4 ms·

Explain the strategic value like I'm 5? I see people reference this idea all the time, but I'm unconvinced it's actually valuable enough to be worth it given al

Explain the strategic value like I'm 5? I see people reference this idea all the time, but I'm unconvinced it's actually valuable enough to be worth it given all the other downsides. I don't actually believe it's a positive value proposition. I see the argument for things of military significance. The common one is electronic components. But PCBs manufacturing is easy to spinup quickly. Which leave the critical components like IC where the ones we'd actually need are still exclusively overseas. The TSMC factory being built wont produce the newest generation chips. Same for agriculture, if we're totally self sufficient, what happens when a blight takes out a staple crop or two? You can't just spin up food production or global food trade the way you can with manufacturing. Meanwhile, having robust global trade is just a less lethal version of MAD, here being mutually assured economic destruction. It's much harder for other nations to turn on you when you both depend on each other for comfort, convience, or survival. Look at how the US is being seen by the international community. The reputation we had as a strong ally and worthwhile partner has been badly damaged. Why would other nations want to help us now? How are we stronger alone, instead of having their eager support? There are two people, one grows all his own food, and makes all of the tools he needs. He doesn't need anybody. The other works with his neighbors, they share food, he kinda knows how to sharpen an ax, but he uses the ones made by the guy down the street, who's basically a professional blacksmith, even though he introduces himself as a gardener. which one of those guys appears stronger? Who's more likely to survive something bad happening? who do you think is more likely to win in a fight? (yes their neighbors will come to help) which one would you rather be?

Clubber 2y ago
Imagine if China decided to invade Taiwan like they've been threatening to do for a while. They would instantly cut off all exports to the US, because that's the smart thing to do. They would probably blockade Japan and other countries as well to keep them from exporting to the US, because that's the smart thing to do. Now since our supply chains were greatly disrupted (remember COVID?) we can only go to war with the equipment we have and will struggle to produce any more equipment in a short period of time. No more uniforms, no more tanks, no more drones, no more missiles, no more artillery shells, no more medicine, etc, because all the materials for those things are largely sourced from Asia, which would now under a blockade.
- dboreham 2y ago
  Well needless to say all this has been realized about 2000 years ago and there are legions of smart people ensuring that it isn't a problem. Heck I used to ride the light rail in Sunnyvale past an old fab that had notices on the doors saying it was owned by the US Navy.
  - absolutelastone 2y ago
    I thought those smart people were the ones saying our military supply chain is dependent on China.
- tharmas 2y ago
  I think the point being made is that under Trump's plan (repatriate production) China is MORE likely to invade Taiwan than before. Under the current situation China is LESS likely to invade Taiwan BECAUSE they rely on selling stuff to the USA. Once that reliance is gone, there are less negative consequences for China if they choose to invade Taiwan.
  - Clubber 2y ago
    >Under the current situation China is LESS likely to invade Taiwan BECAUSE they rely on selling stuff to the USA. I mean the took over Hong Kong already. I think that is wishful thinking.
    - grayhatter 2y ago
      Wasn't it that they installed sympathetic politicians, which then led to the UK willingly turning over control (despite the local protests). Calling that a takeover seems misleading to me. Ahh somewhat willingly, the lease to the land expired. So seemingly no choice was given.
      - Clubber 2y ago
        They broke the agreement for the handover by about 25 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems
hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago
>Look at how the US is being seen by the international community. The reputation we had as a strong ally and worthwhile partner has been badly damaged. Why would other nations want to help us now? How are we stronger alone, instead of having their eager support? As a Canadian, you just made the argument for strategic value for us. The economic damage caused at the whims of a single person in control of our supposed closest ally is exactly why. The argument for economic "MAD" assumes one country wont be self destructive enough to cut its leg off to spite everyone else and "win" in a way that leaves it worse off.
- grayhatter 2y ago
  Right, I think a single point of failure is the problem. Both domestic, or abroad. If you want strength and resilience, you need to have more than a single source for whatever you might need. It's a mistake for both of us to trust a single country to act rationally indefinitely. The problem for me is currently we're both using the same country this time.

Clubber 2y ago

Imagine if China decided to invade Taiwan like they've been threatening to do for a while. They would instantly cut off all exports to the US, because that's the smart thing to do. They would probably blockade Japan and other countries as well to keep them from exporting to the US, because that's the smart thing to do. Now since our supply chains were greatly disrupted (remember COVID?) we can only go to war with the equipment we have and will struggle to produce any more equipment in a short period of time. No more uniforms, no more tanks, no more drones, no more missiles, no more artillery shells, no more medicine, etc, because all the materials for those things are largely sourced from Asia, which would now under a blockade.

dboreham 2y ago
Well needless to say all this has been realized about 2000 years ago and there are legions of smart people ensuring that it isn't a problem. Heck I used to ride the light rail in Sunnyvale past an old fab that had notices on the doors saying it was owned by the US Navy.
- absolutelastone 2y ago
  I thought those smart people were the ones saying our military supply chain is dependent on China.
tharmas 2y ago
I think the point being made is that under Trump's plan (repatriate production) China is MORE likely to invade Taiwan than before. Under the current situation China is LESS likely to invade Taiwan BECAUSE they rely on selling stuff to the USA. Once that reliance is gone, there are less negative consequences for China if they choose to invade Taiwan.
- Clubber 2y ago
  >Under the current situation China is LESS likely to invade Taiwan BECAUSE they rely on selling stuff to the USA. I mean the took over Hong Kong already. I think that is wishful thinking.
  - grayhatter 2y ago
    Wasn't it that they installed sympathetic politicians, which then led to the UK willingly turning over control (despite the local protests). Calling that a takeover seems misleading to me. Ahh somewhat willingly, the lease to the land expired. So seemingly no choice was given.
    - Clubber 2y ago
      They broke the agreement for the handover by about 25 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems

hmmm-i-wonder 2y ago

>Look at how the US is being seen by the international community. The reputation we had as a strong ally and worthwhile partner has been badly damaged. Why would other nations want to help us now? How are we stronger alone, instead of having their eager support? As a Canadian, you just made the argument for strategic value for us. The economic damage caused at the whims of a single person in control of our supposed closest ally is exactly why. The argument for economic "MAD" assumes one country wont be self destructive enough to cut its leg off to spite everyone else and "win" in a way that leaves it worse off.

grayhatter 2y ago
Right, I think a single point of failure is the problem. Both domestic, or abroad. If you want strength and resilience, you need to have more than a single source for whatever you might need. It's a mistake for both of us to trust a single country to act rationally indefinitely. The problem for me is currently we're both using the same country this time.