11 ms·

“Our continued protection of you is contingent on your investment in us”. Taiwan is hugely reliant on US defense guarantees. The US has a protectionist preside

• jayd16 2y ago
  > The US has a protectionist president We do?
  • defrost 2y ago
    You do, assuming you're a US citizen. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St... or: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/programs/growthpolicy/trump-biden-are-two-most-protectionist-presidents https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/programs/growthpol... etc.
  • bamboozled 2y ago
    Protectionist: an advocate of the policy of shielding a country's domestic industries from foreign competition by taxing imports. The T word...
• ethbr1 2y ago
  They only need to make this appear real for 4, maybe 2 years, and can then reevaluate. I'd guess they looked at their options and decided this was the best hedge.
  • yo_yo_yo-yo 2y ago
    Now that I’ve calmed down a bit, I agree with your assessment. The optics game is so important, but Taiwan is in an impossible situation. If I were China, I would give them relative economic independence if they limit advanced process silicon to other countries and let Huawei and others monopolize the advanced nodes. The US at present does not appear to be a dependable partner.
    • re-thc 2y ago
      > If I were China I wonder if China actually benefits from this drama and rather not claim Taiwan (despite what they say out loud). It's currently: - the best place to show military might (the "drills") - the best place to continue a proxy war with the US / EU - replaces Hong Kong as the gray area to do business
      • roenxi 2y ago
        China is huge, huge things don't do subtlety well over any long timeframe. It is hard enough to get people to do move in sync with clear communications, let alone when there are confusing signals. If China says they want control of Taiwan, the base scenario is they are serious. The only thing holding them back is how expensive it is to execute on that want. Although since the action is off the Chinese coast and China appears to be stronger than the US right now I don't see how this ends well for Taiwan.
        • justahuman74 2y ago
          It's not just expense, it's generalized threat aversion. Even if China can control the waters around them, they may find them selves boxed in. It doesn't take a lot of sunken cargo ships for operators to refuse to run the boats
      • throwaway290 2y ago
        > replaces Hong Kong as the gray area to do business explain?
        • re-thc 2y ago
          > explain? Taiwan has most of its trade with China (like it or not). There are numerous things that are e.g. illegal in China but "legal" in Taiwan and so Chinese business is conducted there e.g. online gambling sites. Then there are plenty of Taiwanese companies that end up being a disguise for China 1 way or another e.g. to bypass sanctions (well so is Singapore as per recent news on nvidia gpu smuggling). 1 of the best examples is VIA technologies, that helped China create x86 CPUs back in the days. A lot of Chinese gangs in Asia used to operate out of Hong Kong. When 1997 happened (i.e. return to China), most of them gave up or moved to other places like Taiwan since China has the death penalty.
  • bongodongobob 2y ago
    Bingo, see Foxconn in Wisconsin.
    • Sabinus 2y ago
      Plus Trump's administration (and his personal direction of the government) is likely weaker in policy and governance skills and experience so it'll be easier for TSMC to get away with stringing them along.
    • bruce511 2y ago
      For Foxconn see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconn_Valley_Science_and_Technology_Park https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconn_Valley_Science_and_T... But it's very worth pointing this out. The Taiwanese announcement is just an announcement. When a chip, any chip, rolls off the line (from this investment) let me know. The reality is that in 4 years Trump will be gone. Building a plant will take longer than that. This is nothing more than good PR.
  • lurk2 2y ago
    Why would subsequent presidents allow Taiwan to maintain leverage over supply chains crucial to American national security?
    • jopsen 2y ago
      Subsequent president might realize that America might want allies, and if so they'll attempt to appear reliable. Current administration is fast tracking nuclear prolifiacian. A future president might want to stop such trends.
      • cheema33 2y ago
        > Current administration is fast tracking nuclear prolifiacian. This is correct. Gone are the days when countries could count on the US to provide some protection against illegal invasions. All nations without nukes have to be considering them seriously now. Sure, they signed the NPT. But agreements no longer mean what they used to. Russia violates most of the agreements it signs. US already trashed the Budapest memorandum that it signed in 1996. We were supposed to provide security to Ukraine in exchange for them giving up nukes.
        • 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
          >US already trashed the Budapest memorandum that it signed in 1996. We were supposed to provide security to Ukraine in exchange for them giving up nukes. This is a common misconception. If you read the memorandum (it's rather short) you'll see it isn't true. We only promised to seek UN Security Council action. We went far beyond that. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P...
          • _t9ow 2y ago
            > We only promised to seek UN Security Council action And ended up voting with Russia anyway.
  • agumonkey 2y ago
    Fair point. I only worry that trump might decide to play them both ways.. extort investments for protection, then reneg the help unilaterally on a whim.
    • _t9ow 2y ago
      > extort investments for protection, then reneg the help unilaterally on a whim I would be surprised if he doesn't do this, judging by his long track record of not paying his contractors and business partners after receiving their goods and services.
  • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > they only need to make this appear real for 4, maybe 2 years, and can then reevaluate Taipei needs nukes. There simply isn’t another guarantor of sovereign security anymore.
    • rjzzleep 2y ago
      Guess which country shut down Taiwans nuclear program.
    • _t9ow 2y ago
      > Taipei needs nukes This essay explains very lucidly why it's not as straightforward as you think: https://taipology.substack.com/p/no-nukes-are-not-going-to-save-taiwan https://taipology.substack.com/p/no-nukes-are-not-going-to-s...
      • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > As soon as China catches a whiff of the program, it’s an instant invasion This is correct and why any such project would need to be intensely covert and/or externally facilitated. > doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) rests on both parties being left in guaranteed ruins You don’t need MAD. Tehran isn’t aiming for MAD with America, and neither is Pyongyang. The threat of even a tactical retaliation has, to date, been sufficient to keep great powers at bay. Oung is speaking the language of deterrence and non-proliferation; we are past that, unfortunately [1]. [1] https://mondediplo.com/2022/04/03nuclear https://mondediplo.com/2022/04/03nuclear
        • tokioyoyo 2y ago
          The risks don’t outweigh the potential benefits. Building a functional nuke isn’t an operation with a couple of laptops and internet connection. Also, Taiwanese economy is extremely tied to China. Things aren’t really black and white here. It’s not like all Taiwanese hate all mainlanders, nobody flies between countries and etc. Supermajority of people actually support status quo, rather than aiming for complete independence. It’s not an easy thing to balance.
  • jgilias 2y ago
    1,5 months feels like 2 years these days. Besides, that rests on the assumption that the US is going to have a “free and fair” election in 2 and 4 years. Trump said loud and clear on the campaign trail that you need to come out and vote for him just this one last time. Won’t need to vote afterwards at all, they’ll fix it. This seems like one of the promises he’d be really inclined to hold, if he can.
  • rurp 2y ago
    You're being awfully generous thinking this needs to look real for years. If similar big announcements are any guide then the administration will have moved onto some other shiny object in a matter of days or weeks and will never return for any followup.
• pj_mukh 2y ago
  Curious why Taiwan would sign onto this, knowing how Ukraine is being treated vis a vis mineral rights. I realize Taiwan doesn't have any other options, but a "verbal offer" of future security guarantees from the Trump Admin aren't worth anything.
  • ein0p 2y ago
    I don't think there are any multi-trillion dollar deposits of any "minerals" there. If there were, Ukraine wouldn't be so poor. Even pre-war it was the poorest country in Europe per capita. One can argue that it was mostly due to their insane levels of corruption, but then again, if there were any multi-trillion dollar deposits of anything there, Western investors (including Hunter Biden, no doubt) would be all over them, and the country would be much richer than it was. I think the whole "minerals" thing is a play. Trump gives Zelensky the "deal" he cannot accept even theoretically. Zelensky predictably plays the tough guy by telling him to pound sand. Trump throws Zelensky under the bus and negotiates repayment of loans with his (now scared) successor. With respect to Taiwan, it is not really possible to "win" in any real sense against China in Taiwan. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a dimwit who can't even do cursory research on industrial capacities of the potential belligerents, not in terms of dollars, but in terms of units/tons/etc. That is where the comparison is very strongly not in our favor. Especially when it comes to shipbuilding. Best case if things kick off (which I hope to god they do not) - only Taiwan gets destroyed, a-la Ukraine. Worst case - both US and China really go at it directly, full bore, and then we will lose due primarily to our weak industrial base, and far more extended logistics. Moreover, a lot of other countries will totally provide "lethal aid" and intelligence to China, if it needs it, in hopes of taking the hegemon down a few pegs. Nothing personal - just business, such alliances happen in every major war. The extreme case one of the sides feels they're gonna lose and presses the red button, in which case everyone dies in a fire. All of these options are objectively extremely shitty and incompatible with prosperity, and in the extreme case, with survival. All of them mean millions of body bags for the parties involved, far more body bags than either country has ever seen. Both Biden and Trump administrations understood this, hence the strong-arming the re-industrialization, especially in higher end fields, which started under Biden. The era where you could just get your stuff made elsewhere for pennies and then charge $$$ for it is coming to an end.
• dataflow 2y ago
  > Taiwan is hugely reliant on US defense guarantees. What I don't get is, in what universe is any US president going to engage militarily against China across the ocean, let alone the current one? The US population does not seem ecstatic to enter something that could turn into WWIII, which makes me feel that even a president in favor of this would quickly fail to do anything.
  • Shank 2y ago
    > What I don't get is, in what universe is any US president going to engage militarily against China across the ocean The whole premise of TSMC is that losing TSMC would cause such a global economic collapse that defending Taiwan is the only option to prevent this from happening. All high-performance computing is dependent on TSMC right now.
    • shipp02 2y ago
      Intel/Samsung are behind. That is a fact. The question is, is it better to wage a massive war that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and many lives than to make an equal investment into the semi-conductor industry.
    • re-thc 2y ago
      > The whole premise of TSMC is that losing TSMC would cause such a global economic collapse that defending Taiwan is the only option to prevent this from happening. TSMC just hits the media often. If Taiwan goes the global economy will have way more problems than just TSMC. There is a long list of companies in many supply chains that would be impacted (not just computing).
    • agumonkey 2y ago
      Is this all because US are afraid China will own the world through HPC/AI ? How many of us really depend on the latest cpu to survive ?
    • roenxi 2y ago
      We could be plunged back into the horrible era that was ... the 2010s! There wouldn't be a global collapse if TSMC was lost. It'd be an inconvenience that sets the semiconductor industry back a decade or so. Most advanced technology hasn't had time to have an impact on the global economy yet and 98% of people won't notice much in practice if all the TSMC foundries exploded tomorrow. There'd maybe be some shortages while other companies build new foundries - although even then it isn't a given people would care. China seems to be about to flood the market with manufacturing capacity.
• nomilk 2y ago
  Is it a given that the US would come to Tawian's defence now (let alone in a few years, when the US is presumably less dependent on Taiwanese chips)? I guess it comes down to how dependent on Taiwan's chips the US actually is (I don't know the answer to that). The US isn't dependent on Ukraine and it's pressuring them to hand over land. If it turns out the US isn't dependent on Taiwan it could show similar indifference if China were to attempt to take it.
  • _heimdall 2y ago
    My understanding is that there are currently only three important chip makers, including Intel with all of their issues. The world is largely dependent on TSMC, not only for the latest GPUs but also for embedded chips that we keep putting into everything from cars to toasters. For me the questions isn't whether the US would help Taiwan because we're dependent on them. I wonder whether we actually have the backbone to step in militarily at all, and whether out military is as combat ready as we like to think they are.
  • jopsen 2y ago
    > Is it a given that the US would come to Tawian's defence now In practice, probably yes, officially probably maybe. Giving a security guarantee would allow Taiwan to do provocative things, so hence, why there isn't a formal one. If it actually came to be today, I guess the US would at-least offer token support. To (a) embargo China, (b) ensure chip facilities Taiwan aren't surrendered intact. Both of which doesn't require winning a conflict, just making it painful.
    • nomilk 2y ago
      This is both very accurate and very depressing. 'Security guarantee' conjures thoughts of defending a population and its cities from destruction, whereas what it actually means is the opposite: to ensure all items of value are fully destroyed before they're taken.
      • jopsen 2y ago
        Maybe, it's also a good deterrent. And without it, Taiwan would probably press harder for nukes.
• justahuman74 2y ago
  A vast nuclear weapons program is cheaper than $100b
  • deagle50 2y ago
    It would not go unnoticed and would pretty much guarantee invasion.
    • throwaway48476 2y ago
      Sweden built a bomb in secret. Invasion planning would not go unnoticed either.
    • DeathArrow 2y ago
      I think US can try to covertly move some hundreds of nuclear missiles in Taiwan and succeed until China notices.
      • luthus001 2y ago
        Yes in theory and that's Taiwan's best bet. But the US would never go along with that because guarding Taiwan's democracy is not the main objective even as it is the main talking point. The main objective is US interests, which are not served by nuclear proliferation or by losing Taiwan as either a bargaining chip to extract concessions, or a chess piece in a proxy war to weaken China, the main rival to US global dominance. Taiwan's value as a bargaining chip or as an acceptable battleground to both sides for a controlled conflict, is unfortunately greater than it's value as a democracy
    • KoftaBob 2y ago
      They can ask for Israel's assistance, they managed to (relatively) covertly develop nuclear weapons without a major power getting in their way. Granted, the US president who was pushing the most for inspections of Israel's Dimona nuclear facility was JFK, who ended up no longer being a problem for them (how very convenient).
      • deleted 2y ago
• bamboozled 2y ago
  extortion
• cheema33 2y ago
  > Taiwan is hugely reliant on US defense guarantees. US provided security guarantees to Ukraine in 1996, when it signed the Budapest memorandum. Ukraine gave up its nukes in return. It appears that US doesn't honor its agreements. Trump also signed free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico in his first term. But trampled on it in his second term.
• nthingtohide 2y ago
  > “Our continued protection of you is contingent on your investment in us”. In 1971, Treasury Secretary John Connally famously remarked how the US dollar was "our currency, but your problem," referring to how the US dollar was managed primarily for the US' interests despite it being the currency primarily used in global trade and global finance.
• tootie 2y ago
  They may also calculate that a big announcement is all he wants and follow through is optional.