TSMC head says drive to onshore chip supply chain is 'unrealistic' • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by btgeekboy » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 5:54 PM UTC

mistrial9 wrote: post #56

55873445216111 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically, excess wafer fab capacity is what bankrupts semiconductor companies. An underloaded fab very rapidly eats up profit. Over the last 10 years, the industry has become very cautious not to overbuild capacity. We have now arrived at the opposite end of the long term (~10 year) cycle and we have accumulated a serious underinvestment in capacity.

> accumulated a serious underinvestment in capacity says who? the world's rivers and oceans are polluted with micro-plastics and heavy metals from E*Waste, while thirty years of "wild west" profits and dog-eat-dog markets, COMDEX and single-use devices will take 1000 years to degrade in Nature. Calls for "more" to be viewed with earned-suspicion IMO

While I do agree that e-waste is a real problem, it’s not like we can just sit with old tech and say “nah, that’s good enough.” We need both more and better fabs, and better waste handling / recycling.

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

#62

Post by dragontamer » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 5:56 PM UTC

dahdum wrote: post #59

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…

> There's a mild expectation that if a Chinese / Taiwan fight were to occur, US Marines might be forced to make landings in the Chinese mainland to destroy Chinese land-based missile forces and even the odds. That sounds remarkably unlikely and irrational. If China touched the US mainland it would mean immediate full-scale war, the opposite should be assumed.

> That sounds remarkably unlikely and irrational. If China touched the US mainland it would mean immediate full-scale war, the opposite should be assumed.

Then your assumptions need to be set appropriately.

That is: China will have its full set of highways and railroads in-tact to deliver missiles to the US Navy. That will be the US Navy fighting at a severe disadvantage.

Furthermore, US Marines will largely be sitting around doing nothing. Having additional troops from a separate branch of the military doing __SOMETHING__ would at least help even the odds. (Marines do have some ships, but the Marines specialized in Sea vs Land situations, not sea vs sea kinds of battles)

-------

In any case, the Taiwan situation is a very difficult fight to think about. US Navy will be at a severe disadvantage in almost every concievable scenario, and its difficult to see how other branches (US Army, US Air Force, or US Marines) can help in a significant manner. (Sure, some islands here and there can station some US Air Force, US Army can also station some troops in Taiwan. But is it enough to make a big difference?)

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

#63

Post by rektide » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 5:56 PM UTC

Morris Chang (founder of TSMC)'s speech a year ago touched on 3 huge advantages Taiwan uniquely has. Having a whole, well-knit-together country with such intense knowledge & specilaization in making chips is something that would be extremely hard to recreate anywhere else. A community of practitioners is key. https://interconnected.blog/morris-chang-global-semiconducto...

The United States had extreme success growing really good chip designing talent with the digital foundry model. We simply gave college students & others access to the means of production. Something we see eFanless/Google/Skywatdr kind of doing these days, with free chipmaking (at 130nm). But how we get good at making the foundries, create a body of expertise in not chip design but chipmaking, at any level of density... hard problem.

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

#64

Post by javajosh » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 5:56 PM UTC

alooPotato wrote: post #10

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.

One thing I'm curious about is how you define "critical manufacturing"? Manufacturing seems like a directed graph where each node is a product or material and the edges are dependencies or inputs to that product. So if you want to onshore manufacturing of a particular product, you need to also onshore all of its dependencies. My contention is that the graph is so densely connected that you end up having to bring enti…

*> ...how you define "critical manufacturing"?

This is a good question, and IMHO it's about threat-modelling. Three events come to mind: pandemic, war with China, and a Carrington Event[1]. The last one is interesting because it would destroy most electrical infrastructure, and it's not clear that the US retains the ability to manufacture those components. I'm not sure, but I don't think huge transformers have a ton of components, so your other (valid) concern about dependencies wouldn't apply in that case. Fabs are at least somewhat similar in that they don't recombine a huge variety of components in different ratios like Shenzen does.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrington_Event

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

#65

Post by R0b0t1 » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 5:58 PM UTC

hwillis wrote: post #22

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?

greater variety is not a thing that would happen (and incidentally, as an electrical engineer, there's plenty of variety already). The hardware used in semiconductor foundries is all made by the same few companies, which is a major reason everyone gets similar advances at the same time- they're all working with the same tools. The vast majority of variety in product lines comes from who is ordering the chips, not the…

Eventually the tech to create the chips will become more common and people will make their own purpose built chips. Eventually.

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

#66

Post by iooi » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 5:58 PM UTC

tomatowurst wrote: post #52

topspin wrote: post #12

At some point in the next 10 years Taiwan will be surrounded by half a dozen Chinese aircraft carriers[1]. The rest of the world knows that continuing to rely so heavily on Taiwan for crucial components is not viable. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/09/china/china-aircraft-carrier-...

I doubt this. you'd need to continue having a thriving economy, not only that for an aircraft carrier group to be effective you'd need quality fighter jets that can take off with equal or more payload than the US (which does not use a ski ramp for this reason) and compete with it's 5th or 6th generation planes. In addition you would need adequate defense fleet, especially submarines quiet enough and capable of detect…

You're assuming that the US would go to war with China over Taiwan. That's not a given -- by a long shot.

> and start a Russian style sanction

Unlike the Russian sanctions, a broad sanction on the Chinese economy would deeply impact the US economy. It's not a viable strategy.

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

#67

Post by javajosh » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 5:58 PM UTC

alooPotato wrote: post #24

sigstoat wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this effectively means every country needs to manufacture everything. depending on your exact goals, it could be worthwhile to bring a little bit of every node on the graph onshore. you retain critical experience, and have at least some hope of ramping up. getting a bunch of functioning, complicated businesses to expand is way easier than creating them from scratch.

oh that's interesting. You maintain a skeleton crew of an industry as a hedge in case you need to ramp it up....

This is, in fact, why I think its great people still have an interest in low-tech methods for doing and making. In a Carrington Event[0] we will need people with that knowledge. Those without it will be much worse off.

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

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

#68

Post by kurupt213 » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 5:58 PM UTC

dahdum wrote: post #59

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…

> There's a mild expectation that if a Chinese / Taiwan fight were to occur, US Marines might be forced to make landings in the Chinese mainland to destroy Chinese land-based missile forces and even the odds. That sounds remarkably unlikely and irrational. If China touched the US mainland it would mean immediate full-scale war, the opposite should be assumed.

Engaging a US carrier task force would mean immediate full-scale war with the US

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

#69

Post by inetknght » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 5:59 PM UTC

btgeekboy wrote: post #61

mistrial9 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> accumulated a serious underinvestment in capacity says who? the world's rivers and oceans are polluted with micro-plastics and heavy metals from E*Waste, while thirty years of "wild west" profits and dog-eat-dog markets, COMDEX and single-use devices will take 1000 years to degrade in Nature. Calls for "more" to be viewed with earned-suspicion IMO

While I do agree that e-waste is a real problem, it’s not like we can just sit with old tech and say “nah, that’s good enough.” We need both more and better fabs, and better waste handling / recycling.

> it’s not like we can just sit with old tech and say “nah, that’s good enough.”

But, why not?

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

#70

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 5:59 PM UTC

dahdum wrote: post #59

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…

> There's a mild expectation that if a Chinese / Taiwan fight were to occur, US Marines might be forced to make landings in the Chinese mainland to destroy Chinese land-based missile forces and even the odds. That sounds remarkably unlikely and irrational. If China touched the US mainland it would mean immediate full-scale war, the opposite should be assumed.

> sounds remarkably unlikely and irrational. If China touched the US mainland it would mean immediate full-scale war, the opposite should be assumed.

Agree landing marines is aggressive. But missiles strikes should be assumed.

China would be the aggressor. And the things being attacked would be directly militarily relevant. If China retaliated by hitting Guam, I would call that fair play. (Hawai’i, for historical reasons, would be a stupid thing to hit.)