← Back to context

Comment by jiggawatts

4 hours ago

> Nothing hampers solar, wind, and batteries though;

For now.

The majority of solar panels are made in China (85%), and they plan to invade Taiwan in just a few years, possibly as soon as 2027, at which point either we let them take control of AI chip production or defend Taiwan and cut ourselves off from the source of almost all manufactured products, and especially solar panels.

>and they plan to invade Taiwan in just a few years

Can you share your sources for that valuable intelligence? Military analysts would really be interested to learn that. Or is that form the same manufactured scaremongering genre as "Iran is 6 weeks away from building nuclear weapons" and "Iraq has WMDs" to justify endless defense spending, military interventions and warmongering.

> at which point either we let them take control of AI chip production

You can't just commandeer semi fabs like you're carjacking a Hyundai for a joyride. Semi fabs need constant parts and on-prem staff and always-on telemetry from ASML & friends to run. If that's gone, you're left with a very expensive warehouse that can't do shit.

  • Iran being x weeks away from a working nuclear weapon and Iran not currently having a nuclear weapon are not mutually exclusive scenarios.

    Your second paragraph assumes China doesn’t have all the espionage necessary, and hasn’t proven their capabilities on their own labs.

    Like the Chinese are just sans neocortex or something.

  • You don't build out a massive fleet of amphibious landing craft, mobile piers, and other similar Navy ships that can only be used for invading another country via the sea... for self-defense. These have one purpose, and China is mass-producing them.

    https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-CHINA/TAIWAN-INVASION/z...

    https://www.ft.com/content/36a00ba4-6178-4267-9786-3e0b59abe...

    https://www.wsj.com/world/china/china-taiwan-military-naval-...

    > "Iran is 6 weeks away from building nuclear weapons"

    It is the breakout time, not the schedule.

    It is incredible to me how pervasive the misunderstanding of this statement is!

    I've had real-life conversations with project managers just like this:

    PM: "How long would this project take?"

    Me: "One month."

    ... two weeks later ...

    PM: "How long would the project take to finish?"

    Me: "One month."

    PM: "You said that two weeks ago! It should only take two weeks to finish!"

    Me: "Why would you think that? We never started the project! It wasn't approved. You didn't approve it, personally. The effort is four weeks. If you approve and we start today, it will still take that long to complete."

    ... two more weeks later ...

    PM: "Why isn't the project finished!? You said one month a month ago!"

    Me: "... wat?"

    • They obviously want to be able to invade Taiwan, yes, nobody serious would assert that they're developing amphibious capacity for self defence.

      That's not the same thing as planning to invade in 2027, though. Militaries can need a capability without an imminent specific plan to actually use it. See the US's amphibious capacity. See nukes.

    • >You don't build out a massive fleet of amphibious landing craft, mobile piers, and other similar Navy ships that can only be used for invading another country via the sea... for self-defense.

      Firstly, this take is poorly thought out from a facts perspective, needlessly alarmist and mostly just FUD.

      The fact is that China has thousands of islands in its territory already. So how else would their military be able to DEFEND those islands WITHOUT "a massive fleet of amphibious landing craft" capable of landing troops and material on islands that they own? It doesn't mean they 100% WILL invade Taiwan just because they have them, like you claim.

      Secondly, the three news sources you then quoted are just your typical clickbaity mainstream media with nothing to lose if they are wrong in their alarmist predictions or just blatantly lie like they often do to manipulate people and financial markets, especially given their incentives and ties to politics and the wealthy elite.

      So telling people on HN with 100% certainty China will invade Taiwan in the near future just because you read something about China's drills of Taiwan invasion in the MSM, just gets you more egg on your face that nobody can take your takes on this seriously. I'm 100% sure that the US Navy also regularly has drills on nuking China and Russia from their submarines, that doesn't mean they're actually planning to do it anytime soon with no provocation. So please, stop turning what is bland vanilla news into alarmist FUD.

      1 reply →

Taiwan cannot make chips without western inputs and spare parts, so China taking over Taiwan or Korea or Japan doesn’t really give them access to making those chips.

  • Rather, in a case of such an acute confrontation, it denies their adversaries access to the highest-end chips, too.

But the solar panels we already have don't suddenly stop working, which is an important difference between sourcing solar panels from a potential enemy and sourcing raw fossil fuels from one. There's also nothing stopping the US or other trading partners from making solar panels, China is just the most convenient and cheapest source as it is for many other things. And to that point, the end of trade between the US and China would be incredibly damaging to both countries whether or not we buy solar panels from them now.

  • I asked Claude, and now I know that there are nice, basically undetectable, plausibly deniable ways to render solar panels useless within months, or, with some preparation, days. It seems that open-source, carefully scrutinized panel controller firmware may be critically important.

    • Your Claude may have been hallucinating - solar panels have no microcontrollers or microprocessors, and hence have no need for firmware. Battery Charge controllers -- that are downstream of panels do have firmware, but even if a booby-trapped firmware were to short-circuit the panels, they'd be undamaged.

      1 reply →