The USA is also willing to defend Taiwan and currently the US has carrier groups in the south China sea. This suggests that the idea of building chips in the US may be a diplomatic courtesy and arguably an incentive.
replies(7):
Personally, I think we're at the point where the US would consider the costs of Taiwan's defense well beyond any potential benefits. It's too economically integrated with China, and the sheer number of bodies it would take aren't worth the moral victory.
Hong Kong is the writing on the wall. China wishes to restore integrity to what it regards as its territory.
TSMC must open facilities in the west because its Taiwan facilities are too dangerous to leave in enemy hands. It has to invest in capital outside of any potential conflict zone if it plans to exists over the long-term as a profit-making entity.
Is it worth a war that can last many years? By the end of the war, what if US doesn’t need TSMC technology and the tides are reversed?
I’m not conjecturing, I’m shedding light on how much we are willing to risk now vs a few years later. It could also be that Intel fabs fall further behind and TSMC becomes 10x more important than now. Who knows!!!
Instead of war, invest in domestic technology. It pays back better.
is it though? if you got the biggest gun why not rob someone else? do you believe ethics/empathy/humanity plays any role in any form governance? since we know that if you can sell the idea, you can get away with anything. why not just do the thing you know best? this is not singling out USA or China in any sense, they are just ahead of the curve, flower of the century.
a system optimized for only profit with almost no accountability (externalities) reads like a recipe to transfer of the wealth from many to few. if you add war into equation many becomes many-brown, many-yellow, many-black, many-jewish, many-others basicaly many-we-can-target-and-get-away-with. if you remove borders from the equation you end up seeing yourself on the receiving end as well. yet no-surprisingly few remains always the same.
so, the question is 'it pays back better to whom?'.