of ships
edit: ahh pacific
What are the chances that this ends up like the Wisconsin Foxconn deal? Is there anything actually driving a follow through on investment?
Their first fab in Arizona is completed and ramping production and the second one's structure is in place so it's probably not likely to be vaporware, but they are probably going to be hyping up what they already have done and started.
Less likely but could.
Chip fab is much more valuable than putting iPhones together.
Not being snarky here, but what is the benefit of a chip fab in Arizona, thousands of miles from the assembly lines where the chips will be used?
I get why it would be important for niche (e.g. defense) applications, but is TSMC scale really needed?
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)
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
These were early rumors, but I recall there being some hope that the first chips this factory would produce would be used for something made by Apple also in the United States, like the Mac Pro or something like the HomePod Mini.
Initially Foxconn was touted as thousands of high tech high paying jobs until it was revealed that it was just assembly jobs. We'll see what happens.
What did they think a Foxconn factory is for? High tech what?
Most people have no idea what a Foxconn is other than the 2 minute mention on local news.
Might be a silly question but considering the tensions between US and EU right now... What would happen to all these deals if ASML was was not allowed to sell their machines to US companies? I don't know enough to even speculate on these wild scenarios
There are parts manufactured around the world (including the US), and the lithography machines are NOT the only step with only one vendor.
US/EU economies are too intertwined to be decoupled. Just distancing the US economy from China is hard.
Sure, but the US wants to put a minimum 25% tax on imports from Europe, that'll affect these machines as well.
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?
>What would happen to all these deals if ASML was was not allowed to sell their machines to US companies?
That is not going to happen since ASML depends itself on some US supplied tech.
What should worry EU is US building capability of their own and sabotage ASML.
I think people give too much importance to being 1-2 generation ahead. Even if TSMC dies(slowly), it won't affect the world too much if Samsung continues to stay one generation behind with Intel likely joining them.
TSMC has a massive 65% of the market. There is no way Samsung or any other player can plug that whole in terms of sheer capacity before a quite long investment cycle.
I think funding won't be a problem. Every country and investor would want to fund next TSMC. In last 10 years TSMC production capacity increased by 5x. There's no reason why 10 years is not enough for Samsung[1].
[1]: https://www.nextplatform.com/2022/10/13/tsmc-the-leading-ind...
I think that won't happen as ASML relies on a bunch of patents. Now I don't think American patents are valid abroad anyways. So probably shouldn't be a concern.
Patents alone aren't protecting ASML or other countries would have knocked it off by now. Trade secrets drive real innovation. You only patent what you think you can profitably protect.
This is me halfremembering recent comment on HN. It's structured so that the ip is owned by an American company that licenses to ASML or something like that.
Dude if Europe is stopping ASML from selling to the US Europe isn't going to be enforcing patent laws for the US.
ASML make laser sources in San Diego, without them there would be no EUV machines. So it isn't just patents. ASML as we know today wouldn't exist without US R&D and manufacturing.
Was it one of these?
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.
Then ASML gets Nord Stream'd.
[dead]
US has many military bases across EU, after such hostile act they might as well take control over the Netherlands
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.
How big do you think those bases are, exactly? They are reliant in the host country.
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)
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?
It seems like this news predated Musk's agency taking an axe to CHIPS ACT staffing. It'll be curious to see if this ends up happening or if they pull the expansion when the subsidies are reduced.
An ok deal for TSMC, terrible deal for Taiwan.
Why?
TSMC was likely threatened by Trump to invest in America. TSMC likely didn't want to do this. However, because they will have more fabs in the US, they'll likely avoid the tariffs as part of the deal. Further more, TSMC will still make chips in case of of a China take over. The risk here is that the US will simply confiscate TSMC's fabs if China uses military action on Taiwan based on security measures. That's the worst case scenario for TSMC.
For Taiwan, it's a terrible deal because the money is not invested in Taiwan and the island becomes less important in the world. The "silicon shield" would also be broken and the Taiwanese government has zero control over fabs in the US.
It remains to be seen if this will truly happen. Perhaps TSMC will always keep its most cutting edge node in Taiwan. Perhaps they'll drag this out over the next 4 years in hopes that Trump's party gets voted out.
My European gut feeling for a few years now is that Taiwan will be given...cought....sold to China, once all critical stuff is made on USA soil.
Why won't European or Canada or Australia defend democracy and provide Taiwan security guarantees and protection?
Because "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.
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-...
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.
I wonder if they don’t really believe we’d come to defend them regardless of the incentives, at this point. In that case, might as well try to avoid the tariffs.
If they send enough engineers over, we won’t actually learn how to make the chips. Then when the next election happens they can re-evaluate.
If China invades in the next four years, I guess… I dunno, at least they’ll have gotten some people out. It is a pretty bad situation, I guess they are just doing what they can.
The US will NOT engage in a hot war against China for Taiwan, that's for certain, regardless of who is president at that time. Why would they risk nuclear war for a bunch of people who are really far away from the US continent?
You don't risk nuclear war by shooting a few conventional missiles and establishing a blockade.
(A) China would suffer intensely under a blockade.
(B) A few missiles could ensure chip facilities are surrendered intact.
(C) Even a short conflict where a few missiles hits boats invading Taiwan would ensure the rest of the world never trades with China.
Point being: The US doesn't have to win, don't have to fight with everything, just make the invasion hard and isolate China in a new cold war.
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.
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.
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?
We’d blow up the fabs ourselves.
Not to mention it's the quickest way for Taiwanese people to completely turn on the US.
If the key thing is to avoid China getting access to TSMC plants, I'm sure there are ways to do it without risking US troops. The West would have to live with inferior Intel nodes for a while, but it would be better than anything China could produce.
Unless a series of unfortunate accidents occur at the TSMC fabs long before China can put them to use...
I assumed deterrence was in place and the chance of a taiwan invasion was quite low. After this week the chance of a taiwan invasion seems quite likely.
The U.S. absolutely defends Taiwan because losing it isn’t an option!
Taiwan currently produces over 85% of the world’s advanced semiconductors. Letting China take Taiwan would hand the CCP control over the global tech supply chain, crippling the U.S. economy and military. That’s a non starter.
No nation with anything to lose will be using nukes..EVER. The game has been understood for 75 years: mutual destruction means no winners. The U.S. has more nukes, better missiles, and full second-strike capability. China knows this, so nukes aren’t on the table.
The U.S. doesn’t need to invade just stop China’s invasion. Amphibious assaults are the hardest military operation, and China has zero real world experience in them or in fighting hot wars at all. We only need to sink their fleet or disrupt shipping to and from their ports. They know the risk, which is why they haven’t tried.
Now 5 years form now if we are much less dependent on them for semi-conductors that is a different story, but the realities of today. For now? Yeah, we throw down.
Also there is the scenario where China co-opts or influences Taiwans elections such that leadership moves back to a pro China stance. Not impossible, that would really put the US in a bind and I am not sure what would happen then but military engagements would seem much less likely.
Losing Taiwan is an option, and that's exactly the problem. It's not American territory, and China knows they can force America's hand by dominating their navy. If you can neutralize America's will to fight with DF-21s from standoff range, you can bring them to the table for negotiations. American troops have better things to die for than the supply chain of the iPhone 17.
To be honest this is a really immature depiction of the conflict, especially for a site like HN. China has demonstrated their willingness and capability to stage a credible naval assault, if you're still skeptical then I think you're blinded by jingoist ambition. Taiwan is a long ways from home, America can't deter China just with their surface fleet.
> I wonder if they don’t really believe we’d come to defend them
I think every sensible ally of the US would now be developing (if they haven't already) contingency plans for any scenario in which they might get embroiled in that would (under previously agreed terms) require an ally to support them. Who can believe in an unconditional military alliance, when the US government is so nakedly prioritising economic transactionalism, even at the expense of their own long-term security (there's a reason countries get into alliances). This US government's handling of the Ukraine situation will undoubtedly turn out to have been the biggest geopolitical footgun for many a decade.
I wonder if they don’t really believe we’d come to defend them regardless of the incentives, at this point. In that case, might as well try to avoid the tariffs.
Ultimately, China won't invade as long as Taiwan plays its cards right. China wants to retake Taiwan without firing a single shot and then quickly re-integrate Taiwan. As long as Taiwan doesn't do anything to provoke China like inviting Nancy Pelosi or voting in more pro-independence politicians.
I actually think these events decreases the chance of a Chinese invasion but increases the chance of a peaceful reunification because the Taiwanese government will look to rely less on the US and positive impression of the US is decreasing in Taiwan.
> China wants to retake Taiwan
Take. They can’t “retake” something they never had.
For 200 years China did nothing with Taiwan. The Ming dynasty called it a ball of mud in the water not worth the effort of the Chinese people. The Qing dynasty did not allow anyone to travel to Taiwan because it was too unsafe to travel. The few people in Taiwan were constantly fighting with the local population. They failed to rule or control Taiwan. For 7 years prior to Japan invading they decided to call it a province. Despite having no control over it. Japan even said they were not convinced Taiwan belonged to China because there was next to nothing there, they put up no fight, and fled before Japan arrived. The PRC also called Taiwan an independent nation and advocated for Taiwan independence until the 1940s when the ROC took control of the island as the request of the allied forces who requested ROC administer Taiwan until they decided what to do with the island, because no one was convinced it ever belonged to China to begin with.
Taiwan is under the administration of the government which ruled China then — and has continued to rule Taiwan since before the revolution led by the CCP. That’s why their official name is the “Republic of China”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_(1912%E2%80%...
The CCP never controlled Taiwan: it remained independent and under the previous regime. So the CCP would need to take Taiwan as their regime never controlled it.
You’re the one rewriting history.
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.)
Maybe TSMC has big influence over Taiwan's government or just outright owns key politicians under the table.
When / if TSMC secures that all lifecycle for advanced large scale chip manufacturing is in the US, Taiwan might find themselves in very iffy waters.
I'm sure TSMC has a lot of influence over the Taiwanese government. However, the people of Taiwan aren't stupid in all of this. They know this is a horrible deal for them and would make sure their politicians hear about it.
They must have a massive influence. I think its gross revenue is something like 10% of the GDP of the whole country.
Now that righteousness and moral high grounds don’t matter any more, it’s the only thing keeping Taiwan safe.
Taiwan government is the biggest shareholder of TSMC…
Does not exclude my point of view. If things go sour they most likely be on the first plane to the US.
You stated:
> Maybe TSMC has big influence over Taiwan's government or just outright owns key politicians under the table.
I’m pointing out this is just plain Wrong. TSMC was created by the government and invested in by the people.
It's not just the cutting edge node. Arizona chips will still be shipped back to Taiwan because TSMC only do Fan-out PoP packaging there. This will unlikely change for the next 5 factories. This is a good win win for everyone. Trump gets to parrot jobs back in america slogan, TSMC gets some extra money to scale out production to 64% of their revenue customer (US based) and Taiwan gets to keep what is really, really important.
This new deal is 3 factories an two packaging facilities.
I would be cautious. With a top notch chip factory there is no need to defend Taiwan against China.
Chips are but a tiny reason the US wants to maintain the independence and integrity of Taiwan. (The same can likely sadly be said of their democracy, given the US stance on Ukraine.)
Taiwanese independence is primarily about containing China's naval power projection and their ability to keep unimpeded shipping lanes open during times of war.
China can currently be easily blockaded, and within a few weeks of such blockades, their supplies of food and energy will be put under tremendous strain. That's why it's so important to the US Navy that China does not obtain Taiwan.
Fighting a war with a superpower that has that kind of Achilles heel is much easier.
It’s a nice line to say the US cares about democracies but I think history has shown that geopolitics trumps form of government every time. The US allies itself with dictatorships when it is expedient and overthrows democracies when it is expedient.
You are right that Taiwan makes it harder for China to project its navy, but chips are by far more important now. Building fabs in the US means we don’t have to defend Taiwan, because it’s looking less and less possible.
Also, China has a huge internal border, including a shared border with Russia. Even with a total naval blockade it would only increase food and energy costs. And sanctions won’t work, they didn’t even work with Russia and China is the number 1 trade partner globally.
What do you think it can be blockaded with? Submarines... barely. Carriers are sitting ducks these days, especially since China already has an equivalent of Russian Onix missiles and launch platforms. Subs won't cover the land corridor, and they will get all they need across the Russian border if it comes to that.
China will eventually get Taiwan without firing a shot. Pretending that the US can defend an island next to a Chinese border is a pipe dream.
The Taiwan Strait is around 180 KM long, UK to France is around 30 to 40 KM in comparison. That same strait is also not safe to traverse except for two periods each year, so if they are going to invade we will know beforehand.
China needs to win this quickly, because any sort of kinetic war is going to put freeze the global economy and likely cause a mass recession, while the USA (& India) can blockade China's supply and oil chains from the Middle East beyond their force projection. Russian-Chinese infrastructure in Siberia isn't well developed and could also easily destroyed with strategic weapons from Alaska. Not to mention the sheer logistics of sending and maintaining millions of men across the strait. One missile and those troops sink into the ocean.
Trying to do a blockade on Taiwan premature isn't a good idea either, because it's conversely giving the USA the first move to organize it's forces out of harm's way, and basically turns a signficant chunk of the PLAN into sitting ducks out at the sea. Most Chinese victories are predicated on the China quickly wiping out US assets in Japan, Korea and Guam, if they don't manage to do that and fail to achieve air superiority, their troop carriers are going to sitting ducks for drones and fighters in the air.
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.
China currently would have a serious bad time economically, cut off from intl trade. So there are options in addition to military - if there was a will. The rest of the world would have a hard time without China intl trade but probably far more survivable.
And blockade options go both ways: China could blockade Taiwan? They have more and more attack submarines and anti-aircraft missiles - which may be good enough.
"China can currently be easily blockaded"
Back in the day we used to add [citation needed] to statements like that.
Sure, if anyone tried to blockade continental China (coastline from Vietnam to Korea!), controlling Taiwan would be helpful, but chances are it would not really make all that much of a difference. It's not exactly Gibraltar or the Bosporus.
Why couldn't that massive blockade just go around Taiwan is well?
OTOH, If they have production outside of Taiwan, then they can more credibly threaten to destroy the Taiwanese fabs if China invades.
> they can more credibly threaten to destroy the Taiwanese fabs if China invades
China's interest in Taiwan is ideological. It is not at all determined by whether the Taiwanese destroy their own fabs in the event of an invasion.
Exactly. China has held this position for a long time. Chip plant manufacturing is a recent development. China will eventually catch up with their own manufacturing in a decade or so. They don't care about the immediate short-term - they think in decades.
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.)
Even if the desire to absorb Taiwan is ideological, they would certainly also understand the severe practical implications of losing access to their chip production.
Chinese companies seem to not have much trouble getting a hold of advanced chips, despite the embargo. There is also very elastic demand for less advanced chips despite China's efforts towards autonomy.
Exactly. Some comments here seem to imply that it's somehow good (or at least not bad) for Taiwan's national security to transfer technology to the US because Taiwan can now more credibly threaten to destroy their fabs, completely missing the point that China wants to reunify with Taiwan with or without these fabs.
It's a complete misreading of the situation; the US is in fact actively undermining Taiwan's national security, both 1) by coercing Taiwan to transfer its technology and human capital and 2) by banning chip trade between Taiwan and China.
This was my first thought when I heard about this. If Taiwan ever looks like it's going to fall, I think that there's going to be a massive concerted effort to extract all the talent and production equipment over to America so that it's not in China's hands.
Sure, TSMC would want to do that to salvage what they can. I wonder if the Taiwanese government is as keen on that arrangement though; TSMC plants are their biggest bargaining chip, and Trump has upending the entire world order mere weeks into his term.
But with an US fab that’s a threat mainly to China, without it’s global.
One new fab - even if full size - cannot take on anywhere near world needs - even ex-China. So different threat, but yes.
Exactly. Its the only card Taiwan holds once its gone America will never care about them
These comments just ignore history. Tsmc wasn't even founded until 1987, let alone dominant. US commitments are from WW2.
China was also, in slightly crude terms, an underdeveloped and weak country in 1987. Japan was right next door and an absolutely massive economic powerhouse that eclipsed China. Japan's GDP was nearly 10x China's at the time.
The US had military bases in the Philippines at the time. They did and still have military bases in Japan. Taiwan was right in the pincers of the US, and China, having all the power and development of a mid-tier African country, would have no hope of taking the country without absolutely massive losses and possibly collapsing their government.
Now China is undoubtedly the most powerful country in Asia, in terms of both military strength and economic power. They could blockade Taiwan, fire a few missiles in strategic spots, and fight a war of attrition against the import-dependent island without having to put a single boot on the ground.
Ukraine made protection guarantees with the west in exchange for giving up a key aspect of its defense (nuclear weapons). Russia had collapsed and people assumed they weren't a major threat anymore. Now Ukraine has nothing to wield against Russia and the US is saying "Give us your minerals, and not in exchange for defense. Just give us your resources." Russians are dying by the thousands but their leadership still considers it worth the cost.
Now imagine the Chinese government. They see Taiwan giving the US government their most valuable resources. They see the US government having no interest in helping countries that they've partnered with for decades. They realize they don't have to shove tens of thousands into a meat grinder to get what they want. They realize that the one thing Taiwan could wield to make the world support their cause (chips and the risk of the global tech industry falling into chaos should manufacturing be interrupted) might be moved outside their borders. Not taking advantage of this opportunity would be China ignoring a huge sign that says "It's free real estate."
There is less of a reason to defend Taiwan. Doesn't mean the US won't try. Ultimately, the US wants to use Taiwan, Japan, SK, PH to contain China.
This is to re-secure the advanced chip supply in case a conflict actually breaks out in the pacific.
For China, taking Taiwan isn't really about TSMC. It's an ideology that stems from the century of humiliation. Furthermore, once they take Taiwan, SK, Japan, PH will eventually bow as well.
So what? USA has been a close ally of Canada for over a century, and they are throwing that out the window. They can throw Taiwan out the window too.
I think Trump already showed that history is not a reason for him
I would not assume that TSMC leadership is 100% aligned with the national interests of Taiwan as a country.
Doubtful that would ever happen. And all sides know it.
Fearmongering the American public into believing that it would happen is how Trump leveraged this deal, and how he spins it to his base that he wins yet another negotiation to make America stronger. Same playbook as the Apple and OpenAI/Oracle "investment" announcements.
I think the parent commenter was actually saying that it is unlikely the US was ever going to help Taiwan in the case of a Chinese invasion, regardless of admin.
A big difference with Taiwan vs Ukraine is that the US lets Taiwan purchase much more top of the line equipment.
Taiwan is still not allowed to buy F35 fighters. And the weapons they are allowed to buy from the US are delivered late and of poor quality:
Taiwan Is Getting Its U.S. Weaponry—but Years Behind Schedule: https://www.wsj.com/world/asia/taiwan-is-getting-its-u-s-wea...
U.S. delivered "wet and moldy body armor" to Taiwan, Pentagon watchdog says: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-wet-moldy-body-armor-to-tai...
The US has not been a good partner to Taiwan, truth be told. If you browse social media that are popular among the Taiwanese, you'll discover that there is quite a bit of resentment towards the US, because they see the US as coercing them into transferring their much-needed human and intellectual capital in world-class semicon technology. (E.g. ~50% of the staff now working at the Arizona fab are TSMC engineers who moved from Taiwan, because American workers allegedly do not have the requisite skills or work ethic.) And yet the US is not willing to reciprocate by transferring its military technology.
I'm sure Trump's disastrous meeting with Zelenskyy has greatly damaged confidence among the Taiwanese. At some point more and more Taiwanese might just decide that a mob boss who speaks their language is better than a mob boss who doesn't.
"Taiwan is the United States’ 7th-largest merchandise trading partner ($158.6 billion in total goods trade), 10th-largest export market ($42.3 billion), and 8th-largest source of imports ($116.3 billion), according to 2024 U.S. data (and when the European Union is considered as one trading partner). "
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10256
Sounds like we've been a great partner with Taiwan. Also, wanting to trade on "business I.P." would make more sense if you mentioned we're already doing around $158 billion in business with them. Each side's businesses have a lot of mutual dependence where you'd want a higher production of chips that each side could trust. We had a supply shortage with fabs not long ago, too.
Whereas, military tech is a strategic advantage we owe to nobody. They can buy it or not. I'd rather they not be ripped off in the process. Helping us make cutting edge chips here is different than giving people weapons.
For example, I'm American. I'm allowed to have business, but not military, technology. I can probably license and operate a fab. I can't buy fighter jets at all. That's despite how Harrier jets as a solution to traffic congestion could boost my personal productivity.
> military tech is a strategic advantage
For the Taiwanese, their semiconductor prowess is a strategic advantage for them. It's even informally known as the Silicon Shield. Taiwan's hope/expectation that US reciprocates with strategically important technology is perfectly reasonable.
The Silicon Shield is something the US is actively trying to undermine by coercing Taiwan to transfer its technology. In addition, every TSMC engineer that moves from Taiwan to the US is someone who isn't contributing to Taiwan's local Silicon Shield. And yes, "coercing" is the right word when you are a mafia-like superpower threatening 100% tariffs -- though at this stage I am not sure why the Taiwanese should hold out any hope that the US is a reliable or trustworthy guarantor of their security.
> They can buy it or not.
Obviously Taiwan cannot. The US refuses to sell F35 fighters to Taiwan. And even countries that do buy these weapons do not have full operational control -- e.g., the U.S. has the capability to remotely disable or restrict the functionality of F-35 fighter jets purchased by other countries.
> I'd rather they not be ripped off
Taiwan is getting ripped off. 1) Delivering equipment years behind schedule as well as 2) delivering moldy dilapidated equipment are forms of ripping off your customer. And in this case America's customer is too afraid to dare offend it.
All of the most novel aspects of modern fighters lie in control systems and sensors driven by modern fabs.
I'm not clear why you think the two are different from an ability to wheel and deal standpoint other than because that's big bros narrative?
Maybe Taiwan should consider chips to be a strategic advantage and refuse to sell them to the US for a while.
Guess who Taiwan's largest import and export trading partner is?
The US was defending Taiwan against China long before TSMC was founded. If anything I'd worry it goes the opposite way. In the status quo, if the Chinese military can prevent TSMC from operating or prevent their products from being exported, wouldn't the US almost have to capitulate in exchange for a chips deal?
Capitulate? The US aren't going into a direct war against the PRC even if Taiwan is invaded.
The play is to create trouble to the PRC, to bar open access to Pacific and to control trade routes to Japan/Korea.
The US do not care about Taiwan beyond its "usefulness".
I don’t know what you mean. The PRC already has open access to the Pacific and trade routes to Japan and Korea.
Does anyone think the US would defend Taiwan at this point?
I think that ship has sailed under the current administration.
Unfortunately I have to agreed. Protection rackets seem to be pretty much the defining activity when Trump is allowed to run the show, but I doubt appeasement in itself is really going to buy Taiwan anything. What's to stop him from taking the bribes and then just fabricating some of his trademark bullshit about how the Taiwanese "have been very unfair" and Xi's people were actually totally in the right all along.
The US right-wing has a large contingent that wants to pivot focus away from Europe and towards Asia.
The US abandoning European allies can be perceived through the lens of general isolationism (or even an outright support for fascism) but it can also be perceived as part of this pivot to Asia.
Time will tell. Elon Musk has so much of his net worth tied up in China, however, that I would bet more on abandonment. If Elon was out of the picture I'd bet more on support.
How could you? Trump declined to say he'd defend Poland or Lithuania, both NATO members, when asked by a reporter (obviously this was overshadowed by the Zelenskyy thing)...
Because putin demanded NATO roll back to 1990 borders in exchange for a Ukraine peace deal. So of course he wouldn't defend Poland or Lithuania, they won't be in NATO anymore.
Nope. The US is doing all it can to become irrelevant geopolitically in Europe, that's not to start a war with China with a very uncertain outcome. Economic ties is (was) the really last bastion that would have motivated the US to intervene.
Wild how quickly Europe has just given up on the US after all the money we’ve spent on them for decades. We need your help (a majority of sane Americans), not condemnation. If you don’t think Trump won’t do the same to you, you’re sorely mistaken.
Europe did help in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria and now that Europe needs the US's help, silence.
I don’t know, just seems sad that allies are so fairweather.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No people sign up for the military mostly because they are poor annd lower middle class and that’s their way out.
The last war fought on American soil was in 1815 ignoring the civil war and fights against native Americans.
Was Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan or either Iraq war about American interests?
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?)
>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.
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?
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.
War to the west in the current year means airstrikes and drones.
Looking at current Ukraine situation, the drone pilots are a couple of kilometers behind the front. The radio range of the drones is not that big. Yes there are higher tech ones, but there are still people exposed at the front.
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.
That’s true of every conflict we’ve fought in for decades. And yet we still fought in them, without a draft, somehow.
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?
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.
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.
The phrasing of your question makes it sound like you clearly do not think Taiwan is worth defending. Perhaps a more interesting question would be - where is the line for you to consider a war is worth fighting for? Is it only when your country is being attacked and you need to defend it? If so, take a guess what WW1 and WW2 would have looked like if everyone had that opinion.
You didn't answer the question. It's easy to send other people's kids to war (see Iraq, Afghanistan). It's a different problem when you have your own skin in the game.
>If so, take a guess what WW1 and WW2 would have looked like if everyone had that opinion.
WWI Would have been merely a local conflict between Austria and Serbia. WWII would have been about the same as it was historically, if it happened at all, see previous answer on WWI.
As an aside and ironically, both Wilson and FDR campaigned on not getting us into WWI and WWII.
Yes, by now, yes.
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.
> 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.
We should have the troops wear Apple uniforms instead of green camo fatigues. Gotta make the ultimate sacrifice for our tech overlords.
Yes.
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
that's awesome, but why "it's not looking good"? oh, because it 'strongly suggests' that i'm a 'Chinese State Actor'
I'm a chinese living in china, i'm interest topics abt china, how strange
instead of reading some 'analysis reports' by sponsored medias and think tanks, now you leant to read ones by LLMs, such a progress
Do I look like a devil that tempts innocent Americans/Westerners to be corrupt to you?
be vigilant, we're everywhere
PDF exploit? Do not click! Creepy indeed, these new McCarthyite tactics.
Back then, the counter-culture hadn't completely hollowed out the nation's soul.
Anyone who thought we would seriously defend Taiwan is a fool. Middle America routinely makes fun of Asian people, you think they're gonna be happy to send their kids to die for them?
Counterpoint they literally already did that and we weren’t less racist in the 60s and 70s. Personally I don’t think Trump would defend Taiwan but I object to such a disregard of history.
Those were wars to kill big scary Communism! Things have changed a bit since then.
No comment on Korea, but Vietnam wasn't exactly popular.
I would not be surprised if this was in the calculation. TSMC US is currently moving quite a bit faster and ahead of what TSMC originally planned. There is a possibility that TSMC US will only be 1 year behind in node development. With the added capacity, it will accelerate transition of Qualcomm, Broadcom, Nvidia, AMD etc to Fab on US soil.
Once that is even partly done. There is no reason Trump will send US troops to defend Taiwan.
Another question is whether it is defendable at this point. It's not clear that China doesn't have military superiority over that area.
I think that the deterrent is Taiwan destroying all their fabs before the Chinese get to them. This would severely affect the _entire_ world therefore there are strong incentives to keep Taiwan independent.
Taiwan is not destroying their own fabs. You read too much into propaganda. It's a stupid thing to do for Taiwanese people.
Further more, China doesn't care about TSMC. It's a nice bonus. But re-taking Taiwan is an ideology.
I second this
Didn't Trump terminate the Chips act?
The president can’t just unilaterally cancel a piece of legislation already signed into law. But maybe he gets the new congress to repeal it.
That's the old way of thinking -- they're trying to do just that across the government and without some enforcement mechanism to make them send the checks, the practical result is that the President can indeed cancel pieces of legislation via impoundment.
Example 1 - Trying to take $20 billion from Citi: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5161849-inflat...
Example 2 - The pause preempting the defunding of USAID: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/reev...
Example 3 - CHIPS act would have had funding withheld if a Federal Court hadn't stepped in, but it's unclear what enforcement mechanism can force the funding to resume: https://archive.is/BxjHw
Sure, but a lot of people at NIST who were in charge of implementing the CHIPS act have been fired. He definitely seems to be doing all he can to sabotage the CHIPS act without needing any congressional action.
He sure seems to be able to just terminate legislation signed into law. He already did it with USAID, and is in the process of doing it to many other departments.
You like this rule being broken? Great, good for you.
What about the other rules? The ones protecting you and the country? Is due process not valuable any more? What protects us from people with bad or selfish intentions?
Yeah, kids starving and dying of cholera.. fuck em /s
> The Inspector General also warned that $489 million in humanitarian food aid was at risk of spoiling due to staff furloughs and unclear guidance. The Office of Presidential Personnel fired the Inspector General the next day, despite a law requiring 30 days notice to Congress before firing an Inspector General.
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.
Tell that to TikTok.
He's not constitutionally able to do so.
But DOGE has been trying to do effectively that for the past month, and has been distressingly successful at it. (For all that conservatives whined about the existence of an unaccountable deep state override elected officials making laws, that's basically an accurate description of DOGE.)
Another thing that it turns out was just "guidelines".
The horse already said that he will not defend Taiwan.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Trump involuntarily did more for Taiwan / mainland unification in one meeting with Zelensky than in all the years prior. Taiwanese now understand that they can't trust US to step up to their security commitments. If US won't do it for Europeans being savagely attacked by aggressive neighbors, they won't do it for Taiwanese being blockaded by mainland. At that point Taiwan tariffs and China tariffs will be the same. That was brandished as a powerful weapon about Hong Kong and didn't really do much.
The difference is that China is on Trump's enemy list, whereas he considers Russia's oligarchs to be potential business partners for his own oligarchy. Trump wants trade barriers to China but wants those with Russia to be removed.
> 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.
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...
> 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)
I am a bit skeptical about all the announcements. Are companies really investing, or just making announcements? I wish it were the latter!
I think (hope) you mean the former :-)
they are already under way. So you don't want investments into the US?
Good! Come to America.
Why the US? Why not Europe? Ireland or UK?
Probably because Europe is not threatening them behind the scenes and perhaps offering money as well.
Diversifying chip manufacturing more globally is pretty crucial to maintaining the world order though. Sadly, having a fab in the US under the current administration is not helpful to the west in general. Getting TSMC or building an alternative to TSMC in Europe, UK, Canada, Australia, would be very smart.
I believe a lot of the machines TSMC depends on are even produced in Europe, so there should be room to make some deal!
I doulbt anyone will build a factory in Europe. It won't be competitive because of the energy prices on the continent.
Prices in the nordics aren't that bad.
It went up considerably because of nordic exports to the rest of Europe. They are producing enough for themselves, but not if they have to share. It's the same reason why US gas prices are somewhat on the high side lately - a lot of it is exported to Europe, and the price differential is large enough to make this worth the trouble.
Is chip manufacturing particularly energy intensive? I would expect that chip plants are not that price sensitive about electricity, within reason.
Seems your average semiconductor foundry needs around 100MW[1] to 200MW[2] of electrical power to operate. The main consumption is down to refrigeration chillers[3].
Average US house uses about 12600kWh per year[4], or 1.44kW average across a year. So that means one foundry takes about what 70k to 140k houses would take.
[1]: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_serv...
[2]: https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/6/24091367/semiconductor-man...
[3]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02786...
[4]: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/c&e/pd...
The light source uses a lot of power to produce those few hundreds of watts of radiation
It is.
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.
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.
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.
1- The US might be (might have been) the only country which would intervene if Taiwan were invaded by China.
2- The US is also the only country which threatens the world with tariffs for political concessions
Maybe TSMC will go to Europe as well, but for now it makes a lot of sense why they choose the US.
Currently everything points in the direction that capitulation would be the outcome of China invading Taiwan, with political pressure to eject any democratically elected leader in Taiwan for the sake of "negotiations".
It was what this administration did in Afghanistan, it's doing in Ukraine, and nothing tells us it will be different with Taiwan.
Because the US will soon have the cheap labor needed to produce them.
[dead]
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
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...
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.
If US keeps pissing off EU it's gonna have to spend next decade developing its own extreme UV lithography machines to catch up to the ones EU will start to supply to China and stop supplying to Taiwan and US.
Lack of domestic fabs is going to be least of US worries.
This deal had been agreed before...
"TSMC plans to invest $65 billion to build three semiconductor fabs in north Phoenix, the largest investment in Arizona history." - https://www.azfamily.com/2024/11/16/tsmc-arizona-secures-fun...
No, secretary of commerce Lutnick said that the $65 billion deal was Biden's and was subsidized by the US ($6 billion).
He then bragged that Trump extorted TSMC using tariffs and forced TSMC to invest another $100 billion to avoid tariffs.
The US is using tariffs to have other nations build "their" industry. After that work is done, these nations will be ready to become new theaters for US proxy wars.
From the article: "TSMC plans to invest $65 billion to build three semiconductor fabs in north Phoenix, the largest investment in Arizona history."
Sigh. From the horse's mouth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa7MH1zLEYU
Lutnick:
"America um under the Biden Administration uh tsmc received a $6 billion Grant and that encouraged them to build 65 billion dollar so America gave tsmc 10% of the money to build here and now you're seeing the power of Donald Trump's presidency because tsmc the greatest manufacturer of chips in the world is coming to America with a hundred billion dollar investment and of course that is backed by the fact that they can come here because they can avoid paying tariffs so the idea is come to America build greatness in America."
But that horse doesn't sound reliable.
TSMC never pays tariffs anyways, whomever did the importing does so companies like Apple, GM, Tesla, etc.
An announced deal really should be worthless politically, we've all seen Foxconn or Apple announce big investments during Trump's first presidency for them to just walk it back later.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
Is that 100B like 500B stargate thingy or ... ?
How's that huge Foxconn investment in Wisconsin going? I can't believe people are falling for the exact same scam again.
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.
Having been in Taiwan for 10 years, comments like these totally ignore the differences in personal traits and 誠信 between Terry Guo and Morris Chang. TSMC and the entire upper management is build differently than Foxconn. After all, Arizona factory is about to be up and running no?
What does this mean for Intel’s foundry efforts? Are they basically dead now?
Look at the recent rumor of Intel breakup - the large part is going to TSMC.
It seems unlikely to me that TSMC is both going to spend 100B on their own US operations and however many billions it would cost to acquire Intel's foundry division and set it up for TSMCs process. Though those rumours never made sense to me in the first place.
Seems more likely that the Trump admin was pressuring them to possibly invest in Intel, acquisition was briefly considered and instead this compromise of expanding their own US operations was chosen.
I expect INTC to retract back towards $18-19 from this news. Recent rally was largely based on hopium surrounding either TSMC investment/partnership or Broadcom/TSMC breakup and acquisition. Probably this kills the Broadcom deal as well. If I were Intel, I wouldn't wanna sell off the more successful chip design division if I couldn't also sell off the floundering foundry.
I wonder what these comments would look like if this deal happened 2-3 years ago by Joe Biden.
A vastly different geopolitical situation would get vastly different comments.
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.
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.
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.
Any and all promises made by the Trump administration mean nothing
How will this affect Intel?
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.
I don't expect TSMC to continue on this.
Trump is cancelling the CHIPS act and Taiwan is more valuable with TSMC in Taiwan. They need as much guarantees as they can under an untrustworthy US ( with Trump).
I wonder how much Trump crypto they are going to have to buy to keep their country.
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.
> 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.
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.
https://archive.is/fW91i
Thank you!