Comment by pphysch
9 days ago
Why would Taiwan destroying its own assets disincentivize annexation goals that have existed long before computer chips were produced there?
9 days ago
Why would Taiwan destroying its own assets disincentivize annexation goals that have existed long before computer chips were produced there?
Presumably at least in part because China's just as dependent on TSMC as everyone else (at least for the time being). So it's a form of Mutally Assured Destruction, kind of like nuclear weapons. If they actually have to be used, then everyone's in for a bad time, but seeing as nobody wants that, it acts as a disincentive.
This makes no sense. China doesn't want Taiwan because of TSMC, it wanted Taiwan long before TSMC was a major player. The only effect of destroying factories would be to make Taiwan poorer, while China would still get what it wanted.
You're right that this isn't why China want's Taiwan. But the point is that it would also make China poorer. In fact, it would be highly likely to cause a global recession of a magnitude that could threaten the Chinese government due to pressure from it's own citizens.
1 reply →
Not invading Taiwan:
+ China gets to profit from selling phones, computers, etc. to the west
- China doesn't get to own a piece of land
Invading Taiwan:
+ China owns a piece of land
- China can't manufacture anything the west is interested in.
1 reply →
If Taiwan is being invaded, the annexation is happening. There's no longer any reason to disincentivize annexation. Destroying the fabs is about denying China a major prize.
Destroying the fabs would hurt the West a lot more than China, which is rapidly playing catch up (while US and EU are not).
The other glaring flaw in this pop-geopolitics narrative is that China already has enormous economic leverage over the West, even without the chip supply chain.
> Destroying the fabs would hurt the West a lot more than China, which is rapidly playing catch up (while US and EU are not)
Is that true? My understanding is that Intel while somewhat behind TSMC, is (along with Samsung) still broadly keeping pace. Whereas SMIC while rapidly improving is still playing catch-up.
1 reply →
Did Hong Kong destroy its financial sector to deny China a "major prize"? If someone were going to invade and occupy your country, would you destroy your huge source of revenue so they couldn't claim it as a "major prize"? And then what? Stay poor? I feel like people who repeat this view (something they read somewhere) haven't really analyzed it in a social, economic, historical, and geopolitical context. Because if you do, there's zero logic to it, given the consequences for the 23 million people who would still be living on the island afterward.
Committing to threats/promises "illogically" gives you a better negotiating position.
Acting "illogically" to spite bad behavior leads to less bad behavior.
2 replies →
That question comes up every time this fact is posted, and it could be for the very simple reason to disincentivize annexation to a later date.