6 ms·

I've read that TSMC fabs are filled with explosives to set off if China invades so they wouldn't get their hands on tech and equipment. I'm pretty certain that'

I've read that TSMC fabs are filled with explosives to set off if China invades so they wouldn't get their hands on tech and equipment. I'm pretty certain that's true, given how important TSMC tech is.

dirtyid 4y ago
That meme makes zero sense considering TW don't want to be a third world economy dependant on exporting fruit even if PRC successfully invades. There's reason TW media was telling US think tanks to leave TSMC alone when US Army War College analysis suggested US should consider bombing TSMC... or exfiltrate TSMC engineers (before children no less) in event of war. As long as fabs and downstream supply chain supplies said fabs are intact, the island will have leverage to remain viable modern economy to support relatively affluent lifestyle. Note the point on downstream supply chain, there's sufficiently exclusive niche semi industries sustaining TSMC on TW that makes it as critical as ASML. Don't expect any Arizona TSMC fabs to operate smoothly without them. If anything, expect TSMC and TW + PRC to collude to threaten TSMC US fabs if try to sanction TSMC TW from making chips in event of successful PRC takeover. The people whose making bank off TSMC will want to so regardless of who rules the island. Ultimately short/medium term also in US interest to keep fabs going because not enough fab capacity will be reshored off island for long time, and the interest groups hurt most is US high tech industry who extracts disproportionate value add from TW fabs. Imaging every company that depends on leading edge chips turning into Huawei/ZTE because 95% of production goes kaput. Currently, cratered TSMC fabs actually works in sanctioned PRC's favour because it dramatically closes relative gap of who has access to high end semi. PRC vastly better off in balance where everyone is mostly stuck on 28nm+ instead of one where US has unfettered access to leading edge.
- t-3 4y ago
  > exfiltrate TSMC engineers (before children no less) Why would you expect the US military to care about children or try to evacuate them?
  - dirtyid 4y ago
    US military doesn't care. But the TWnese care, which US thinktankers/media, and I'm guessing US based commenters like you seem to forget. Hence the disconnect on why people seriously contemplate these TW will blow up TSMC memes. And why TW media reminding US, that if they're going to evacuate anyone off the island first, it's not going to be their semi engineers, it's going to be women and children. Or that more generally, they're not interested in blowing up their lively hood to stick it to the PRC. Like how in UKR war, it's RU whose blowing up UKR infra and industry when they decided it was better to scorch earth long term.
    - t-3 4y ago
      Yes, Taiwanese obviously care more about their children. But that doesn't change that the US military won't allow the Chinese to obtain TSMC or the knowledge of their engineers.
      - dirtyid 4y ago
        Sure, except original comment also highlights that the incentives of destroying TSMC is backwards. It's PRC who benefits most from denying US access to TW semi supply chains or engineers not vice versa. Denying TW to US closes relative semi gap for PRC, leveraging PRC control of TSMC in case of successfuly invasion to compel US to lift sanctions also closes relative semi gap for PRC. US has leverage via sanctions during peacetime, but PRC has leverage via threatening access or destruction of east asian semi supply chain during war. Utlimately it's in both US and TW interests for TSMC + co to survive because they extract most value / benefit, but not necessarily for PRC. And for TW, ensuring TSMC+co survival =/= paperclipping them to US. All the interest calculates points towards PRC/TW denying US access, and US wanting continued access since US fabs will still be dependant on TW inputs as much as current TW fabs or future PRC controlled TW fabs will be dependant on US/EU/JP inputs.
        BoiledCabbage 4y ago
        But this is missing the obvious. Yes the US would prefer being able to maintain its tech advantage over China by continuing production and receiving of state of the art chips. And this is clearly better for them than choosing that gap by destroying TSMC fab. But if China takes over TW, that's not an option. The options are either flatten the gap or flip the gap in China's favor as it now controls those chips while the US falls back to tech multiple generations old. There is no other strategic option for the US flatten the gap is the only choice, flipping the gap is the worst case scenario for the us. This deal is in US and TW best interest. TW is still valuable as cutting edge is still made on island. So production and economics so benefit them. US still provides military protection / defense. They are still long term partners will aligned goals. And if China does invade TW, US can continue a long fight and win by falling back only a generation or two to is smaller but important domestic production to continue supporting its defense technology needs. I can't speak for them, but I have to assume RW also sees its best interests if China invades to lose TSMC plants but US win the war and they maintain democracy, rather than keep TSMC plants but controlled by China and US lose the war and go under full control of mainland rule. Plants can be rebuilt, just like Marshall plan or what will happen in Ukraine. TW wants long term freedom from China - strengthening US defense's tech position helps this the most.
waterhouse 4y ago
If true, that would decrease China's incentive to invade. That would seem to be the reason for TSMC to set that up.
vl 4y ago
Nothing will happen to TSMC fabs if invasion happens. In fact most likely they will operate during invasion without interruption. Seems unlikely? Right now Russian gas goes through pipeline in Ukraine to Europe. Either side miraculously avoided disabling it through entire war.
- BoiledCabbage 4y ago
  The difference is both sides want that gas to keep flowing (for the time being at least). Both sides don't want China to take over the technology to produce state of the art chips and control the distribution of those chips. And in case of a war, no way is china continuing to sell those chips to the US defense dept. The profit is negligible compared to their strategic value. Different goals will produce a different result.
- abakker 4y ago
  Umm...it appears that Russia disabled Nordstream 1.

dirtyid 4y ago

That meme makes zero sense considering TW don't want to be a third world economy dependant on exporting fruit even if PRC successfully invades. There's reason TW media was telling US think tanks to leave TSMC alone when US Army War College analysis suggested US should consider bombing TSMC... or exfiltrate TSMC engineers (before children no less) in event of war. As long as fabs and downstream supply chain supplies said fabs are intact, the island will have leverage to remain viable modern economy to support relatively affluent lifestyle. Note the point on downstream supply chain, there's sufficiently exclusive niche semi industries sustaining TSMC on TW that makes it as critical as ASML. Don't expect any Arizona TSMC fabs to operate smoothly without them. If anything, expect TSMC and TW + PRC to collude to threaten TSMC US fabs if try to sanction TSMC TW from making chips in event of successful PRC takeover. The people whose making bank off TSMC will want to so regardless of who rules the island. Ultimately short/medium term also in US interest to keep fabs going because not enough fab capacity will be reshored off island for long time, and the interest groups hurt most is US high tech industry who extracts disproportionate value add from TW fabs. Imaging every company that depends on leading edge chips turning into Huawei/ZTE because 95% of production goes kaput. Currently, cratered TSMC fabs actually works in sanctioned PRC's favour because it dramatically closes relative gap of who has access to high end semi. PRC vastly better off in balance where everyone is mostly stuck on 28nm+ instead of one where US has unfettered access to leading edge.

t-3 4y ago
> exfiltrate TSMC engineers (before children no less) Why would you expect the US military to care about children or try to evacuate them?
- dirtyid 4y ago
  US military doesn't care. But the TWnese care, which US thinktankers/media, and I'm guessing US based commenters like you seem to forget. Hence the disconnect on why people seriously contemplate these TW will blow up TSMC memes. And why TW media reminding US, that if they're going to evacuate anyone off the island first, it's not going to be their semi engineers, it's going to be women and children. Or that more generally, they're not interested in blowing up their lively hood to stick it to the PRC. Like how in UKR war, it's RU whose blowing up UKR infra and industry when they decided it was better to scorch earth long term.
  - t-3 4y ago
    Yes, Taiwanese obviously care more about their children. But that doesn't change that the US military won't allow the Chinese to obtain TSMC or the knowledge of their engineers.
    - dirtyid 4y ago
      Sure, except original comment also highlights that the incentives of destroying TSMC is backwards. It's PRC who benefits most from denying US access to TW semi supply chains or engineers not vice versa. Denying TW to US closes relative semi gap for PRC, leveraging PRC control of TSMC in case of successfuly invasion to compel US to lift sanctions also closes relative semi gap for PRC. US has leverage via sanctions during peacetime, but PRC has leverage via threatening access or destruction of east asian semi supply chain during war. Utlimately it's in both US and TW interests for TSMC + co to survive because they extract most value / benefit, but not necessarily for PRC. And for TW, ensuring TSMC+co survival =/= paperclipping them to US. All the interest calculates points towards PRC/TW denying US access, and US wanting continued access since US fabs will still be dependant on TW inputs as much as current TW fabs or future PRC controlled TW fabs will be dependant on US/EU/JP inputs.
      - BoiledCabbage 4y ago
        But this is missing the obvious. Yes the US would prefer being able to maintain its tech advantage over China by continuing production and receiving of state of the art chips. And this is clearly better for them than choosing that gap by destroying TSMC fab. But if China takes over TW, that's not an option. The options are either flatten the gap or flip the gap in China's favor as it now controls those chips while the US falls back to tech multiple generations old. There is no other strategic option for the US flatten the gap is the only choice, flipping the gap is the worst case scenario for the us. This deal is in US and TW best interest. TW is still valuable as cutting edge is still made on island. So production and economics so benefit them. US still provides military protection / defense. They are still long term partners will aligned goals. And if China does invade TW, US can continue a long fight and win by falling back only a generation or two to is smaller but important domestic production to continue supporting its defense technology needs. I can't speak for them, but I have to assume RW also sees its best interests if China invades to lose TSMC plants but US win the war and they maintain democracy, rather than keep TSMC plants but controlled by China and US lose the war and go under full control of mainland rule. Plants can be rebuilt, just like Marshall plan or what will happen in Ukraine. TW wants long term freedom from China - strengthening US defense's tech position helps this the most.

waterhouse 4y ago

If true, that would decrease China's incentive to invade. That would seem to be the reason for TSMC to set that up.

vl 4y ago

Nothing will happen to TSMC fabs if invasion happens. In fact most likely they will operate during invasion without interruption. Seems unlikely? Right now Russian gas goes through pipeline in Ukraine to Europe. Either side miraculously avoided disabling it through entire war.

BoiledCabbage 4y ago
The difference is both sides want that gas to keep flowing (for the time being at least). Both sides don't want China to take over the technology to produce state of the art chips and control the distribution of those chips. And in case of a war, no way is china continuing to sell those chips to the US defense dept. The profit is negligible compared to their strategic value. Different goals will produce a different result.
abakker 4y ago
Umm...it appears that Russia disabled Nordstream 1.