4 ms·

I would argue that by the time China comes to take Taiwan (when, not if), the US will be in a position where it is unwilling/able to expend the lives and funds

I would argue that by the time China comes to take Taiwan (when, not if), the US will be in a position where it is unwilling/able to expend the lives and funds required to provide a prolonged defense of a piece of land firmly in China's front yard. Personally, I think we're at the point where the US would consider the costs of Taiwan's defense well beyond any potential benefits. It's too economically integrated with China, and the sheer number of bodies it would take aren't worth the moral victory. Hong Kong is the writing on the wall. China wishes to restore integrity to what it regards as its territory. TSMC must open facilities in the west because its Taiwan facilities are too dangerous to leave in enemy hands. It has to invest in capital outside of any potential conflict zone if it plans to exists over the long-term as a profit-making entity.

myrandomcomment 5y ago
The USA must defend Taiwan even at the risk of nuclear war. The dollars position in the world allows the USA to run its current accounting. Allowing China to take Taiwan destroys the economy and the position of the USA in the world. That being said I feel that Taiwan is a vibrant democracy that is worth defending, and yes I did my time as a solider and understand the horrors of it.
- rapsey 5y ago
  The US defence of Taiwan is unfortunately just posturing. Should China commit to taking Taiwan they will do it. US military simulations have confirmed this again and again. Chinese military capability is strong enough to overwhelm the US Taiwan forces.
  - myrandomcomment 5y ago
    No it is not, which is the reason it will end up in nukes. There are a ton of well researched papers on this. Taiwan is well dug in and any invasion perpetration would be seen months in advance. To be clear, if the USA defense of Taiwan leads to the extinction of the human race, so be it. We should have destroyed nazi germany in 1939. Fīat jūstitia ruat cælum. We are not worthy to survive if we do not defend democracy. I say this as a veteran and parent of kids that are just starting their life. Edit: downvoted by the China accounts. Love it. Post facts. This is hacker news. We operate on data. I applaud today's Mars landing by China. I applaud all they have done as county to pull their people from poverty. The CPC has done amazing things to bring China forward, but it is has had its time. It is time trust in the people for leadership in the future. A democratic republic is what the world hopes for. China has so much to offer to the world.
    - rapsey 5y ago
      https://news.yahoo.com/were-going-to-lose-fast-us-air-force-held-a-war-game-that-started-with-a-chinese-biological-attack-170003936.html https://news.yahoo.com/were-going-to-lose-fast-us-air-force-...
      - myrandomcomment 5y ago
        If you Google "Taiwan hard to invade" or the like you will get more educated reads on this. The necessary preparations on the Chinese part are well seen on satellites. China would 100% win at a bloody cost without a US involvement. With, they would loose. This is today, without China coming to be on level with the US military. Over time they will catch up. Today with US involvement China would loose. The facts on the ground prove this, otherwise why have they not done it yet? "Carefully compare the opposing army with your own, so that you may know where strength is superabundant and where it is deficient." Sun Tzu
        ardit33 5y ago
        no, they can't win.... it is 500 miles of distance, and you need total dominance to get your troops there, and maintain and supply an invasion fleet. Hitler couldn't cross the 50 miles english channel back in 1940.... the operation 'sea lion' was doomed to fail. Even the Allies' normandy invasion, was hard and it took total sea and air dominance. China could surround Taiwan and blockade it, but it can't keep that blockaded is itself it would be blockaded by the US and totally sealed internationally. It will be starved economically. Also, keep in mind, during the cold war, USSR had to give up the sealing/blocading of Berlin, as the US kept supplying it with food via air. The US could have given it away, as it was far from the West's border, but it didn't. The US will do the same this time, as the public from both sides of the political spectrum, are very against CCP. The only people that string along with China, are some elite media companies like Disney, NBA and of course Apple. The average Joe doesn't like that their job went to china, and they would be glad if the US put up a fight.
      - scythe 5y ago
        >a war game that started with a Chinese biological attack That's a big asterisk. Biological warfare so far is the stuff of doomsday prognosticators. China isn't crazy enough to use biological weapons because they know we might (possibly even should) consider that a nuclear-level escalation. And if they did use biological weapons, we might lose Taiwan, but we certainly wouldn't stop fighting. That kind of monstrosity cannot and will not go unanswered.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  > The USA must defend Taiwan even at the risk of nuclear war. I don't think this is a popular or maintstream position, nor does the rest of your argument support it. >The dollars position in the world allows the USA to run its current accounting. I am not sure what this means. Every nation has a current account. Accounting is just how we track what that account is. Nothing allows accounting to happen, we just do it. The U.S. is uniquely generous (or from an alternate point of view, uniquely foolish) in allowing the rest of the world to purchase unlimited dollar denominated assets. This makes the U.S. the safe haven for everyone that needs to park export earnings, and thus incentivizes the rest of the world to run huge surplus against the U.S. This is what is meant by "the dollar system". If tomorrow, the European Union would allow unlimited foreign purchases of Euro assets, and provided what is believed to be rule of law and respect for foreign investor rights, then the rest of the world would gladly diversify away from the dollar and the dollar system would end. That was the original vision of the Euro, but the moment there is any crisis, the EMU reveals that it doesn't have the same level of openness for global investment as the U.S., and that dream is proved illusory. So the global dollar system continues, and is in no way dependent on Taiwan or any other exporter. You get to be a reserve currency by importing the most, not by exporting the most. > Allowing China to take Taiwan destroys the economy and the position of the USA in the world. It does not affect the economy of the U.S. in either direction, except that the resulting chaos would be bad for markets. Having one foreign export power taken over by another is a null op when determining where can the rest of the world park their money. Of course we may block China from doing it, and that could escalate into a war, which would be disastrous for two nuclear powers, but there are easier ways to punish China -- e.g. seize all their foreign reserve holdings (which are held in custodial accounts in various foreign central banks), block all trade, stop the shipment of any oil. For a nation dependent on exports and dependent on foreign nations allowing China to hold large accounts in their financial system, China is tightly integrated into the global system and uniquely dependent on the good graces of that system. They would have been better off taking physical delivery of silver as in the past. Not a single bullet needs to be fired to cripple China and destroy its economy. It would also seriously damage the global economy and spread hurt around the world, but this type of economic warfare is better than nuclear war. Whether Taiwan is worth it is a completely different question. But in such a battle, the dollar becomes even more important, not less, as it would be the global safe haven currency (for everyone except China).
systemvoltage 5y ago
Our memory is fading. Just 5-6 years ago, Intel fabs had the best process technology and TSMC was behind. No one could have guessed what the state of the world would be in 2021 with any significant certainty. Who knows what would happen in another 5 years? We are so myopic when it comes to the bias towards the status quo. We give more weight to what the current situation is and then extrapolate that the future will be exactly the same. We are bad at projecting the future. Is it worth a war that can last many years? By the end of the war, what if US doesn’t need TSMC technology and the tides are reversed? I’m not conjecturing, I’m shedding light on how much we are willing to risk now vs a few years later. It could also be that Intel fabs fall further behind and TSMC becomes 10x more important than now. Who knows!!! Instead of war, invest in domestic technology. It pays back better.
- totalZero 5y ago
  Your last sentence is exactly on point. What's sad is that we spend far more on naval power projection than on detours around obvious risks to prosperity and peace, such as the semiconductor supply chain. We are barely spending 50 billion dollars on domestic semiconductor fabrication in the upcoming legislation, despite acknowledging that the economic costs of the semiconductor shortage are far greater. Contrast that 50 billion number with Apple's expenditures on buybacks and dividends over the past decade. They aren't even in the same order of magnitude.
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    Indeed, semiconductor industry investment is a drop in a bucket compared to 10 years of war. Not to mention, after a war, there still exists a dependency. It's funny how most of the semiconductor topics lead to war discussions but no one talks about outcompeting Taiwan. It's doable if there is will and resources (I am a Fab engineer). IMO the best way to move forward.
- ta_ca 5y ago
  > Instead of war, invest in domestic technology. It pays back better is it though? if you got the biggest gun why not rob someone else? do you believe ethics/empathy/humanity plays any role in any form governance? since we know that if you can sell the idea, you can get away with anything. why not just do the thing you know best? this is not singling out USA or China in any sense, they are just ahead of the curve, flower of the century. a system optimized for only profit with almost no accountability (externalities) reads like a recipe to transfer of the wealth from many to few. if you add war into equation many becomes many-brown, many-yellow, many-black, many-jewish, many-others basicaly many-we-can-target-and-get-away-with. if you remove borders from the equation you end up seeing yourself on the receiving end as well. yet no-surprisingly few remains always the same. so, the question is 'it pays back better to whom?'.
jjcon 5y ago
I kinda see it the exact opposite way, I don’t think China would ever dare risk a full out war which would essentially be them vs the world. Taiwan is extremely valuable but not valuable enough to risk complete devastation of their economy if not by war then by international trade. The US is routinely running freedom of navigation exercises in the south china sea between taiwan and china and has said as recently as last month that its commitment to defend taiwan is, “rock solid”. This is all not to mention that taiwan itself would not be all that easy to overthrow, the large majority of people there have unfavorable views of china (and conversely the majority support closer political ties to the US and other free democracies which they have and continue to build).
- jollybean 5y ago
  Russia did it in Crimea by barely firing a shot. Everyone took note. Taiwan may be 'grabbed' with little violence, and China can promise 'certain freedoms' (i.e fake democracy) so that feckless leaders around the world can 'save face' and say 'oh, we don't like it, but it's not that bad, please keep buying our crap, so we can buy your crap'. China takes the 'long view' - long enough that it supercedes any populist cycle. Over 30 years of 'soft occupation' and incremental erosion of rights, thery'll be nothing left of Taiwan. Elderly Gen Z-ers will look back at their tweets from childhood and wonder.
  - indeedmug 5y ago
    I don't think you can say that the West ignored Crimea. There are still sanctions against Russia and they are not going to be lifted anytime soon. The thing about Crimea is that it's in a slatemate where neither side can displace each other without sacrificing huge resources. So it's basically at the same place for years. https://youtu.be/nR7XAcArAa0 https://youtu.be/nR7XAcArAa0 The problem with invading Tawian is that there is a basically a single place where you can land ships on from China. Tawian been preparing for an invasion for years. This means this single point is heavily defended and anyone attacking is on a huge disadvantage. This means there is a huge price to pay to take Tawian and even if you do, there would likely be sanctions from the West. https://youtu.be/qsjJ5QvNmd8 https://youtu.be/qsjJ5QvNmd8
totalZero 5y ago
More importantly, if China were to destroy the fabs in the night and withdraw quickly, the US would have no economic incentive to retaliate. We always treat Taiwan as a tug of war for control of the fabs, but such a fait accompli would totally change the dynamics of the situation. This may not be likely today, but China has been forced to develop its chip industry in parallel for a long time, and they admit as much if you watch their state-sponsored english-language semiconductor media commentary on YouTube. Eventually they will not need Taiwan nearly as much as America does. The only way to sidestep that problem is for the US to do the same as Taiwan: use government power and resources to establish a competitive semiconductor hub in the Americas. Funnily enough, South Korea has done the same in all practical senses. Samsung makes up more of South Korea's GDP in percentage terms than TSMC's share of Taiwan’s GDP. Samsung's trade policy interests are essentially South Korea's trade policy interests.
xwolfi 5y ago
But I think people vastly overestimate the difficulty to relocate any of these elsewhere. Give it a few years and it s all running the same anywhere. It's only a matter of cost: training an american to do the job of a chinese for the same cost is impossible today because american would refuse to produce these under the same condition: they prefer to enjoy using the chips rather than making them. The good news is that the chinese will eventually come around and start changing their expectation. If you think China cant change, look at their drastic demographic changes: they can become what we became, they just take longer.
scythe 5y ago
>Personally, I think we're at the point where the US would consider the costs of Taiwan's defense well beyond any potential benefits. It's too economically integrated with China, and the sheer number of bodies it would take aren't worth the moral victory. It's not merely a moral victory. And while I myself would pick up a rifle for 24 million people, it's not even that. You can't simply let your allies be invaded. It's lethal to all of your other alliances. America failing to defend Taiwan is the end of the Pax Americana, and America knows it.
- trasz 5y ago
  US ignoring its allies is nothing new, see Ukraine.
neither_color 5y ago
The Taiwan situation is not the same as Hong Kong's. In Hong Kong theyre merely speeding up the integration of a territory they already have full sovereignty over. The current government in China has never ruled over Taiwan. A lot can happen in 20-30 years and future regimes may be not be as eager to risk war over an island that's never been a part of their country during their lifetime.
fnord77 5y ago
if there were any conceivable way for china to take Taiwan without it turning into a massive disaster, china would have done so already. It just will not happen. If it does, it will either result in China being completely ostracized by all other nations or it will spiral into a nuclear war.

myrandomcomment 5y ago

The USA must defend Taiwan even at the risk of nuclear war. The dollars position in the world allows the USA to run its current accounting. Allowing China to take Taiwan destroys the economy and the position of the USA in the world. That being said I feel that Taiwan is a vibrant democracy that is worth defending, and yes I did my time as a solider and understand the horrors of it.

rapsey 5y ago
The US defence of Taiwan is unfortunately just posturing. Should China commit to taking Taiwan they will do it. US military simulations have confirmed this again and again. Chinese military capability is strong enough to overwhelm the US Taiwan forces.
- myrandomcomment 5y ago
  No it is not, which is the reason it will end up in nukes. There are a ton of well researched papers on this. Taiwan is well dug in and any invasion perpetration would be seen months in advance. To be clear, if the USA defense of Taiwan leads to the extinction of the human race, so be it. We should have destroyed nazi germany in 1939. Fīat jūstitia ruat cælum. We are not worthy to survive if we do not defend democracy. I say this as a veteran and parent of kids that are just starting their life. Edit: downvoted by the China accounts. Love it. Post facts. This is hacker news. We operate on data. I applaud today's Mars landing by China. I applaud all they have done as county to pull their people from poverty. The CPC has done amazing things to bring China forward, but it is has had its time. It is time trust in the people for leadership in the future. A democratic republic is what the world hopes for. China has so much to offer to the world.
  - rapsey 5y ago
    https://news.yahoo.com/were-going-to-lose-fast-us-air-force-held-a-war-game-that-started-with-a-chinese-biological-attack-170003936.html https://news.yahoo.com/were-going-to-lose-fast-us-air-force-...
    - myrandomcomment 5y ago
      If you Google "Taiwan hard to invade" or the like you will get more educated reads on this. The necessary preparations on the Chinese part are well seen on satellites. China would 100% win at a bloody cost without a US involvement. With, they would loose. This is today, without China coming to be on level with the US military. Over time they will catch up. Today with US involvement China would loose. The facts on the ground prove this, otherwise why have they not done it yet? "Carefully compare the opposing army with your own, so that you may know where strength is superabundant and where it is deficient." Sun Tzu
      - ardit33 5y ago
        no, they can't win.... it is 500 miles of distance, and you need total dominance to get your troops there, and maintain and supply an invasion fleet. Hitler couldn't cross the 50 miles english channel back in 1940.... the operation 'sea lion' was doomed to fail. Even the Allies' normandy invasion, was hard and it took total sea and air dominance. China could surround Taiwan and blockade it, but it can't keep that blockaded is itself it would be blockaded by the US and totally sealed internationally. It will be starved economically. Also, keep in mind, during the cold war, USSR had to give up the sealing/blocading of Berlin, as the US kept supplying it with food via air. The US could have given it away, as it was far from the West's border, but it didn't. The US will do the same this time, as the public from both sides of the political spectrum, are very against CCP. The only people that string along with China, are some elite media companies like Disney, NBA and of course Apple. The average Joe doesn't like that their job went to china, and they would be glad if the US put up a fight.
    - scythe 5y ago
      >a war game that started with a Chinese biological attack That's a big asterisk. Biological warfare so far is the stuff of doomsday prognosticators. China isn't crazy enough to use biological weapons because they know we might (possibly even should) consider that a nuclear-level escalation. And if they did use biological weapons, we might lose Taiwan, but we certainly wouldn't stop fighting. That kind of monstrosity cannot and will not go unanswered.
rsj_hn 5y ago
> The USA must defend Taiwan even at the risk of nuclear war. I don't think this is a popular or maintstream position, nor does the rest of your argument support it. >The dollars position in the world allows the USA to run its current accounting. I am not sure what this means. Every nation has a current account. Accounting is just how we track what that account is. Nothing allows accounting to happen, we just do it. The U.S. is uniquely generous (or from an alternate point of view, uniquely foolish) in allowing the rest of the world to purchase unlimited dollar denominated assets. This makes the U.S. the safe haven for everyone that needs to park export earnings, and thus incentivizes the rest of the world to run huge surplus against the U.S. This is what is meant by "the dollar system". If tomorrow, the European Union would allow unlimited foreign purchases of Euro assets, and provided what is believed to be rule of law and respect for foreign investor rights, then the rest of the world would gladly diversify away from the dollar and the dollar system would end. That was the original vision of the Euro, but the moment there is any crisis, the EMU reveals that it doesn't have the same level of openness for global investment as the U.S., and that dream is proved illusory. So the global dollar system continues, and is in no way dependent on Taiwan or any other exporter. You get to be a reserve currency by importing the most, not by exporting the most. > Allowing China to take Taiwan destroys the economy and the position of the USA in the world. It does not affect the economy of the U.S. in either direction, except that the resulting chaos would be bad for markets. Having one foreign export power taken over by another is a null op when determining where can the rest of the world park their money. Of course we may block China from doing it, and that could escalate into a war, which would be disastrous for two nuclear powers, but there are easier ways to punish China -- e.g. seize all their foreign reserve holdings (which are held in custodial accounts in various foreign central banks), block all trade, stop the shipment of any oil. For a nation dependent on exports and dependent on foreign nations allowing China to hold large accounts in their financial system, China is tightly integrated into the global system and uniquely dependent on the good graces of that system. They would have been better off taking physical delivery of silver as in the past. Not a single bullet needs to be fired to cripple China and destroy its economy. It would also seriously damage the global economy and spread hurt around the world, but this type of economic warfare is better than nuclear war. Whether Taiwan is worth it is a completely different question. But in such a battle, the dollar becomes even more important, not less, as it would be the global safe haven currency (for everyone except China).

systemvoltage 5y ago

Our memory is fading. Just 5-6 years ago, Intel fabs had the best process technology and TSMC was behind. No one could have guessed what the state of the world would be in 2021 with any significant certainty. Who knows what would happen in another 5 years? We are so myopic when it comes to the bias towards the status quo. We give more weight to what the current situation is and then extrapolate that the future will be exactly the same. We are bad at projecting the future. Is it worth a war that can last many years? By the end of the war, what if US doesn’t need TSMC technology and the tides are reversed? I’m not conjecturing, I’m shedding light on how much we are willing to risk now vs a few years later. It could also be that Intel fabs fall further behind and TSMC becomes 10x more important than now. Who knows!!! Instead of war, invest in domestic technology. It pays back better.

totalZero 5y ago
Your last sentence is exactly on point. What's sad is that we spend far more on naval power projection than on detours around obvious risks to prosperity and peace, such as the semiconductor supply chain. We are barely spending 50 billion dollars on domestic semiconductor fabrication in the upcoming legislation, despite acknowledging that the economic costs of the semiconductor shortage are far greater. Contrast that 50 billion number with Apple's expenditures on buybacks and dividends over the past decade. They aren't even in the same order of magnitude.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  Indeed, semiconductor industry investment is a drop in a bucket compared to 10 years of war. Not to mention, after a war, there still exists a dependency. It's funny how most of the semiconductor topics lead to war discussions but no one talks about outcompeting Taiwan. It's doable if there is will and resources (I am a Fab engineer). IMO the best way to move forward.
ta_ca 5y ago
> Instead of war, invest in domestic technology. It pays back better is it though? if you got the biggest gun why not rob someone else? do you believe ethics/empathy/humanity plays any role in any form governance? since we know that if you can sell the idea, you can get away with anything. why not just do the thing you know best? this is not singling out USA or China in any sense, they are just ahead of the curve, flower of the century. a system optimized for only profit with almost no accountability (externalities) reads like a recipe to transfer of the wealth from many to few. if you add war into equation many becomes many-brown, many-yellow, many-black, many-jewish, many-others basicaly many-we-can-target-and-get-away-with. if you remove borders from the equation you end up seeing yourself on the receiving end as well. yet no-surprisingly few remains always the same. so, the question is 'it pays back better to whom?'.

jjcon 5y ago

I kinda see it the exact opposite way, I don’t think China would ever dare risk a full out war which would essentially be them vs the world. Taiwan is extremely valuable but not valuable enough to risk complete devastation of their economy if not by war then by international trade. The US is routinely running freedom of navigation exercises in the south china sea between taiwan and china and has said as recently as last month that its commitment to defend taiwan is, “rock solid”. This is all not to mention that taiwan itself would not be all that easy to overthrow, the large majority of people there have unfavorable views of china (and conversely the majority support closer political ties to the US and other free democracies which they have and continue to build).

jollybean 5y ago
Russia did it in Crimea by barely firing a shot. Everyone took note. Taiwan may be 'grabbed' with little violence, and China can promise 'certain freedoms' (i.e fake democracy) so that feckless leaders around the world can 'save face' and say 'oh, we don't like it, but it's not that bad, please keep buying our crap, so we can buy your crap'. China takes the 'long view' - long enough that it supercedes any populist cycle. Over 30 years of 'soft occupation' and incremental erosion of rights, thery'll be nothing left of Taiwan. Elderly Gen Z-ers will look back at their tweets from childhood and wonder.
- indeedmug 5y ago
  I don't think you can say that the West ignored Crimea. There are still sanctions against Russia and they are not going to be lifted anytime soon. The thing about Crimea is that it's in a slatemate where neither side can displace each other without sacrificing huge resources. So it's basically at the same place for years. https://youtu.be/nR7XAcArAa0 https://youtu.be/nR7XAcArAa0 The problem with invading Tawian is that there is a basically a single place where you can land ships on from China. Tawian been preparing for an invasion for years. This means this single point is heavily defended and anyone attacking is on a huge disadvantage. This means there is a huge price to pay to take Tawian and even if you do, there would likely be sanctions from the West. https://youtu.be/qsjJ5QvNmd8 https://youtu.be/qsjJ5QvNmd8

totalZero 5y ago

More importantly, if China were to destroy the fabs in the night and withdraw quickly, the US would have no economic incentive to retaliate. We always treat Taiwan as a tug of war for control of the fabs, but such a fait accompli would totally change the dynamics of the situation. This may not be likely today, but China has been forced to develop its chip industry in parallel for a long time, and they admit as much if you watch their state-sponsored english-language semiconductor media commentary on YouTube. Eventually they will not need Taiwan nearly as much as America does. The only way to sidestep that problem is for the US to do the same as Taiwan: use government power and resources to establish a competitive semiconductor hub in the Americas. Funnily enough, South Korea has done the same in all practical senses. Samsung makes up more of South Korea's GDP in percentage terms than TSMC's share of Taiwan’s GDP. Samsung's trade policy interests are essentially South Korea's trade policy interests.

xwolfi 5y ago

But I think people vastly overestimate the difficulty to relocate any of these elsewhere. Give it a few years and it s all running the same anywhere. It's only a matter of cost: training an american to do the job of a chinese for the same cost is impossible today because american would refuse to produce these under the same condition: they prefer to enjoy using the chips rather than making them. The good news is that the chinese will eventually come around and start changing their expectation. If you think China cant change, look at their drastic demographic changes: they can become what we became, they just take longer.

scythe 5y ago

>Personally, I think we're at the point where the US would consider the costs of Taiwan's defense well beyond any potential benefits. It's too economically integrated with China, and the sheer number of bodies it would take aren't worth the moral victory. It's not merely a moral victory. And while I myself would pick up a rifle for 24 million people, it's not even that. You can't simply let your allies be invaded. It's lethal to all of your other alliances. America failing to defend Taiwan is the end of the Pax Americana, and America knows it.

trasz 5y ago
US ignoring its allies is nothing new, see Ukraine.

neither_color 5y ago

The Taiwan situation is not the same as Hong Kong's. In Hong Kong theyre merely speeding up the integration of a territory they already have full sovereignty over. The current government in China has never ruled over Taiwan. A lot can happen in 20-30 years and future regimes may be not be as eager to risk war over an island that's never been a part of their country during their lifetime.

fnord77 5y ago

if there were any conceivable way for china to take Taiwan without it turning into a massive disaster, china would have done so already. It just will not happen. If it does, it will either result in China being completely ostracized by all other nations or it will spiral into a nuclear war.