4 ms·

I appreciate the good-natured disagreement! Long-term independence and stability of Taiwan is necessary for TSMC to keep existing. It's in its best interest to

by kick 6y ago

I appreciate the good-natured disagreement! Long-term independence and stability of Taiwan is necessary for TSMC to keep existing. It's in its best interest to keep existing. I'm pretty sure the government doesn't need to approve of this sort of thing; VIA got away with it. Further entangling itself with the US would be keeping itself for the most part in Taiwan. "We have drastically better tech than you, and your military, intelligence agencies & universities really desperately need these!" is a fantastic incentive. "Here's a factory that allows the US to be pretty much self-sufficient and no longer dependent on us for the next few years while you haphazardly try and get on top of the world again" is not nearly as good of an incentive. Taiwan gets invaded yesterday, suddenly the US is in a sticky situation. Taiwan gets invaded when this factory is finished? 5nm vs 2-3nm isn't a huge difference.

remarkEon 6y ago
Good point, on the last part. But I think the likelihood of an actual invasion of Taiwan is extraordinarily low. There's terrain and weather reasons for why any land invasion would be telegraphed well ahead of time and would be a complete bloodbath for any invading force. What is quite possible imo is an air bombardment as an attempt to force the Taiwanese government into capitulation. This would obviously precipitate a response from the US, and potentially other countries (not going to mention NATO here because I'm not really sure how useful that designation is in 2020 and beyond). So, maybe the bet is that US air/drone power is still a decade or so ahead of China's such that we'd still be able to repel any PRC attacks. And because of that, this is a gesture that signals a) they think that kind of attack is likely and b) because of (a) want to make sure they're on good terms with the American government and people. The history of US relations with Taiwan is a lot more cloudy than people really grok today, so that's my theory on why they're doing this. I suppose that doesn't really address your broader point though, which is a good one, that Taiwan does/did have leverage in this relationship with their higher-tech fabs being located within Taiwan exclusively. R&D will still be in Taipei, I imagine. Very quickly this becomes, in my mind, a human capital question.
- magicsmoke 6y ago
  Agreed on the point that an amphibious invasion of Taiwan could quickly become more chaotic than the PRC wants. I think the PRC's strategy is probably to build up for a naval battle with the US Navy and use a victory to threaten a multi year blockade of Taiwan like the US did with Cuba. If China can secure naval dominance within the second island chain and a corridor across the Indian ocean to the Middle East and Africa they have all the time in the world to leave Taiwan in a pressure cooker.
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    Yes, this is a strategy I'd consider. "Invasion of Taiwan" is the wrong way to think about this. Blockade and isolation would be the objective, and then use that as a tax on US military resources to further sap an already overextended country. >If China can secure naval dominance within the second island chain Skeptical that they'll be able to do this though, unless it represents a significant change in naval operations and they achieve this via drone or other submarine operations. PLA has had a difficult time getting the aircraft carrier concept to work, even after buying several Soviet era carrier vessels (if my memory serves). It might be a false signal, but that they haven't gotten the aircraft carrier concept to work (which would of course be required for an air bombardment of Taiwan) might mean they're working on other naval hardware that exploits US weaknesses, and thus crippling any US Navy activity via submarine or missile warfare in the Taiwan Straight is the ultimate objective for the above mentioned reasons.
  - kick 6y ago
    I mostly agree with you (I mentioned elsewhere that "invasion of Taiwan" was just supposed to serve as shorthand), but I think you night be underestimating the US Navy and possibly overestimating the PLA.
    - remarkEon 6y ago
      See my other reply. I agree with what you're saying here. US Navy is, probably, better situated to handle a conflict there barring a major change in how naval war works.

by kick 6y ago

remarkEon 6y ago

Good point, on the last part. But I think the likelihood of an actual invasion of Taiwan is extraordinarily low. There's terrain and weather reasons for why any land invasion would be telegraphed well ahead of time and would be a complete bloodbath for any invading force. What is quite possible imo is an air bombardment as an attempt to force the Taiwanese government into capitulation. This would obviously precipitate a response from the US, and potentially other countries (not going to mention NATO here because I'm not really sure how useful that designation is in 2020 and beyond). So, maybe the bet is that US air/drone power is still a decade or so ahead of China's such that we'd still be able to repel any PRC attacks. And because of that, this is a gesture that signals a) they think that kind of attack is likely and b) because of (a) want to make sure they're on good terms with the American government and people. The history of US relations with Taiwan is a lot more cloudy than people really grok today, so that's my theory on why they're doing this. I suppose that doesn't really address your broader point though, which is a good one, that Taiwan does/did have leverage in this relationship with their higher-tech fabs being located within Taiwan exclusively. R&D will still be in Taipei, I imagine. Very quickly this becomes, in my mind, a human capital question.

magicsmoke 6y ago
Agreed on the point that an amphibious invasion of Taiwan could quickly become more chaotic than the PRC wants. I think the PRC's strategy is probably to build up for a naval battle with the US Navy and use a victory to threaten a multi year blockade of Taiwan like the US did with Cuba. If China can secure naval dominance within the second island chain and a corridor across the Indian ocean to the Middle East and Africa they have all the time in the world to leave Taiwan in a pressure cooker.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  Yes, this is a strategy I'd consider. "Invasion of Taiwan" is the wrong way to think about this. Blockade and isolation would be the objective, and then use that as a tax on US military resources to further sap an already overextended country. >If China can secure naval dominance within the second island chain Skeptical that they'll be able to do this though, unless it represents a significant change in naval operations and they achieve this via drone or other submarine operations. PLA has had a difficult time getting the aircraft carrier concept to work, even after buying several Soviet era carrier vessels (if my memory serves). It might be a false signal, but that they haven't gotten the aircraft carrier concept to work (which would of course be required for an air bombardment of Taiwan) might mean they're working on other naval hardware that exploits US weaknesses, and thus crippling any US Navy activity via submarine or missile warfare in the Taiwan Straight is the ultimate objective for the above mentioned reasons.
- kick 6y ago
  I mostly agree with you (I mentioned elsewhere that "invasion of Taiwan" was just supposed to serve as shorthand), but I think you night be underestimating the US Navy and possibly overestimating the PLA.
  - remarkEon 6y ago
    See my other reply. I agree with what you're saying here. US Navy is, probably, better situated to handle a conflict there barring a major change in how naval war works.