Comment by y0ssar1an
9 days ago
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.
9 days ago
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.
I doubt it’s something we could know without it happening.
US has intel and some other options, but it would be a colossal issue and adjustment.
China has its well funded, fast progressing Chinese chiplets, but it would be a colossal issue and adjustment.
All we can tea leaf is this: which party has a better history of making large fast industrial adjustments, and which economy is more reliant on cutting edge chips? I think china wins on both personally, so I would give them the edge, gun to head. But it’s an extremely messy process for either.
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.
No one believes it, so it won't strengthen your negotiating position. It's an unconfirmed rumour of unknown origin, and nobody is taking it seriously. And you're missing the historical context, which makes TSMC irrelevant to China's claims.
1 reply →