9 ms·
I would be cautious. With a top notch chip factory there is no need to defend Taiwan against China.
by croes 2y ago
I would be cautious. With a top notch chip factory there is no need to defend Taiwan against China.
- bpodgursky 2y agoI would not assume that TSMC leadership is 100% aligned with the national interests of Taiwan as a country.
- emtel 2y agoOTOH, If they have production outside of Taiwan, then they can more credibly threaten to destroy the Taiwanese fabs if China invades.
- croes 2y agoBut with an US fab that’s a threat mainly to China, without it’s global.
- creer 2y agoOne new fab - even if full size - cannot take on anywhere near world needs - even ex-China. So different threat, but yes.
- _t9ow 2y ago> they can more credibly threaten to destroy the Taiwanese fabs if China invades China's interest in Taiwan is ideological. It is not at all determined by whether the Taiwanese destroy their own fabs in the event of an invasion.
- nfw2 2y agoEven if the desire to absorb Taiwan is ideological, they would certainly also understand the severe practical implications of losing access to their chip production.
- aurareturn 2y agoThey already lost access.
- _t9ow 2y agoExactly. Some comments here seem to imply that it's somehow good (or at least not bad) for Taiwan's national security to transfer technology to the US because Taiwan can now more credibly threaten to destroy their fabs, completely missing the point that China wants to reunify with Taiwan with or without these fabs. It's a complete misreading of the situation; the US is in fact actively undermining Taiwan's national security, both 1) by coercing Taiwan to transfer its technology and human capital and 2) by banning chip trade between Taiwan and China.
- aurareturn 2y agoIt's a complete misreading of the situation; the US is in fact actively undermining Taiwan's national security, both 1) by coercing Taiwan to transfer its technology and human capital and 2) by banning chip trade between Taiwan and China. Yep, but Taiwan was always a sacrificial lamb to contain China's economic rise. Unfortunately, I don't think a lot of Taiwanese people realize that. I feel sorry for them because in any military conflict, they will feel the most pain, by far.
- nfw2 2y agoI agree the imposed embargo re advanced chips between Taiwan and China undermines Taiwan's national security but this contradicts the earlier point that China doesn't care at all about chips.
- _t9ow 2y ago> China doesn't care at all about chips My apologies, I should have been more clear. Here is my read of the situation: China doesn't care in the sense that the threat of destroying fabs isn't going to factor into the Chinese leadership's desire to reunify. The issue of reunification is ideological; many Chinese people themselves view Taiwan as a break-away province. China also does care, at least a little bit, in the sense that having access to Taiwanese chips will free up some economic resources within China itself that could be used in another strategically important industry instead. Allowing chip trade between Taiwan and China also encourages some Chinese economic dependence on Taiwan, though still not a decisive factor in whether China wants to reunify (by force if needed). But it buys Taiwan a bit more time, at least for now. Banning chip trade between China and Taiwan weakens Taiwan's national security because it immediately removes even that smidgen of Chinese economic dependence on Taiwan (thus possibly accelerating Chinese plans for reunification), and it makes Taiwan much more dependent on the US, which has in recent weeks thoroughly proven itself to be an unreliable partner. Is there anything I'm missing?
- laluser 2y agoExactly. China has held this position for a long time. Chip plant manufacturing is a recent development. China will eventually catch up with their own manufacturing in a decade or so. They don't care about the immediate short-term - they think in decades.
- wordofx 2y agoNot a position they held until after ROC went to Taiwan. Then they changed their tune. Remember. PRC advocated for Taiwan independence and considered Taiwan an independent nation until around 1940s.
- _t9ow 2y agoTaiwan today has exactly the same territorial claims as China does -- in fact, Taiwan's are more expansive, since they use the eleven-dash line instead of the nine-dash line. The difference is that Taiwan has little to no ability to project force. (My comment should not be read as an endorsement of the CCP's willingness to force Taiwan into a reunification.)
- wordofx 2y agoWhile that is true. The people of Taiwan and the government don’t care to make claims on China. The island literally just wants to live their life. But if they tried to change their constitution and remove any claim it would be seen as an “attempt” at independence and cause China to throw a hissy fit. Pointing this out always looks like endorsement of the CPC as it’s always a point that is pointed out as justification to claim Taiwan is part of China.
- _t9ow 2y agoJust to be 100% clear: I think the issue of Taiwanese independence should be fully determined by Taiwanese voters in a free and fair referendum without foreign interference -- not from the US, not from China, and not from anyone else. My previous comment was meant to provide some context. It was not an endorsement of China's stance.
- desumeku 2y agoThis was my first thought when I heard about this. If Taiwan ever looks like it's going to fall, I think that there's going to be a massive concerted effort to extract all the talent and production equipment over to America so that it's not in China's hands.
- manbart 2y agoSure, TSMC would want to do that to salvage what they can. I wonder if the Taiwanese government is as keen on that arrangement though; TSMC plants are their biggest bargaining chip, and Trump has upending the entire world order mere weeks into his term.
- raverbashing 2y agoI second this Didn't Trump terminate the Chips act?
- outlace 2y agoThe president can’t just unilaterally cancel a piece of legislation already signed into law. But maybe he gets the new congress to repeal it.
- UncleOxidant 2y agoSure, but a lot of people at NIST who were in charge of implementing the CHIPS act have been fired. He definitely seems to be doing all he can to sabotage the CHIPS act without needing any congressional action.
- tensor 2y agoHe sure seems to be able to just terminate legislation signed into law. He already did it with USAID, and is in the process of doing it to many other departments.
- braincat31415 2y agoUSAID is a waste of money. Good riddance.
- gizzlon 2y agoYeah, kids starving and dying of cholera.. fuck em /s > The Inspector General also warned that $489 million in humanitarian food aid was at risk of spoiling due to staff furloughs and unclear guidance. The Office of Presidential Personnel fired the Inspector General the next day, despite a law requiring 30 days notice to Congress before firing an Inspector General.
- braincat31415 2y ago[flagged]
- dageshi 2y agoDoes anyone think the US would defend Taiwan at this point? I think that ship has sailed under the current administration.
- etiam 2y agoUnfortunately I have to agreed. Protection rackets seem to be pretty much the defining activity when Trump is allowed to run the show, but I doubt appeasement in itself is really going to buy Taiwan anything. What's to stop him from taking the bribes and then just fabricating some of his trademark bullshit about how the Taiwanese "have been very unfair" and Xi's people were actually totally in the right all along.
- Clubber 2y agoAre you willing to get drafted and fight to defend Taiwan and whatever comes as a result of that? Are you willing to die for Taiwan, or have your kids die for Taiwan? Honest question.
- dullcrisp 2y agoWe haven’t had a draft in decades, what makes you bring it up now? Are you implying that only people serving in the military should have a say in foreign policy?
- Clubber 2y agoBecause if we go to war with China, they have a lot more people to throw at us than we have active in the military. Any slightly protracted war will require a draft. I'm sure you filled out your draft card when you turned 18 like I did, even when there was no draft. That's so if and when they needed to reinstate it, it would pick up almost seamlessly where it left off. >Are you implying that only people serving in the military should have a say in foreign policy? No, I'm implying before people rah rah to defend Taiwan, they actually understand what that means; it probably won't mean sending only active duty and reserves after a year or two and that a draft will most likely occur. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_global_manpower_fit_for_military_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_global_manpower_fit_fo... Even with a full, aggressive draft, we'll need allies who are also willing to draft their citizens.
- echelon 2y agoChips are but a tiny reason the US wants to maintain the independence and integrity of Taiwan. (The same can likely sadly be said of their democracy, given the US stance on Ukraine.) Taiwanese independence is primarily about containing China's naval power projection and their ability to keep unimpeded shipping lanes open during times of war. China can currently be easily blockaded, and within a few weeks of such blockades, their supplies of food and energy will be put under tremendous strain. That's why it's so important to the US Navy that China does not obtain Taiwan. Fighting a war with a superpower that has that kind of Achilles heel is much easier.
- IncreasePosts 2y agoWhy couldn't that massive blockade just go around Taiwan is well?
- braincat31415 2y agoWhat do you think it can be blockaded with? Submarines... barely. Carriers are sitting ducks these days, especially since China already has an equivalent of Russian Onix missiles and launch platforms. Subs won't cover the land corridor, and they will get all they need across the Russian border if it comes to that. China will eventually get Taiwan without firing a shot. Pretending that the US can defend an island next to a Chinese border is a pipe dream.
- corimaith 2y agoThe Taiwan Strait is around 180 KM long, UK to France is around 30 to 40 KM in comparison. That same strait is also not safe to traverse except for two periods each year, so if they are going to invade we will know beforehand. China needs to win this quickly, because any sort of kinetic war is going to put freeze the global economy and likely cause a mass recession, while the USA (& India) can blockade China's supply and oil chains from the Middle East beyond their force projection. Russian-Chinese infrastructure in Siberia isn't well developed and could also easily destroyed with strategic weapons from Alaska. Not to mention the sheer logistics of sending and maintaining millions of men across the strait. One missile and those troops sink into the ocean. Trying to do a blockade on Taiwan premature isn't a good idea either, because it's conversely giving the USA the first move to organize it's forces out of harm's way, and basically turns a signficant chunk of the PLAN into sitting ducks out at the sea. Most Chinese victories are predicated on the China quickly wiping out US assets in Japan, Korea and Guam, if they don't manage to do that and fail to achieve air superiority, their troop carriers are going to sitting ducks for drones and fighters in the air.
- niceice 2y agoAnother question is whether it is defendable at this point. It's not clear that China doesn't have military superiority over that area.
- elteto 2y agoI think that the deterrent is Taiwan destroying all their fabs before the Chinese get to them. This would severely affect the _entire_ world therefore there are strong incentives to keep Taiwan independent.
- aurareturn 2y agoTaiwan is not destroying their own fabs. You read too much into propaganda. It's a stupid thing to do for Taiwanese people. Further more, China doesn't care about TSMC. It's a nice bonus. But re-taking Taiwan is an ideology.
- xlinux 2y agoExactly. Its the only card Taiwan holds once its gone America will never care about them
- halJordan 2y agoThese comments just ignore history. Tsmc wasn't even founded until 1987, let alone dominant. US commitments are from WW2.
- 1over137 2y agoSo what? USA has been a close ally of Canada for over a century, and they are throwing that out the window. They can throw Taiwan out the window too.
- aurareturn 2y agoThere is less of a reason to defend Taiwan. Doesn't mean the US won't try. Ultimately, the US wants to use Taiwan, Japan, SK, PH to contain China. This is to re-secure the advanced chip supply in case a conflict actually breaks out in the pacific. For China, taking Taiwan isn't really about TSMC. It's an ideology that stems from the century of humiliation. Furthermore, once they take Taiwan, SK, Japan, PH will eventually bow as well.
- forgotoldacc 2y agoChina was also, in slightly crude terms, an underdeveloped and weak country in 1987. Japan was right next door and an absolutely massive economic powerhouse that eclipsed China. Japan's GDP was nearly 10x China's at the time. The US had military bases in the Philippines at the time. They did and still have military bases in Japan. Taiwan was right in the pincers of the US, and China, having all the power and development of a mid-tier African country, would have no hope of taking the country without absolutely massive losses and possibly collapsing their government. Now China is undoubtedly the most powerful country in Asia, in terms of both military strength and economic power. They could blockade Taiwan, fire a few missiles in strategic spots, and fight a war of attrition against the import-dependent island without having to put a single boot on the ground. Ukraine made protection guarantees with the west in exchange for giving up a key aspect of its defense (nuclear weapons). Russia had collapsed and people assumed they weren't a major threat anymore. Now Ukraine has nothing to wield against Russia and the US is saying "Give us your minerals, and not in exchange for defense. Just give us your resources." Russians are dying by the thousands but their leadership still considers it worth the cost. Now imagine the Chinese government. They see Taiwan giving the US government their most valuable resources. They see the US government having no interest in helping countries that they've partnered with for decades. They realize they don't have to shove tens of thousands into a meat grinder to get what they want. They realize that the one thing Taiwan could wield to make the world support their cause (chips and the risk of the global tech industry falling into chaos should manufacturing be interrupted) might be moved outside their borders. Not taking advantage of this opportunity would be China ignoring a huge sign that says "It's free real estate."
- ksec 2y agoI would not be surprised if this was in the calculation. TSMC US is currently moving quite a bit faster and ahead of what TSMC originally planned. There is a possibility that TSMC US will only be 1 year behind in node development. With the added capacity, it will accelerate transition of Qualcomm, Broadcom, Nvidia, AMD etc to Fab on US soil. Once that is even partly done. There is no reason Trump will send US troops to defend Taiwan.
- SpicyLemonZest 2y agoThe US was defending Taiwan against China long before TSMC was founded. If anything I'd worry it goes the opposite way. In the status quo, if the Chinese military can prevent TSMC from operating or prevent their products from being exported, wouldn't the US almost have to capitulate in exchange for a chips deal?
- mytailorisrich 2y agoCapitulate? The US aren't going into a direct war against the PRC even if Taiwan is invaded. The play is to create trouble to the PRC, to bar open access to Pacific and to control trade routes to Japan/Korea. The US do not care about Taiwan beyond its "usefulness".
- SpicyLemonZest 2y agoI don’t know what you mean. The PRC already has open access to the Pacific and trade routes to Japan and Korea.
- YetAnotherNick 2y agoThis comes so often in HN it is wild. Risking WW3 and killing millions just because Samsung is 2 years behind TSMC. To save a year we would set world decades or centuries back.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- vondur 2y agoA big difference with Taiwan vs Ukraine is that the US lets Taiwan purchase much more top of the line equipment.
- _t9ow 2y agoTaiwan is still not allowed to buy F35 fighters. And the weapons they are allowed to buy from the US are delivered late and of poor quality: Taiwan Is Getting Its U.S. Weaponry—but Years Behind Schedule: https://www.wsj.com/world/asia/taiwan-is-getting-its-u-s-weaponrybut-years-behind-schedule-11c151b1 https://www.wsj.com/world/asia/taiwan-is-getting-its-u-s-wea... U.S. delivered "wet and moldy body armor" to Taiwan, Pentagon watchdog says: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-wet-moldy-body-armor-to-taiwan/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-wet-moldy-body-armor-to-tai... The US has not been a good partner to Taiwan, truth be told. If you browse social media that are popular among the Taiwanese, you'll discover that there is quite a bit of resentment towards the US, because they see the US as coercing them into transferring their much-needed human and intellectual capital in world-class semicon technology. (E.g. ~50% of the staff now working at the Arizona fab are TSMC engineers who moved from Taiwan, because American workers allegedly do not have the requisite skills or work ethic.) And yet the US is not willing to reciprocate by transferring its military technology. I'm sure Trump's disastrous meeting with Zelenskyy has greatly damaged confidence among the Taiwanese. At some point more and more Taiwanese might just decide that a mob boss who speaks their language is better than a mob boss who doesn't.
- nickpsecurity 2y ago"Taiwan is the United States’ 7th-largest merchandise trading partner ($158.6 billion in total goods trade), 10th-largest export market ($42.3 billion), and 8th-largest source of imports ($116.3 billion), according to 2024 U.S. data (and when the European Union is considered as one trading partner). " https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10256 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10256 Sounds like we've been a great partner with Taiwan. Also, wanting to trade on "business I.P." would make more sense if you mentioned we're already doing around $158 billion in business with them. Each side's businesses have a lot of mutual dependence where you'd want a higher production of chips that each side could trust. We had a supply shortage with fabs not long ago, too. Whereas, military tech is a strategic advantage we owe to nobody. They can buy it or not. I'd rather they not be ripped off in the process. Helping us make cutting edge chips here is different than giving people weapons. For example, I'm American. I'm allowed to have business, but not military, technology. I can probably license and operate a fab. I can't buy fighter jets at all. That's despite how Harrier jets as a solution to traffic congestion could boost my personal productivity.
- TiredOfLife 2y agoThe horse already said that he will not defend Taiwan.
- lttlrck 2y agoDoubtful that would ever happen. And all sides know it.
- dluan 2y agoFearmongering the American public into believing that it would happen is how Trump leveraged this deal, and how he spins it to his base that he wins yet another negotiation to make America stronger. Same playbook as the Apple and OpenAI/Oracle "investment" announcements.
- fastball 2y agoI think the parent commenter was actually saying that it is unlikely the US was ever going to help Taiwan in the case of a Chinese invasion, regardless of admin.
- voidfunc 2y agoAnyone who thought we would seriously defend Taiwan is a fool. Middle America routinely makes fun of Asian people, you think they're gonna be happy to send their kids to die for them?
- mint2 2y agoCounterpoint they literally already did that and we weren’t less racist in the 60s and 70s. Personally I don’t think Trump would defend Taiwan but I object to such a disregard of history.
- voidfunc 2y agoThose were wars to kill big scary Communism! Things have changed a bit since then. No comment on Korea, but Vietnam wasn't exactly popular.