Remix.run Logo
fishsticks89 4 days ago

If something happens to Taiwan, we won't regret being able to produce these chips domestically. If AI keeps growing like it does, it might even trigger a conflict.

guywithahat 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

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

zuminator 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

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 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> 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 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

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.

almosthere 4 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah I think everyone understood that analogy you spelled out w/respect to MAD.

criley2 3 days ago | parent [-]

China would not engage in nuclear escalation in response to the US striking Taiwan, and China does not otherwise possess the ability to strike the US homeland without incurring a nuclear response, so there is no mutually assured destruction with regards to semiconductor industry. In this hypothetical, the US would succeed in striking Taiwan and China would not escalate into nuclear war. But, the US would not strike Taiwan. Taiwan would destroy their own industry before that happened.

kashunstva 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> The international players are familiar with it.

The current U.S. leadership is so chaotic and seemingly uninvolved in strategy that predictions about whether/how MAD would play out are difficult to make.

dumbfounder 4 days ago | parent [-]

An unpredictable enemy is way scarier than a predictable one.

9cb14c1ec0 4 days ago | parent [-]

This is Trump's precise strategy. He's even said so in so many words.

ta20240528 4 days ago | parent [-]

But he is predictable, so predicable in fact that they gave it a name: TACO.

4gotunameagain 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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 valuable bits and pieces are already equipped with a self destruct mechanism.

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/tsmcs-euv-machine...

FuriouslyAdrift 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Taiwan is armed to the teeth. A full engagement would most likely destroy large sections of Taiwan and Southern China.

nickthegreek 3 days ago | parent [-]

and they can hold their own chip factories hostage if desperate enough.

ta20240528 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> could the US possibly dislodge them without destroying the thing they want to protect?

The mask slips: I thought the USA wanted to protect Taiwanese democracy.

Silly me.

achierius 4 days ago | parent [-]

"The thing they want to protect" also includes "the country"

Because yes, a protracted conflict on the island would mostly reduce it to rubble.

steveBK123 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

All the best to war games seem pretty bleak given the relative salience of the issue between US & China.

Being a small island it’s much more of a zero sum / all or nothing fight than say Ukraine where at some point they can agree on a line on the map for Putin to walk away with a territorial partial win.

Lot of headwind for US between ship building, distance, whether Japan allows usage of bases, total manpower, Chinese ship killer missiles, authoritarian dictatorships willingness to throw manpower into meat grinders, etc.

Not that it’s a slam dunk for China either - beach landings are hard, and their war machine is largely unproven.

The most likely outcome is Taiwan or US destroy the fabs in event of invasion.

Cthulhu_ 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

It was a stated goal of the EU - peace through trade.

FirmwareBurner 4 days ago | parent [-]

How did that work out?

adastra22 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

There used to be open war between European countries every 30 years or so. That hasn’t happened. So mission accomplished?

And before anyone says it’s because of nukes or superpower protection or whatever, there has been plenty of wars on the periphery of the EU during this time. The balkans, Cyprus, Egypt, etc.

FirmwareBurner 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

>There used to be open war between European countries every 30 years or so. That hasn’t happened.

I meant how did that ensure peace between Ukraine, Russia and EU? It clearly didn't even though EU was buying shit tonnes of gas from Russia, and Russia was buying shit tonne of aerospace parts and stuff from Ukraine. War still happened.

[..edited out the Yugoslavia argument..]

All the proof shows "peace through trade" does not work. The only thing that works is "peace through strength", which then you can use to enforce and defend your own favorable trade policies for you and your close allies, which has been the US's MO since 1945.

seszett 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> I meant between Ukraine, RUssia and EU.

> Yugoslav wars started in 1991 and ended in 2001. Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. Are these wars not "European" enough?

Well, Ukraine, Russia and the former Yugoslavian republics that had wars are not part of the EU, or were not at the moment they had their wars. And even though all neighbouring countries trade with the EU, their economies are much less interdependent than those of the EU countries because of the lack of free trade and freedom of movement.

So this supports the idea that the EU does prevent wars rather than invalidating it.

FirmwareBurner 4 days ago | parent [-]

>So this supports the idea that the EU does prevent wars rather than invalidating it.

Yes, it was all the EU economy. The 40 or so US military bases occupying the EU had nothing to do with ensuring peace on the continent.

seszett 4 days ago | parent [-]

I didn't caricature your words, so please don't do it with me.

Of course the US plays a part. But they don't have bases everywhere so it's not that obvious why it would explain why France and Luxembourg get along fine but Serbia and Kosovo don't, is it? Or Turkey and Greece, which both host US bases.

FirmwareBurner 4 days ago | parent [-]

>it would explain why France and Luxembourg

The discussion wasn't about getting along fine but about economic ties preventing wars, since Russia and Germany were also "getting along fine" till 1940 when they suddenly weren't.

And Luxemburg has nothing that would prevent France form invading them if they wanted to, economic ties or not. Economic ties might even be a negative for your protection since economic ties have to be negotiated but if you invade the other party you own their assets and economy and don't need to negociate any ties anymore.

The only thing prevents war is a strong military force.

gambiting 4 days ago | parent [-]

>>The only thing prevents war is a strong military force.

Why hasn't France invaded Luxemburg then? They would be met with close to zero resistance and no other EU state would attack them militarily for it. You must be able to see that there are other factors preventing war other than military force?

FirmwareBurner 4 days ago | parent [-]

>Why hasn't France invaded Luxemburg then?

Because they're a developed, civilized, self sufficient democracy, so they have more to loose than to gain by doing that in modern times.

My point wasn't that they aren't, my point was that they can do it if they want to, and no trade is gonna stop them, they just don't want to because they don't need to.

If you want a better example look at Monaco, who had to cede to France and tax only the French citizens living there as Monaco was popular place for French elite tax dodgers. Monaco did this for France and no other country precisely because France has the military upper hand in this negotiation and could just invade them without breaking a sweat if they opposed.

Another example is when Swiss military accidentally bombed their neighboring ally Liechtenstein several times during drills/exercises, and they just apologized with a box of wine, but funny how they never accidentally bomb their more powerful neighbors France and Germany. Weird how the small kids who can't fight back always end up being bullied, amirite?

seszett 3 days ago | parent [-]

Not to insist, but... Monaco is not part of the EU. Switzerland and Liechtenstein aren't part of the EU either.

Luxembourg is, and it doesn't get bullied by its neighbours, using your words. (Not anymore at least, because most of historical Luxembourg has been annexed by its neighbours in the recent past).

motorest 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I meant how did that ensure peace between Ukraine, Russia and EU?

There lies the source of your confusion. The EU was designed to prevent wars within Europe, not between outside members. Do you think that NATO bombing Kadafi represents a failure of the EU's mission?

adastra22 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Neither Russia nor Ukraine are part of the EU. That’s my point?

ekianjo 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> There used to be open war between European countries every 30 years or so. That hasn’t happened. So mission accomplished?

thats a weird way to justify the logic. so one arbitrary datapoint is enough? the EU has been relocated to a second tier in terms of economic importance and they have no credibility when it comes to geopolitics. does that sound like mission accomplished?

potatototoo99 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Very well? There hasn't been open war between EU countries since WW2.

FirmwareBurner 4 days ago | parent [-]

>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 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

windward 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Russia has 18% interest rates, 9% inflation, and a demographic deficit of hundreds of thousands of working age men.

So we'll see if anyone wants the same.

ekianjo 4 days ago | parent [-]

the demographic bomb is coming for everyone, dont worry.

myrmidon 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think you are arguing against a strawman.

No one is saying that trade makes war impossible-- but every bit of trade is an additional incentive to not start war, especially if it affects a broad slice of the population directly (=> the average German would be much more affected from losing car exports than the average Russian from lower gas exports).

Regarding Russia:

I believe that the main mistake on the western side was underestimating Russias imperialistic ambitions combined with the almost existential risk that a western aligned, economically successful Ukraine would have been for the current regime: Russian citizens getting overtaken economically by former compatriots makes it much harder to keep the kleptocracy running; Poland is one thing, but the same happening with the Ukraine would have hit much closer.

But regardless, I'm highly confident that Russia/Putin would have decided against the war with the benefit of hindsight.

You could even argue that insufficient economical consequences (from the Europeans-- basically the other, necessary side of the peace-by-trade playbook) after the 2014 annexation were a big factor in encouraging the war in the first place.

gambiting 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Pretty well I'd think. Myself and many(obviously not all) people of my generation consider themselves European before their primary nationality. The idea of EU states going into any kind of conflict with each others is beyond absurd.

bluGill 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Do not confuse imperfection for not working. There has been significant peace, despite the continued existence of wars.

pydry 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It wasnt the oil or gas. Europe was perfectly capable of substituting both.

They got away with it because they built up their industrial base while the west let its industrial base wither. It's only starting to dawn on our leaders (3+ years in) now that dropping the ball on stuff like steel, mortar and missile production actually loses wars and that it takes years to undo those mistakes.

The west's Achilles heel was always profit driven capitalism + a superiority complex. All China had to do was to systematically undercut the west on industrial inputs while its superiority complex held firm and the west took care of hollowing out its own economic and military potential.

Even today when the US produces ~50/year patriots for the entire west and Ukraine needs ~400-500/year to stay afloat some people are still telling fairy tales about how a lack of "will" was the only thing standing between putin and domination. The superiority complex hasnt even died yet.

zarzavat 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

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 4 days ago | parent [-]

How can you design where natural resources exist?

bloppe 4 days ago | parent [-]

He's probably talking about ASML

daneel_w 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

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-...

zarzavat 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

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.

Mountain_Skies 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

Starman_Jones 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

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.

ericmay 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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?

godelski 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 4 days ago | parent [-]

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.

phkahler 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>> 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 4 days ago | parent [-]

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?

ekianjo 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

FuriouslyAdrift 4 days ago | parent [-]

Maybe... but it would be a great excuse to wipe China off the map.

keybored 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Why?

blitzar 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If something happens to the US, we won't regret being able to produce these chips domestically.

For the rest of the world, Taiwan with a "China Risk" looks like a safer bet than the USA.

Mountain_Skies 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Until the rest of the world actually stops using the US Dollar as their reserve currency instead of endlessly talking about it but never actually do more than some token local trades, I don't believe the rest of the world prefers Mainland China invading Taiwan over dealing with the US. People (and countries) love to bluster but their actions are far more indicative of their outlook than posturing is.

azernik 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The way to reduce the risk is to diversify. Taiwan with a China risk and the US with a "US risk" is much safer than either alone.

redleader55 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

In a world of US and China being at odds with each other and controlling a GPU factory each, AI for Europe, Japan, Australia, etc becomes a game of who can kiss ass better and hoping the master doesn't change the rules further.

There should be more places that can produce enough energy and have AI leverage.

eli_gottlieb 4 days ago | parent [-]

There should. I wish the Netherlands the best in further building out the industry in the EU!

motorest 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> The way to reduce the risk is to diversify. Taiwan with a China risk and the US with a "US risk" is much safer than either alone.

Not really. Taiwan with a China risk means China has pressure to not change the status quo.

US with a US risk means they have a vested interest to facilitate China's imperialistic agenda to try dethrone Taiwan as a competitor in the chip market.

That, coupled with the imbecile tariff war, underlines the unacceptable risk presented by the "US risk".

irjustin 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is something the gov should subsidize or at least organize competitors to act like a cartel[0]?

Such that the market forces don't push pricing that the plant would naturally die.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel

Qwertious 4 days ago | parent [-]

The phoebus cartel whine is bullshit - incandescent light bulbs should be limited to 1000 hours because 1) the cost of electricity used by the bulb is easily as much as the replacement bulb (in the 1920s/1930s), and running the bulb hotter makes it more energy-efficient, and 2) because running incandescents cold makes the light look sickly and awful. Light bulbs were mostly being sold by electric companies at the time, so trading one for the other didn't matter to them.

Planned obsolescence does happen, but the phoebus cartel is the worst 'example' of it.

phi0 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

This seems slightly inconsistent with them testing all cartel member's bulbs and fining those who surpassed 1000 hours. If shorter-lasting bulbs were better looking and more efficient their fining mechanism would be energy efficiency / appearance related.

Or require no fines at all. It's much simpler to sell a non-sickly looking bulb at the store and other companies would converge.

HPsquared 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wonder what the economic calculation looks like. How much efficiency would be lost by doubling the lifespan? It depends on the relative price of lightbulbs and electricity, and the cost (in time/effort/inconvenience) when a bulb blows.

Weryj 4 days ago | parent [-]

Saudi Arabia has regulation on the lightbulbs which require more LEDs run at lower power.

They last a lot longer.

HPsquared 4 days ago | parent [-]

Yes LEDs massively change the parameters, I'm more talking about the historic Phoebus cartel and the properties of incandescent filament lamps.

xmprt 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> the cost of electricity used by the bulb is easily as much as the replacement bulb

This point is only relevant if 1000 hour old bulbs cost more electricity to run than new bulbs. Maybe I don't understand how old bulbs worked but why couldn't they invent ways to make bulbs run hot which also last longer than 1000 hours.

ahartmetz 4 days ago | parent [-]

Light bulbs die because the filament slowly evaporates. If you increase the filament temperature just a little, efficiency increases quickly and life expectancy decreases quickly. They were already using the most heat-resistant metals, too. It's not sabotage, it's physics.

irjustin 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It's fine to complain it's a bad example of "planned obsolescence", but I hope you didn't downvote me for that (i got a few downs).

I was just talking about organization of competitive companies for price manipulation, but specifically controlled for the benefit of the public - such that we don't lose the US plant due to natural market forces.

It's why ULA is still in business despite SpaceX being significantly cheaper.

tarkin2 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If something happens to Taiwan, the USA will have given a huge military advantage to its biggest adversary.

It's going to take decades for the USA to catch up with Taiwan, and once China has its grip on the fabs they'll only further advance them.

In an existential crisis, the chances of Taiwan's leadership doing a deal with China when it's military protector retreats from its former declarations is in no way low.

It'll be the end of American military dominance but in fitting with the US's repeated isolationist trajectory.

Mountain_Skies 4 days ago | parent [-]

How did that come to be? The US used to be the world leader in chip manufacturing and that wasn't all that long ago. Why was something so critical given away so freely?

xadhominemx 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

It was not given away - it was won by the Taiwanese, who bet on the fabless-foundry business model and executed magnificently.

SJC_Hacker 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I’m no expert but I believe it’s because Taiwan bet heavily on a process known as Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV).

The US companies cough Intel cough did not. Which is part of the reason they are laying off workers

amelius 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is still TSMC's plant. I bet Taiwan has tight control over it.

patmcc 4 days ago | parent [-]

I think the risk here is Taiwan being invaded by China, in which case having some US-based production helps a lot.

amelius 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

But do you think Taiwan will let the US get away with not helping them?

jeremyjh 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It would mean TSMC would basically become a US company, right?

nine_k 4 days ago | parent [-]

I suppose they have a US branch / subsidiary anyway?

jeremyjh 3 days ago | parent [-]

Yes, every company that operates in the US and many that only import have US subsidiaries. This is true of all companies pretty much everywhere in the world. The government must have an entity it can tax, and a throat it can choke, but the subsidiary is answering to a parent and that is I think what would change if TSMC could no longer operate in Taiwan or was taken over by the party.

kulahan 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ah yes, Taiwán - that famously stable nation with no existential threats to its very existence.

I don’t think this is an “if” situation, but rather a “when”. There is no question in my mind - it’s simply too attractive to China. It may not come through all out war, but they will eventually claim what they feel is theirs. They operate on much more manageable time scales.

iammrpayments 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

What is so attractive to attempt the greatest amphibious assault in human history just to get an island with a bunch of people who will hate you and have nowhere to run away.

maxglute 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Political reunification, i.e. land > people, see PRC saying "keep the island not the people". At this point no amphibious assault needed, just blockading TW and turning into gaza via mainland munitions now that starving masses is normalized is an option too.

aussieguy1234 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

That type of blockade is typically regarded as an act of war equal to dropping bombs. So that in itself could trigger a war.

maxglute 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

PRC-TW/ROC is already ongoing civil war that never ended in ratification, so legally it doesn't really matter. It's no different than ROC doing port closure policy for decades.

Scarblac 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It is a way to fight the war that doesn't require amphibious landings.

gscott 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Taking the island gives China a large military advantage controlling access to Japan.

petesergeant 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

How do you turn an island into Gaza when the US is providing weapons to it, and not to the other side? Ukraine seems like it would be a better example.

maxglute 4 days ago | parent [-]

US+co essentially incapable of resupplying TW if PRC motivated to stranglehold blockade. TW is 15 times smaller than UKR, the quality of ISR and amount of munitions PRC can pour onto anywhere in the island and adjacent waters is also orders of magnitude more than RU and resupply via water and air is basically transparent vs myriad of obfuscated land routes UKR has, PRC can trivially locked down TW airstrips and ports from purely mainland platforms. Short distances involved = extremely rapid responses, as in not enough time to unload supplies - low single digit minutes from higher end PRC missiles... doesn't even need navy to enforce a kinetic blockade. TW also 98% dependant on energy imports, 70% on calories. Better example is Cuba, if US wanted to blockade Cuba or depopulate the island, there isn't anything anyone can do about it, i.e. PRC take out some power infra (refrigeration) and water treatment plants and island basically becomes Gaza in days. Ironically, if that happens the only actor with the logistics capability to sustain island with population of TW is PRC - US airlift capacity smaller than Berlin airlift and that was... for 2m vs 24m mouths. Which is why IMO all those new fancy landing barges likely going to be used for "humanitarian" relief - realistically no one in/out of region has the surplus to arbitrarily ramp up supplies for island of 24m... except PRC since that's ~1% of PRC population, almost rounding error vs covid0 mobilization.

SJC_Hacker 4 days ago | parent [-]

There isn’t anything could do about the US invading Cuba because no one has much of a blue water navy outside the US itself.

Now granted, China is getting there but their navy is still mostly brown water (by design). And in any Taiwan / SCS conflict they would have an advantage because they can use their land assets, especially air force and land based anti ship rockets, on top of their navy.

The US land bases in the region are few or dependent on the grace of the host countries. Depending on political situation they might not Ok strikes against China if a conflict occurs for fear of being drawn into the war and angering China if the US loses. The only one Id be 100% on is Japan, they’d fight China to the last.

maxglute 4 days ago | parent [-]

My gist is more no current bluewater Navy, including US is scaled to fight attrition battle in a near parity peer sized adversary's backyard. On paper this applies to current USN vs WestPac. Axis JP+DE during WW2, peak USSR were both ~1/2 of US comprehensive power, i.e. gdp ppp, % of global output, domestic industry output. PRC vs US closer to ~1-2x, with some metrics such as ship or munition building... order of magnitude more. In some gaps, US not even peak JP or USSR in relative terms. Even the month long 90s Iraq curbstomp required generational tech gab (french designers leaked/compromised IADs), 5 carriers and favourable regional basing (vs westpac), unsustainably high tempo sorties... when US militarily hasn't declined to current state in terms of capitalization... and Iraq then is charitably 1/100th the size of PRC. Unless there is unrevealed tech gap that still enables asymmetric curb stomp with a much smaller force - perhaps somehow none of Chinese hardware works, which at this point likely means completely dismantling PRC kill chain, i.e. what PRC intends to do vs US.

TLDR is the potential regional balance is increasingly lop sided in favour of PRC with gap widening, i.e. US+co can't preposition hardware at relevant rate. PRC hinted their cruise missile gigafactory has capacity to exhaust/target entire current US+co hardware inventory + stockpiles with few months production. A few more months enough to comprehensively shatter critical infra of US partners in 1IC. Hence why JP likely won't fight, because ultimately they're just a larger TW, also dependant on energy and calorie imports, and main islands also entirely within umbrella of PRC mainland fires. Mainland China is much better postured to operation Starvation JP than US from Marianas (25% further, and still needed logistics from CONUS) was during WW2. And if JP gives PRC excuse to fight them then PRC will (LBH be somewhat eager) to fight to the last JPnese. If JP doesn't, then they... well survive, maybe even still keep US protection. Most likely they'll only lose Senkaku when regional dynamics reconfigure. IMO current sign of JP not fighting is stronger than JP will fight... i.e. not opening main islands to distributed AGILE basing - US basically said they need JP in TW scenario, but they need to disperse all across JP not just Okinawa and Ryukyu's for survivability and JP action so far (since Trump1) is to not. It doesn't matter what JP politicians say for security theatre, IMO JP not committed until they start heavily militarizing main islands.

Qwertious 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

1) politics 2) breaking the US's submarine detection on the pacific, so now they can essentially slip unlimited undetected submarines into the pacific (and therefore the atlantic/indian) 3) being harder to navally blockade 4) disrupt the West's military chip advantage

petesergeant 4 days ago | parent [-]

> breaking the US's submarine detection on the pacific

This doesn’t really hold up when looking at a map that includes Okinawa and Batanes.

Lu2025 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The thing about autocracies, there is nobody to stop an obviously wrong decision (for example, Russian invasion of Ukraine).

basilgohar 4 days ago | parent [-]

Yes, because in Western democracies we were very successful at stopping invasions such as Iraq x2, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, etc.

Nevermark 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

The fact that democracies make mistakes, isn't an argument against dictators having more carte blanche to make mistakes.

Any form of government is going to make mistakes.

LinXitoW 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

By your very own logic, I could argue that dictators have more carte blanche to make correct choices, where democracies are mired down by compromises and too many cooks in the kitchen.

bluGill 4 days ago | parent [-]

The possibility exists, but the reality is very different.

FpUser 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>"The fact that democracies make mistakes..."

Going to war and killing people is "a mistake". Let me rephrase it for you:

The fact that democracies are the same murderous criminal fucks when it suits their goals as are dictators. Yes the have more problem having their population to approve it but do they give a flying fuck?

keybored 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

These wars weren’t mistakes. The ruling class wanted them and got them.

necovek 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There is nobody to admit a bad decision and reverse course on it?

jopsen 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Think of all the wars we didn't have :)

Democracies aren't perfect, but they can change, admit mistakes and adapt.

blackoil 4 days ago | parent [-]

I think it is other way round.

In a democracy ideas are ingrained in public psyche for support. Be it Muslims/Jews/Christians good/bad, immigrants evil, abortion bad all become part of a large percentage of people's belief and changing that requires equally herculean efforts.

In autocracy, people are generally kept aloof of such decisions so you can always switch enemies from Eurasia to Eastasia and no one cares. In case of China, the value of Taiwan/Arunachal/... is mostly egoistical, based on some notion that Qing China boundaries must be restored. If tomorrow a new leadership comes and makes EU kind of setup with Taiwan, people will have no say and most won't care.

4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
refurb 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean Vietnam was stopped? And Afghanistan? Korea the US never started.

Gee101 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What is interesting is if the world is not that reliant on Taiwan chips anymore would China really care that much about Taiwan?

johanyc 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

They would. The main reason has always been the location. It’s right at the doorstep of China. It’s the same reason when Russia tried to install missile in Cuba, Americans dont like that. Cuba “crisis” is actually a US centric term. Also on east coast of Taiwan, theres a deep waters, submarines can enter pacific ocean much more stealthily.

Everything else is just bonus to them. Semiconductors, supporting nationalism, you name it.

IncreasePosts 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

South Korea and Japan/Okinawa seem either just as good or better if the US wants to have bases near China. And the US already has 80k troops there

laborcontract 4 days ago | parent [-]

You have to take a look at a map to really understand Taiwan's importance.

Taiwan isn't about military proximity. It's about access shipping access. Try open up a map. Despite China having a vast coastline, they do not have access to the open seas. Every one of their shipping lanes requires passage through another nation's waters.

If a heavy conflict were to erupt, China's supply chains would be cut off via naval blockade. It's a huge risk to China, and one they've attempted to ameliorate via the Belt and Road Initiative.

That changes if they acquire Taiwan. Taiwan's importance is not of offensive, but defensive primacy.

15155 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> If a heavy conflict were to erupt, China's supply chains would be cut off via naval blockade

Or possibly the 30+ fast attack submarines sinking every military or resupply vessel in the region, augmented by a colossal amount of rapidly-deployed naval mines.

Taiwan doesn't buy them much in this regard. Why would China be permitted to use sea freight at all in a "heavy conflict" scenario? Why not just sink these vessels near their origin - why allow Brazilian soybeans to even make it out of the hemisphere?

anon7725 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Despite China having a vast coastline, they do not have access to the open seas.

I didn’t realize that Okinawa is halfway between the Japanese mainland and Taiwan, and the Japanese territorial waters extend right up to the Taiwanese EEZ on account of Japan’s far-flung southern islands.

kulahan 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This seems more correct. It's the same reason they got involved in the Korean war - didn't want anyone to cross the Yan(?) river that wasn't an ally of China. Too close for comfort.

2muchcoffeeman 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

China is not interested in Taiwan for the chips. They want it back since they believe Taiwan is part of China.

owebmaster 4 days ago | parent [-]

Taiwan also believes they are (part of) China

curseofcasandra 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Or more accurately, the Taiwanese government also believes that mainland China and Taiwan should be unified (ie. a One-China Interpretation). But that this One-China should be under the rule of the Taiwanese government and not the CCP, which they considered an illegitimate government, up until the 1992 Consensus.

After the 1992 Consensus [1], the Taiwanese government still considered the Mainland its territory (again under a One-China Interpretation), but also acknowledges the CCP's interpretation of One-China. In practice, this meant they officially abandoned plans to re-take the Mainland, and focus on maintaining the status quo of peace and stability.

Interestingly, the Taiwanese government also used to lay claim to Mongolia in addition to the Chinese Mainland.[2]

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Consensus

[2]https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2024/08/25/20...

sarchertech 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Almost no one in Taiwan still believes that though. But China has made it clear that they will invade if the Taiwanese government changes their official stance to be that they’re an independent country.

jdietrich 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The UN has only ever recognised one China - they just switched from recognising the ROC to the PRC in 1971.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...

ergocoder 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The unification isn't the issue.

It's whose government will get to run the whole thing.

kelnos 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's more complicated than that, and I think many people in Taiwan (even some in government), especially younger folks, wouldn't really think that way anymore. While it's dicey to say so, many would support full independence.

mensetmanusman 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Not the young.

usefulcat 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wasn't China already pissed about Taiwan long before Taiwan was doing a lot of semiconductor manufacturing?

kelnos 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

China has wanted Taiwan long before they fabbed semiconductors. It's a matter of ego and nationalism, not economics.

It's also political: China hates that there's a Western-style democracy full of "Chinese rebels" on an island 80 miles from their doorstep. They also don't like the cozy relationship between the Taiwanese and US militaries.

kortilla 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Probably, my understanding is that the primary reason China cares about Taiwan is internal pressure about the separatism. The power Taiwan has is the only reason they haven’t acted.

Zaiberia 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, they would. However, if Taiwan wasn’t as important to the world because of their chips then the world would probably not care as much about what communist China wants to do to them.

victorbjorklund 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The upside isnt huge to China. It is mostly their pride. The downside if not everything goes to plan is huge. Could end the communist party in China. I think it is a really though decision for the communist party if they should go all-in or not.

modzu 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

when? 1945 was a long time ago

jiggawatts 4 days ago | parent [-]

Ukraine split from the Soviet Union in 1991 and then 31 years later Russia invaded to take it back.

chronci300 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Ah yes, Taiwán

If you’re going to use accents, technically it’s Táiwān (ㄊㄞˊㄨㄢ)

kulahan 3 days ago | parent [-]

It was autocorrect - I have no idea why it’s in there to be honest. Neat to know the right way to write it though - thanks

zer00eyz 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> If something happens to Taiwan,

This isn't really a workable argument any more. As examples:

https://apnews.com/article/north-carolina-quartz-hurricane-5...

https://archive.is/sM16Y

The global supply chain is now so deeply interwoven that a large geopolitical disruption is nearly impossible. It took explosives for the EU to curtail its Russian natural gas use. And there is still stiff trade with Russia today (not as much as pre war) and lots of folks exploiting the gaps in that system (Turkey, India, china).

If you have never read it I highly recommend I, Pencil: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/read-i-pencil-my-family-t...

pyrale 4 days ago | parent [-]

> It took explosives for the EU to curtail its Russian natural gas use.

Assuming you refer to NS2 blowup, it was unused when it got sabotaged.

zer00eyz 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream_pipelines_sabotage

NS1 was hit at the same time as well.

NS2 had not been activated and NS1 was undergoing work at the time.

marsven_422 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]