Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 1001 posts

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

#561

Post by misja111 »

tnt128 wrote: post #314

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…

> In this case, the US would be in a comfortable position to send aid and weapons to help Taiwan,

Trump made clear last year already that in case of a Chinese invasion, the US would not support Taiwan militarily: they would answer with economic sanctions instead.

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

#562

Post by re-thc »

lr4444lr wrote: post #501
3D30497420 wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And also a vibrant democracy, potentially serving as an example (foreign and domestic) that alternative political systems are an option and perhaps even desirable. I have a strong impression there are similarities with Russia and Ukraine. Having a neighbor with a similar culture and overlapping histories that also has independent, democratic government was likely viewed as a direct threat to the Putin regime and one…

1) The USA does not have launchable nuclear weapons in neighboring countries to Taiwan that necessitate a buffer 2) Taiwan does not represent unprotected border territory. Heck, attacking it sustainedly would require significant and slow naval logistics 3) Other than human intellect, there is little in the way of natural resources to obtain out of Taiwan. It's economy is manufscturung and export driven. Other than so…

> 3) Other than human intellect, there is little in the way of natural resources to obtain out of Taiwan. It's economy is manufacturing and export driven.

Why do people keep spreading misinformation?

E.g. Taiwan grows and produces some of the best tea and coffee in the world. High end tea leaves costs more than some stock grants here. China tried for years to replicate it and has some success but definitely still far off.

Taiwan is renown for many things - not just semiconductors. It's just you might not know about it. A lot of your every day life might have something to do with Taiwan.

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

#563

Post by jltsiren »

m000 wrote: post #516
jltsiren wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be assuming that the invasion would happen by surprise. That's effectively impossible due to the scale of the operation. Especially because China is full of foreigners and the logistical effort would be impossible to hide. If China decides to invade, everyone would likely know it weeks in advance. They just could not be sure if it's an actual invasion or a massive military exercise that simulates an invas…

What would make carrier strike groups effective in the situation? Given their recent record in the defense of Israel and against the Yemeni Red Sea blockade, one could argue that their era is over. The two most likely outcomes from a carrier strike group engaging with China forces are either a humiliating retreat, or WW3. I think US are smart enough to keep them at bay. Maybe station one in the area for monitoring th…

You are approaching this from the wrong direction.

Air forces, navies, and drones cannot conquer a country. For that, you need ground forces with plenty of heavy equipment. Which can only cross the sea in slow and vulnerable ships. To stop them, you need long-distance firepower with large enough warheads. A carrier strike group is the least vulnerable way of delivering such firepower.

The job of a carrier strike group would not be defending vulnerable targets, as in Israel or the Red Sea, but destroying them. Its job might not even be engaging the attacking forces. It could be a reserve force beyond the reach of the initial aerial campaign but still close enough to move in when the actual invasion starts. It could even be a force that remains neutral if the actual invasion never comes (unless China attacks it first).

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

#564

Post by LunaSea »

linotype wrote: post #138
WinstonSmith84 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. The US is doing all it can to become irrelevant geopolitically in Europe, that's not to start a war with China with a very uncertain outcome. Economic ties is (was) the really last bastion that would have motivated the US to intervene.

Wild how quickly Europe has just given up on the US after all the money we’ve spent on them for decades. We need your help (a majority of sane Americans), not condemnation. If you don’t think Trump won’t do the same to you, you’re sorely mistaken.

Europe did help in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria and now that Europe needs the US's help, silence.

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

#565

Post by ants_everywhere »

riehwvfbk wrote: post #220
ants_everywhere wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh what? That's not what's happening at all. Russia is basically in control of the US federal government via Trump and Musk, both of whom have widely reported sympathies with Putin's administration and interests. Putin is busting out the US, Soprano's style. Trump has signaled acceptance of the Russian war of aggression and has also signaled that China can invade Taiwan. Russia and China are allies. This is part of C…

Any sources for all this? Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason. It can also simply be a pragmatic decision. The "getting stuffed" thing would be big words from a nearly bankrupt company, don't you think? Intel's investors will take whatever deal that gives them the biggest return on their dollar.

> Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason.

This is what I call the "just let Hitler have Poland" theory.

Is it a good idea? You can't evaluate that without having an understanding of why an independent Ukraine is considered important internationally, what the function and reason of NATO is, what a third world war would realistically look like, what Europe and Asia would look like with an expanded totalitarian Russian empire, what AI-driven done warfare will look like, what the actual (vs merely rhetorical) threat of nuclear arms use is, what will happen with global climate goals if Russia is unopposed (considering Russia considers itself a potential "winner" if climate change intensifies), and what the famine/disease/refugee situation looks like if climate change does intensify.

There are simply too many variables for random internet commenters to have an informed opinion on most of these things. And I would guess that even world leaders with full access to all the classified information can't be certain about most of these questions.

But it does seem to me that an independent Ukraine (with its natural resources intact) is the ultimate Chesterton's Fence right now.

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

#566

Post by re-thc »

drodgers wrote: post #417
tnt128 wrote: post #314

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…

Invading Taiwan will never be an economically rational action. If it happens, it will be because of internal politics, personal/national myth-making etc. Taiwan is ridiculously favourable terrain for the defenders; if they fight back, there can't be quick victory, and the US will be able to play merry hell with China's naval logistics from day 1 (obviously with escalating levels of firepower available over time as mo…

> Taiwan is ridiculously favourable terrain for the defenders; if they fight back, there can't be quick victory

Not true. Just sneakily cut the submarine cables i.e. Internet before the "offical attack".

Most of the comments talk about a blockade, but no need. I doubt a lot of things will function without Internet. There were discussions of Satellite but not confirmed.

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

#567

Post by iwontberude »

tyre wrote: post #550
silvestrov wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with your argument is that in current times it is much more likely that China acts rationally than the US does. A better argument would be that when China has "good enough" chips then they don't care about chip production in Taiwan. They will only care about sea access. So if Taiwan ends up as completely destroyed rock, then that is ok for China. They will see it as a much better result than other parts o…

> They will only care about sea access. This is not why the CCP cares about Taiwan. And they’ve cared quite a lot since before there were semiconductors.

To follow up, Taiwan literally blocks their ability to see and defend against attacks coming from behind the Taiwanese island. It’s about observability and reducing easy beachheads.

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

#568

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

drodgers wrote: post #464
ekianjo wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No need to go on the island to win. Just encircle it. A blockade. Always works and this has been the modus operandi to conquer fortresses and castles for millenia.

The US would respond to with a freedom-of-navigation exercise backed up by the full might of US-PACOM. China would lose that standoff.

In a real shooting war, it would be suicidal for the US navy to go anywhere near Taiwan (at least early on in the war).

China's arsenal of standoff weapons is orders of magnitude more potent than it was during the last Taiwan Straits Crisis.

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

#569

Post by abirch »

re-thc wrote: post #566
drodgers wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Invading Taiwan will never be an economically rational action. If it happens, it will be because of internal politics, personal/national myth-making etc. Taiwan is ridiculously favourable terrain for the defenders; if they fight back, there can't be quick victory, and the US will be able to play merry hell with China's naval logistics from day 1 (obviously with escalating levels of firepower available over time as mo…

> Taiwan is ridiculously favourable terrain for the defenders; if they fight back, there can't be quick victory Not true. Just sneakily cut the submarine cables i.e. Internet before the "offical attack". Most of the comments talk about a blockade, but no need. I doubt a lot of things will function without Internet. There were discussions of Satellite but not confirmed.

I'm unsure of how many internet services Taiwan relies on outside of Taiwan? If the servers are on the island, my understanding is that they'll be fine. Unfortunately they won't be able to access Hacker News, but they should be able to bank, buy groceries, etc.

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

#570

Post by sras-me »

seunosewa wrote: post #507
UltraSane wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump's extreme unpredictability might actually be a advantage in this scenario.

He has been predictable in his handling of Ukraine and Israel. He favours the aggressors. He's also predictable in isolationism and wanting manufacturing moved back to America. None of this bodes well for Taiwan.

> He favours the aggressors.

What is your response to this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD_KEFpuIro

Transcript here: https://singjupost.com/transcript-jeffrey-sachs-on-the-geopo...

>What was Putin’s intention in the war? I can tell you what his intention was. It was to force Zelensky to negotiate neutrality. And that happened within seven days of the start of the invasion. You should understand this, not the propaganda that’s written about this.

>Oh, that they failed and he was going to take over Ukraine. Come on, ladies and gentlemen. Understand something basic. The idea was to keep NATO. And what is NATO?

>It’s the United States off of Russia’s border. No more, no less. I should add one very important point. Why are they so interested? First, because if China or Russia decided to have a military base on the Rio Grande or in the Canadian border, not only would the United States freak out, we’d have war within about ten minutes.

Post reply on HN