Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

asia.nikkei.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 221 posts

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#41

Post by samus »

hackernewds wrote: post #32
jaywalk wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly correct. If China took out TSMC, we would have an unimaginable global catastrophe on our hands that would make Covid look like nothing. There are far too many eggs in that basket.

This seems like an exaggeration. What are the resulting catastrophe?

The semiconductor industry would be set back a few decades because the main production facilities for the current node and many previous nodes would be gone. It's not just the equipment, but also the institutional knowledge about how to operate it best.

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#42

Post by JumpCrisscross »

dragontamer wrote: post #27
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Taiwan will be surrounded by half a dozen Chinese aircraft carriers Every time U.S. aircraft carriers enter a discussion, the reams of developments in anti-ship missile and swarming tactics with aerial or maritime drones (or fast boats) comes up.

That's because China can launch anti-ship missiles from any Chinese highway to threaten US Carriers. In contrast, the weapon-platforms of Taiwan / US Navy are simply more constrained. Sure, US Destroyers / Cruisers are good missile platforms and US Aircraft Carriers / F35 fighters are also good delivery mechanisms for anti-ship missiles... But China has the advantage of land-based missiles, land-based air force, AND…

> China has the advantage of land-based missiles, land-based air force, AND sea-based naval forces to triple-team up against the US Navy

Point is if China leans into its fleet for fire support (it’s currently not clear if they will do this or rely on land-based or aerial firing platforms), there are anti-ship missile systems Taiwan could be outfitted with to compensate for far cheaper than those ships cost.

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#43

Post by WillPostForFood »

hackernewds wrote: post #32
jaywalk wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly correct. If China took out TSMC, we would have an unimaginable global catastrophe on our hands that would make Covid look like nothing. There are far too many eggs in that basket.

This seems like an exaggeration. What are the resulting catastrophe?

If China invaded Taiwan, and the world response was something like the response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine (economic isolation), it would mean losing 500 billion dollars of imported products, and an uncountable loss of products that are dependent of that 500 billion. Look at what a small kink in chip supply is doing to car pricing and supply. Imagine instead of a kink in the supply chain, the supply goes to zero for several years. Now imagine that affecting thousands of products that are either wholly manufactured in China and Taiwan, or dependent on components made in China and Taiwan.

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#44

Post by samus »

flyinglizard wrote: post #11
pphysch wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an oft-repeated meme that doesn't align with the historical facts. TSMC is a distant secondary factor in the geopolitical competition over Taiwan, which is a continuation of the Chinese civil war that started in 1927 and has never officially ended. If TSMC didn't exist, or was located in e.g. Vietnam, Taiwan would still be a vital strategic asset in Washington's stated policy to contain Communist China (as pa…

Vague geopolitical considerations are very secondary and policy dependent compared to the real and abrupt chaos which will ensue if TSMC is taken out.

A long-term geopolitical goal of the PRC is to challenge the hegemony of the US blue-water navy over the oceans, or at least of the immediate surroundings of East Asia. Having US-friendly regimes on Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan would make it difficult for the Chinese Navy to operate outside of that island chain in a conflict.

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#45

Post by dragontamer »

jacobolus wrote: post #40
dragontamer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because China can launch anti-ship missiles from any Chinese highway to threaten US Carriers. In contrast, the weapon-platforms of Taiwan / US Navy are simply more constrained. Sure, US Destroyers / Cruisers are good missile platforms and US Aircraft Carriers / F35 fighters are also good delivery mechanisms for anti-ship missiles... But China has the advantage of land-based missiles, land-based air force, AND…

How useful are anti-ship missiles in Ishigaki Island (Japan), Batanes (Philippines), etc.? If Taiwan is loaded with anti-ship missiles, cruise missiles, naval mines, loitering munitions, artillery, modern fighter jets, etc., any Chinese invasion is at the very least going to come at very steep cost in life/military hardware. And then the economic costs (to everyone in the world) are going to be extreme.

> How useful are anti-ship missiles in Ishigaki Island (Japan), Batanes (Philippines), etc.?

Better than nothing, but the Chinese mainland has literal highways and railroads to deliver more-and-more missiles.

When all else is equal, the winner is decided by logistics. Who can "deliver" more missiles to a location first? I'm willing to bet that Chinese highways and Chinese railroads have superior logistics / delivery than Ishigaki Island or the Batanes.

That is: the winner will be decided by "number of missile deliveries to the Strait of Taiwan". (A lot of people get caught up in thinking about the "last mile" of delivery: F35 jets or Destroyers or MLRS systems. But the "first mile" of railroads / highways is just as important, and leans severely to a Chinese advantage)

> If Taiwan is loaded with anti-ship missiles, loitering munitions, artillery, modern fighter jets, etc., any Chinese invasion is at the very least going to come at very steep cost in life/military hardware.

Putin just proved to the world that "Just because its a bad idea" doesn't mean it won't stop the autocratic dictator from doing something stupid.

China attacking the world-capital of semiconductor manufacturing would piss off the world for sure. But "pissing off the world" doesn't seem to enter into the calculus of these leaders. EDIT: I'm also willing to bet that Xi Jinping cares about Chinese soldier's life only a _little_ bit more than Putin cares about Russian soldier lives.

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#46

Post by axg11 »

gnulinux wrote: post #6

Well, of course, TSMC doesn't want chip supplies to be onshored. It's everyone other than TSMC and Taiwan willing to do so. West wants to have reliable access to chips without potential war with China. In addition to geopolitics, wouldn't overproduction of chips be beneficial to consumers in the form of cheaper chips and greater variety?

> West wants to have reliable access to chips without potential war with China.

The West also wants reliable access to chips _despite_ war with China.

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#47

Post by gscott »

dragontamer wrote: post #27
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Taiwan will be surrounded by half a dozen Chinese aircraft carriers Every time U.S. aircraft carriers enter a discussion, the reams of developments in anti-ship missile and swarming tactics with aerial or maritime drones (or fast boats) comes up.

That's because China can launch anti-ship missiles from any Chinese highway to threaten US Carriers. In contrast, the weapon-platforms of Taiwan / US Navy are simply more constrained. Sure, US Destroyers / Cruisers are good missile platforms and US Aircraft Carriers / F35 fighters are also good delivery mechanisms for anti-ship missiles... But China has the advantage of land-based missiles, land-based air force, AND…

I bet every US military platform uses chips from Tawain... if China was to take or even blockade Tawain it would be bad for the us military industrial complex. Not to mention the worldwide recession, job cuts and other problems not being able to put that one last needed chip into products like cars would cause.

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#49

Post by jaywalk »

hackernewds wrote: post #32
jaywalk wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly correct. If China took out TSMC, we would have an unimaginable global catastrophe on our hands that would make Covid look like nothing. There are far too many eggs in that basket.

This seems like an exaggeration. What are the resulting catastrophe?

The number of chips within a five foot radius of you at this very moment that were manufactured by TSMC could easily be in the double digits. So imagine that all of the devices containing those chips are no longer able to be produced because nobody else can make the necessary chips.

Re: TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic'

#50

Post by svachalek »

ketzo wrote: post #33
foolfoolz wrote: post #8

the pandemic and its effects showed that the cost benefits of globalization are beaten by the national security benefits of onshoring. i think we will see more critical manufacturing, even at great expense, move back to the u. s.

To be more accurate, the pandemic showed that onshoring beats globalization... in a pandemic . The cost benefits were wildly outstripping the national security benefits before 2020! That's why globalization has thrived! I know that's the point, and I'm sort of willfully misinterpreting what you're saying. But the cost benefits of globalization aren't going away, and people's fears of the pandemic and supply-chain dis…

I don't think it's fair to say the national security benefits were tested before 2020. Risks are rarely considered until after they are exploited; everything that happens in an airport security line is based on something that actually happened before they added that requirement.
Post reply on HN