8 ms·

I was surprised to learn Taiwan has dabbled in nuclear weapons in the past. They actually got caught developing them and had to swear they'd stop. Given that t

I was surprised to learn Taiwan has dabbled in nuclear weapons in the past. They actually got caught developing them and had to swear they'd stop. Given that the US is doing a professional wrestling 'heel turn' and is now The Bad Guys, I wouldn't be surprised if, like NK, they just come out and announce that they have nukes. Honestly, and this is bad for the world but smart in a game theory sense, I think a lot of countries that depended on the US being a force for stability either go the Israel route ("We won't say if we have nukes or not" wink) or just announce that they have them and do public tests to prove it.

sackbut 2y ago
Taiwan can still blow up their TSMC plants and fire conventional missiles at the three gorges damn to inflict near nuclear results on China.
- throwup238 2y ago
  Neither of which would achieve any strategic goals. TSMC is only important because Western economies crave cutting edge silicon and causing a natural disaster by destroying the dam would not only strengthen the resolve of the Chinese public but alienate the rest of the world.
  - rl3 2y ago
    Deterrence is in and of itself a strategic goal.
  - plaguuuuuu 2y ago
    TSMC chips are used in basically everything military - computers obviously, but also tanks, planes, carriers, signals.... Taiwan would be quite invested in TSMC being a supplier of these.
    - crote 2y ago
      Are TSMC chips crucial for them, though? As I understand it, the military generally isn't a big fan of "move fast and break things". They prefer mature, well-designed, and reliable products because it's a matter of life and death - and development takes years. A 2025 tank isn't going to use chips made using TSMC's cutting-edge 3nm node. Personally I'd expect the fastest chips to be using at best something like the decade-old 14nm node, with the vast majority being on even more mature nodes. Sure, TSMC can produce them, but so can pretty much everyone else. Losing TSMC would be a major blow, but I doubt it'd have a huge long-term impact logistics-wise for the military.
      - heylook 2y ago
        > They prefer mature, well-designed, and reliable products because it's a matter of life and death - and development takes years. First, the history of chip design and manufacturing is the history of modern weapons design[0]. As long as chips have existed we've been sticking them in brand spanking new weapons systems precisely because it's a matter of life and death. Chip makers of all kinds live and die by defense contracts. "Because it's a matter of life and death" as a roadblock only makes sense if you don't think about it at all. If I offload some of my SIGINT processing to my brand new 3nm nodes and they don't work, won't my scheduler just mark them bad and reallocate the work back to the machines I had before? If my first shipment of 3nm drone chips doesn't deliver as promised, I've still got my existing inventory of 5nm drones and plenty of suppliers. You balance the inherent riskiness of new technology via redundancy, not avoidance. > A 2025 tank isn't going to use chips made using TSMC's cutting-edge 3nm node. No shit. But 2025 servers can, so can 2025 drones, so can 2025 bombs, so can 2025 satellites. Do you think whoever figures out how to communicate via quantum entanglement[1] is going to just not do it because "it's a matter of life and death"? Hell no. They're going to use it to run circles around their enemies while it's working, and they'll fall back to older communication channels when it isn't working. [0] https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0310bombs/ https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0310bombs/ [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-reaches-new-milestone-in-space-based-quantum-communications/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-reaches-new...
rurp 2y ago
Nuclear proliferation is the only logical response to this administration. Tripling the number of nuclear armed countries will greatly increase the odds of a hot conflict breaking out which risks the safety of everyone in the world. Of course this fairly straightforward calculus seems beyond what trump/musk are capable of and they are actively working to make Americans safer and less prosperous is countless ways.
- osrec 2y ago
  Safer? Do you mean the opposite?
  - rurp 2y ago
    Whoops, yep I definitely meant "less safe"
  - spwa4 2y ago
    The certainty of a war right now vs maybe a nuke tomorrow? Surely you can see that's an easy choice. And if you can't perhaps read one of the articles on Bucha?
    - osrec 2y ago
      Certainty of war now Vs a potential nuclear war tomorrow? Are those really the only choices as far as you're concerned?
      - spwa4 2y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict... Pretty much all these conflicts are pretty limited and there's very few states focused on war (whereas before Nukes in the 20th century essentially all of Europe and Asia was focused on war, constantly) So yes, I find the idea that the nuclear weapons threat is preventing a LOT of wider wars and is responsible for the most peaceful period ever in human history pretty convincing. When it comes to relations between states, arguments go between capitalism and war (ie. just taking what you want vs trade) I get that capitalism (selling/exporting their oil) brought Soviets enormous success and taking what they want in war brought the USSR down. And yet, despite that, here we are with Russia and Ukraine. You'd think recent Russian history would convince anyone the Ukraine conflict is not worth it, obviously not for Ukraine, but also not for Russia. It's an easy argument to make that for Russia abandoning the war today, just going home right now, will provide more rewards for Russia and Russians than a complete victory would bring, even if that victory ALSO came today ... and yet nobody thinks Russia will abandon the fight. As for their ability to wage war, the sad truth is, Putin has conquered more people than he lost, and Russia has conquered more minerals' than they lost in equipment. If Putin wants to use both resources to create more war, he will be able to do so. Something very similar can be said about China and Taiwan. Not having a conflict is obviously the best option ... and yet, there's very little doubt that conflict will erupt in a few years, not decades.
buzzert 2y ago
I don't understand what makes the US "The Bad Guys" in the same sentence that mentions North Korea and China?
- mullingitover 2y ago
  In the recent Ukraine vote (condemning the Russian invasion) at the UN the US voted with North Korea and Russia. Even China and Iran didn't vote with Russia on that one, they abstained.
  - buzzert 2y ago
    > When it came to the vote, Ukraine’s version passed by 93 votes to 18. The US voted against, alongside Russia, marking a major shift of its position on the conflict and previous votes. > The US version was also adopted (93 in favour, eight against and 73 abstentions), but Member States also voted to add the European Union amendments with 60 in favour, 18 against and 81 abstentions. https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/02/1160456 https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/02/1160456
  - almosthere 2y ago
    What is the endgame in that world, keep sending weapons? At some point there won't be anyone left to fight. At some point a concession will need to be made, and those concessions can lead to better times. There is no world where NATO/US invade Russia. That is literally the end of the world.
    - mullingitover 2y ago
      I agree, I think only a tiny number of additional weapons need to be given to Ukraine. Perhaps two dozen Trident missiles equipped with nuclear warheads would be all that's really necessary. Russia is only invading because Ukraine believed it would honor its word in the Budapest Memorandum, which was why it surrendered its key strategic defense. With that agreement breached, Ukraine deserves its deterrents back. I also agree that a concession will need to be made, and I think that's very appropriate. Reparations need to be paid for the war of aggression, and those guilty of war crimes need to be given fair trials by international tribunals.

sackbut 2y ago

Taiwan can still blow up their TSMC plants and fire conventional missiles at the three gorges damn to inflict near nuclear results on China.

throwup238 2y ago
Neither of which would achieve any strategic goals. TSMC is only important because Western economies crave cutting edge silicon and causing a natural disaster by destroying the dam would not only strengthen the resolve of the Chinese public but alienate the rest of the world.
- rl3 2y ago
  Deterrence is in and of itself a strategic goal.
- plaguuuuuu 2y ago
  TSMC chips are used in basically everything military - computers obviously, but also tanks, planes, carriers, signals.... Taiwan would be quite invested in TSMC being a supplier of these.
  - crote 2y ago
    Are TSMC chips crucial for them, though? As I understand it, the military generally isn't a big fan of "move fast and break things". They prefer mature, well-designed, and reliable products because it's a matter of life and death - and development takes years. A 2025 tank isn't going to use chips made using TSMC's cutting-edge 3nm node. Personally I'd expect the fastest chips to be using at best something like the decade-old 14nm node, with the vast majority being on even more mature nodes. Sure, TSMC can produce them, but so can pretty much everyone else. Losing TSMC would be a major blow, but I doubt it'd have a huge long-term impact logistics-wise for the military.
    - heylook 2y ago
      > They prefer mature, well-designed, and reliable products because it's a matter of life and death - and development takes years. First, the history of chip design and manufacturing is the history of modern weapons design[0]. As long as chips have existed we've been sticking them in brand spanking new weapons systems precisely because it's a matter of life and death. Chip makers of all kinds live and die by defense contracts. "Because it's a matter of life and death" as a roadblock only makes sense if you don't think about it at all. If I offload some of my SIGINT processing to my brand new 3nm nodes and they don't work, won't my scheduler just mark them bad and reallocate the work back to the machines I had before? If my first shipment of 3nm drone chips doesn't deliver as promised, I've still got my existing inventory of 5nm drones and plenty of suppliers. You balance the inherent riskiness of new technology via redundancy, not avoidance. > A 2025 tank isn't going to use chips made using TSMC's cutting-edge 3nm node. No shit. But 2025 servers can, so can 2025 drones, so can 2025 bombs, so can 2025 satellites. Do you think whoever figures out how to communicate via quantum entanglement[1] is going to just not do it because "it's a matter of life and death"? Hell no. They're going to use it to run circles around their enemies while it's working, and they'll fall back to older communication channels when it isn't working. [0] https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0310bombs/ https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0310bombs/ [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-reaches-new-milestone-in-space-based-quantum-communications/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-reaches-new...

rurp 2y ago

Nuclear proliferation is the only logical response to this administration. Tripling the number of nuclear armed countries will greatly increase the odds of a hot conflict breaking out which risks the safety of everyone in the world. Of course this fairly straightforward calculus seems beyond what trump/musk are capable of and they are actively working to make Americans safer and less prosperous is countless ways.

osrec 2y ago
Safer? Do you mean the opposite?
- rurp 2y ago
  Whoops, yep I definitely meant "less safe"
- spwa4 2y ago
  The certainty of a war right now vs maybe a nuke tomorrow? Surely you can see that's an easy choice. And if you can't perhaps read one of the articles on Bucha?
  - osrec 2y ago
    Certainty of war now Vs a potential nuclear war tomorrow? Are those really the only choices as far as you're concerned?
    - spwa4 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict... Pretty much all these conflicts are pretty limited and there's very few states focused on war (whereas before Nukes in the 20th century essentially all of Europe and Asia was focused on war, constantly) So yes, I find the idea that the nuclear weapons threat is preventing a LOT of wider wars and is responsible for the most peaceful period ever in human history pretty convincing. When it comes to relations between states, arguments go between capitalism and war (ie. just taking what you want vs trade) I get that capitalism (selling/exporting their oil) brought Soviets enormous success and taking what they want in war brought the USSR down. And yet, despite that, here we are with Russia and Ukraine. You'd think recent Russian history would convince anyone the Ukraine conflict is not worth it, obviously not for Ukraine, but also not for Russia. It's an easy argument to make that for Russia abandoning the war today, just going home right now, will provide more rewards for Russia and Russians than a complete victory would bring, even if that victory ALSO came today ... and yet nobody thinks Russia will abandon the fight. As for their ability to wage war, the sad truth is, Putin has conquered more people than he lost, and Russia has conquered more minerals' than they lost in equipment. If Putin wants to use both resources to create more war, he will be able to do so. Something very similar can be said about China and Taiwan. Not having a conflict is obviously the best option ... and yet, there's very little doubt that conflict will erupt in a few years, not decades.

buzzert 2y ago

I don't understand what makes the US "The Bad Guys" in the same sentence that mentions North Korea and China?

mullingitover 2y ago
In the recent Ukraine vote (condemning the Russian invasion) at the UN the US voted with North Korea and Russia. Even China and Iran didn't vote with Russia on that one, they abstained.
- buzzert 2y ago
  > When it came to the vote, Ukraine’s version passed by 93 votes to 18. The US voted against, alongside Russia, marking a major shift of its position on the conflict and previous votes. > The US version was also adopted (93 in favour, eight against and 73 abstentions), but Member States also voted to add the European Union amendments with 60 in favour, 18 against and 81 abstentions. https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/02/1160456 https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/02/1160456
- almosthere 2y ago
  What is the endgame in that world, keep sending weapons? At some point there won't be anyone left to fight. At some point a concession will need to be made, and those concessions can lead to better times. There is no world where NATO/US invade Russia. That is literally the end of the world.
  - mullingitover 2y ago
    I agree, I think only a tiny number of additional weapons need to be given to Ukraine. Perhaps two dozen Trident missiles equipped with nuclear warheads would be all that's really necessary. Russia is only invading because Ukraine believed it would honor its word in the Budapest Memorandum, which was why it surrendered its key strategic defense. With that agreement breached, Ukraine deserves its deterrents back. I also agree that a concession will need to be made, and I think that's very appropriate. Reparations need to be paid for the war of aggression, and those guilty of war crimes need to be given fair trials by international tribunals.