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) don’t really need cutting-edge chips, and China has already proven that they don’t need the latest chips to be a significant AI competitor.
From the US’s perspective, if a war with China were to break out now, there are only three possible scenarios:
1. China takes Taiwan quickly. In this case, there would be nothing for US to defend, and the US would have to try to take Taiwan back militarily—unlikely to happen.
2. Stalemate. Taiwanese people fight bravely, and Chinese forces turn out to be weaker than expected. In this case, the US would be in a comfortable position to send aid and weapons to help Taiwan, prolonging the war to weaken China. With some luck, a regime change could happen without firing a shot.
3. Taiwan successfully defends itself, repels the Chinese invasion, and possibly even takes back some territory—an unlikely scenario, but this is the only one where the US would send troops to help defend Taiwan. If the US gets involved at this stage, it secures a sure win, puts a military base on the island, and further cements its role as the protector of taiwan.
If you believe the US will or should only act in its own interest, then its interest is to remain the only superpower. Rushing into a war on foreign turf and losing is the quickest way to cede the Asia-Pacific region to China. So, despite what politicians might have you believe, the US is not going to help defend Taiwan, no matter who is in the White House.
China doesn't want Taiwan for TSMC. They want Taiwan because they see them as a rebellious province. In their mind, the Chinese civil war never ended and that island is the last bastion of the Kuomintang. One way I've heard it described in a way that is easier for Americans to understand is; Imagine at the end of the American Civil War, a confederate army retreated to an island like Cuba or Hawaii, they took it over and have been calling themselves the real America ever since.
I'm not saying China is right in wanting to invade Taiwan. But that's closer to their real motivations than anything having to do with economics or technology. And its important to understand your potential adversaries motivations because that will inform their decisions and tactics.
> They want Taiwan because they see them as a rebellious province.
We can argue about what the exact desire is - there's 100M people in the CCP - we'll probably never know an exact answer.
The important thing is - China is willing to spend a LOT more money to take Taiwan than it is economically worth.
So this idea that 1) China wants Taiwan for chips, 2) War would cost more than chips, 3) Therefore, Taiwan is logically safe - is a fallacy.
The war in Ukraine is never going to pay off for Russia. They're not fighting that war to make money. They're fighting that war because a bunch of dick bags got together in a room and decided it was expedient for them for millions of people to lose their lives.
There is no “reason” or justification. The decision to invade has already been made, all these explanations exist for the sole purpose of making it easier to do nothing about it when the invasion happens. Chinese people feel they way they are taught to feel.
China's fundamental argument distilled to its most pure form is "we are strong enough to do this, what are you going to do about it?" A world where the strong do whatever they want because no one can do anything about it is not a world anyone should want to live in.
All of the Chinese expressing these opinions from a position of safety can’t seem to put themselves in the shoes of Taiwanese. The inhumanity of an invasion is being hidden by high level ideas like history.
The American civil war comparison fails. No American sits and thinks about invading the UK to “complete” our revolution and that’s much closer than your scenario.
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 national pride.
> China doesn't want Taiwan for TSMC. They want Taiwan because they see them as a rebellious province. In their mind, the Chinese civil war never ended and that island is the last bastion of the Kuomintang. One way I've heard it described in a way that is easier for Americans to understand is; Imagine at the end of the American Civil War, a confederate army retreated to an island like Cuba or Hawaii, they took it over and have been calling themselves the real America ever since.
We know this version is closer to the truth because Mao tried to take Taiwan
China is basically circled on all sides by US-allied forces and with Taiwan being one it really limits their force projection capabilities in the Pacific. That's the actual pragmatic reason, not some ideology thing, imho
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 extract wealth, but also pump out a lot of propaganda that says Taiwan is doing even better under party rule and Western-style democracy was holding it back.
> Imagine at the end of the American Civil War, a confederate army retreated to an island like Cuba or Hawaii, they took it over and have been calling themselves the real America ever since.
It is a great analogy. However, in this case, that small island was taken by China even before the American Civil War. To put it into perspective, it was during the time when Isaac Newton was working on gravity.
And one episode of Open To Debate [1] argued Taiwan is the worst possible place to confront China:
> I used to give battlefield tours at Gettysburg, an extraordinary place. ... a certain cavalry General John Buford ... surveyed the ground and he knew right away he looked at the hills and said, this is good ground, ... The geography favors us. Well, I want to tell you folks, he saved our country that with that appreciation. But this is the opposite. This is bad ground. This is the worst possible place to confront China
> and have been calling themselves the real America ever since
This isn't really the situation with Taiwan though. The main reason Taiwan is still officially called the Republic of China is because changing that will likely trigger the PRC.
> I'm not saying China is right in wanting to invade Taiwan.
I find it very surprising that a lot of otherwise intelligent people have trouble with telling endorsement from explanation. Like when I tell people about some political (or not) figure's opinions and worldviews, I'm somehow defending them. I'm not! I'm doing it exactly to
> understand your potential adversaries' motivations
> a confederate army retreated to an island like Cuba
No, it's the other way around. Imagine that the South is victorious, and the last remnants of the North forces remain in, say, Long Island, calling themselves the original American Republic, claiming their lineage from the revolution of 1776. Technically they would be!
The Taiwanese regime is a remnant of the original Republic of China established in 1914, and Kuomintang is one of the original democratic parties of that republic. The Communist regime are the "rebels" of the Communist revolution of 1949. But, as they say, a rebellion can never succeed, because if it does, it's called another way.
> Imagine at the end of the American Civil War, a confederate army retreated to an island like Cuba or Hawaii, they took it over and have been calling themselves the real America ever since.
I mean, for a decade or so, try to re-unify, sure. But 75 years later, with slavery abolished and a completely different governmental system? I'd like to think most Americans would have accepted the New Normal by that point. If anything this tells me how irrational Chinese and Russian attitudes are.
> Imagine at the end of the American Civil War, a confederate army retreated to an island like Cuba or Hawaii, they took it over and have been calling themselves the real America ever since.
In reality while the confederate states were part of the United States, the Republic of China (Taiwan) was never part of the Peoples Republic of China (communist China), its the reverse.
It is hard to drill this in the mind of people who grew up under stable governments, but dictators have this terrible habit of sacrificing prosperity to gain control (often sacrificing the former without gaining the later). Being a dictator and surrounded by yes-man, they also tend to act less rationally and less predictably than your average democratic leader.
History is full of kings who started terrible wars and got their countries screwed in the process. You can't apply game theory this kind of people.
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 more resources move in-theatre).
China could secure a more reliable victory by expending most of it's ballistic missile inventory to incapacitate the US bases in Guam and Okinawa, but that would inexorably trigger WWIII.
I don't think that's accurate. The population is concentrated on the west coast, all that mountainous terrain is unpopulated. Also it's an island that's very close to China.
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.
> 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.
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 of China breaking away and becoming independent.
> From China’s perspective, the cost of war is much higher than the cost of developing these chips themselves.
For China it’s not about the chips. It’s about getting rid of the humiliation that is having a small island, that was originally part of China, not be a part of China.
A 'small' island with one of the most successful and thriving democracies in the East, that has world class industry. China cannot have a successful democracy on their doorstep, it undermines their perception of absolute Chinese superiority.
What you mean like hong Kong? That humiliation pales in comparison to the damage done domestically as taiwan's defenses would necessitate a gross loss of life. Then consider the diplomatic posture of every major economy on the China sea.
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 of the driving reasons for the invasion. I could see a similar calculation with Taiwan/China.
Never underestimate the power of saving face. The Taiwan invasion had a dry run with how they handled Hong Kong. This is going to happen and my guess is it will be on Trump’s way out. That way it all gets done during the 2028 election season, and all the next President can do is pout.
It’s a win-win for Trump because he keeps China at bay for three years, which is good enough for him.
> 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.
I recently got (second-hand) one Taiwanese business perspective on this.
Background: A friend of mine runs an SME in Europe and one of their key suppliers is in Taiwan. Friend visits Taiwan regularly to maintain the relationship. The following conversation happened around a year ago.
My friend gets talking [in private, off the record, after a drink or three] to one of the Taiwanese managers, and the topic turns to China and the invasion scenario. My friend asked if the Taiwanese business had put any thought into what might happen (thinking maybe they've explored the business continuity angles).
The Taiwanese guy basically shrugged, and said that if the Chinese were to launch an invasion, "Taiwan is completely * * * *ed", there's nothing the US or anyone else could or would do to be able to prevent that. He apparently didn't seem up tight about, more resigned. No interest in trying to plan any kind of response, because they feel they'd be hit with overwhelming force and would be completely on their own for long enough that it would all be over.
My friend was and still is concerned about his business continuity, with his key supplier potentially going offline, so is quietly exploring his options.
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.
That won't happen either. China has an incredible manpower and material advantage, they are unlikely to be effectively defeated. Even if Taiwan can deny the channel and prevent a landing they will still be effectively blockaded.
> 2. Stalemate. Taiwanese people fight bravely, and Chinese forces turn out to be weaker than expected. In this case, the US would be in a comfortable position to send aid and weapons to help Taiwan, prolonging the war to weaken China. With some luck, a regime change could happen without firing a shot.
It will take weeks before we can tell if there is a stalemate or not, and the stalemate will not be stable. If the Americans try to provide aid they will have to cross the Chinese blockade and they will have to fight to do so.
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.
I think it's more likely that over the next few years US power fades in the region and Taiwan strikes a bargain with China. The Taiwanese are extremely pragmatic when it comes to these sorts of things, and I somehow doubt they'll enter into a conflict they know they can't win. China is also pragmatic and would be willing to allow Taiwan significant autonomy if they can on paper say they've reunited Taiwan with the motherland.
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.
Speaking of blockade, the United States can (before or after hostilities between Taiwan and China begin) keep ships carrying oil, food, and animal feed from reaching China.
My impression after spending month and half in Taiwan last year is that China wouldn't have to fire a single bullet to take over the country. The only thing that would stop China is a US president with the strength to put two aircraft carrier strike groups between the island and the mainland. [0] If China needed Taiwan strategically they can surround the island in two days and take it the next. I concluded China is only postering and it is the economic threat with its ASEAN trading partners and the EU that keeps it at bay. The ASML chip fab machines are designed to be remotely disabled so they are not getting chips. [1] There is nothing to be gained from attacking the island and that is the reason it hasn't happened.
The US is not going to help defend Taiwan is a fair thesis, but reciprocally, China is not going to attack Taiwan.
Even if Russia gets all of it's demands in the peacemaking process with Ukraine, that war has done permanent and lasting damage to it's economy and global position. For China to attack Taiwan, it would give up any hope of continuing it's healthy trends towards increased economic and political importance.
Eventually, Taiwan will re-join China when it is sufficiently strong. It's symbolism as a continued humiliation by the west is more useful as propaganda than an actual military target.
> that war has done permanent and lasting damage to it's economy and global position
Assuming the Ukraine is forced to surrender and Russia keeps the territories, Russia's reputation will increase. They'll be able to say they fought NATO and won. Even today, people say with a serious face that Ukraine started the war and many believe it.
Russia is damaged, but if it's allowed to win, it will recover and become a beacon for the global authoritarians/south.
Unfortunately, dictators don't care much about damage to it's economy as long as they continue to be in power. When they expand and occupy more land, they will look very good in their country's history book which is a huge motivation for dictators. That's the reason why nobody thought Putin would seriously consider invasion but he did. And China will definitely attack Taiwan when the timing is right. Even if a million people dies, Xi would still be considered a hero by most chinese people if he took back Taiwan.
The US is not going to defend Taiwan because of chips, but China is also not going to attack Taiwan because of chips - if they do, they'll attack it for the same reason Putin attacked Ukraine: an "us vs them" mentality helps keep dictators in power, and nothing creates such a mentality better than a war. We can only hope that China is sensible enough to see the downsides too, but the current international climate is not a real deterrent. And I have to admit China has a better claim to Taiwan than Russia to Ukraine - they never recognized Taiwan's independence, while Russia (together with the US and the UK) agreed in 1994 to guarantee Ukraine's security in exchange for it renouncing the ex-USSR nuclear weapons stationed on its territory (https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/1082124528/ukraine-russia-put...) - and now they're "guaranteeing their security" by invading them.
> continuing it's healthy trends towards increased economic and political importance.
They "just" need to flip the script: be the single superpower that all countries are dependant upon, and then take over Taiwan. And then announce "Does anyone have something to say about what I just did?", and enjoy the silence. Already China is investing all over Africa, buying their compliance (which is what the US also did in the past).
Thanks to Daddy Issues 1 (Musk) and 2 (Trump) in the White House, their path just got a lot easier.
The response of the Russian 2014 invasion of Crimea was also quite muted because the EU was dependant on Russia's energy..
> Taiwanese people fight bravely, and Chinese forces turn out to be weaker than expected. In this case, the US would be in a comfortable position to send aid and weapons to help Taiwan, prolonging the war to weaken China. With some luck, a regime change could happen without firing a shot.
After 3 years of war they will sell it out to China. Taiwan started the war in the first place, actually.
>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.
You've got it completely backwards. China doesn't want Taiwan because it has the best chip manufacturing in the world. Taiwan has the best chip manufacturing in the world because China wants to invade them and they wanted to give the US a reason to defend them and China a reason not to. War with Taiwan will impact global chip supply even if China can produce their own, which their economy will feel.
I think a fourth option is rising its head: USA is becoming so weak geopolitically that being allied with them is becoming an incredibly bad position to be in.
Therefore I assume that it's possible that Taiwan will simply choose to integrate with mainland China. This would be a huge change in their sentiments for sure, but these things may happen when large wheels are turning.
> From China’s perspective, the cost of war is much higher than the cost of developing these chips themselves.
There are more reasons than chips.
First is Chinese nationalism. The Island of Taiwan has been under the control of various Chinese regimes over the centuries. Taking Taiwan is a rejection of the West and can be tied by to the "century of humiliation".
America has military posts in Korea, Japan, Phillipines blockading China's entrance to the larger Pacific Ocean. Having Taiwan would allow them to break this up.
On Taiwan is also a trove of Chinese art and antiques.
I wonder if Bacardi might be a better analogue for what TSMC gets from this deal.
Bacardi started a distillery in Puerto Rico (iirc, to sell in the US without tariffs) well before the Cuban Revolution. When the Cuban government seized Bacardi's assets, they were able to move everything to their other sites in Puerto Rico and Mexico.
As you point out, I highly doubt this deal moves the needle on whether or not US provides military aid to Taiwan. But it does help give them more options if the situation in Taiwan becomes untenable.
Something I never see anybody discuss is that China is completely dependent on imported oil and the U.S. has the strongest Navy in the world. Unless I'm missing something, sanctioning oil deliveries to China should actually work in a way that sanctions don't really work against Russia, since Russia is a net energy exporter (bringing up Russia since I think that's the natural comparison for whether sanctions work). From my cursory research, China has a small petroleum reserve, hardly imports any oil via pipeline from Russia, and an industrial economy ceases to function almost immediately without oil.
One, secure the supply of chips. Just look at what happened with COVID coinciding with increased TSMC fab demand from Apple, NVidia, and AMD.
Two, prevent China from gaining the technology and expertise to make cutting edge chips. This is already happening and can be handled a number of different ways if China even wanted to try gaining this capability from Taiwan (debatable).
Two doesn't really require defending Taiwan. One is the USAs primary economic concern.
And I know this is hard to believe, but there are actually still people ideologically aligned with supporting democracies against invasion by fascist countries..
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 invasion. And in either case, the US would have plenty of time to decide whether to commit additional carrier strike groups to the region before anything happens.
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 the situation and assisting evacuation of Americans.
Xi has said that if peaceful unification doesn't happen, it will happen through force. I think that's what he's going to do. People just love to cope around hard topics.
> the US is not going to help defend Taiwan, no matter who is in the White House.
You are skipping a very important detail in the whole equation. The detail that teleportation was not invented yet. For China to take over Taiwan, they need to somehow place soldiers in Taiwan, and there's 100 miles of sea that complicate that.
The war over Taiwan is going to be a complex chess match. US wants to keep being able to prevent China from crossing those 100 miles, and China wants to deny the US the ability to do that. US can perform sea and air patrols, but those are quite expensive, and China can try to make them even more expensive. The war is not going to have a clear starting date, like 24-Feb-2022. It's going to be a gradual increase of the invasion threat posed by China that will force the US to increase its local military posture. A certain type of blockade will happen, but it's going to be intentionally unclear how total the blockade will be. The US and its allies will try a measured response. China will try to create tensions it the US alliance. The US will try some sanctions. China will try to seed disinformation inside the US public debate sphere. Costs will ramp up. Etc, etc.
But it's not going to be as simple as the US will look at the problem and will count the beans and call it quits.
> If you believe the US will or should only act in its own interest, then its interest is to remain the only superpower.
Not necessarily. Remaining the only superpower is far from guaranteed, especially looking at current economic and demographic trends. A better strategy might be to lead by example, establishing high standards that will set a benchmark for their successor.
You assume that if it's not rational to start a war they would not start it.
People in Ukraine and EU did the same mistake. Wars can start for no reason or for bogus "fake news" reasons. E.g. US can attack, say, Canada, at any time, there's no fundamental law of nature to prevent that.
My impression was that the most likely scenario was China blockading Taiwan until forcing a surrender. In that case, the US and its allies would have time to respond although may be busy doing other things (eg responding to ships near Australia/NZ or Japan)
Your situations seem possible but don't really cover any of the nuance of the real situation (see what China has been doing to the Philippines in the south china sea)
A multiyear conflict with China would be difficult for the US. The manufacturing capacity and proximity would make a large category of aid difficult/impossible/useless. (Allies like SK or Japan could be more helpful in this situation)
If China has a seriously good-enough, home-made processor and storage chips, it could gain from a war with Taiwan. If this would mean to cripple the EU's and possibly also US's and to a lesser degree it's own economy through the absence of chips on the market, having that good-enough, home-made processor would be what keeps China afloat, while the rest drowns. And if it could get Taiwan and its chip manufacturing capabilities, it would have won the war with even bigger gains.
At least the EU has no way to survive without Taiwan selling them chips.
I still suspect the long con is that we'll see peaceful reunification.
The RoC is very import dependent, and we're staring down the barrel of some major swings in world trade. Will they be able to compensate if the US economy slips into a new Great Depression and drags much of the West with it? Will the US be as interested in honouring blank-cheque defence promises when inflation is 16% and unemployment 20%?
Prediction: USA will NEVER put troops on the ground in Taiwan, particularly with the current admin. There is no risk/benefit analysis where fighting a war makes sense for the USA. The USA's posture is a bluff - it's willing to provide aid and maybe a blockade but not fight directly. It's primary goal is to protect other regional allies and chip access (which it can build domestically).
Honestly, the idea that the US would spill American blood and treasure to defend Taiwan has kind of sailed into the sunset with our current administration. It is very much America 1st, 2nd and 3rd. If Taiwan wishes to stay independent, they need to be able to defense themselves alone because the current admin will not probably not lift a finger if current events are any measure.
> In the worst-case scenario, they would be 2-3 years behind the cutting edge, which is not mission-critical.
It's also worth considering how such an event might affect the US and allies. Would it slowdown, perhaps even halt certain operations/efforts for the US. For instance, all those chips the US needs to build supercomputers for "weather research". ;)
Is there a name for this argumentation "there are three options 2 are obvious nonsense so whatever i dream up in the third one must be true"? Kind of like no true scotsman...
There are a lot more options than these 3 - especially related to the middle one - that would play out differently
With the current administration, the US will just do the same thing they did to Ukraine. They will abandon them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyJY_dq8_SM The Trump administration will take TSMC's technology and then leave them to fend for themselves. Just as they literally forced Ukraine to denuclearize and now they have no power to keep Russia in check. We promised to defend Ukraine, but now the Trump administration won't promise security when It was already promised. The same thing is going to happen to Taiwan as soon as the administration get's theirs. We can't trust the current administration to follow through with any of their promises.
We are more likely to get pulled into a war with Russia and North Korea on the wrong side against Ukraine and the EU. Taiwan is a minor concern to what's taking place in our government right now. The very mere fact that Trump is siding and supporting Russian narratives, offering "gold cards" to Russian Ochlarchies, firing and gutting departments and agencies, including overwatch, should terrify everybody.
Trump is just flooding the zone with shit as he continues to break apart all checks and balances while keeping everybody distracted.
I've heard experienced weiqi (go) players use the metaphor that Taiwan is a Ko fight between China and US. That is, the threat of capture is used to exert influence and pressure elsewhere.
> The idea that the West protects Ukraine from a possible Russian invasion over land/culture is one of those things that sounds believable but really isn't going to happen.
Defend? Probably not... but it does give cover to absolutely annihilate mainland China and reduce it's ability to compete with the United States to nothing for decades if not forever.
I've read that in war gaming a Chinese invasion of Taiwan the US can stop it BUT they usually lost TWO aircraft carriers. That would be almost 14,000 dead US soldiers.
The official strategy is for Taiwan to turtle in the mountains and wait for coalition aid. There is a shitload of bases and weaponary in the area to repel a china invasion and Korea and Japan both know they're next if they let Taiwan fall.
However I think Trump has basically given up the game and made it pretty plain that he has no desire to help Ukraine or Taiwan and will be happy to sign 'deals' giving them up, even if those deals basically give the autocrats everything they want - just enough vague 'rare earth'-style bullshit that he feels he can claim them as victories in the press.
> > If you believe the US will or should only act in its own interest, then its interest is to remain the only superpower.
This is the error of non-Marxist 'realism'. The US is not a monolith with a single general interest. It is a class society with its own internal contradictions that play out, for one, internationally. There are legitimately diverging interests when it comes to the role of the United States abroad, and importantly, growing consciousness among classes which in some ways or others, view the institutions of the US' superpower-status as part and parcel of their own oppression domestically.
Not really sure how to read this, but to state it how most international commentators would put it:
China wants Taiwan because they think it is part of China, and because China is building an empire.
America would defend Taiwan because it wants to contain China, TSMC is an extra incentive.
In the Trump administration, this calculus may change. Trump may well let China take Taiwan in the spirit of carving up the world between major powers. I believe this will now happen.
In terms of invasion, it is far more likely China blurs the lines and blockades Taiwan, extracting concessions and using Russian-style tactics to take control without a real “war”. This is one reason why Trump’s policy in Ukraine is a disaster for the Taiwanese, as it confirms the efficacy and acceptability of such tactics.
> 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.
They are building hundreds of naval destroyers and multiple aircraft carriers to invade a tiny island? Nope. The CCP is prepping to be the world hegemon and take over the world with drone swarms and bioweapons.
The Taiwan game is like the "Gulf of America" trick that Trump played. It's a test to see if you're with the CCP or against the CCP diplomatically.
One reason is that none of these factories can be built without European ASML machines, and given how the US is doing its absolute best to disrupt its relationship with Europe, maybe it would be time to stop selling them there and consider selling them to China instead.
Why would China even invide Taiwan? It would destroy "their" infrastructure and kill "their" people! There are much better ways to remove US influence from Taiwan!
They can just put sanctions or even blockade Taiwan. And if China puts sanctions on US, and dumps its USD reserves, it can destroy US economy.
US is crazy about proxies fighting their "enemies" for them. This type of thinking needs to stop! This is not cold war anymore.
An act of war, which 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, which is why they're unlikely to do it unless they were confident of US non-involvement.
Why would China even invade Taiwan? For the same reasons they invaded and took Hong Kong. Because they have their own manifest destiny to reunify their country into what it once was. They don't care about the collateral damage to achieve this in the end.
Russia has a fraction of the industrial capacity of China. Russia and Ukraine share several borders with multiple NATO countries, and Ukraine had integrated rail networks. Nevertheless Russia took 4 times the size of Taiwan and is taking more day by day.
Anyone that understands basic logistics and can read a map knows that this is not winnable. Not only that, but the undersecretary of state is the guy that advocated bombing TSMC. The US took a lot from Taiwan over the last 8 years and not even once did they even consider offering a free trade agreement in return. They made the Taiwan delegation visit a Zoo during the inauguration.
Singapore is allied with the west as well, but is taking a more neutral stance and a result have prospered many times over, while Taiwan has gone into total economic stagnation for decades. Where is all this moral posturing coming from? Let's look at reality and facts instead of reddit fantasies.
“Our continued protection of you is contingent on your investment in us”.
Taiwan is hugely reliant on US defense guarantees. The US has a protectionist president who likes big numbers in announcements and a base riled up about American production capacity.
Long-term this is bad for Taiwan since it reduces its leverage with the US in administrations with short-term geopolitics (or no real geopolitical talent.)
In the short-term, they might not have much choice.
Is it a given that the US would come to Tawian's defence now (let alone in a few years, when the US is presumably less dependent on Taiwanese chips)?
I guess it comes down to how dependent on Taiwan's chips the US actually is (I don't know the answer to that).
The US isn't dependent on Ukraine and it's pressuring them to hand over land. If it turns out the US isn't dependent on Taiwan it could show similar indifference if China were to attempt to take it.
> Taiwan is hugely reliant on US defense guarantees.
What I don't get is, in what universe is any US president going to engage militarily against China across the ocean, let alone the current one? The US population does not seem ecstatic to enter something that could turn into WWIII, which makes me feel that even a president in favor of this would quickly fail to do anything.
> “Our continued protection of you is contingent on your investment in us”.
In 1971, Treasury Secretary John Connally famously remarked how the US dollar was "our currency, but your problem," referring to how the US dollar was managed primarily for the US' interests despite it being the currency primarily used in global trade and global finance.
Curious why Taiwan would sign onto this, knowing how Ukraine is being treated vis a vis mineral rights. I realize Taiwan doesn't have any other options, but a "verbal offer" of future security guarantees from the Trump Admin aren't worth anything.
The U.S. frames its deteriorating relationship with China as a fight for “human rights” and “democracy,” but from China’s perspective, that’s just a cover for a larger campaign to contain its rise. The real issue? The U.S. fears losing global dominance and is using trade wars, tech bans, military encirclement, and financial pressure to slow China down.
China doesn’t want direct military conflict—it prefers economic and technological competition. But it sees the U.S. as a declining power that refuses to accept a multipolar world. The U.S. labels China’s economic expansion “debt-trap diplomacy” while ignoring the IMF’s history of predatory loans. It bans Huawei and TikTok under “security concerns” while engaging in mass surveillance itself. It calls China’s South China Sea claims “aggressive” while surrounding China with military bases.
From Beijing’s view, the U.S. preaches rules it doesn’t follow. Human rights? Washington ignores Saudi Arabia but obsesses over Xinjiang. Democracy? The U.S. supports coups when convenient. Free markets? Only when American firms win.
China isn’t looking for war—it’s playing the long game. The U.S. can try to contain it, but economic gravity favors China’s rise. The more Washington pushes, the clearer its real motives become.
But all this stuff is a bluff. China will spill blood for Taiwan, the US will not. When there is a standoff the US will back down and it's Taiwan getting fucked by everybody.
TSMC factories on Taiwan are small fry in the scheme of things and won't really move the needle much, in terms of strategy. Samsung and Intel are pretty comparable in manufacturing capability, within a couple of years really. And most chips you find in cars and ships and missiles and satellites and jets aren't leading-edge either.
China is terrified of their access to the sea being blockaded. They'd gladly give up TSMC technology without a second thought and continue to bribe, beg, steal their way around sancations and barriers to semiconductor technology as they have been doing just fine up to now if they could occupy Taiwan for its strategic position to deny American access and defend the sea around their coast.
> I cannot even begin to imagine what madness has infected the Taiwanese government to allow this.
It's jumping to conclusion. There aren't even any details in the announcement. It could be old / "mature" tech or a list of other things. The latest nodes likely will still stay in Taiwan.
> US tariffs will not matter when you are blockaded and Chester Nimitz is very much dead.
The alternative was a pressure to buy / save Intel. Much worse.
Its a total waste to try to quietly appease. If they want something out of the current administration they need to humiliate it and then barely give it enough to save face.
I might have believed that a couple weeks ago. Mexico and Canada put a show on for the him about the tarrifs and they're still set to be in place tommrow. Why would anyone else play along now?
Right now is a very interesting moment in that the future is crystal clear and yet so many people of all persuasions don't want to accept it for so many different reasons
* The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world, and ultimately renege on many of its security guarantees, with the underlying reason being that it can no longer afford to be world police and pay for all its entitlements
* This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world. US stocks will continue to be the best buys out there
* Ergo we are looking at another American century, or perhaps some kind of isolationist/Cold War-esque type of century since American political influence will decline, but China and Russia's colossal demographic problems will hinder them from making any serious bids for dominance
Objectively - it looks like another American century, but one where the whole world is diminished due to global collapse in the birth rate, and some nations are just less diminished than others (unless I am severely underestimating the impact of automation and AI)
And yes, many people will be unhappy, and there will be more war, and globalization has peaked
> Right now is a very interesting moment in that the future is crystal clear and yet so many people of all persuasions don't want to accept it for so many different reasons
Anyone who thinks the future is crystal clear is an extremely arrogant, and the narrative you present is inconsistent in ways which show an extremely poor understanding of the way international economics works.
> The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world
It hasn't granted "economic largesse" to the rest of the world, and to the extent that that term can be stretched to describe something that has been granted, it can't be clawed back; the (extremely small, compared to the size of the economy) amount of aid has largely been about establishing influence and soft power, and trade isn't largesse, its mutually beneficial. To withdraw from it weakens both sides, and the US generally withdrawing will hurt the US more than the rest of the world.
> This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world.
The kind of retreat from wide trade to mercantilist protectionism might be a relative "win" for the US (though it would still be an absolute loss for all parties, contracting the aggregate production possibilities curve as well as that for all nations), if the US engagement in "go it alone" idiocy convinced every other country to try the same thing, and if you were right that the US was the best prepared to go it alone.
But, more likely, were it to occur, while it would be an absolute loss for everyone compared to what things would be without it, it would end up a relative loss for the US, because most countries wouldn't try to follow the US in going it alone, and the US's retreat will just be looked at in mystified disbelief by other nations as they continue to reap the benefits of trade and the US fades and falls behind in every way.
Allies are good for America. Trade is good for America. Isolation has never been good for anyone.
>The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world
The USA is going to stop bribing people to like them, an arrangement that suited the USA very well, but is difficult to articulate to seppos in general.
>This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world. US stocks will continue to be the best buys out there
This is a huge loss, but seems like a win for people who don't understand trade, supply and investment ie, seppos.
>Ergo we are looking at another American century
A Century of trying to keep a safe distance from the most armed nation doing its best north korea impersonation.
Let me make a prediction here.
1. The US is going to get more isolationist
2. Every time they face consequences of isolationism, they will simply declare that the problems were caused by not being isolationist enough, tearing up more trade agreements and generally just shifting away from the world.
"If they wont sell us good at price we like, we will just abandon international patent agreements" seems like its not far off after the tariffs.
3. This is a spiral that will end the modern USA as anyone knows it.
I am quite happy with this, as long as the seppos keep the nukes to themselves while they remove themselves from the planet economically.
This assumes USA was taken advantage of by globalization, which is not actually the case - USA benefitted disproportionally from it. USA's GDP growth is substantially based on the consumers (~70% compared to ~50% in the EU and other comparable countries), and that wouldn't have been possible if they could only consume what was produced in the USA.
But there were losers, mainly in manufacturing, and USA didn't assist them in the right way, allowed unprecedented levels of political corruption, allowed unhealthy levels of wealth inequality, allowed housing crisis, allowed obesity and health crisis etc...
Most of the USA's wounds are self-inflicted, but any good demagogue would not pass the opportunity to blame somebody else for it.
This analysis, if it can be called as such, misses the fact that the US is very, very politically divided, to the point where I can see elections results being regularly considered illegitimate. That perspective has been allowed to become reasonable, which is very, dangerous.
The "clawing back" isn't simply a withdraw of resources back to America, it also requires structural fixes within America (mostly looking at the wealth inequality), as well as properly address the nativist embers that are currently lit.
An America that successfully claws back, but does not address the internal weaknesses in time will have its own version of China's and Russia's demographic challenges.
While I agree with what you are saying, the outcome is not quite as obvious/guaranteed. The US is clawing back and democrat/republic/kamala wouldn't change that reality, but the world is also not going to sit quiet. The outcome will depend on Europe, China and the rest of the un-aligned.
Now that it’s become untenable for great powers to fight and they’re all facing regional instability and domestic unrest (EU, US, RUS, CN), we’ll see a century of consolidation and realignment at the regional/continental scale.
ASEAN, China, E Asia, India, Russia; Middle East and South Asia; EU, UK, Russia; US, Canada, Latin America; South America (eg, Argentina, Brazil, and Ecuador); Africa (though, I’m less familiar with specifics there).
We’re seeing political upheaval in each region as states jockey for position in this new world order — now that international global order is dead (or at least, mortally wounded).
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 China getting a foothold in the American tech industry. Kind of a followup to Deepseek, but providing the Chinese government more access to US chips via a physical presence. The original Trump plan was for TSMC to literally take over Intel plants, but Intel told Trump to get stuffed.
I tend to agree, with the exception of: I don't agree with the assertion that the US is broadly intending to renege on many of its security guarantees. I don't think that's a fair characterization on the Ukraine situation. If we had a security guarantee with Ukraine, it was the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, and we reneged on that under Obama in 2014 with Crimea, and under Biden in 2022 with the current war, but even Russia was a signatory to that and frankly its security guarantees were pretty weak anyway. Some say the economic, humanitarian, and military aid we've provided technically counts; its not like NATO Article 5 after all.
The more accurate framing, to me, feels like: America is going to ask for more from the world in return for its security guarantees. We're seeing this with the mineral rights in Ukraine, and now this TSMC investment. The world does not like this, because no one likes being asked to pay the bill at dinner when you're used to dad picking it up for the past 80 years, but that seems to be the priority.
This is ultimately healthy; as Starmer said this week, Europe needs to lead the effort in Ukraine, with US backing. A Europe that spends more on its own defense and is more independently capable of defending itself is a stronger Europe; this is what America wants, America wants strong allies across the pond, and it should be what Europeans want too.
But, as you allude to: Russia is not the threat some think they are, today. This war has decimated their offensive capability, thanks to US support over the past three years, and the geopolitical situation in eastern Europe right now is in a place where Europe, even with its diminished military capacity relative to the US, can actually lead security guarantees with Ukraine. But, the US will be there; America will get some mineral rights, and there will be some kind of peace deal organized in tranches where violation of tranche 1 means the EU military gets involved but violation of tranche 2 means you've woken the beast and the US gets involved too.
You're 100% right that there will be more wars, though. It just won't be the ones people expect. I don't think Taiwan will happen in the next decade; both sides have too much to lose. Ukraine & eastern Europe will calm down in the next six months. Longer term, I'd be more concerned about India and Pakistan or China, as that's an area of the world where the US has few existing security guarantees and direct allyships, but the military spending is ramping up.
I was surprised to learn Taiwan has dabbled in nuclear weapons in the past. They actually got caught developing them and had to swear they'd stop.
Given that the US is doing a professional wrestling 'heel turn' and is now The Bad Guys, I wouldn't be surprised if, like NK, they just come out and announce that they have nukes. Honestly, and this is bad for the world but smart in a game theory sense, I think a lot of countries that depended on the US being a force for stability either go the Israel route ("We won't say if we have nukes or not" wink) or just announce that they have them and do public tests to prove it.
Nuclear proliferation is the only logical response to this administration. Tripling the number of nuclear armed countries will greatly increase the odds of a hot conflict breaking out which risks the safety of everyone in the world. Of course this fairly straightforward calculus seems beyond what trump/musk are capable of and they are actively working to make Americans safer and less prosperous is countless ways.
At some point having nukes might not make a difference though. To quote the mean, when everyone is special nobody is anymore, and having proxy access to nukes could be enough as a deterrent (e.g. being in an alliance that triggers a nuclear response in case of nuclear attack should be enough ?)
I don't think they were equating the US to North Korea (where is China mentioned?), but saying that since the US can no longer be relies on for protection (instead of the sheriff we're at best the anti-hero that will maybe protect you if there's something in it for us). This means countries need to put up a stronger front themselves since there's no larger stabilizing force to rely on.
It's interesting, because I'm sure Trump and Musk take advantage of the benefits that the regulated market provide (even when they just ignore it to their benefit because most others don't), but I'm not sure they've really considered what it means when that stability and security is gone, in more than a "I'm the biggest so I'll be okay" type of sense. There's a lot of positive externalities from that stability that maybe they are discounting too much (such as a relatively peaceful world, since it's been a while since we had a World War).
Threatening to annex Canada and start a trade war to try to compulse them. Invoking Canadian nationalism instead. Note: he arranged the previous "trade deal" he claims to hate now.
Starting a trade war with Mexico, this is actually a source of Fentanyl and I can understand.
Camerading with dictators ( Russia), voting the same as them in the UN. Claiming Russia isn't the aggressor ( wtf), even China didn't agree with it.
Threatening a country being attacked and bullying it's president. Taking advantage of the situation to bully them for resource extraction.
Threatening Europe and stability in Europe:
Threatening Germany and interfering publicly with it's elections.
Threatening the UK and interfering publicly with it's elections
Disrespecting NATO and it's citizens who have died when US invoked article 5 on 9/11
US is getting more and more hate from literally everywhere in a very short time because of Trump. A lot is changing very quickly and it won't take 4 years until Trump is gone. We're 6 weeks in...
The entire world is pretty sure that Trump & Vance will take the US in a dictatorship. A lot of this is smoke and mirrors to keep everyone distracted and busy in the mean time ( personal opinion)
Pointer: just look at Tesla in Europe. Some countries are reporting a 45% drop in Tesla sales while the EV market expanded 40%...
Eg. Tesla sales dropped 70% in Canada in January. 81 % in Australia, 60% in Germany, ...
When people will stop US subscriptions ( eg. Netflix) and it's becoming noticable ( eg. Stocks). That will be a point of no return (eg. I think it's already going to be visible from Canada).
I think it’s Eurocentric to imply that China is morally inferior to the US. Yes the United States have more personal liberties, but China has less wealth inequality. While the US is more democratic, we have had many questionable elections in our history. Most notably in favor of the victor, Nixon committed treason by sabotaging peace talks in order to influence the ‘68 election [0]. Giving more recent examples of questionable elections would be too controversial and political for HN.
When discussing nuclear proliferation, North Korea is pretty much the worst example and should be mentioned.
Neither of which would achieve any strategic goals. TSMC is only important because Western economies crave cutting edge silicon and causing a natural disaster by destroying the dam would not only strengthen the resolve of the Chinese public but alienate the rest of the world.
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, otherwise they won't be able to beat the PLA at its doorstep. With the current US administration, I can't imagine how it would do that "trade". I think it's far more likely the US will "sell" Taiwan to China for some deal that benefits the US financially or politicially.
Russia has energy independence and food security. China has neither. USA could achieve a lot just by blockading China, something China is in no position to challenge since most of their navy is a brown water navy.
Yeah, they can probably fight fairly well for a year or two with their reserves (depending on how much of the reserves are actually there.. corruption is an issue). But after that they risk catastrophic destabilisation within China. People don’t realise that Chinas main ongoing challenge is to keep mainland China itself stable. They spend much more on internal security than on external security. Chinas sabre rattling with Taiwan can be considered part of trying to maintain internal stability. It helps keep people focused on external enemies.
Taiwan is also an order of magnitude more difficult to invade. The yearly window for invasion is fairly small. It’s easy to see it coming. There’s only a couple of beaches suitable to land an army on, and it will be blanketed with mines within an hour of seeing the first invasion ships crossing the strait.
Ukraine has also demonstrated that a smaller nation can take out the entire navy of a bigger one with sea drones. Taiwan is now building their own drones.
I think drones will favour the defender, even if China could make more of them. Especially when laser weapons can cheaply take out drone swarms trying to drop bombs on the defenders. The Taiwan strait will be impassable for any large ship, and you need to cross with a large ship and get boots on the ground to successfully invade.
It's true that right now China's navy is much weaker than the US'. However, there are a few factors in China's favor here:
* China is building new navy ships at a much faster pace than the US
* China has LUDICROUSLY more total shipbuilding capacity overall than the US, like more than 200x as much
* China has a semi-militarized militia fleet that they already make use of that they can call on to help ferry soldiers around
* In a war around Taiwan, China would be able to commit essentially its whole fleet, while the US would still have to be concerned around interests in other parts of the globe. Plus the obvious home field logistical advantage in maintenance/repair being close by.
The US will still be much stronger in terms of navy for other parts of the world for a long time yet, but if it's a fight close to China, I think China may surpass the US in effective power within the next decade.
> There’s only a couple of beaches suitable to land an army on
China's been building some new vessels designed to mitigate this (sorry for linking to a video but it's the best source I've seen for this): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klkpk_hO4FQ
Some of your points were true 10 years ago but not any more.
China has basic food secuirty, ie. there's enough rice and grain to feed the population. What it doesn't have enough is food for livestocks which means no steak at war time, but hardly a fatal blow. China gets most of its oil and gas from Russia, given what we know about Putin it's hard to see Russia cut off the pipeline to help US. Even if they do, I don't think it's enough to stop the war machine, 1/3 of China's electricity is generated by renewable energy, they also have a lot of coal, the reason they built the gas pipeline with Russia is to move away from coal.
Chinese navy is no longer a brown water navy, the 3rd aircraft carrier will be battle ready in the next couple of years and the 4th one is being built.
The assumption of US and allies completely blockade China's coast is very unrealistic, it's more likely the allied fleet will try to stop a blockage of PLA on Taiwan, which won't last a few months without external supply. And in term of drones, China is also a big player in the field. I don't think Taiwan has advantage on that. Ukraine can wreck blacksea fleet because it was a very out of date navy, unfortunately you can't say that to the Chinese one.
Difficult to land might be the only defence Taiwan has.
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.
> I think it's far more likely the US will "sell" Taiwan to China for some deal that benefits the US financially or politicially.
This will happen after USA extricates all the meaningful tech and re-homes the institutions and workforce required to maintain that tech to the USA mainland. Still probably a decade or two away, but likely.
Russian army has plenty of combat experience. Russian weapons were export product and are battle tested.
China has none of that.
Russia brought soldiers from the far east to fight. How eager do you think Chinese will be to kill their fellow people in Taiwan? The communist government is not branding them as a enemy.
> Russian army has plenty of combat experience. Russian weapons were export product and are battle tested.
Both Russian personell with real combat experience and russian weapons that have been sold to outside customers have run out in the first half a year of the war. Since late 2022, Russia is fighting with freshly mobilized troops that go from being civilians to dying in a meat attack in less than a week with no bootcamp and 1960s tanks from Soviet stockpiles.
Their first fab in Arizona is completed and ramping production and the second one's structure is in place so it's probably not likely to be vaporware, but they are probably going to be hyping up what they already have done and started.
Might be a silly question but considering the tensions between US and EU right now... What would happen to all these deals if ASML was was not allowed to sell their machines to US companies? I don't know enough to even speculate on these wild scenarios
I think people give too much importance to being 1-2 generation ahead. Even if TSMC dies(slowly), it won't affect the world too much if Samsung continues to stay one generation behind with Intel likely joining them.
TSMC has a massive 65% of the market. There is no way Samsung or any other player can plug that whole in terms of sheer capacity before a quite long investment cycle.
I think that won't happen as ASML relies on a bunch of patents. Now I don't think American patents are valid abroad anyways. So probably shouldn't be a concern.
Patents alone aren't protecting ASML or other countries would have knocked it off by now. Trade secrets drive real innovation. You only patent what you think you can profitably protect.
This is me halfremembering recent comment on HN. It's structured so that the ip is owned by an American company that licenses to ASML or something like that.
If that realistically happened, America would likely seize ASML assets in the United States and continue manufacture.
I'm not entirely sure of the supply chain, but I'm fairly certain that ASML has significant operations and manufacturing in the United States. I'm in Portland and ASML has a large office here for obvious reasons.
Sure, but they'd turn the world against them. Or at least all of Europe. It'd be trivial to disable ASML's production process, too - as others have commented, they rely on tons of suppliers as well as a lot of local employees and knowledge.
I do love armchair hypotheticals like that, but a few seconds of thinking will show that a hostile takeover of the country will not mean the US retains access to ASML's machines.
It's a bit naive to expect US bases in Europe to still be there in the next 20 years. First, Trump clearly wants to pull out of Europe, because the current Republican party has basically no interest in Europe whatsoever (and it may even be seen as an enemy by them - it's the embodiment of all the "social state" fears they harbour). Second, if the US stop cooperating with the EU on security and forces Europe to rearm, they would probably become redundant and an easy target for populist movements - especially when Trump is out and will be replaced by a less appealing figure. Meloni, ... won't be able to sell Trump as a role model to their voters for long if he really plans on fucking up the European economy; if there's little to be gained it's easier for populists and nationalist in general to just paint him as an enemy.
As a European there's been a lingering feeling of anti-Americanism in Europe that's been somewhat dormant for the last 30 years. It's clearly awakening now, and it risks going mainstream too, which would basically make the position of US bases untenable unless there's a direct reward for them (like, having security guarantees)
It seems like this news predated Musk's agency taking an axe to CHIPS ACT staffing. It'll be curious to see if this ends up happening or if they pull the expansion when the subsidies are reduced.
Readit News
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) don’t really need cutting-edge chips, and China has already proven that they don’t need the latest chips to be a significant AI competitor.
From the US’s perspective, if a war with China were to break out now, there are only three possible scenarios: 1. China takes Taiwan quickly. In this case, there would be nothing for US to defend, and the US would have to try to take Taiwan back militarily—unlikely to happen. 2. Stalemate. Taiwanese people fight bravely, and Chinese forces turn out to be weaker than expected. In this case, the US would be in a comfortable position to send aid and weapons to help Taiwan, prolonging the war to weaken China. With some luck, a regime change could happen without firing a shot. 3. Taiwan successfully defends itself, repels the Chinese invasion, and possibly even takes back some territory—an unlikely scenario, but this is the only one where the US would send troops to help defend Taiwan. If the US gets involved at this stage, it secures a sure win, puts a military base on the island, and further cements its role as the protector of taiwan.
If you believe the US will or should only act in its own interest, then its interest is to remain the only superpower. Rushing into a war on foreign turf and losing is the quickest way to cede the Asia-Pacific region to China. So, despite what politicians might have you believe, the US is not going to help defend Taiwan, no matter who is in the White House.
I'm not saying China is right in wanting to invade Taiwan. But that's closer to their real motivations than anything having to do with economics or technology. And its important to understand your potential adversaries motivations because that will inform their decisions and tactics.
We can argue about what the exact desire is - there's 100M people in the CCP - we'll probably never know an exact answer.
The important thing is - China is willing to spend a LOT more money to take Taiwan than it is economically worth.
So this idea that 1) China wants Taiwan for chips, 2) War would cost more than chips, 3) Therefore, Taiwan is logically safe - is a fallacy.
The war in Ukraine is never going to pay off for Russia. They're not fighting that war to make money. They're fighting that war because a bunch of dick bags got together in a room and decided it was expedient for them for millions of people to lose their lives.
China's fundamental argument distilled to its most pure form is "we are strong enough to do this, what are you going to do about it?" A world where the strong do whatever they want because no one can do anything about it is not a world anyone should want to live in.
All of the Chinese expressing these opinions from a position of safety can’t seem to put themselves in the shoes of Taiwanese. The inhumanity of an invasion is being hidden by high level ideas like history.
The American civil war comparison fails. No American sits and thinks about invading the UK to “complete” our revolution and that’s much closer than your scenario.
We know this version is closer to the truth because Mao tried to take Taiwan
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 extract wealth, but also pump out a lot of propaganda that says Taiwan is doing even better under party rule and Western-style democracy was holding it back.
It is a great analogy. However, in this case, that small island was taken by China even before the American Civil War. To put it into perspective, it was during the time when Isaac Newton was working on gravity.
And one episode of Open To Debate [1] argued Taiwan is the worst possible place to confront China:
> I used to give battlefield tours at Gettysburg, an extraordinary place. ... a certain cavalry General John Buford ... surveyed the ground and he knew right away he looked at the hills and said, this is good ground, ... The geography favors us. Well, I want to tell you folks, he saved our country that with that appreciation. But this is the opposite. This is bad ground. This is the worst possible place to confront China
[1] https://opentodebate.org/debate/taiwan-indefensible-0/
Deleted Comment
This isn't really the situation with Taiwan though. The main reason Taiwan is still officially called the Republic of China is because changing that will likely trigger the PRC.
I find it very surprising that a lot of otherwise intelligent people have trouble with telling endorsement from explanation. Like when I tell people about some political (or not) figure's opinions and worldviews, I'm somehow defending them. I'm not! I'm doing it exactly to
> understand your potential adversaries' motivations
Happens all the time on the internet.
No, it's the other way around. Imagine that the South is victorious, and the last remnants of the North forces remain in, say, Long Island, calling themselves the original American Republic, claiming their lineage from the revolution of 1776. Technically they would be!
The Taiwanese regime is a remnant of the original Republic of China established in 1914, and Kuomintang is one of the original democratic parties of that republic. The Communist regime are the "rebels" of the Communist revolution of 1949. But, as they say, a rebellion can never succeed, because if it does, it's called another way.
Is it really this, or is that just cover for it being in the first island chain?
I mean, for a decade or so, try to re-unify, sure. But 75 years later, with slavery abolished and a completely different governmental system? I'd like to think most Americans would have accepted the New Normal by that point. If anything this tells me how irrational Chinese and Russian attitudes are.
In reality while the confederate states were part of the United States, the Republic of China (Taiwan) was never part of the Peoples Republic of China (communist China), its the reverse.
I personally would guess that the 9-dash line also has something to do with them wanting to take Taiwan.
History is full of kings who started terrible wars and got their countries screwed in the process. You can't apply game theory this kind of people.
Dead Comment
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 more resources move in-theatre).
China could secure a more reliable victory by expending most of it's ballistic missile inventory to incapacitate the US bases in Guam and Okinawa, but that would inexorably trigger WWIII.
Dead Comment
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.
You are being economically rational. Not all human decisions are done through that lens.
"Thucydides found that people go to war out of 'honor, fear, and interest.'” — Donald Kagan, On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Kagan
* https://acoup.blog/2019/12/05/collections-a-trip-through-thu...
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 of China breaking away and becoming independent.
For China it’s not about the chips. It’s about getting rid of the humiliation that is having a small island, that was originally part of China, not be a part of China.
Deleted Comment
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 of the driving reasons for the invasion. I could see a similar calculation with Taiwan/China.
Dead Comment
It’s a win-win for Trump because he keeps China at bay for three years, which is good enough for him.
Deleted Comment
I recently got (second-hand) one Taiwanese business perspective on this.
Background: A friend of mine runs an SME in Europe and one of their key suppliers is in Taiwan. Friend visits Taiwan regularly to maintain the relationship. The following conversation happened around a year ago.
My friend gets talking [in private, off the record, after a drink or three] to one of the Taiwanese managers, and the topic turns to China and the invasion scenario. My friend asked if the Taiwanese business had put any thought into what might happen (thinking maybe they've explored the business continuity angles).
The Taiwanese guy basically shrugged, and said that if the Chinese were to launch an invasion, "Taiwan is completely * * * *ed", there's nothing the US or anyone else could or would do to be able to prevent that. He apparently didn't seem up tight about, more resigned. No interest in trying to plan any kind of response, because they feel they'd be hit with overwhelming force and would be completely on their own for long enough that it would all be over.
My friend was and still is concerned about his business continuity, with his key supplier potentially going offline, so is quietly exploring his options.
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.
That won't happen either. China has an incredible manpower and material advantage, they are unlikely to be effectively defeated. Even if Taiwan can deny the channel and prevent a landing they will still be effectively blockaded.
> 2. Stalemate. Taiwanese people fight bravely, and Chinese forces turn out to be weaker than expected. In this case, the US would be in a comfortable position to send aid and weapons to help Taiwan, prolonging the war to weaken China. With some luck, a regime change could happen without firing a shot.
It will take weeks before we can tell if there is a stalemate or not, and the stalemate will not be stable. If the Americans try to provide aid they will have to cross the Chinese blockade and they will have to fight to do so.
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/most-taiwanese-would-defend-island-aga...
Just my thoughts though based on my knowledge. If anyone has anything to add, would be glad to read and learn more.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis#199...
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/21/asml_kill_switch/
Even if Russia gets all of it's demands in the peacemaking process with Ukraine, that war has done permanent and lasting damage to it's economy and global position. For China to attack Taiwan, it would give up any hope of continuing it's healthy trends towards increased economic and political importance.
Eventually, Taiwan will re-join China when it is sufficiently strong. It's symbolism as a continued humiliation by the west is more useful as propaganda than an actual military target.
Assuming the Ukraine is forced to surrender and Russia keeps the territories, Russia's reputation will increase. They'll be able to say they fought NATO and won. Even today, people say with a serious face that Ukraine started the war and many believe it.
Russia is damaged, but if it's allowed to win, it will recover and become a beacon for the global authoritarians/south.
They "just" need to flip the script: be the single superpower that all countries are dependant upon, and then take over Taiwan. And then announce "Does anyone have something to say about what I just did?", and enjoy the silence. Already China is investing all over Africa, buying their compliance (which is what the US also did in the past).
Thanks to Daddy Issues 1 (Musk) and 2 (Trump) in the White House, their path just got a lot easier.
The response of the Russian 2014 invasion of Crimea was also quite muted because the EU was dependant on Russia's energy..
After 3 years of war they will sell it out to China. Taiwan started the war in the first place, actually.
With the current administration, perhaps 3 days?
Also, please take a look here as well, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43252998
>From China’s perspective, the cost of war is much higher than the cost of developing these chips themselves.
You've got it completely backwards. China doesn't want Taiwan because it has the best chip manufacturing in the world. Taiwan has the best chip manufacturing in the world because China wants to invade them and they wanted to give the US a reason to defend them and China a reason not to. War with Taiwan will impact global chip supply even if China can produce their own, which their economy will feel.
Reverse logic much? If wanting the best electronics know how was just enough to get it, every country would have a TSMC like by now
Therefore I assume that it's possible that Taiwan will simply choose to integrate with mainland China. This would be a huge change in their sentiments for sure, but these things may happen when large wheels are turning.
There are more reasons than chips.
First is Chinese nationalism. The Island of Taiwan has been under the control of various Chinese regimes over the centuries. Taking Taiwan is a rejection of the West and can be tied by to the "century of humiliation".
America has military posts in Korea, Japan, Phillipines blockading China's entrance to the larger Pacific Ocean. Having Taiwan would allow them to break this up.
On Taiwan is also a trove of Chinese art and antiques.
Bacardi started a distillery in Puerto Rico (iirc, to sell in the US without tariffs) well before the Cuban Revolution. When the Cuban government seized Bacardi's assets, they were able to move everything to their other sites in Puerto Rico and Mexico.
As you point out, I highly doubt this deal moves the needle on whether or not US provides military aid to Taiwan. But it does help give them more options if the situation in Taiwan becomes untenable.
One, secure the supply of chips. Just look at what happened with COVID coinciding with increased TSMC fab demand from Apple, NVidia, and AMD.
Two, prevent China from gaining the technology and expertise to make cutting edge chips. This is already happening and can be handled a number of different ways if China even wanted to try gaining this capability from Taiwan (debatable).
Two doesn't really require defending Taiwan. One is the USAs primary economic concern.
And I know this is hard to believe, but there are actually still people ideologically aligned with supporting democracies against invasion by fascist countries..
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 invasion. And in either case, the US would have plenty of time to decide whether to commit additional carrier strike groups to the region before anything happens.
You are skipping a very important detail in the whole equation. The detail that teleportation was not invented yet. For China to take over Taiwan, they need to somehow place soldiers in Taiwan, and there's 100 miles of sea that complicate that.
The war over Taiwan is going to be a complex chess match. US wants to keep being able to prevent China from crossing those 100 miles, and China wants to deny the US the ability to do that. US can perform sea and air patrols, but those are quite expensive, and China can try to make them even more expensive. The war is not going to have a clear starting date, like 24-Feb-2022. It's going to be a gradual increase of the invasion threat posed by China that will force the US to increase its local military posture. A certain type of blockade will happen, but it's going to be intentionally unclear how total the blockade will be. The US and its allies will try a measured response. China will try to create tensions it the US alliance. The US will try some sanctions. China will try to seed disinformation inside the US public debate sphere. Costs will ramp up. Etc, etc.
But it's not going to be as simple as the US will look at the problem and will count the beans and call it quits.
Not necessarily. Remaining the only superpower is far from guaranteed, especially looking at current economic and demographic trends. A better strategy might be to lead by example, establishing high standards that will set a benchmark for their successor.
People in Ukraine and EU did the same mistake. Wars can start for no reason or for bogus "fake news" reasons. E.g. US can attack, say, Canada, at any time, there's no fundamental law of nature to prevent that.
Your situations seem possible but don't really cover any of the nuance of the real situation (see what China has been doing to the Philippines in the south china sea)
A multiyear conflict with China would be difficult for the US. The manufacturing capacity and proximity would make a large category of aid difficult/impossible/useless. (Allies like SK or Japan could be more helpful in this situation)
Also in Taiwan these machines are fitted with bombs that will detonate if they’re invaded
The RoC is very import dependent, and we're staring down the barrel of some major swings in world trade. Will they be able to compensate if the US economy slips into a new Great Depression and drags much of the West with it? Will the US be as interested in honouring blank-cheque defence promises when inflation is 16% and unemployment 20%?
It's also worth considering how such an event might affect the US and allies. Would it slowdown, perhaps even halt certain operations/efforts for the US. For instance, all those chips the US needs to build supercomputers for "weather research". ;)
There are a lot more options than these 3 - especially related to the middle one - that would play out differently
We are more likely to get pulled into a war with Russia and North Korea on the wrong side against Ukraine and the EU. Taiwan is a minor concern to what's taking place in our government right now. The very mere fact that Trump is siding and supporting Russian narratives, offering "gold cards" to Russian Ochlarchies, firing and gutting departments and agencies, including overwatch, should terrify everybody.
Trump is just flooding the zone with shit as he continues to break apart all checks and balances while keeping everybody distracted.
No, we are not.
Deleted Comment
However I think Trump has basically given up the game and made it pretty plain that he has no desire to help Ukraine or Taiwan and will be happy to sign 'deals' giving them up, even if those deals basically give the autocrats everything they want - just enough vague 'rare earth'-style bullshit that he feels he can claim them as victories in the press.
This is the error of non-Marxist 'realism'. The US is not a monolith with a single general interest. It is a class society with its own internal contradictions that play out, for one, internationally. There are legitimately diverging interests when it comes to the role of the United States abroad, and importantly, growing consciousness among classes which in some ways or others, view the institutions of the US' superpower-status as part and parcel of their own oppression domestically.
China wants Taiwan because they think it is part of China, and because China is building an empire.
America would defend Taiwan because it wants to contain China, TSMC is an extra incentive.
In the Trump administration, this calculus may change. Trump may well let China take Taiwan in the spirit of carving up the world between major powers. I believe this will now happen.
In terms of invasion, it is far more likely China blurs the lines and blockades Taiwan, extracting concessions and using Russian-style tactics to take control without a real “war”. This is one reason why Trump’s policy in Ukraine is a disaster for the Taiwanese, as it confirms the efficacy and acceptability of such tactics.
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.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
The Taiwan game is like the "Gulf of America" trick that Trump played. It's a test to see if you're with the CCP or against the CCP diplomatically.
People aren't random machines that can be moved willy-nilly.
They can just put sanctions or even blockade Taiwan. And if China puts sanctions on US, and dumps its USD reserves, it can destroy US economy.
US is crazy about proxies fighting their "enemies" for them. This type of thinking needs to stop! This is not cold war anymore.
An act of war, which 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, which is why they're unlikely to do it unless they were confident of US non-involvement.
Anyone that understands basic logistics and can read a map knows that this is not winnable. Not only that, but the undersecretary of state is the guy that advocated bombing TSMC. The US took a lot from Taiwan over the last 8 years and not even once did they even consider offering a free trade agreement in return. They made the Taiwan delegation visit a Zoo during the inauguration.
Singapore is allied with the west as well, but is taking a more neutral stance and a result have prospered many times over, while Taiwan has gone into total economic stagnation for decades. Where is all this moral posturing coming from? Let's look at reality and facts instead of reddit fantasies.
Look at the growth in GDP and GDP per capita here and tell me that’s stagnation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Taiwan
US tariffs will not matter when you are blockaded and Chester Nimitz is very much dead.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43123628
Taiwan is hugely reliant on US defense guarantees. The US has a protectionist president who likes big numbers in announcements and a base riled up about American production capacity.
Long-term this is bad for Taiwan since it reduces its leverage with the US in administrations with short-term geopolitics (or no real geopolitical talent.)
In the short-term, they might not have much choice.
I'd guess they looked at their options and decided this was the best hedge.
I guess it comes down to how dependent on Taiwan's chips the US actually is (I don't know the answer to that).
The US isn't dependent on Ukraine and it's pressuring them to hand over land. If it turns out the US isn't dependent on Taiwan it could show similar indifference if China were to attempt to take it.
What I don't get is, in what universe is any US president going to engage militarily against China across the ocean, let alone the current one? The US population does not seem ecstatic to enter something that could turn into WWIII, which makes me feel that even a president in favor of this would quickly fail to do anything.
In 1971, Treasury Secretary John Connally famously remarked how the US dollar was "our currency, but your problem," referring to how the US dollar was managed primarily for the US' interests despite it being the currency primarily used in global trade and global finance.
We do?
US provided security guarantees to Ukraine in 1996, when it signed the Budapest memorandum. Ukraine gave up its nukes in return.
It appears that US doesn't honor its agreements.
Trump also signed free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico in his first term. But trampled on it in his second term.
China doesn’t want direct military conflict—it prefers economic and technological competition. But it sees the U.S. as a declining power that refuses to accept a multipolar world. The U.S. labels China’s economic expansion “debt-trap diplomacy” while ignoring the IMF’s history of predatory loans. It bans Huawei and TikTok under “security concerns” while engaging in mass surveillance itself. It calls China’s South China Sea claims “aggressive” while surrounding China with military bases.
From Beijing’s view, the U.S. preaches rules it doesn’t follow. Human rights? Washington ignores Saudi Arabia but obsesses over Xinjiang. Democracy? The U.S. supports coups when convenient. Free markets? Only when American firms win.
China isn’t looking for war—it’s playing the long game. The U.S. can try to contain it, but economic gravity favors China’s rise. The more Washington pushes, the clearer its real motives become.
But all this stuff is a bluff. China will spill blood for Taiwan, the US will not. When there is a standoff the US will back down and it's Taiwan getting fucked by everybody.
In fact, even genocide doesn't really move the needle given the Gaza push.
China is terrified of their access to the sea being blockaded. They'd gladly give up TSMC technology without a second thought and continue to bribe, beg, steal their way around sancations and barriers to semiconductor technology as they have been doing just fine up to now if they could occupy Taiwan for its strategic position to deny American access and defend the sea around their coast.
We’re in an era of personal politics. Taipei should be angling for prioritising indigenous, cutting-edge chip production to Musk’s xAI.
Thank you for making it so easy to completely ignore the rest of your comment.
It's jumping to conclusion. There aren't even any details in the announcement. It could be old / "mature" tech or a list of other things. The latest nodes likely will still stay in Taiwan.
> US tariffs will not matter when you are blockaded and Chester Nimitz is very much dead.
The alternative was a pressure to buy / save Intel. Much worse.
Let’s not forget that Taiwan has a lot of production in China. Foxconn is taiwanese.
If we face the reality: Taiwan is a vassal state. The decision makers are simply owned by the US.
The thing about US "vassel" states is they don't have to do what the US says. And sometimes won't!
It's a classic Russian talking point that Ukraine has no agency. You're making the same argument for Taiwan.
Taiwan doesn't have to accept a US deal they don't like. They could build nukes. They could opt to do nothing and run the risk of invasion.
It's a democracy, Taiwan has agency. Even if, they have good reasons to make friends with the US.
Dead Comment
* The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world, and ultimately renege on many of its security guarantees, with the underlying reason being that it can no longer afford to be world police and pay for all its entitlements
* This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world. US stocks will continue to be the best buys out there
* Ergo we are looking at another American century, or perhaps some kind of isolationist/Cold War-esque type of century since American political influence will decline, but China and Russia's colossal demographic problems will hinder them from making any serious bids for dominance
Objectively - it looks like another American century, but one where the whole world is diminished due to global collapse in the birth rate, and some nations are just less diminished than others (unless I am severely underestimating the impact of automation and AI)
And yes, many people will be unhappy, and there will be more war, and globalization has peaked
Anyone who thinks the future is crystal clear is an extremely arrogant, and the narrative you present is inconsistent in ways which show an extremely poor understanding of the way international economics works.
> The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world
It hasn't granted "economic largesse" to the rest of the world, and to the extent that that term can be stretched to describe something that has been granted, it can't be clawed back; the (extremely small, compared to the size of the economy) amount of aid has largely been about establishing influence and soft power, and trade isn't largesse, its mutually beneficial. To withdraw from it weakens both sides, and the US generally withdrawing will hurt the US more than the rest of the world.
> This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world.
The kind of retreat from wide trade to mercantilist protectionism might be a relative "win" for the US (though it would still be an absolute loss for all parties, contracting the aggregate production possibilities curve as well as that for all nations), if the US engagement in "go it alone" idiocy convinced every other country to try the same thing, and if you were right that the US was the best prepared to go it alone.
But, more likely, were it to occur, while it would be an absolute loss for everyone compared to what things would be without it, it would end up a relative loss for the US, because most countries wouldn't try to follow the US in going it alone, and the US's retreat will just be looked at in mystified disbelief by other nations as they continue to reap the benefits of trade and the US fades and falls behind in every way.
>The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world
The USA is going to stop bribing people to like them, an arrangement that suited the USA very well, but is difficult to articulate to seppos in general.
>This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world. US stocks will continue to be the best buys out there
This is a huge loss, but seems like a win for people who don't understand trade, supply and investment ie, seppos.
>Ergo we are looking at another American century
A Century of trying to keep a safe distance from the most armed nation doing its best north korea impersonation.
Let me make a prediction here.
1. The US is going to get more isolationist 2. Every time they face consequences of isolationism, they will simply declare that the problems were caused by not being isolationist enough, tearing up more trade agreements and generally just shifting away from the world. "If they wont sell us good at price we like, we will just abandon international patent agreements" seems like its not far off after the tariffs. 3. This is a spiral that will end the modern USA as anyone knows it.
I am quite happy with this, as long as the seppos keep the nukes to themselves while they remove themselves from the planet economically.
But there were losers, mainly in manufacturing, and USA didn't assist them in the right way, allowed unprecedented levels of political corruption, allowed unhealthy levels of wealth inequality, allowed housing crisis, allowed obesity and health crisis etc...
Most of the USA's wounds are self-inflicted, but any good demagogue would not pass the opportunity to blame somebody else for it.
An America that successfully claws back, but does not address the internal weaknesses in time will have its own version of China's and Russia's demographic challenges.
Except the rest of the world doesn't need to go it alone.
If you have the nukes why suffer weaker countries?
If you depend on Canada for oil why even have a Canada ?
If you have to pay to defend Taiwan for their chips bring the chips over, leave Taiwan outside
Why should Panama have a say in global trade ?
If anything it's the other way around - the world has granted America incredible economic concessions. America has decided it doesn't want them.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Now that it’s become untenable for great powers to fight and they’re all facing regional instability and domestic unrest (EU, US, RUS, CN), we’ll see a century of consolidation and realignment at the regional/continental scale.
ASEAN, China, E Asia, India, Russia; Middle East and South Asia; EU, UK, Russia; US, Canada, Latin America; South America (eg, Argentina, Brazil, and Ecuador); Africa (though, I’m less familiar with specifics there).
We’re seeing political upheaval in each region as states jockey for position in this new world order — now that international global order is dead (or at least, mortally wounded).
Exciting times!
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 China getting a foothold in the American tech industry. Kind of a followup to Deepseek, but providing the Chinese government more access to US chips via a physical presence. The original Trump plan was for TSMC to literally take over Intel plants, but Intel told Trump to get stuffed.
The more accurate framing, to me, feels like: America is going to ask for more from the world in return for its security guarantees. We're seeing this with the mineral rights in Ukraine, and now this TSMC investment. The world does not like this, because no one likes being asked to pay the bill at dinner when you're used to dad picking it up for the past 80 years, but that seems to be the priority.
This is ultimately healthy; as Starmer said this week, Europe needs to lead the effort in Ukraine, with US backing. A Europe that spends more on its own defense and is more independently capable of defending itself is a stronger Europe; this is what America wants, America wants strong allies across the pond, and it should be what Europeans want too.
But, as you allude to: Russia is not the threat some think they are, today. This war has decimated their offensive capability, thanks to US support over the past three years, and the geopolitical situation in eastern Europe right now is in a place where Europe, even with its diminished military capacity relative to the US, can actually lead security guarantees with Ukraine. But, the US will be there; America will get some mineral rights, and there will be some kind of peace deal organized in tranches where violation of tranche 1 means the EU military gets involved but violation of tranche 2 means you've woken the beast and the US gets involved too.
You're 100% right that there will be more wars, though. It just won't be the ones people expect. I don't think Taiwan will happen in the next decade; both sides have too much to lose. Ukraine & eastern Europe will calm down in the next six months. Longer term, I'd be more concerned about India and Pakistan or China, as that's an area of the world where the US has few existing security guarantees and direct allyships, but the military spending is ramping up.
Given that the US is doing a professional wrestling 'heel turn' and is now The Bad Guys, I wouldn't be surprised if, like NK, they just come out and announce that they have nukes. Honestly, and this is bad for the world but smart in a game theory sense, I think a lot of countries that depended on the US being a force for stability either go the Israel route ("We won't say if we have nukes or not" wink) or just announce that they have them and do public tests to prove it.
Even China and Iran didn't vote with Russia on that one, they abstained.
It's interesting, because I'm sure Trump and Musk take advantage of the benefits that the regulated market provide (even when they just ignore it to their benefit because most others don't), but I'm not sure they've really considered what it means when that stability and security is gone, in more than a "I'm the biggest so I'll be okay" type of sense. There's a lot of positive externalities from that stability that maybe they are discounting too much (such as a relatively peaceful world, since it's been a while since we had a World War).
Threatening to annex Canada and start a trade war to try to compulse them. Invoking Canadian nationalism instead. Note: he arranged the previous "trade deal" he claims to hate now.
Starting a trade war with Mexico, this is actually a source of Fentanyl and I can understand.
Camerading with dictators ( Russia), voting the same as them in the UN. Claiming Russia isn't the aggressor ( wtf), even China didn't agree with it.
Threatening a country being attacked and bullying it's president. Taking advantage of the situation to bully them for resource extraction.
Threatening Europe and stability in Europe:
Threatening Germany and interfering publicly with it's elections.
Threatening the UK and interfering publicly with it's elections
Disrespecting NATO and it's citizens who have died when US invoked article 5 on 9/11
US is getting more and more hate from literally everywhere in a very short time because of Trump. A lot is changing very quickly and it won't take 4 years until Trump is gone. We're 6 weeks in...
The entire world is pretty sure that Trump & Vance will take the US in a dictatorship. A lot of this is smoke and mirrors to keep everyone distracted and busy in the mean time ( personal opinion)
Pointer: just look at Tesla in Europe. Some countries are reporting a 45% drop in Tesla sales while the EV market expanded 40%...
Eg. Tesla sales dropped 70% in Canada in January. 81 % in Australia, 60% in Germany, ...
When people will stop US subscriptions ( eg. Netflix) and it's becoming noticable ( eg. Stocks). That will be a point of no return (eg. I think it's already going to be visible from Canada).
https://theintercept.com/2017/05/03/why-do-north-koreans-hat...
When discussing nuclear proliferation, North Korea is pretty much the worst example and should be mentioned.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/nixon-tried-t...
Yeah, they can probably fight fairly well for a year or two with their reserves (depending on how much of the reserves are actually there.. corruption is an issue). But after that they risk catastrophic destabilisation within China. People don’t realise that Chinas main ongoing challenge is to keep mainland China itself stable. They spend much more on internal security than on external security. Chinas sabre rattling with Taiwan can be considered part of trying to maintain internal stability. It helps keep people focused on external enemies.
Taiwan is also an order of magnitude more difficult to invade. The yearly window for invasion is fairly small. It’s easy to see it coming. There’s only a couple of beaches suitable to land an army on, and it will be blanketed with mines within an hour of seeing the first invasion ships crossing the strait.
Ukraine has also demonstrated that a smaller nation can take out the entire navy of a bigger one with sea drones. Taiwan is now building their own drones.
I think drones will favour the defender, even if China could make more of them. Especially when laser weapons can cheaply take out drone swarms trying to drop bombs on the defenders. The Taiwan strait will be impassable for any large ship, and you need to cross with a large ship and get boots on the ground to successfully invade.
* China is building new navy ships at a much faster pace than the US
* China has LUDICROUSLY more total shipbuilding capacity overall than the US, like more than 200x as much
* China has a semi-militarized militia fleet that they already make use of that they can call on to help ferry soldiers around
* In a war around Taiwan, China would be able to commit essentially its whole fleet, while the US would still have to be concerned around interests in other parts of the globe. Plus the obvious home field logistical advantage in maintenance/repair being close by.
The US will still be much stronger in terms of navy for other parts of the world for a long time yet, but if it's a fight close to China, I think China may surpass the US in effective power within the next decade.
China's been building some new vessels designed to mitigate this (sorry for linking to a video but it's the best source I've seen for this): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klkpk_hO4FQ
That seems like it was be very easy to exploit. Modern society especially dense cities doesn’t seem very resilient to lack of power.
The assumption of US and allies completely blockade China's coast is very unrealistic, it's more likely the allied fleet will try to stop a blockage of PLA on Taiwan, which won't last a few months without external supply. And in term of drones, China is also a big player in the field. I don't think Taiwan has advantage on that. Ukraine can wreck blacksea fleet because it was a very out of date navy, unfortunately you can't say that to the Chinese one.
Difficult to land might be the only defence Taiwan has.
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.
This will happen after USA extricates all the meaningful tech and re-homes the institutions and workforce required to maintain that tech to the USA mainland. Still probably a decade or two away, but likely.
China has none of that.
Russia brought soldiers from the far east to fight. How eager do you think Chinese will be to kill their fellow people in Taiwan? The communist government is not branding them as a enemy.
Both Russian personell with real combat experience and russian weapons that have been sold to outside customers have run out in the first half a year of the war. Since late 2022, Russia is fighting with freshly mobilized troops that go from being civilians to dying in a meat attack in less than a week with no bootcamp and 1960s tanks from Soviet stockpiles.
So decades of military theater from China regarding Taiwan is for no purpose?
edit: ahh pacific
Chip fab is much more valuable than putting iPhones together.
I get why it would be important for niche (e.g. defense) applications, but is TSMC scale really needed?
Deleted Comment
US/EU economies are too intertwined to be decoupled. Just distancing the US economy from China is hard.
That is not going to happen since ASML depends itself on some US supplied tech.
What should worry EU is US building capability of their own and sabotage ASML.
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=asml%20llnl&type=comment
I'm not entirely sure of the supply chain, but I'm fairly certain that ASML has significant operations and manufacturing in the United States. I'm in Portland and ASML has a large office here for obvious reasons.
Dead Comment
I do love armchair hypotheticals like that, but a few seconds of thinking will show that a hostile takeover of the country will not mean the US retains access to ASML's machines.
As a European there's been a lingering feeling of anti-Americanism in Europe that's been somewhat dormant for the last 30 years. It's clearly awakening now, and it risks going mainstream too, which would basically make the position of US bases untenable unless there's a direct reward for them (like, having security guarantees)
And what makes you think EU countries won't kick out US soldiers until then?