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 Chin

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.