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

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

#311

Post by underdown » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:33 AM UTC

nomilk wrote: post #198

tyre wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Our continued protection of you is contingent on your investment in us”. Taiwan is hugely reliant on US defense guarantees. The US has a protectionist president who likes big numbers in announcements and a base riled up about American production capacity. Long-term this is bad for Taiwan since it reduces its leverage with the US in administrations with short-term geopolitics (or no real geopolitical talent.) In the…

Is it a given that the US would come to Tawian's defence now (let alone in a few years, when the US is presumably less dependent on Taiwanese chips)? I guess it comes down to how dependent on Taiwan's chips the US actually is (I don't know the answer to that). The US isn't dependent on Ukraine and it's pressuring them to hand over land. If it turns out the US isn't dependent on Taiwan it could show similar indifferen…

Putin already took the land, it’s not an issue of handing over anything.

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

#312

Post by starspangled » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:35 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,

No it isn't.

> But, I think I see where you’re going: the US preemptively destroying Taiwan’s fab capacity…

I'm not going anywhere. China would bomb TSMCs factories itself and spend hundreds of times more on an invasion and subsequent sanctions and costs than it spends on funding its own semiconductor development, if it meant it could control Taiwan. Taiwan's cards are that it is a linchpin for air and naval control of the South and East China seas, and that it is protected from invasion by a hundred miles of water and challenging geography. That's why China wants it. That's the card.

Blow up all TSMC's factories on Taiwan tomorrow and relocate its scientists and engineers and you think China would suddenly drop its ambitions to "reunify" and take control of the island? Since its alleged only card was gone?

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

#313

Post by throwaway48476 » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:37 AM UTC

xuki wrote: post #178

bee_rider wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if they don’t really believe we’d come to defend them regardless of the incentives, at this point. In that case, might as well try to avoid the tariffs. If they send enough engineers over, we won’t actually learn how to make the chips. Then when the next election happens they can re-evaluate. If China invades in the next four years, I guess… I dunno, at least they’ll have gotten some people out. It is a pret…

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?

I assumed deterrence was in place and the chance of a taiwan invasion was quite low. After this week the chance of a taiwan invasion seems quite likely.

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

#314

Post by tnt128 » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:39 AM UTC

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) don’t really need cutting-edge chips, and China has already proven that they don’t need the latest chips to be a significant AI competitor.

From the US’s perspective, if a war with China were to break out now, there are only three possible scenarios: 1. China takes Taiwan quickly. In this case, there would be nothing for US to defend, and the US would have to try to take Taiwan back militarily—unlikely to happen. 2. Stalemate. Taiwanese people fight bravely, and Chinese forces turn out to be weaker than expected. In this case, the US would be in a comfortable position to send aid and weapons to help Taiwan, prolonging the war to weaken China. With some luck, a regime change could happen without firing a shot. 3. Taiwan successfully defends itself, repels the Chinese invasion, and possibly even takes back some territory—an unlikely scenario, but this is the only one where the US would send troops to help defend Taiwan. If the US gets involved at this stage, it secures a sure win, puts a military base on the island, and further cements its role as the protector of taiwan.

If you believe the US will or should only act in its own interest, then its interest is to remain the only superpower. Rushing into a war on foreign turf and losing is the quickest way to cede the Asia-Pacific region to China. So, despite what politicians might have you believe, the US is not going to help defend Taiwan, no matter who is in the White House.

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

#315

Post by gman83 » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:39 AM UTC

yo_yo_yo-yo wrote: post #170

ethbr1 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They only need to make this appear real for 4, maybe 2 years, and can then reevaluate. I'd guess they looked at their options and decided this was the best hedge.

Now that I’ve calmed down a bit, I agree with your assessment. The optics game is so important, but Taiwan is in an impossible situation. If I were China, I would give them relative economic independence if they limit advanced process silicon to other countries and let Huawei and others monopolize the advanced nodes. The US at present does not appear to be a dependable partner.

China broke promises about "One country, two systems" in Hong Kong, so I don't think Taiwan can count on any promises made there either.

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

#316

Post by LPisGood » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:41 AM UTC

safety1st wrote: post #278

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…

Might have been worth reading if you hadn't kicked it off with an ad hominem. Bye!

It’s still worth reading if you can look past it. The comment refutes your comment totally and in good detail.

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

#317

Post by upbeat_general » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:41 AM UTC

bee_rider wrote: post #309

jopsen wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not a war crime, China has plenty of agriculture.

See the Cuban missile crisis. It is an act of war but certainly not as escalatory as direct attack.

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

#318

Post by willvarfar » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:42 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.

The US cannot realistically technically stop missiles raining down on the fabs on Taiwan should China decide to do that.

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

#319

Post by frankacter » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:42 AM UTC

puppymaster wrote: post #290

aurareturn wrote: post #127

An ok deal for TSMC, terrible deal for Taiwan. Why? TSMC was likely threatened by Trump to invest in America. TSMC likely didn't want to do this. However, because they will have more fabs in the US, they'll likely avoid the tariffs as part of the deal. Further more, TSMC will still make chips in case of of a China take over. The risk here is that the US will simply confiscate TSMC's fabs if China uses military action…

It's not just the cutting edge node. Arizona chips will still be shipped back to Taiwan because TSMC only do Fan-out PoP packaging there. This will unlikely change for the next 5 factories. This is a good win win for everyone. Trump gets to parrot jobs back in america slogan, TSMC gets some extra money to scale out production to 64% of their revenue customer (US based) and Taiwan gets to keep what is really, really i…

This new deal is 3 factories an two packaging facilities.

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

#320

Post by branko_d » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:43 AM UTC

WillPostForFood wrote: post #264

branko_d wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Globalization for the US was trading industrialization for financialization. Yay for the paper GDP gains, but most citizens got left behind - though they can by cheap imported cloths with their shrinking paychecks. Can't build chips, can't make ships, can't make furniture, can't make clothes, can't make enough weapons to supply Ukraine, let alone for any real war. Globalization hollowed the capacity of the country.

> Can't build chips

True, but that's true for every country, even Taiwan. If ASML (Dutch company), Applied Materials, LAM Research, KLA, Synopsys, Cadence (US companies), Tokyo Electron, Shin-Etcu (Japan) and literally hundreds of other companies didn't cooperate, TSMC couldn't function either. BTW, that's why China can never "take over" TSMC - they can just make it defunct when all these other companies stop doing business with it after the invasion.

Basically, the planet is making chips, not any individual country.

> can't make ships,

I suggest you look-up the Jones Act and its unintended consequences.

And then think why American voters never consider this kind of stuff when voting.

> can't make furniture, can't make clothes,

Fair enough, though this is more a matter of what is economically viable vs. what is possible. There are economic losers, sure. But there are big winners too, most notably in the "tech" industry. It's incumbent on the US to smooth-out the transition for their own citizens, instead of allowing special interests and monopolies to run amok and incumbents to Gerrymander themselves into office.

Ultimately, American voters allowed this to happen, and when they saw the results, they fell for a demagogue.

> can't make enough weapons to supply Ukraine, let alone for any real war.

I hope you are not suggesting Russo-Ukrainian war is "not real". This is almost WW2-level stuff. I suggest you take a look at the photographic evidence of vehicle losses, keeping in mind that the actual losses are likely higher:

Attack On Europe: Documenting Russian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine (main battle tanks: 3786, total: 20577) https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...

Attack On Europe: Documenting Ukrainian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine (main battle tanks: 1092, total: 7965) https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...