| ▲ | guywithahat 4 days ago |
| 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. | | |
| |
| ▲ | 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. | | | |
| ▲ | 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. | | | |
| ▲ | 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. | | | |
| ▲ | 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. |
| |
|
| ▲ | keybored 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Why? |
