TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S. • Hacker News Board

Re: TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S.

#301

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:19 AM UTC

Shank wrote: post #215

dataflow wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Taiwan is hugely reliant on US defense guarantees. What I don't get is, in what universe is any US president going to engage militarily against China across the ocean, let alone the current one? The US population does not seem ecstatic to enter something that could turn into WWIII, which makes me feel that even a president in favor of this would quickly fail to do anything.

> What I don't get is, in what universe is any US president going to engage militarily against China across the ocean The whole premise of TSMC is that losing TSMC would cause such a global economic collapse that defending Taiwan is the only option to prevent this from happening. All high-performance computing is dependent on TSMC right now.

> whole premise of TSMC is that losing TSMC would cause such a global economic collapse that defending Taiwan is the only option to prevent this

This never works. The security through economy pitch. It has never, ever worked.

America was a reliable security guarantor. We promised to protect and had honour. Honour isn’t in the American cultural vocabulary anymore. So the guarantees are proven useless and everyone has to scramble back into realpolitik.

Re: TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S.

#302

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:20 AM UTC

somenameforme wrote: post #280

jopsen wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I don't get is, in what universe is any US president going to engage militarily against China across the ocean, let alone the current one? A managed escalation would blockade China, or at least ensure the rest of the free world never trades with China again. Similarly, a local conflict could ensure chip facilities in Taiwan aren't surrendered intact. The US doesn't have to win a hot conflict. Just start a cold…

I don't think this is quite how it would work. Taiwan isn't even remotely close to self sufficient on many critical things including food and energy. This means they are extremely vulnerable to a naval blockade, with no realistic means of combating it. And breaking such a blockade would probably be impossible. It's not just that they're a tiny little island right off the coast of China, but the geography of the islan…

> Taiwan isn't even remotely close to self sufficient on many critical things including food and energy. This means they are extremely vulnerable to a naval blockade

As is China in respect of energy.

Beijing knows this. But the timeline on which they become energy self sufficient unfortunately meshes poorly with their military demographics. Of course now, they have former American allies from which to recruit manpower if necessary.

Re: TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S.

#303

Post by ashoeafoot » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:21 AM UTC

silverquiet wrote: post #91

bilbo0s wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect there are not many outside your own acquaintances willing to have their children drafted to defend Taiwan. Just being realistic. Americans were committed to these things because leadership committed us to these things and would make it illegal for us to get out of it. Given an actual choice, not many Americans would have willingly gone to, say, Vietnam. Maybe a few brainwashed anti-communists, but the avera…

> Some folks are born made to wave the flag - Hoo, they're red, white and blue. And when the band plays "Hail to the chief", Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord After seeing people convinced to send their children to the Middle East for more nebulous reasons, I wouldn't be surprised if a significant portion of the country can be found willing.

They will be once they land.

Re: TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S.

#304

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:21 AM UTC

starspangled wrote: post #262

yo_yo_yo-yo wrote: post #121

I cannot even begin to imagine what madness has infected the Taiwanese government to allow this. I feel so sorry for a great, entrepreneurial people. US tariffs will not matter when you are blockaded and Chester Nimitz is very much dead. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43123628

TSMC factories on Taiwan are small fry in the scheme of things and won't really move the needle much, in terms of strategy. Samsung and Intel are pretty comparable in manufacturing capability, within a couple of years really. And most chips you find in cars and ships and missiles and satellites and jets aren't leading-edge either. China is terrified of their access to the sea being blockaded. They'd gladly give up TS…

> TSMC factories on Taiwan are small fry in the scheme of things and won't really move the needle much

We’re in an era of personal politics. Taipei should be angling for prioritising indigenous, cutting-edge chip production to Musk’s xAI.

Re: TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S.

#305

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:23 AM UTC

raincole wrote: post #270

jopsen wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we face the reality: Taiwan is a vassal state. The decision makers are simply owned by the US. The thing about US "vassel" states is they don't have to do what the US says. And sometimes won't! It's a classic Russian talking point that Ukraine has no agency. You're making the same argument for Taiwan. Taiwan doesn't have to accept a US deal they don't like. They could build nukes. They could opt to do nothing an…

> The thing about US "vassel" states is they don't have to do what the US says. And sometimes won't! Yes, and then the US will force its way. It's quite funny that you even mentioned nukes. Taiwan did attempt to build nukes and the US destroyed the project. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/01/asia/taiwan-cia-informant...

> Taiwan did attempt to build nukes and the US destroyed the project

We “destroyed” it inasmuch as we said we won’t be friends if you do this. We didn’t threaten to invade.

America has resisted geopolitical balancing to date because we resisted the temptation of realpolitik. America’s allies are, on average, richer and more peaceful than her enemies. That’s now beginning to change. For the first time in modern history, we may see a system of alliances emerge that credibly counter American economic and military might.

Re: TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S.

#306

Post by no_wizard » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:23 AM UTC

branko_d wrote: post #217

safety1st wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now is a very interesting moment in that the future is crystal clear and yet so many people of all persuasions don't want to accept it for so many different reasons * The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world, and ultimately renege on many of its security guarantees, with the underlying reason being that it can no longer afford to be world police and pay fo…

This assumes USA was taken advantage of by globalization, which is not actually the case - USA benefitted disproportionally from it. USA's GDP growth is substantially based on the consumers (~70% compared to ~50% in the EU and other comparable countries), and that wouldn't have been possible if they could only consume what was produced in the USA. But there were losers, mainly in manufacturing, and USA didn't assist…

There’s a saying attributed (though may not actually be) to Winston Churchill

Americans will always do the right after they do everything else first

It seems accurate to our national history, in broad strokes at least

Re: TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S.

#307

Post by throwaway48476 » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:26 AM UTC

deagle50 wrote: post #288

justahuman74 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A vast nuclear weapons program is cheaper than $100b

It would not go unnoticed and would pretty much guarantee invasion.

Sweden built a bomb in secret. Invasion planning would not go unnoticed either.

Re: TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S.

#308

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:27 AM UTC

yo_yo_yo-yo wrote: post #300

starspangled wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I don't, and anyway US-aligned semiconductor design and fabrication is still superior to Chinese if TSMC did not exist.

TSMC is the only card Taiwan has, hence your argument doesn’t hold water. But, I think I see where you’re going: the US preemptively destroying Taiwan’s fab capacity…

> TSMC is the only card Taiwan has

In the way Ukraine’s only card is its mineral wealth, sure.

Taiwan is the Belgium of the American security system. If our guarantees are useless there, they’re useless everywhere and new global security guarantors are needed. If Taiwan falls, moreover, China has unconstrained access to the Pacific. That brings the next conflict closer to American shores. It also threatens American naval power globally given our reliance on Korean and Japanese shipyards.

Re: TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S.

#309

Post by bee_rider » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:29 AM UTC

jopsen wrote: post #266

xuki wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US will NOT engage in a hot war against China for Taiwan, that's for certain, regardless of who is president at that time. Why would they risk nuclear war for a bunch of people who are really far away from the US continent?

You don't risk nuclear war by shooting a few conventional missiles and establishing a blockade. (A) China would suffer intensely under a blockade. (B) A few missiles could ensure chip facilities are surrendered intact. (C) Even a short conflict where a few missiles hits boats invading Taiwan would ensure the rest of the world never trades with China. Point being: The US doesn't have to win, don't have to fight with e…

I think establishing a blockade is generally considered an act of war. Possibly a war crime if the intent is to starve civilians? (Not sure, this is way outside my wheelhouse). I’d expect it to be about as escalatory as using US ships to attack the mainland, more or less.

Re: TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S.

#310

Post by safety1st » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:31 AM UTC

827a wrote: post #293

dragonwriter wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right now is a very interesting moment in that the future is crystal clear and yet so many people of all persuasions don't want to accept it for so many different reasons Anyone who thinks the future is crystal clear is an extremely arrogant, and the narrative you present is inconsistent in ways which show an extremely poor understanding of the way international economics works. > The USA is going to claw back what…

Couple notes: 1. I don't like the characterization of "go it alone" because it obviously implies adherence to some kind of extreme that simply isn't represented in reality. No one is shutting down the ports and firing ambassadors; if it were possible to quantify these things (it isn't), reducing global power projection from 100% to 80% is not "going it alone". 2. The true form of "economic largesse" the US has given…

Regarding your #2, yes you're right; the cost of playing world police was at the top of my mind when I wrote that.

The other equally important thing in my mind which seems to get a bit less popular attention is trade balances. There are certain countries the US is engaged with where A) the US puts very low tariffs on them and they do not reciprocate; meanwhile B) the US provides some form of economic assistance to them whether it may be through military support, contribution to NGOs etc.

Those specific relationships I think the US can and will eviscerate or at least play serious hardball when it renegotiates, because what is it gaining today? Do you want a CIA listening post in northern Thailand or do you want to home-shore production of some of the things you've been buying from them, creating some working class jobs along the way? The US is not a one party state so its direction on these questions may be unclear for a while, but I think I know how Trump, Gabbard, Rubio etc. will answer that question as the working class very much put them in office (and there are plenty of Democrats who would be sympathetic to this approach too -- they just seem to get sidelined by their party leadership a lot).