Concentrating geopolitical risk of TSMC operations makes Taiwan more important to the rest of the world. The US would naturally want to reduce this risk. In Taiwan-China conflict world chip production would take a huge hit or be in the danger of falling under Chinese rule.
If TSMC's leadership is patriotic, they should refuse this pressure as much as they can and ask more weapons for Taiwan instead.
The Taiwanese government owns 6% of TSMC, and all the leadership is based in Taiwan so I would imagine they'd prefer to not endanger their family and friends.
Wouldn't it also be an incentive for war if a country is a) mostly independent because it produces a lot of technology domestically b) the next-in-line for supplying the tech to the world if the current main supplier disappears?
I've heard a rumour too that there's a safe in each of their fabs containing enough explosives and instructions on how to scuttle the fab in case of invasion.
This would not surprise me, especially considering just how little you would need to catastrophically disable one of these factories. That said, I don't think this is a very practicable angle to worry about, since it's not just the factory you need to make the products. It's also the people, experience, and massive logistical octopus the factory is hooked into that makes it able to produce these incredibly valuable products. One minor deviation in a supply chain (i.e. a vendor switch) can mean millions of dollars in scrapped wafers. Just having the factory and its tools doesn't mean anything for an invader. It would simply become the most expensive waste of space on the planet.
Be careful for what you wish for. Taiwan’s formal name is Republic of China, the older generations does not exactly share the younger generations wish of independence. In fact, they are often patriotic .. to China.
They are not patriotic to the mainland government. There are few people in Taiwan that want reunification. Both greens and blues want to maintain autonomy, it's just the level to which they want it that differs.
Patriotic to "China," yes, but those in ROC who believe in "one China" in general don't support the PRC. There is some talk of reunification but even among the pan-Blue, it is generally assumed that reunification would only be possible if the communist party in PRC collapsed.
Even older generations do not support reunification, at least in any specific sense, if I understand correctly.
What Washington should be doing is investing in creating a US-based top-notch semiconductor foundry business. And that's something that takes 20+ years.
> What Washington should be doing is investing in creating a US-based top-notch semiconductor foundry business. And that's something that takes 20+ years.
That would require leadership and vision. Unfortunately, too many American politicians would prefer to use any money available for that to instead cut taxes yet again.
I agree with your statement up until you point your finger at tax cuts. Tax Revenues are at an all-time high BECAUSE of the tax cuts. Look it up before making erroneous statements.
There's Intel today but, also, presumably this could be done with GloFo? They were in the midst of research into 7nm processes but stopped due to competition. Feels like investment there could work faster than 20+ yrs.
And ON Semiconductor bought Global Foundries' Fab 10 (formerly IBM) in East Fishkill.
Sematech was the last US government effort to improve US competitiveness in semiconductors. It's still around but isn't a US government initiative any longer.
Trying to be careful what I wish for (and probably failing), at this point electronics are such an integral part of Defense that some of the money spent on aerospace really should be diverted to insuring domestic capacity for electronics and computers.
But as several other people pointed out, and several political luminaries from the past have also pointed out, a global supply chain reduces the threat of war. Either goods cross borders or soldiers do.
Absolutely. NSA has its own fab to guarantee security and ensure secrecy. No reason why we can’t have a corporation that pushes semiconductor tech forward.
Apple's A chips were, once upon a time, manufactured by Samsung in Austin, Texas until 14nm in 2015. Tim Apple switched to TSMC in Taiwan shortly after defending Apple's outsourcing practices in a rare national TV appearance, boldly claiming that "the engines of iPads and iPhones are made in US."
Tesla's chips are made in Samsung's Austin, Texas plant.
I believe Apple use TSMC, whilst Tesla use Samsung for their customs. So, outsourcing. I haven't heard of either going into the silicon business recently.
DoD's having a crisis with its trusted Foundry Program [1][2].
Originally, IBM's East-Fishkill plant was the largest trusted-foundry of near latest generations (14nm, 22nm) but that was sold off to Global-Foundries, which then sold it off to ON Semiconductor. Now it needs someone to fab the latest generation with a full chain-of-trust.
ON is at least a US owned company. Should make it easier to maintain the trusted foundry there, as they have several other sites which are accredited. According to their marketing material, they are licensing the GF/IBM 45nm/65nm nodes.
security risks aside, andy grove of intel publicly regretted offshoring semiconductor manufacturing because of his suspicions about generational shifts in innovation and expertise
I've tried to read econ papers on colocation of innovation and manufacturing -- they're mostly long-winded and unconvincing but the concept is compelling
Dan Wang explores this idea in 'How Technology Grows' [0]. To summarize, he asserts that the main downside of offshoring is the loss of process knowledge (the tacit knowledge that is learned by doing and transmitted through culture).
> I've tried to read econ papers on colocation of innovation and manufacturing -- they're mostly long-winded and unconvincing but the concept is compelling
aside from the basic claim that large factories are doing some amount of R&D on-site, this read like nonsense to me. Could be my lack of depth in industrial organization / economics.
maybe also search 'industrial clustering' or 'innovation clusters'
Couldn't this have the opposite effect from what is intended? If all the US military TSMC chips come from a separate facility from those for Huawei, etc... then there's only one, big, target with minimal collateral damage.
No. If you're already at the point of China bombing fab plants in the US, you're at absolute war and many millions of people will die. The US would respond very badly, quite overly irrationally to an extreme to having its mainland bombed. Having those fabs in eg Taiwan and of mixed use (US & China both deriving supply from them) would be pointless under that conflict scenario anyway; all it would do is keep China from bombing them - maybe - and instead they'd seize them physically and shut off US supply while trying to keep their own supply going (the US can't stop China from taking Taiwan; if they move on Taiwan, they're getting anything left standing, including fabs). There's zero upside to keeping them mixed with US / Huawei if there's a conflict.
I thought the deal about the F35 and other fighter planes was that when the various countries bought this hardware they got to build a part of it. Really as a way to soften or justify the absurd cost of these things,
For example here in Denmark, the Danish company Terma which is specialised in radar technology produces a number of components for the F35:
I'm curious about the politics here. I get making the chips in the US, but if security is the concern they should no be made by a company based in Taiwan regardless of where the fab is.
Why is Taiwan specifically a threat? They're a long-term ally and their voters recently gave a new mandate to anti-China leaders in an election. If the US is worried about threats from Chinese electronics companies like Huawei it doesn't make any sense to alienate Taiwan.
In addition to the other points, it seems like it would be much easier for the Chinese to infiltrate Taiwanese industry with spies/saboteurs since they share cultures.
Blackmail of key individuals is probably easier too since Taiwanese are more likely to have family members on the mainland and/or Hong Kong.
Not so much specifically as in politics alliances change fast so you have to consider even your friends as a potential threat. After WWII it took only a few years for Japan to go to friend - there was no way to predict that (as opposed to isolationists who want nothing to do with us)
So that there is a “chain of custody “ from plan to production completely within the US. Presumably the people working in such would be reachable by US law, if not closely aligned with their own country’s interests.
If the fab is in the US, we can take over the plant and use the existing workers who as Americans are loyal to the US over the company. Of course we have to kick out foreign company leadership, but there are plenty of leaders who can run a plant with the same processes for a few years while learning what is really needed. Odds are there will be some local leaders who can step up. The plant might fall behind the latest processes but it will be good for what it does for a while - long enough to finish the war
Readit News
Concentrating geopolitical risk of TSMC operations makes Taiwan more important to the rest of the world. The US would naturally want to reduce this risk. In Taiwan-China conflict world chip production would take a huge hit or be in the danger of falling under Chinese rule.
If TSMC's leadership is patriotic, they should refuse this pressure as much as they can and ask more weapons for Taiwan instead.
Isn't China in exactly that position?
Dead Comment
It's about hazardous chemicals and hazardous waste which aren't tolerated in the west.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-06-15/american-...
The same way there is Silicon Valley. Sure, there are tangential benefits to each area, but ultimately it’s about concentration.
(Actually the missile in this accident was developed in Taiwan.)
Dead Comment
Be careful for what you wish for. Taiwan’s formal name is Republic of China, the older generations does not exactly share the younger generations wish of independence. In fact, they are often patriotic .. to China.
Even older generations do not support reunification, at least in any specific sense, if I understand correctly.
But they differ drastically in what government they want to see (along with the rest of the political system).
If TSMC's leadership supports democratic values rather than nationalism they should welcome this invitation from a democratic nation. Why not?
That would require leadership and vision. Unfortunately, too many American politicians would prefer to use any money available for that to instead cut taxes yet again.
Sematech was the last US government effort to improve US competitiveness in semiconductors. It's still around but isn't a US government initiative any longer.
But as several other people pointed out, and several political luminaries from the past have also pointed out, a global supply chain reduces the threat of war. Either goods cross borders or soldiers do.
Deleted Comment
Tesla's chips are made in Samsung's Austin, Texas plant.
Originally, IBM's East-Fishkill plant was the largest trusted-foundry of near latest generations (14nm, 22nm) but that was sold off to Global-Foundries, which then sold it off to ON Semiconductor. Now it needs someone to fab the latest generation with a full chain-of-trust.
[1] https://semiengineering.com/a-crisis-in-dods-trusted-foundry...
[2]https://www.dau.edu/cop/dmsms/DAU%20Sponsored%20Documents/Ou...
https://www.onsemi.com/pub/Collateral/BRD8079-D.PDF
I've tried to read econ papers on colocation of innovation and manufacturing -- they're mostly long-winded and unconvincing but the concept is compelling
[0] https://danwang.co/how-technology-grows/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_manufacturing_si...
Sounds interesting, do you have some references?
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/63693/1/519737458.pd...
aside from the basic claim that large factories are doing some amount of R&D on-site, this read like nonsense to me. Could be my lack of depth in industrial organization / economics.
maybe also search 'industrial clustering' or 'innovation clusters'
But not enough to lift a finger about it
> > Andrew "Andy" Grove was a Hungarian-American businessman, engineer, and author who had a net worth of $500 million dollars.
I’ve seen this repeated in this thread, is there any evidence of this apart from conjecture?
For example here in Denmark, the Danish company Terma which is specialised in radar technology produces a number of components for the F35:
https://www.terma.com/media/444108/f-35_and_terma_171012_scr...
Blackmail of key individuals is probably easier too since Taiwanese are more likely to have family members on the mainland and/or Hong Kong.