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

171–180 of 221 posts

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

#171

Post by squeaky-clean »

thorRay8383 wrote: post #158
55873445216111 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practical terms, the government is just too slow to actually help. They always shoot behind the target. The semiconductor market is cyclical. By the time the CHIPS Act, etc, actually get passed and implemented, the market will already be in oversupply and voters/politicians will complain about government handouts for these companies.

In practical terms the government is intentionally hamstrung to appear incompetent: https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/annual-reports/... With a vote Congress destroys budgets and the narrative is the PO sucks. Government incompetence is private interest driven propaganda

But Congress is part of the government. So it's hamstringing itself. It's the same line of thought when some large dinosaur of a company purchases a startup. "Welp, startup is going to suck in 2 years." It's not the startup's fault, but to the consumer it's still going to suck. It doesn't really matter why.

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

#172

Post by kube-system »

55873445216111 wrote: post #51
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?

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.

Maybe it’s time to implement policies that encourage reserve capacity, as we do with some other critical industries.

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

#173

Post by LAC-Tech »

dirtyid wrote: post #165
LAC-Tech wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really "balls" to not sail an aircraft carrier? Last time it happened was during the Taiwan straight crisis where the PRC fired missiles - which a defector in the PRC told Taiwan had no warheads - deliberately near Taiwanese cities. Why respond with a crisis level military show of force when - thankfully - there's no crisis?

PRC also unofficially communicated missiles drama weeks ahead to TW, so there wasn't any "crisis" either, but US sent 2 carriers as show of force because it could, knowing PRC had no capabilities to counter. Force balance is different now, and for all the US hyping about increased PLAF flights into TW ADIZ or clipping median line last year, basically another crisis brewing, USN still only sent DDGs for strait transit…

None of these issues constitute a crisis nearly as much as '96 - an alternate interpretation is that the PRC is still terrified of a CSG appearing in the strait so they deliberately do not cross US red lines, even when much closer US/Taiwan relations cross theirs.

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

#174

Post by bsder »

dragontamer wrote: post #123
TrevorJ wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear to me that onshoring would be without utility if it's not on the current node. Surely there are vast improvements to security and defense concerns to be had through onshoring even if it's (conservatively) 3 years behind the cutting edge. There's also a good possibility that this would be useful in the market as well if it solves some supply chain issues. Car manufacturers won't need 3nm tech for quite…

USA has plenty of older fabrication labs, and most of our critical technology is probably on 22nm or 40nm nodes (or older). US Military equipment is pretty famously on old nodes / older technology for reliability and supply chain purposes for example. And its probably entirely domestic (Micron, Intel, GloFo). The need for higher-end nodes is almost a "luxury" factor. There's a benefit if the latest iPhones were broug…

> USA has plenty of older fabrication labs

Do we? The current, continuing semiconductor shortage argues otherwise.

I mean, the fact that a "switching regulator" can go out of stock borders on the absurd unless those fabs are busy producing stuff with higher margins.

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

#176

Post by mjevans »

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 suspect that outside of... 'mainland China' (I'll phrase it for clarity) and the island just off the coast of 'mainland China'; the rest of the world really just wants stability in the region and no further conflict. Generally the status quo is OK for the rest of the planet, and the other nations would be happy to call 'mainland China' China and the island off of that recognized as the sovereign nation of 'Taiwan' (or something else other than China, since the name's already taken by a larger military power).

I wonder what it would take to get that to stick until we grow up enough as a species to cease having countries and instead have a united single government like Star Trek.

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

#177

Post by topspin »

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…

> That's because China can launch anti-ship missiles from any Chinese highway to threaten US Carriers.

The Chinese need not resort to mere land batteries. The Chinese have a fleet of well over 200 Xian H-6 strategic bombers to launch whatever anti-ship standoff PGM they can mount to the wings or fuselage. And the new H-6N is aerial refueled.

A few years from now when these are operationally armed with sufficient quantities of supersonic/hypersonic/flocking/maneuvering/whatever anti-ship missiles China will have absolute control of the sea around Taiwan; foreign war ships, cargo ships and anything else that isn't a submarine will be permitted to remain in the area at China's pleasure.

There is a reason that foundries are rapidly being built in the US, Europe, etc.: the shot callers at the top of these semiconductor manufacturers know that one day in the not too distant future Taiwan will be blockaded in China's play to reunify and there is nothing the West can do about it without risking the destruction of capital ships full of propulsion reactors.

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

#178

Post by jdrc »

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.

well. thanks to china not being under lockdown for long there were no shortages of goods.

globalization is a good thing, we shouldn't want to end it. 'when goods don't cross borders, soldiers do' etc

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

#179

Post by omgwtfbyobbq »

dragontamer wrote: post #45
jacobolus wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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's an interesting point.

One on hand, rail/highways are superior to anything ocean-going for transport, and cargo ships are easily taken out and would need extremely effective escorts.

On the other hand, rail/highways are much harder to protect because of their length.

If cargo ships could still reach Taiwan with escorts, I wonder if Taiwan could have enough supplies to deny China access to their rail/highway systems such that it negated their numerical advantages.

Post reply on HN