5 ms·

Ironically my only opposition to US chips is that we’re less liable to protect Taiwan if China invades

zarzavat 1y ago
It's probably the opposite. I very much doubt that the factory would continue to operate if the US refused to defend Taiwan. The factory gives Taiwan a huge amount of leverage.
- seanmcdirmid 1y ago
  The supply chains for chip production terminate in Asia but there aren’t many inputs that originate there (which is by design). The real value to be lost are the Taiwanese engineers themselves.
  - vasco 1y ago
    How can you design where natural resources exist?
    - bloppe 1y ago
      He's probably talking about ASML
- daneel_w 1y ago
  Of course it would continue to operate. The Chinese division of Arm went rogue and basically captured the entire operation from within. USA has both the engineering expertise and the incentive to do the same with an entire chip fab, if push came to shove. https://semianalysis.com/2021/08/27/the-semiconductor-heist-of-the-century/ https://semianalysis.com/2021/08/27/the-semiconductor-heist-...
  - Mountain_Skies 1y ago
    For how much longer will the United States have that expertise? Both major political parties seem intent on becoming completely reliant on importing labor, both blue collar and white collar, while giving domestic labor the finger. Boomers are already retiring by the millions and Gen-X aren't all that far behind. Outsource mania and its cheap visa labor twin had been growing since the 1990s so the younger generations have been shaped in that environment. Does the United States really have that expertise or does it simply have a bunch of guests with that expertise? Should a country have to hope that it can pander to those guests enough for them to stay and be loyal (and possibly disloyal to their homelands)? Doesn't seem very stable in the long run.
    - ericmay 1y ago
      > For how much longer will the United States have that expertise? > Does the United States really have that expertise or does it simply have a bunch of guests with that expertise? The US has the expertise. I’m not totally sure what you are meaning to say with your second sentence - are you saying that only very recent immigrants or those here on various temporary visas have the knowledge or ability do do this stuff?
    - Starman_Jones 1y ago
      America is made up of guests who stayed and were loyal. That's the entire US population. Not sure how long of a run you're talking about, but it's worked pretty well for the past 250 years.
  - zarzavat 1y ago
    The difference is that ARM is not existentially important to UK national security, whereas TSMC is existentially important to Taiwan's national security. A TSMC fab in the US is essentially like a military base, if the US decides to take it by force the Taiwanese government can make sure there's nothing left worth taking. All of the Taiwanese employees will be loyal to Taiwan, it's their family members' lives on the line. The only way that fab continues to operate in the event of war is if the US backs Taiwan. If Taiwan burns then that fab will go with it.
godelski 1y ago
Fwiw, I think theres so much demand that we could be building 10x as much and still depend on Taiwan. Chip fabs take a long time to build. Probably don't need to worry about that for at least a decade, if not two. Especially now with intel dying
- bayindirh 1y ago
  True. We think about very narrowly when it comes to ICs. Mostly CPUs and GPUs, but there's a whole fleet of supporting ICs or other purpose built silicon which needs fabs, from simple capacitors, to power regulators and ASICs. So, having them spread over is nice, but not enough.
Cthulhu_ 1y ago
I think this is the reality behind the past relative world peace; international dependencies. Russia got away with a lot of shit because most of Europe thrived on their cheap gas and oil. Many countries are in debt with each other or have valuable assets (gold, nukes) stashed with each other.
- kennyadam 1y ago
  It was a stated goal of the EU - peace through trade.
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    How did that work out?
    - potatototoo99 1y ago
      Very well? There hasn't been open war between EU countries since WW2.
      - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
        >Very well? I meant with EU Russia and Ukraine. Plus, France and German economies were also connected before WW2 and that didn't stop the war. And the economies of former Yugoslav nations were very well connected, that didn't stop them going to war with each other. What stopped the wars after WW2 was western Europe being under the rule of a nuclear superpower needing to unite against a bigger nuclear superpower next door, and the countries having democracies with separation of powers making war declarations on their neighbors impossible politically, nothing to do with economies. So the famous "muh economies connected = no war" is a very reductionist and short sighted take that ignores evrything else.
        motorest 1y ago
        > I meant with EU Russia and Ukraine. Do you believe Russia and Ukraine are a part of the EU? > Plus, France and German economies were also connected before WW2 and that didn't stop the war. Even if we ignore the complete ignorance required to make that statement and take it at face value, keep in mind that the interwar period lasted little more than 20 years. The EU's inception started in the early 1950s with the treaty of Rome being signed in 1957. So at this point the EU's track record on peace is already twice as long as your reference period, and counting.
zuminator 1y ago
I think realistically the US is unfortunately never going to protect Taiwan. There's no way I see it getting into an unwinnable hot war with China over territory so close to the mainland. If China sent troops to secure the Taiwanese fabs, how could the US possibly dislodge them without destroying the thing they want to protect? The focus on the CHIPS Act by both recent administrations seems an admission that they don't expect to rely on Taiwan's production long term. The question is will China sit back and let TSMC complete factories in the US, or will it invade Taiwan first? I've seen estimates that Beijing expects to surpass Taiwan's fab abilities in as soon as five years, so perhaps they don't even care about the US acquiring expertise that will be obsolete by the time it is built. Hopefully a knowledgeable individual can correct my extremely limited understanding of this issue.
- fn-mote 1y ago
  > how could the US possibly dislodge them without destroying the thing they want to protect? I would instead assert that it is very likely that the US would destroy the fabs rather than allow China to gain control of them through an act of aggression. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction has been around a long time. The international players are familiar with it.
  - criley2 1y ago
    I highly doubt it. Taiwan would destroy their own fabs before someone else did. But that's likely unnecessary, China would be unable to operate the fabs anyway and they've already stolen the relevant information and are trying to recreate it. TSMC would get their experts out of the country and their trade partners would simply stop supplying the vital materials. And mututally assured destruction has nothing to do with the US destroying an industry in Taiwan. MAD specifically refers to the idea that superpowers cannot engage in nuclear war against one another without also being destroyed themselves, because of a Nuclear Triad. For "Mutually Assured Destruction" to be in anyway applicable, you'd have to say that the second that the US destroyed "Chinese" fabs (Taiwan), China would destroy American fabs. Thus, the US would not attack China without risking itself. The US making targeted strikes on Taiwan is one sided destruction. But to be clear: MAD doctrine is specifically about fullscale thermonuclear war.
keybored 1y ago
Why?
ekianjo 1y ago
there is no way the US would go to war with China over Taiwan anyway.
- FuriouslyAdrift 1y ago
  Maybe... but it would be a great excuse to wipe China off the map.
phkahler 1y ago
>> Ironically my only opposition to US chips is that we’re less liable to protect Taiwan if China invades I'm amazed at how many people think China is going to take Taiwan by force. They're playing a long game because they want it intact. They want the people there to want to be part of China. That doesn't seem to be going very well, but how can outsiders know? But again they're playing a long game and have plenty of time so long as things are moving in the right direction.
- Sabinus 1y ago
  This may be the case but China is also steadily building the specific capacity to take the island by force. Circumstances could easily change. What if they decide the Taiwanese people will never accept unification, or something unexpected happens to the Chinese leadership? The US gets heavily engaged in a different war?

It's probably the opposite. I very much doubt that the factory would continue to operate if the US refused to defend Taiwan. The factory gives Taiwan a huge amount of leverage.

seanmcdirmid 1y ago
The supply chains for chip production terminate in Asia but there aren’t many inputs that originate there (which is by design). The real value to be lost are the Taiwanese engineers themselves.
- vasco 1y ago
  How can you design where natural resources exist?
  - bloppe 1y ago
    He's probably talking about ASML
daneel_w 1y ago
Of course it would continue to operate. The Chinese division of Arm went rogue and basically captured the entire operation from within. USA has both the engineering expertise and the incentive to do the same with an entire chip fab, if push came to shove. https://semianalysis.com/2021/08/27/the-semiconductor-heist-of-the-century/ https://semianalysis.com/2021/08/27/the-semiconductor-heist-...
- Mountain_Skies 1y ago
  For how much longer will the United States have that expertise? Both major political parties seem intent on becoming completely reliant on importing labor, both blue collar and white collar, while giving domestic labor the finger. Boomers are already retiring by the millions and Gen-X aren't all that far behind. Outsource mania and its cheap visa labor twin had been growing since the 1990s so the younger generations have been shaped in that environment. Does the United States really have that expertise or does it simply have a bunch of guests with that expertise? Should a country have to hope that it can pander to those guests enough for them to stay and be loyal (and possibly disloyal to their homelands)? Doesn't seem very stable in the long run.
  - ericmay 1y ago
    > For how much longer will the United States have that expertise? > Does the United States really have that expertise or does it simply have a bunch of guests with that expertise? The US has the expertise. I’m not totally sure what you are meaning to say with your second sentence - are you saying that only very recent immigrants or those here on various temporary visas have the knowledge or ability do do this stuff?
  - Starman_Jones 1y ago
    America is made up of guests who stayed and were loyal. That's the entire US population. Not sure how long of a run you're talking about, but it's worked pretty well for the past 250 years.
- zarzavat 1y ago
  The difference is that ARM is not existentially important to UK national security, whereas TSMC is existentially important to Taiwan's national security. A TSMC fab in the US is essentially like a military base, if the US decides to take it by force the Taiwanese government can make sure there's nothing left worth taking. All of the Taiwanese employees will be loyal to Taiwan, it's their family members' lives on the line. The only way that fab continues to operate in the event of war is if the US backs Taiwan. If Taiwan burns then that fab will go with it.

godelski 1y ago

Fwiw, I think theres so much demand that we could be building 10x as much and still depend on Taiwan. Chip fabs take a long time to build. Probably don't need to worry about that for at least a decade, if not two. Especially now with intel dying

bayindirh 1y ago
True. We think about very narrowly when it comes to ICs. Mostly CPUs and GPUs, but there's a whole fleet of supporting ICs or other purpose built silicon which needs fabs, from simple capacitors, to power regulators and ASICs. So, having them spread over is nice, but not enough.

Cthulhu_ 1y ago

I think this is the reality behind the past relative world peace; international dependencies. Russia got away with a lot of shit because most of Europe thrived on their cheap gas and oil. Many countries are in debt with each other or have valuable assets (gold, nukes) stashed with each other.

kennyadam 1y ago
It was a stated goal of the EU - peace through trade.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  How did that work out?
  - potatototoo99 1y ago
    Very well? There hasn't been open war between EU countries since WW2.
    - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
      >Very well? I meant with EU Russia and Ukraine. Plus, France and German economies were also connected before WW2 and that didn't stop the war. And the economies of former Yugoslav nations were very well connected, that didn't stop them going to war with each other. What stopped the wars after WW2 was western Europe being under the rule of a nuclear superpower needing to unite against a bigger nuclear superpower next door, and the countries having democracies with separation of powers making war declarations on their neighbors impossible politically, nothing to do with economies. So the famous "muh economies connected = no war" is a very reductionist and short sighted take that ignores evrything else.
      - motorest 1y ago
        > I meant with EU Russia and Ukraine. Do you believe Russia and Ukraine are a part of the EU? > Plus, France and German economies were also connected before WW2 and that didn't stop the war. Even if we ignore the complete ignorance required to make that statement and take it at face value, keep in mind that the interwar period lasted little more than 20 years. The EU's inception started in the early 1950s with the treaty of Rome being signed in 1957. So at this point the EU's track record on peace is already twice as long as your reference period, and counting.

zuminator 1y ago

I think realistically the US is unfortunately never going to protect Taiwan. There's no way I see it getting into an unwinnable hot war with China over territory so close to the mainland. If China sent troops to secure the Taiwanese fabs, how could the US possibly dislodge them without destroying the thing they want to protect? The focus on the CHIPS Act by both recent administrations seems an admission that they don't expect to rely on Taiwan's production long term. The question is will China sit back and let TSMC complete factories in the US, or will it invade Taiwan first? I've seen estimates that Beijing expects to surpass Taiwan's fab abilities in as soon as five years, so perhaps they don't even care about the US acquiring expertise that will be obsolete by the time it is built. Hopefully a knowledgeable individual can correct my extremely limited understanding of this issue.

fn-mote 1y ago
> how could the US possibly dislodge them without destroying the thing they want to protect? I would instead assert that it is very likely that the US would destroy the fabs rather than allow China to gain control of them through an act of aggression. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction has been around a long time. The international players are familiar with it.
- criley2 1y ago
  I highly doubt it. Taiwan would destroy their own fabs before someone else did. But that's likely unnecessary, China would be unable to operate the fabs anyway and they've already stolen the relevant information and are trying to recreate it. TSMC would get their experts out of the country and their trade partners would simply stop supplying the vital materials. And mututally assured destruction has nothing to do with the US destroying an industry in Taiwan. MAD specifically refers to the idea that superpowers cannot engage in nuclear war against one another without also being destroyed themselves, because of a Nuclear Triad. For "Mutually Assured Destruction" to be in anyway applicable, you'd have to say that the second that the US destroyed "Chinese" fabs (Taiwan), China would destroy American fabs. Thus, the US would not attack China without risking itself. The US making targeted strikes on Taiwan is one sided destruction. But to be clear: MAD doctrine is specifically about fullscale thermonuclear war.

keybored 1y ago

Why?

ekianjo 1y ago

there is no way the US would go to war with China over Taiwan anyway.

FuriouslyAdrift 1y ago
Maybe... but it would be a great excuse to wipe China off the map.

phkahler 1y ago

>> Ironically my only opposition to US chips is that we’re less liable to protect Taiwan if China invades I'm amazed at how many people think China is going to take Taiwan by force. They're playing a long game because they want it intact. They want the people there to want to be part of China. That doesn't seem to be going very well, but how can outsiders know? But again they're playing a long game and have plenty of time so long as things are moving in the right direction.

Sabinus 1y ago
This may be the case but China is also steadily building the specific capacity to take the island by force. Circumstances could easily change. What if they decide the Taiwanese people will never accept unification, or something unexpected happens to the Chinese leadership? The US gets heavily engaged in a different war?