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

701–710 of 1001 posts

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

#701

Post by lupusreal »

throwawayffffas wrote: post #681
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…

> 1. China takes Taiwan quickly. That is extremely unlikely to happen, Taipei has invested a lot in defense, and until lately the public in Taiwan at least says they would fight[1]. It's extremely unlikely that they will fold so fast that the US won't have to get involved or to choose to not get involved. > 3. Taiwan successfully defends itself, repels the Chinese invasion, and possibly even takes back some territory…

Nothing will happen unless China believes they can achieve a swift victory. It may turn out that they believe this, turn out to be wrong, and get themselves stuck in one of the other scenarios. As happened to Russia.

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

#702

Post by hmmm-i-wonder »

billychuck21st wrote: post #604

Those thinking China vs Taiwan is like Russia vs Ukraine is greatly mistaken. The Chinese army after decades of build up is way stronger than Russia's, the enire PLA navy and airforce are built for a war with Taiwan. Ukraine still has Europe, Taiwan only has Japan, and has no border to any other countries. If the US wants to intervene, it must throw in its full weight, like the entire pacific fleet and some more, oth…

Putting on my tinfoil hat here.

One of the reasons Russia and China cooperate is because they also implicitly are supporting each others expansionist (reclaimationist? depending on point of view perhaps) stances, at least those not along shared borders.

The current US administration is suddenly moving towards an expansionist narrative, as well as being supportive of Russian interest in Europe and much less antagonistic to China than it has been previously.

Expecting this US administration to take ANY action opposing China or Russian interests that doesn't oppose its own going forward seems like betting no a dead horse.

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

#703

Post by bloppe »

xxpor wrote: post #682
bloppe wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would China will wait for a decade? They've been very clear about wanting to invade by 2027

They want to be ready to invade by 2027. Very different.

I hope you're right, but I see no reason to be that optimistic.

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

#704

Post by tcmart14 »

throwawayffffas wrote: post #681
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…

> 1. China takes Taiwan quickly. That is extremely unlikely to happen, Taipei has invested a lot in defense, and until lately the public in Taiwan at least says they would fight[1]. It's extremely unlikely that they will fold so fast that the US won't have to get involved or to choose to not get involved. > 3. Taiwan successfully defends itself, repels the Chinese invasion, and possibly even takes back some territory…

I was gonna take some issue with point one until I read point to, which sounds like it addresses my thoughts. China could take Taiwan quickly, but it would come at a pretty high cost to Chinese forces. I personally don't think China is really that invested into conquering Taiwan militarily, the Chinese invasion has been 6-9 months away for 30 years now according to "foreign policy" experts on Chinese-Taiwan relations. You can find books in the 90s predicting an invasion happening the following fall just as you see in today's articles. While the Chinese government is far from benevolent, if you go based on history, its more likely the US invades Taiwan than China. Other than border disputes with India and teaming up with the US to handle Somali pirates, China hasnt really had any real military activity since their failed campaign against Vietnam 40-50 years ago. At least that I know of. Which I would say perhaps backs up one point you may. Chinese forces could be massively weaker than expected. War sucks, but the tiniest benefit you can at least attribute to US interventions is, we do have some real combat experienced folks. China doesn't have any actual combat experience other than the once in a blue moon Chinese and Indian forces pop shots across the border, but no real sustained campaign. But yea, as we have also seen. Regardless of military might, rooting out guerilla forces is the hardest. The Taiwanese government may fall with China installing a military governor, but if the Taiwanese resort to guerilla warfare, it will be hard for Chinese forces to keep total control and stability for a long time.

Just my thoughts though based on my knowledge. If anyone has anything to add, would be glad to read and learn more.

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

#705

Post by JumpCrisscross »

jopsen wrote: post #621
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 histo…

> For the first time in modern history, we may see a system of alliances emerge that credibly counter American economic and military might. During the cold war, there were certainly planners in the west that thought the west would loose a conflict. So maybe not the first time.

Sorry, I should have said post-Cold War. The USSR obviously credibly countered the U.S.

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

#706

Post by jagged-chisel »

skyyler wrote: post #640
smaug7 wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This to me is the correct answer. A lot of times in war it's not about logic or reason, it's about emotion and feeling. Throughout Chinese history, a leader is only "legitimate" or dare I say, have the Mandate from Heaven, when they have unified the country under one banner. It is a stain on their authority that there is "rouge" state outside the CCP's control. They will do anything to unify their country for nationa…

"rouge" means red "rogue" means rascal

Sometimes, we know just the word we want. And we know how to spell it. But we fat-finger it. Or our fingers trip. Or our brains just get the finger-tapping order a bit off.

None of these things requires an education in using the incorrect word. “Irregardless”? Give ‘em what for! Their/there/they’re? A nice reminder. Swapped a couple letters is a plausible explanation? A simple correct spelling followed with a * would suffice.

rogue*

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

#708

Post by Retric »

tdeck wrote: post #674
legitster wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than a rebellious province. It's a more successful rebellious province. For China, they hold up all of these technical accomplishments and quality of life improvements they have made under their one party system. But now over here is Taiwan that never bought in and is doing even better! It undercuts all of their messaging. If the communist party could wave a magic wand, they would take Taiwan and not just…

> they hold up all of these technical accomplishments and quality of life improvements they have made under their one party system. But now over here is Taiwan that never bought in Never bought in to one party rule huh? It seems like people forgot about the 38 years of martial law: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law_in_Taiwan

This isn’t an abstract comparison. CCP mostly overthrew the existing government and Taiwan was a continuation of that existing system. So for that system be quantifiably better is an issue independent of things like elections.

It’s a clear demonstration that failures like the great Chinese famine simply wouldn’t have happened if the communist revolution failed. That’s a significant political issue, because people from that time period are still alive so they can’t simply erase the memory of it.

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

#709

Post by bloppe »

mtrovo wrote: post #694
bloppe wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would China will wait for a decade? They've been very clear about wanting to invade by 2027

If they're sure they can invade whenever they want, does it make sense to do it right now? What would they gain by sending all the good tech and researchers straight to the US? The longer they wait, the more advanced the tech they eventually steal might be. It's the golden goose story, but with a strategic rationale of when to kill the goose.

It's not all about TSMC. The CCP has been very vocal about wanting to conquer Taiwan since long before TSMC even existed.

Also, the longer they wait, the more tech gets transferred to the US, so even if it were all about TSMC, they would still be incentivized to act as soon as possible.

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

#710

Post by skyyler »

jagged-chisel wrote: post #706
skyyler wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"rouge" means red "rogue" means rascal

Sometimes, we know just the word we want. And we know how to spell it. But we fat-finger it. Or our fingers trip. Or our brains just get the finger-tapping order a bit off. None of these things requires an education in using the incorrect word. “Irregardless”? Give ‘em what for! Their/there/they’re? A nice reminder. Swapped a couple letters is a plausible explanation? A simple correct spelling followed with a * would…

Yeah I wasn't trying to be insulting or anything. It's a common mistake and I haven't seen a clever mnemonic for it yet.
Post reply on HN