5 ms·

> the sole reason why... Strong disagree. 1. The USA's current stance toward Taiwan is largely a continuation of its historic stance, which had absolutely not

by ke88y 3y ago

> the sole reason why... Strong disagree. 1. The USA's current stance toward Taiwan is largely a continuation of its historic stance, which had absolutely nothing to do with semiconductors. The USA currently maintains a strategic ambiguity wherein the USA sell arms and also remains capable of providing for Taiwan's defense, but provides no specific defense guarantee. That basic stance has been US policy since the 1970s, long before Taiwan became a semiconductor powerhouse. The Six Assurances were communicated to Taiwan about half a decade before the founding of TSMC. 2. TSMC and Taiwan are enormously important to the economy of the United States. The economic damage caused by loss of chip supply would be a major economic event, leading to simultaneous rapid goods inflation, massive equity draw-down, contraction in the real economy, etc. At least in the short term -- 1-2 years after invasion -- domestic unrest due to the economic damage would be far more disruptive to the USA's capability and willingness to go to war than chip supply in the defense industry (the DoD, through a combination of reserve supply and substitution, would be able to operate effectively for many years without new chip supplies). The military's need for TSMC-manufactured chips certainly provides a more hawkish hue to the USA's ambiguity, but it's far from the primary reason for USA's backing of Taiwan.

slt2021 3y ago
two facts that may convince you that USA sees next-gen chips as a moat for military AI tech: 1. US blocked ASML from selling its EUV machines to China ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-05/us-pushing-for-asml-to-stop-selling-key-chipmaking-gear-to-china https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-05/us-pushin... ) 2. US called back all US citizens working in microchip industry in China: to either leave China and come back to the USA or lose citizenship ( https://www.outlookindia.com/international/explained-how-americans-in-chinese-tech-firms-might-have-to-choose-between-us-citizenship-and-job-news-230218 https://www.outlookindia.com/international/explained-how-ame... ) This is about maintaining long-term leader position in military technology of which AI is a big part
- hker 3y ago
  > This is about maintaining long-term leader position in military technology of which AI is a big part. Yes, but this is part of the strategy to contain CCP while competing with it, deterring it from trying to take over Taiwan, preventing another Ukraine, which could be costly even if the war is won. The strategy to compete with CCP, instead of co-operating (as a factory of the World and a reliable trade partner), became mainstream since 2018 or so, when CCP show that it wanted to challenge the current world order (see the China 2049 Initiative by Xi).
- PostOnce 3y ago
  "All" US citizens, no. Naturalized citizens, most of whom were born in China and naturalized on the basis that it would be good for America; so, if you're working on things that are contrary to American interests, you risk losing your recently-gained citizenship. The US couldn't revoke citizenship from someone who was born a citizen, for example.
  - zaphirplane 3y ago
    That means there are two classes of citizens and the law doesn’t really like to make that explicit and is horrible I think there is a western country that has a law effectively saying if a person has dual nationality and they commit a horrible crime, that person can be stripped of their citizenship which makes citizens equal
    - PostOnce 3y ago
      I'm not saying it's "right", just how it is; it's that way (or worse) in many places.
    - genocidicbunny 3y ago
      Pretty sure that in the cases where it matters, the law does make the distinction between a naturalized citizen, and a jus soli/sanguinis citizen.
- rcxdude 3y ago
  That is a different conclusion to what you stated in your first comment. You've retreated to a motte ('The US is restricting transfer of chip technology to China for strategic purposes, a large part of which is due to AI and military applications of fast compute'), from your bailey ("The only reason the US wishes to defend Taiwan is because of the military use of the chips produced there"). The comment disagreeing was only disagreeing with the latter statement and contains nothing contradicting the first.
hker 3y ago
> > the sole reason why... > Strong disagree. > 1. The USA's current stance toward Taiwan is largely a continuation of its historic stance, which had absolutely nothing to do with semiconductors. > The USA currently maintains a strategic ambiguity...The Six Assurances were communicated to Taiwan about half a decade before the founding of TSMC. This. The strategic ambiguity is a message from the US to both sides of the Taiwan strait: 1. It deters CCP from taking over Taiwan, 2. It also deters Taiwan from changing the status quo. But given the recent trajectory of CCP under Xi's dictatorship to be more aggressive, US has been more assertive of the defense of Taiwan [1] (though it is still technically a strategic ambiguity, unlike its Security Treaty with Japan). [1]: https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-says-us-forces-would-defend-taiwan-event-chinese-invasion-2022-09-18/ https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-says-us-forces-would-def... "Biden says U.S. forces would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion"

by ke88y 3y ago

slt2021 3y ago

two facts that may convince you that USA sees next-gen chips as a moat for military AI tech: 1. US blocked ASML from selling its EUV machines to China ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-05/us-pushing-for-asml-to-stop-selling-key-chipmaking-gear-to-china https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-05/us-pushin... ) 2. US called back all US citizens working in microchip industry in China: to either leave China and come back to the USA or lose citizenship ( https://www.outlookindia.com/international/explained-how-americans-in-chinese-tech-firms-might-have-to-choose-between-us-citizenship-and-job-news-230218 https://www.outlookindia.com/international/explained-how-ame... ) This is about maintaining long-term leader position in military technology of which AI is a big part

hker 3y ago
> This is about maintaining long-term leader position in military technology of which AI is a big part. Yes, but this is part of the strategy to contain CCP while competing with it, deterring it from trying to take over Taiwan, preventing another Ukraine, which could be costly even if the war is won. The strategy to compete with CCP, instead of co-operating (as a factory of the World and a reliable trade partner), became mainstream since 2018 or so, when CCP show that it wanted to challenge the current world order (see the China 2049 Initiative by Xi).
PostOnce 3y ago
"All" US citizens, no. Naturalized citizens, most of whom were born in China and naturalized on the basis that it would be good for America; so, if you're working on things that are contrary to American interests, you risk losing your recently-gained citizenship. The US couldn't revoke citizenship from someone who was born a citizen, for example.
- zaphirplane 3y ago
  That means there are two classes of citizens and the law doesn’t really like to make that explicit and is horrible I think there is a western country that has a law effectively saying if a person has dual nationality and they commit a horrible crime, that person can be stripped of their citizenship which makes citizens equal
  - PostOnce 3y ago
    I'm not saying it's "right", just how it is; it's that way (or worse) in many places.
  - genocidicbunny 3y ago
    Pretty sure that in the cases where it matters, the law does make the distinction between a naturalized citizen, and a jus soli/sanguinis citizen.
rcxdude 3y ago
That is a different conclusion to what you stated in your first comment. You've retreated to a motte ('The US is restricting transfer of chip technology to China for strategic purposes, a large part of which is due to AI and military applications of fast compute'), from your bailey ("The only reason the US wishes to defend Taiwan is because of the military use of the chips produced there"). The comment disagreeing was only disagreeing with the latter statement and contains nothing contradicting the first.

hker 3y ago

> > the sole reason why... > Strong disagree. > 1. The USA's current stance toward Taiwan is largely a continuation of its historic stance, which had absolutely nothing to do with semiconductors. > The USA currently maintains a strategic ambiguity...The Six Assurances were communicated to Taiwan about half a decade before the founding of TSMC. This. The strategic ambiguity is a message from the US to both sides of the Taiwan strait: 1. It deters CCP from taking over Taiwan, 2. It also deters Taiwan from changing the status quo. But given the recent trajectory of CCP under Xi's dictatorship to be more aggressive, US has been more assertive of the defense of Taiwan [1] (though it is still technically a strategic ambiguity, unlike its Security Treaty with Japan). [1]: https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-says-us-forces-would-defend-taiwan-event-chinese-invasion-2022-09-18/ https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-says-us-forces-would-def... "Biden says U.S. forces would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion"