TSMC looks to double down on U.S. chip factories as talks in Europe falter

its always interesting to read the comments on HN regarding China/Taiwan situation. Chinese invasion (Taiwan) threat is always there. It didn't stop when Nixon visit China and it didn't stop when American abandoned Taiwan to have a business relationship with China for more than 40 years.

the threat is so old now. there are some running jokes in Taiwan like "China threatening to invade Taiwan since my grandpa is alive then my father. I hope I get to see it before I die". a lot of Taiwanese already numb to the threat.

did South Korea stop everything whenever North Korea did a Nuke test?

American can throw ton of money into the semis industry like China big fund. maybe throw money at Intel, free money to companies like TSMC or Samsung to setup more fabs in the US or throw money at a home grown semis foundry?

I am generally on the 'wrong' side of these conversations on HN, but...

> did South Korea stop everything whenever North Korea did a Nuke test?

I believe the two threats are not remotely equivalent. In a world of MAD, nuclear weapons are only a credible defensive deterrent, because offensive use of them is suicide. The US would start a nuclear war, in response to a North Korean first-strike.

Whereas with respect to China and Taiwan, nobody, including the US is going to start a nuclear war over that aggression, and nobody, including the US is going to start a conventional war against a major nuclear power.

If you have any doubts on this - consider that you are alive to read this post... Because the US did not start either a nuclear, or a conventional-with-good-possibility-of-turning-nuclear war over Russian adventures in Crimea.

In real life, people sometimes commit suicide in what's called "suicide by cop", they attack police so the police kill them.

The idea that we or China can't have a commander in chief who commits suicide by war, or otherwise behaves irresponsibly and takes the rest of us with them, strikes me as a tad optimistic.

China is more able and likely to 'take over Taiwan' since probably any point in history. It's a stated strategic objective and there's no reason to think it won't happen.

You could say the same for the US. What checks and balances are going to protect you from a mentally unstable, delusional president who lost an election months ago, is about to be removed from power, and just this morning decided to play a game of nuclear football?

What evidence do you have that similar checks do not exist in China?

It's also worth mentioning that any nuclear submarine commander in the UK can, at any time, order the launch of their submarine's ICBMs. They do not physically require any authentication from Westminster to launch. I'm assuming the same is the case for US, and Russian submarines.

The constant "invasion, invasion, invasion" whenever Taiwan is mentioned somewhere on the internet also plays into China's hand.

Why throw money at intel? Throw it at TSMC and in an emergency you’ll be able to nationalize domestic production. TSMC has more to lose if they displease America and there’s a non trivial concern about supply chains sourced outside the US for highly secure use by banks and government agencies. XRaying AI tech for incoming boards and stuff being a thing is indicative of the problem. With the most sensitive data any variance can indicate a back door that would be nearly impossible to detect. This isn’t science fiction, and there are more nation states and groups involved than just a single government. By making an American sourced vertical production capability we can essentially “license” a more plausibly secure and auditable by your own courts and investigative forces for supply chain security. They shouldn’t prop up inefficient domestic manufacturers when they can in source the capital assets which is 99% of the value in a supply chain. The ability to execute the supply chain is likely embedded in the production facilities and in a legit emergency can be cut off from a foreign owner at any time by a stroke of the pen, and in an emergency it would be with congressional support. It’s a brilliantly smart move and a refreshing shift to actual geopolitical chess.

You misunderstand me, I didn't say a U.S. president was less likely to kill us all.

Old threats are always renewed by fresh, belligerent leaders.

President (or Emperor-for-life?) Xi firmly believes in expansionism - though he rephrases this as redressal of past grievances and righting of past wrongs. He has clearly said multiple times that Taiwan is intrinsically part of China and no one can change this. He has also un-equivocally stated that the use of force will not be ruled out.

The threat of China fully annexing Taiwan is a real and present danger today. It doesn't need to be done by open military invasion though. Just by consistently applying pressure over a period of time until the government and citizenry is completely dominated by the CCP. Individuals who protest are frequently 'disappeared'.

When individuals can be eliminated and families suppressed and the elected government helpless to assist, the whole nation eventually kneels to the conqueror. Death by a Thousand Cuts is a valid strategy. No shots need be fired.

The chilling implication behind some Taiwanese downplaying the threat is that they think it'll be relatively bloodless. That is, they plan to surrender once China feels comfortable enough about its naval balance against the US to pull the trigger. Taiwan under new management doesn't affect their retirement. The king is dead, long live the king. After all, its their lives they'll be needlessly throwing away if America doesn't come through with an overwhelming navy.

> The US would start a nuclear war, in response to a North Korean first-strike.

US will possibly do a limited retaliation, but not a full scale war.

Norko is effectively China's 24th province. US generals are not onblivious to that fact.

The cause for recent concern is that China is close to credibly "winning" the next Taiwan straight crises in almost all scenarios. Unlike Berlin in the cold war, there isn't a convincing trigger for MAD and it may become impractical for the US Navy to maintain the status quo.

The massive expansion of the chinese military is recent.

So what? Taiwan being annexed by China sounds quite terrible for the Taiwanese, but the US does lots of business with China, continued to during the Hong Kong crisis and would continue to if there was a Taiwan crisis, so it's not like these chip fabs, TSMC or the business relationship would be that much at risk. The show would go on, which is probably why the US doesn't fear investment into TSMC.

The US sent an Aircraft Carrier battle group to the region because of these tensions: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-usa/u-s-car... (Jan 24, 2021)

A single US aircraft carrier is accompanied by a strike force of (IIRC) dozens of other ships, one or more submarines, anti-ship cruisers, anti-aircraft cruisers, and anti-submarine cruisers, logistics, etc. They carry a large number of aircraft and those aircraft have considerable strike capabilities, including the ability to attack enemy craft and ships from over the horizon; same with the ships. It's also worth remembering the large (permanent) US military presence in Japan, South Korea, Guam, and other nearby locations. Guam has been described as a permanently located US aircraft carrier combined with a military base.

I'm not an expert on Asian relations, tensions, or the military situation. I feel disappointed Obama's attempt to set up a trade block was nuked by the republicans for apparent partisans reasons. Now China is leading the same. That doesn't mean the US will allow China's expansionism to go unchecked. Part of US's activities in the region are to explicitly violate China's new claims of "sovereignty" around the islands they're building to expand their territory by sailing through those areas and flying planes over, and essentially daring China to do something about it. "We don't respect your claims at expanded borders."

Biden is clearly taking the threat seriously. FTA above:

> Biden’s nominee for secretary of state, Antony Blinken, told his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday there was “no doubt” China posed the most significant challenge to the United States of any nation.

I haven't studied China's military strength but I doubt it could contest the US in a traditional modern conflict. In a ground war maybe, but when we're talking navy and air power, the US likely has a substantial lead. And the US's goal would not be to invade China (at least not its mainland or traditionally recognized sovereign territories but simply to contain; though I could potentially see bombing or invading the islands that China is building in the ocean if there was some compelling reason for this.)

I personally am not well informed enough on the issue to understand why it's so sensitive that they want to build some islands in the sea near their mainland; perhaps the US simply wants countries to stick to their existing borders and not attempt expansionism like took place in decades and centuries past. Or perhaps it's as simple as the US doesn't want to accept countries expanding their territory and territorial waters by building islands in the ocean -- where would it stop?

China officially has a policy of "no nuclear first-strike" (which is not a policy US has adopted), but I can't imagine the US using nuclear weapons in this day and age, even in a conflict with another nuclear superpower (unless they were invading our mainland), so military action if it occurs is likely to take the form (I hypothesize) of skirmishes between ships and airplanes -- not necessarily fighting but flying really close, or playing chicken, that sort of thing; similar to what's been going on with Russian planes (whether both sides accuse the other of being reckless). Possibly with occasional shots fired by one side or the other before commanders on both sides order the troops to back off, because no one wants open war.

In the meantime it looks like the US is allowing China to build the islands but is refusing to recognize the new territory as sovereign land/waters, by sailing through it, flying over it, etc. Similar to the US's position on Iran and the Straight of Hormuz: it's international waters and Iran has no right to stop ships from sailing through it. The US demonstrates and enforces this by sailing its own ships through regularly and daring anyone to stop them.

The question may come down to whether China is willing to use military force to enforce its claims about sovereignty of the territory. That would be a massive step for them to take. China only has 2 aircraft carriers in service and it's unlikely their warplanes would be a match for the combination of all of the US's latest technology. China does have modern 5th generation stealth aircraft but I'm skeptical they could maintain air superiority against the entirety of US assets.

Like a law that's never been tested in court, we won't know how the militaries actually match up unless they go to battle.

Most of Europe doesn't have the will to defend themselves even in invasion, either:

https://brilliantmaps.com/europe-fight-war/

But that's how it is since the end of WWII. Major nations, or at least wealthy ones, don't go to open war with each other anymore. American hegemony and the NATO alliance structure, as well as the nuclear umbrella, has sapped the will to fight from most of the developed world, outside of brushfire conflicts. Taiwan is not a major nation, but it was an economic power, and at least has very comfortable first world living conditions. In such a situation, why would the population want to throw it all away?

Though on the other hand, why would the PRC, with its burgeoning middle classes and its coastal opulence, want to do something as destabilizing as to declare war, unprovoked? At the very least they'd face sanctions and diplomatic disapproval. The military build-up is concerning and should be taken seriously. But those who would assume that China would just cavalierly declare war in the near future should consider how much China would lose in the bargain.

I'd say the US is only partially sensitive to those islands in the south China sea in how they impact maritime navigation for their navy. Key to understanding the SCS dispute is that in comes in two parts. One is who the islands, the actual land, belongs to. Second is how the land impacts maritime rights over the surrounding waters in terms of control over navigation and natural resources. The US has taken no explicit position on the land and only defends a subset of maritime rights useful to itself. It has supported none of the land claims of the other parties, hasn't pledged support to defend the islands of the Philippines, arguably it's closest historical ally in the dispute, it hasn't done anything to stop China's island construction or seize them before they were fortified, and it hasn't done anything to protect local fishermen from being pushed out of fishing grounds by the Chinese coast guard. The only thing the US has done is maintain its right to sail its navy wherever it chooses and dare all the countries in the region, not just China, to stop them. Arguably these half-hearted exercises and the US's refusal to take a side in the territory dispute is why a lot of other countries in the region are lukewarm about aggressively staking their claims. The US is fighting for a narrow set of interests that benefits itself but will not fight for the interests of other claimants that have no direct benefits to the US Navy. If the Philippines decides to build an airstrip on one of their islands and China starts intercepting their construction crews or even goes as far as amphibious landings the Philippines has little faith that the US won't just frame this as a problem they instigated themselves.

>The threat of China fully annexing Taiwan is a real and present danger today

its always there. what do you do when you have a bully for neighbor? you arm up. what's what Taiwanese govrt have been doing.

Taiwan invested in F16-v, build its own submarines and keep developing its own missile.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2020/12/02/taiwan-is-b...