Live data from Hacker News

TSMC looks to double down on U.S. chip factories as talks in Europe falter

reuters.com

251–260 of 511 posts

Re: TSMC looks to double down on U.S. chip factories as talks in Europe falter

#251
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kinda see it the exact opposite way, I don’t think China would ever dare risk a full out war which would essentially be them vs the world. Taiwan is extremely valuable but not valuable enough to risk complete devastation of their economy if not by war then by international trade. The US is routinely running freedom of navigation exercises in the south china sea between taiwan and china and has said as recently as l…

Russia did it in Crimea by barely firing a shot. Everyone took note. Taiwan may be 'grabbed' with little violence, and China can promise 'certain freedoms' (i.e fake democracy) so that feckless leaders around the world can 'save face' and say 'oh, we don't like it, but it's not that bad, please keep buying our crap, so we can buy your crap'. China takes the 'long view' - long enough that it supercedes any populist cy…

I don't think you can say that the West ignored Crimea. There are still sanctions against Russia and they are not going to be lifted anytime soon. The thing about Crimea is that it's in a slatemate where neither side can displace each other without sacrificing huge resources. So it's basically at the same place for years.

https://youtu.be/nR7XAcArAa0

The problem with invading Tawian is that there is a basically a single place where you can land ships on from China. Tawian been preparing for an invasion for years. This means this single point is heavily defended and anyone attacking is on a huge disadvantage. This means there is a huge price to pay to take Tawian and even if you do, there would likely be sanctions from the West.

https://youtu.be/qsjJ5QvNmd8

Re: TSMC looks to double down on U.S. chip factories as talks in Europe falter

#252

"European chip and auto companies, for their part, are mostly lined up against the idea. They would prefer subsidies for the older-generation chips that are heavily used by car manufacturers and are in short supply. Many of TSMC's most lucrative customers, such as Apple, are U.S.-based, while its European customer base is made up of mostly of automakers buying less-advanced chips." Oh boy... This is exactly why EU wi…

Yep. This is sooo frustrating. Why does Europe, and Germany especially, just NOT grasp digitalization at all? I'm growing ever more angry that almost our politicians are 80 year old mega-boomers who are voted in by other boomers and couldn't care less about any interests other than their own. Young people and their climate & computors be damned.

Re: TSMC looks to double down on U.S. chip factories as talks in Europe falter

#253

Hundreds of comments and no one mentions that if the three gorges dam goes it's 30%+ of china gone. A literal single ton warhead ( ballistically delivered torpedo ) would accomplish this. More likely to be a nuke but...

If anyone were to actually do that, China would retaliate - no rational actor would do that. And I don't think any irrational actor (ISIS?) is interested in going after China right now though...

Exactly, there are lots of targets in lots of countries (thinking of things like nuclear plants) that would cause a similar reaction.

Re: TSMC looks to double down on U.S. chip factories as talks in Europe falter

#254
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why China? Most of the major chip fabs aren't made in China. They're mostly made in Taiwan, South Korea and the US. Unless we're strictly talking about TSMC, which does have 2/18 fabs in China.

This article explains some of the conflict: https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/can-taiwans-silico... China’s stance on Taiwan is clear[1] but given Taiwan doesn’t agree, it has remained independent despite what China says. The same was true for Hong Kong until recently, however, so concerns remain. The US is waking up to realizing that they have a heavy reliance on China for civilian goods and a slight to mode…

The situation with Taiwan (an independent - if unrecognised - country) is very different to HK which was a separately governed province of China.

Re: TSMC looks to double down on U.S. chip factories as talks in Europe falter

#256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anyone were to actually do that, China would retaliate - no rational actor would do that. And I don't think any irrational actor (ISIS?) is interested in going after China right now though...

Exactly, there are lots of targets in lots of countries (thinking of things like nuclear plants) that would cause a similar reaction.

I think an improvised torpedo attack against the dam is easier than attacking a nuclear plant.

Re: TSMC looks to double down on U.S. chip factories as talks in Europe falter

#257

its always interesting to read the comments on HN regarding China/Taiwan situation. Chinese invasion (Taiwan) threat is always there. It didn't stop when Nixon visit China and it didn't stop when American abandoned Taiwan to have a business relationship with China for more than 40 years. the threat is so old now. there are some running jokes in Taiwan like "China threatening to invade Taiwan since my grandpa is alive…

So what? Taiwan being annexed by China sounds quite terrible for the Taiwanese, but the US does lots of business with China, continued to during the Hong Kong crisis and would continue to if there was a Taiwan crisis, so it's not like these chip fabs, TSMC or the business relationship would be that much at risk. The show would go on, which is probably why the US doesn't fear investment into TSMC.

Re: TSMC looks to double down on U.S. chip factories as talks in Europe falter

#258

"European chip and auto companies, for their part, are mostly lined up against the idea. They would prefer subsidies for the older-generation chips that are heavily used by car manufacturers and are in short supply. Many of TSMC's most lucrative customers, such as Apple, are U.S.-based, while its European customer base is made up of mostly of automakers buying less-advanced chips." Oh boy... This is exactly why EU wi…

Other people have called this the greatest strength of Nintendo: build stuff with slightly older parts that are cheap and proven to work, so that you don't have to sell at a loss

That aside, I'm in the process of designing an USB gadget and I find process shrinks quite pesky. Of course it'll reduce production costs for the manufacturer of the IC but it also reduces flanking times which causes more electromagnetic interference issues for me.

So insisting on using large ICs built using old process nodes is a very valid decision if you work in an area where reliability trumps a $0.001 per piece cost saving. Like in cars, robots, or industrial machines.

That said, I see it more and more that German companies outsource all of their production until they eventually have so little building skills left inside their building that innovation stops. It's kind of the same issues that drove Boing to recycle old designs, but in Europe it's happening with thousands of small companies, instead of one big one.

Re: TSMC looks to double down on U.S. chip factories as talks in Europe falter

#259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is more able and likely to 'take over Taiwan' since probably any point in history. It's a stated strategic objective and there's no reason to think it won't happen.

The chilling implication behind some Taiwanese downplaying the threat is that they think it'll be relatively bloodless. That is, they plan to surrender once China feels comfortable enough about its naval balance against the US to pull the trigger. Taiwan under new management doesn't affect their retirement. The king is dead, long live the king. After all, its their lives they'll be needlessly throwing away if America…

The US sent an Aircraft Carrier battle group to the region because of these tensions: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-usa/u-s-car... (Jan 24, 2021)

A single US aircraft carrier is accompanied by a strike force of (IIRC) dozens of other ships, one or more submarines, anti-ship cruisers, anti-aircraft cruisers, and anti-submarine cruisers, logistics, etc. They carry a large number of aircraft and those aircraft have considerable strike capabilities, including the ability to attack enemy craft and ships from over the horizon; same with the ships. It's also worth remembering the large (permanent) US military presence in Japan, South Korea, Guam, and other nearby locations. Guam has been described as a permanently located US aircraft carrier combined with a military base.

I'm not an expert on Asian relations, tensions, or the military situation. I feel disappointed Obama's attempt to set up a trade block was nuked by the republicans for apparent partisans reasons. Now China is leading the same. That doesn't mean the US will allow China's expansionism to go unchecked. Part of US's activities in the region are to explicitly violate China's new claims of "sovereignty" around the islands they're building to expand their territory by sailing through those areas and flying planes over, and essentially daring China to do something about it. "We don't respect your claims at expanded borders."

Biden is clearly taking the threat seriously. FTA above:

> Biden’s nominee for secretary of state, Antony Blinken, told his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday there was “no doubt” China posed the most significant challenge to the United States of any nation.

I haven't studied China's military strength but I doubt it could contest the US in a traditional modern conflict. In a ground war maybe, but when we're talking navy and air power, the US likely has a substantial lead. And the US's goal would not be to invade China (at least not its mainland or traditionally recognized sovereign territories but simply to contain; though I could potentially see bombing or invading the islands that China is building in the ocean if there was some compelling reason for this.)

I personally am not well informed enough on the issue to understand why it's so sensitive that they want to build some islands in the sea near their mainland; perhaps the US simply wants countries to stick to their existing borders and not attempt expansionism like took place in decades and centuries past. Or perhaps it's as simple as the US doesn't want to accept countries expanding their territory and territorial waters by building islands in the ocean -- where would it stop?

China officially has a policy of "no nuclear first-strike" (which is not a policy US has adopted), but I can't imagine the US using nuclear weapons in this day and age, even in a conflict with another nuclear superpower (unless they were invading our mainland), so military action if it occurs is likely to take the form (I hypothesize) of skirmishes between ships and airplanes -- not necessarily fighting but flying really close, or playing chicken, that sort of thing; similar to what's been going on with Russian planes (whether both sides accuse the other of being reckless). Possibly with occasional shots fired by one side or the other before commanders on both sides order the troops to back off, because no one wants open war.

In the meantime it looks like the US is allowing China to build the islands but is refusing to recognize the new territory as sovereign land/waters, by sailing through it, flying over it, etc. Similar to the US's position on Iran and the Straight of Hormuz: it's international waters and Iran has no right to stop ships from sailing through it. The US demonstrates and enforces this by sailing its own ships through regularly and daring anyone to stop them.

The question may come down to whether China is willing to use military force to enforce its claims about sovereignty of the territory. That would be a massive step for them to take. China only has 2 aircraft carriers in service and it's unlikely their warplanes would be a match for the combination of all of the US's latest technology. China does have modern 5th generation stealth aircraft but I'm skeptical they could maintain air superiority against the entirety of US assets.

Like a law that's never been tested in court, we won't know how the militaries actually match up unless they go to battle.

Post reply on HN