591–600 of 1001 posts
You know, the one that the Trump team cut to shreds?
This feels like it's all TV. Trump is doing what he's great at: slapping his name on work other people did in order to steal credit.
The idea that the US protects Taiwan from a possible Chinese invasion over chips is one of those things that sounds believable but really isn't going to happen. From China’s perspective, the cost of war is much higher than the cost of developing these chips themselves. In the worst-case scenario, they would be 2-3 years behind the cutting edge, which is not mission-critical. Most electronics (civilian or military) do…
It is hard to drill this in the mind of people who grew up under stable governments, but dictators have this terrible habit of sacrificing prosperity to gain control (often sacrificing the former without gaining the later). Being a dictator and surrounded by yes-man, they also tend to act less rationally and less predictably than your average democratic leader. History is full of kings who started terrible wars and g…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Current administration is fast tracking nuclear prolifiacian. This is correct. Gone are the days when countries could count on the US to provide some protection against illegal invasions. All nations without nukes have to be considering them seriously now. Sure, they signed the NPT. But agreements no longer mean what they used to. Russia violates most of the agreements it signs. US already trashed the Budapest memo…
>US already trashed the Budapest memorandum that it signed in 1996. We were supposed to provide security to Ukraine in exchange for them giving up nukes. This is a common misconception. If you read the memorandum (it's rather short) you'll see it isn't true. We only promised to seek UN Security Council action. We went far beyond that. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P...
It’s also a common misconception that NATO article 5th means immediate military action by rest of the alliance. It actually says that an armed attack against one shall be considered an attack against all, but crucially, the assistance provided is “what each of them deems necessary”
With the current administration I’m not convinced the US assistance that it’d “deem necessary” would amount to anything more than a call to Vladimir Putin to see how best to help him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not being snarky here, but what is the benefit of a chip fab in Arizona, thousands of miles from the assembly lines where the chips will be used? I get why it would be important for niche (e.g. defense) applications, but is TSMC scale really needed?
The equipment in chip fabs is highly sensitive to weather and natural disasters. So sites like Arizona, Austin, Oregon are chosen due to low prevalence of earthquakes no hurricanes etc. The fabs anyways don’t ship chips to the devices they go into, they do to a separate site where they get tested, packaged and then are sent off. The reason to onshore this is not about scale but process capability and adding security…
I see, but I think you are still skipping the major point that the chips need to be installed in a device to be useful. That device assembly is largely in Asia, and the US does not have the ready capacity to suddenly start assembling devices.
> not about scale but process capability and adding security to supply chain in case Taiwan gets in a conflict
> Samsung and Intel could run a similar fab but their yields, efficiency and process development
If we don't need scale, then why couldn't Intel just produce the chips inefficiently in case of conflict? Or if this is about protecting the supply chain for consumer goods as well, then I am back to my initial question about siting chip production far from the places the chips are installed into devices.
Trump involuntarily did more for Taiwan / mainland unification in one meeting with Zelensky than in all the years prior. Taiwanese now understand that they can't trust US to step up to their security commitments. If US won't do it for Europeans being savagely attacked by aggressive neighbors, they won't do it for Taiwanese being blockaded by mainland. At that point Taiwan tariffs and China tariffs will be the same. T…
The difference is that China is on Trump's enemy list, whereas he considers Russia's oligarchs to be potential business partners for his own oligarchy. Trump wants trade barriers to China but wants those with Russia to be removed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is hard to drill this in the mind of people who grew up under stable governments, but dictators have this terrible habit of sacrificing prosperity to gain control (often sacrificing the former without gaining the later). Being a dictator and surrounded by yes-man, they also tend to act less rationally and less predictably than your average democratic leader. History is full of kings who started terrible wars and g…
[flagged]
Roughly 100 miles of open ocean separates the Chinese mainland from Taiwan. It may as well be 10,000 miles. The difference is the same. That is an absolutely uncrossable gap for the Chinese military. Taiwan has a standing army of 150K+ and a million+ reservists. I've seen estimates that China would need to land half a million troops to invade and occupy Taiwan, minimum. China simply does not have that amphibious capability.
Beyond the direct military capability, you need supply lines. The logistical effort is so easily disrupted.
On a clear day, you can see the white cliffs of Dover from Calais in France yet for 5+ years the German Army, being millions strong, was completley incapable of crossing that gap of roughly 17 miles. It took the Allies years to muster the logistics necessary to invade Europe and it really took bad strategy by the Germans to allow that to happen (eg the whole Fortress Europa effort was silly and a complete waste of manpower). A wide enough river is sufficient barrier to stop even a modern army.
Could China lob missiles at Taiwan? Sure, but to what end? Could they institute a naval blockade of Taiwan? Absolutely. But again, to what end? The American State Department will tell you it's because China is the Big Bad, the USSR 2.0. But just like with the USSRIt's worth adding that the official policy of the US government is the One China policy [1]. The US isn't actually interested in an independent Taiwan.
So let's stop talking aobut invading Taiwan like it's a thing that's going to happen.
What I suspect TSMC is doing here is hedging against a tarde war, diversifying their production and ingratiating itself with the US for when things like chip fabs become a sufficient national security interest that the US actually wants domestic supply and/or starts restricting what can be exported to Taiwan.
[1]: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/understanding-the-one-chi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> After 3 years With the current administration, perhaps 3 days?
Just a reminder that the current administration just removed the "we don't recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation" from the official state policy.
Here is the exact quote:
> The [US State] department's fact sheet on Taiwan-US relations earlier included the phrase "we do not support Taiwan independence" - this was removed last week as part of what it said was a "routine" update.Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is hard to drill this in the mind of people who grew up under stable governments, but dictators have this terrible habit of sacrificing prosperity to gain control (often sacrificing the former without gaining the later). Being a dictator and surrounded by yes-man, they also tend to act less rationally and less predictably than your average democratic leader. History is full of kings who started terrible wars and g…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is hard to drill this in the mind of people who grew up under stable governments, but dictators have this terrible habit of sacrificing prosperity to gain control (often sacrificing the former without gaining the later). Being a dictator and surrounded by yes-man, they also tend to act less rationally and less predictably than your average democratic leader. History is full of kings who started terrible wars and g…
[flagged]