Putting this facility in Taiwan seems risky, considering the political situation. I heard Warren buffet just pulled his tsmc stocks out of caution over it
I still don't understand why China would possibly want to try and invade Taiwan? The chip foundry's would immediately be scuttled, and whatever would be left would be a nice, but simple island.
In exchange for taking that land mass, their entire international trade business which mainland china is extremely reliant on, would be in jeopardy.
It would almost be political suicide to invade as far as I see it. But I'm no expert.
There's a lot of people who ask questions about history or geopolitics that amount to, "why would <country> pursue <goal>?" when <goal> is a central ideologically motivating factor for <faction-that-controls-country>. The classic example being Germany's 1941 invasion of Russia--often derided as a strategic blunder in hindsight, except the rulers of Germany in 1941 had the conquest of Russia as their primary geopolitical goal in the first place. Likewise, the existence of Taiwan outside of CCP control is contrary to the goal of unifying all of China under CCP control.
> In exchange for taking that land mass, their entire international trade business which mainland china is extremely reliant on, would be in jeopardy.
The thing is most of the world is also pretty reliant on international trade business with mainland China.
The question is really about how willing the world is to disrupt their own economies in order to disrupt China's.
Trade barriers against North Korea and Cuba are basically free for the other country, restricting access to energy imports from Iran or Russia imposes a real cost on the country raising the barriers, but even after decades of grumbling it's hard to find a supply chain for manufactured products that doesn't have a significant dependency on China. That makes it hard to fight a war with China, trade or otherwise.
> hard to find a supply chain for manufactured products that doesn't have a significant dependency on China. That makes it hard to fight a war with China, trade or otherwise.
You don't ban those products, you put big tariffs on them. That way, anyone who has the option to source stuff elsewhere does so.
And you deliberately act erratically with tariffs - adding and removing them at short notice - so that lots of companies think it is just too risky to trade with China, and move manufacturing elsewhere as insurance.
How do you deduce that the foundry's will be scuttled? I'm not saying they won't be. But I can foresee a world where too many people who care about these foundry's regardless of which political party is in charge, would prevent them from being scuttled. And also, China might have insiders in Taiwan that might prevent the scuttling and make sure they are preserved.
It doesn't matter how many people don't want the foundries to be "scuttled"; if enough people do, and they have the means to do so, it will happen. It might be the Taiwanese military, or an allied military, that actually does it.
It wouldn't take many disgruntled employees to scuttle it themselves. It's much easier to ruin delicate expensive equipment than to preserve it in working order.
These workers have opinions and their opinions might not be the same as yours. They might not be as pro-western as you may believe. They also have imagination and can imagine a world where they are better off under China with this equipment working then under China without this equipment working. Either way, the point is that its not a sure thing that this equipment would be scuttled.
> better off under China with this equipment working then under China without this equipment working.
This. If an enemy is invading your country and looks likely to succeed, then the important thing for you as a citizen isn't defending your homeland - it is making sure you have a future in the new country under new governance. That might well involve being the guy with all the knowledge to get the chip fab going again.
The US hasn't lost many wars in their homeland, so most citizens haven't really thought of their options...
There aren't any such guys. Running TSMC is a stack of many different levels of sole suppliers from different companies (US, Netherlands, Japan, even sort of Ukraine for neon.)
It wouldn't take any. Military action against Taiwan would lead to sanctions at a level never seen before. Without Western support in the form of raw materials, spare parts, and intellectual property, the hardware at TSMC is fit for nothing but whatever the modern equivalent of Weird Stuff Warehouse is.
I guess they could raise a few yuan by selling the DUV and EUV machines on eBay. "Removed from a working environment." That'd be about all they could do with it.
It would be hard for China to maintain and the whole time they are trying to source parts and find people able to maintain it they wouldn’t be able to get the newest equipment so start falling behind again.
The US could even bomb the factories to deny the resource.
Taiwan relies on external materials as much or more than Manhattan. They have at best under a month's worth of food on the island, and other raw materials supply is measured in days.
One thing people miss with the china/taiwan discussion is that China doesn't need to make a single violent move towards Taiwan to subdue it. A naval blockade would force Taiwan's capitulation in almost no time at all.
Even a forceful blockade wouldn't be totally necessary, if China just passed any sort of sanction stopping the export of materials or food to Taiwan, prices would immediately become unsustainable on the island and it would also have to capitulate.
Assuming the Chinese manage to occupy Taiwan, they would no doubt want to take over TSMC’s facilities and hold them as a bargaining chip to normalize relations with the West. They’d swiftly run out of essential components such as silicon wafers (from Japan), but the CCPC might just try their luck.
There's small matter of the gigantic trove of treasure.
The Kuomintang took huge amounts of priceless Chinese artifacts when they fled to Taiwan, which are now in the National Palace Museum[1]. There's a case to be made that the CCP was on an iconoclastic spree and there was good reason to take the artifacts to Taiwan for safekeeping, but the fact remains that vast amounts of priceless Chinese relics are now in Taiwan. China would like them back and is willing to do more than ask politely. Taiwan can blow up the fabs, sure, but they're probably not going to blow up the relics. Chinese leadership would gain a historic amount of face by bringing them home.
I'd say a reason, not necessarily the reason. Taiwan rubbed China's face in it for decades, it seems like a long-held grudge:
> During the 1960s and 1970s, the National Palace Museum was used by the Kuomintang to support its claim that the Republic of China was the sole legitimate government of all China, in that it was the sole preserver of traditional Chinese culture amid social change and the Cultural Revolution in mainland China, and tended to emphasize Chinese nationalism.
Even though, if you read further down in the article, there's not as much acrimony about it in recent years. Still, China has had dreams to invade Taiwan for decades, mostly for nationalist reasons, and this is likely one of the reasons that's higher in the list.
If China managed to have their oceangoing trade sanctioned by the US and their allies, who are they trading with? Russia? The Middle East? Both of which the country shares enormous land borders with. Not to mention that this would involve the US crushing its own economy in order to create the sanctions. About the only thing that could trigger a response like that would be an invasion of an allied country...
As far as a casus belli it is a stretch at best. The kind of thing you have to put forward because the population at large wouldn't accept your real reason.
The fact that Taiwan exists disrupts the official narrative that there is only one China and its ideology is Maoist communism. Reunifying China is thus kind of a priority.
No idea why you being downvoted. I as owner of Russian passport even been to Kiev in December 2021 and talked with a lot of friends and just normal people there on gamedev conference. There been a lot of tension for 8 years since 2014 and even more during 2021. Yet no matter political views no one in either Russia or Ukraine seriously considered full scale war possible.
Conclusion: there no way to know what is inside a head of aging autocrat.
> no matter political views no one in either Russia or Ukraine seriously considered full scale war possible.
Plenty of experts have been calling it for a decade now... EU/US influence has been slowly creeping east for 30 years. Russia had no other options really - as soon as a pro-west leader was elected to Ukraine, war was inevitable.
And the same will happen in Belarus when the leadership changes there too.
Have you visited any countries bordering Russia - Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan? If you do, you see quite odd things...
You see children's playgrounds that have a big sign saying 'Proudly sponsored by the USA development fund", or "This bus route is made possible by the EU funding.".
Why would the USA be using US taxpayer money to build children's playgrounds in Azerbaijan?
It's all about a long term battle for hearts and minds... Be the 'good guys' to a 5 year old child now, and in 30 years that child is a voter and you can have influence over the whole country.
Pretty smart moves... But I can see how Russia isn't happy about it.
Now do Yemen, Iraq (first and second time), Pakistan, Libya and Syria. Then do Vietnam, then consider the support and armament of Israel and finish up with decades of CIA meddling and installation of brutal dictatorships all around the globe.
We have politicians here that voted in favor of those war crimes, demanding that Russians are punished for theirs. Let's start at home if war crimes are something we care about if not we can shut our hypocrite mouths.
The end of the Nazis and the Holocaust doesn't become a bad thing just because the Soviets were involved. Helping Ukraine resist a clear war of aggression doesn't become a bad thing just because the US is part of that helping. Hell, it's nice to see most of the world chip in on a more morally black-and-white scenario than is typical over the last 70 years.
If you think Russia and the US are on equal moral footing with regards to the Ukraine question, you're the @dril tweet.
It can be accurate but she is also totally within her rights to not listen to him. Do as I say not as I do has never been effective. If we want less war we need to set an example not raise the share price of our private defence contractors at the expense of civilians while wagging our finger.
Also the powers that be in the US want a war in Ukraine as much as Putin does. Probably moreso. They are selling a lot of killing machines.
> It can be accurate but she is also totally within her rights to not listen to him.
She might not be wise to. An obese doctor advising an obese patient to lose weight because of health problems still has a potentially valid point. The obese doctor might even have more useful perspective than another doctor on the issue.
> If we want less war we need to set an example...
I'm pretty sure that's what we're doing in Ukraine. China certainly would be wise to consider what a Taiwan invasion would look like if the US and allies decided to assist in a similar fashion.
> Also the powers that be in the US want a war in Ukraine as much as Putin does. Probably moreso. They are selling a lot of killing machines.
Sure. Ted Bundy and I both like to eat; that doesn't automatically make eating bad. This is precisely why we have to evaluate the actual specific scenario in question on its merits.
> I'm pretty sure that's what we're doing in Ukraine.
If we wanted to set an example we would declare war on Russia. Instead we send billions of dollars into a the unaccountable void that is the most corrupt country in Europe.
Look man, if really believe in this stuff the military is really struggling to find recruits right now. A lot of people are disillusioned with the forever wars as their nations infrastructure crumbles around them, costs rise to unsustainable levels and their streets are full of homeless. They watch the VA fail to serve veterans and remember the lies they were told by the elderly politicians who still haven't been replaced. You on the other hand appear to have strong convictions about this conflict, rather than costing my daughter her future via debt spending are you willing to be the boots on the ground to make sure justice is served?
My boots on the ground mean nuclear holocaust due to open war between Russia and NATO, which probably impacts your daughter a bit. If you'd told a Cold Warrior in the 80s it'd cost 10% of a single year's military budget to kneecap Russia's military without firing a shot, they'd have laughed at you; it's probably the most effective military spending we've done since WWII.
Americans are simultaneously down on "forever wars" and supportive of Ukraine assistance. Your attempt to connect the two concepts doesn't seem to be a widely shared position in the American public.
I agree. Once Putin had Trump there in power he sensed that the country was weak and decided to take action thinking that the Americans were too preoccupied with trying to be some semblance of government and international relations back to order once Biden won the election.
Problem was that the Biden admin actually has experience and capabilities, and the Ukrainians decided to fight for their country and now Russia is finding out that they made a pretty poor move based on faulty assumptions.
> We have no leg to stand on
1) At some point we get our legs to stand on back - supporting Ukraine actually has gone a long way in the eyes of Europe and allies in the Pacific.
2) Not having a leg to stand on doesn't matter because we can do wrong things and then also criticize others when they do wrong things.
3) EU member states and other nations have legs to stand on and they also support the American position on Ukraine.
I live in Ukraine and never have seen a US-funded playground. As a father of two, I’m a frequent visitor of playgrounds. Also have never seen a “funded by EU” sign. I’m sure there are some cases with EU-funding, as I’ve read about a couple of cases in the news, but it’s not widespread at all. I’ve only seen such signs in EU proper (e.g. Lithuania).
The whole premise “someone funded a playground in my neighbor’s backyard, I have no other options. Bomb them NOW!” is beyond ridiculous.
They could also fund our playgrounds, if it’s as effective, as you claim. In any case that would be muuuuuch cheaper than starting a war with hundreds of thousands dying, sanctions and all that.
That’s the thing, taking Ukraine gives Russia several advantages, Ukraine produces a lot of the agriculture in that region, so taking that gives them another large bargaining chip in their sphere.
Not to mention, it’s a large landmass that offers a huge buffer between the NATO countries and Russia.
And it’s got another 40 or 50 million people for Russia, which has a population problem.
And it’s got iron & Steel exports…
Taiwan has TSMC. And I suspect the US has a bunch of fueled up C-17’s ready to take all the important infrastructure to the US and plans in place to effectively destroy the rest at a moments notice.
I agree I don't think it'd help Putin or anything, I'm just saying that if they took Ukraine, he'd add another 42 million people to the 133 million he already rules over. That's about a third more people to rule over, and he's not concerned about the later years of a peasant Russian. I assume he's concerned with more able bodied young men, which, ironically is a cohort he lacks while he tries to capture the country he's trying to obtain to help with that problem.
Okay I see that majority of comments here on HN including yours have one big flaw. So I'll just try to share perspective as person who was actually born in Russia and lived there good chunk of the year till February 2022.
For some reason people from outside of ex-USSR usually suppose there is at least something rational about this war. But USSR does not exist for 30 years and there are no massive political machine. It's just a autocracy / kleptocracy where all decisions taken by a very small groups of incompetent people whos only goal is to preserve their power.
Neither there is any real ideology in Russia. Putin is a much closer to The Dictator movie than to Stalin or Hitler. He care of his giant palaces and yachts far more than about gaining 42M extra subjects to rule. This whole war is just a presidental PR campaign 2024 gone wrong.
PS: Yeah, that's it. It's not some great powerplay to control the world. Not a war with NATO or US. Not even a war over reasources or territory. It's just aging kleptocracy that stumbled and now is killing 100,000s in pointless war.
I do agree that there is a part of this is a Presidential campaign gone wrong. I don't know if I'd submit that as 100%. But Putin does like looking like a strong man. And if he took Ukraine in a week, as his original plan looked it(?), he would have definitely been able to look like the strong man. I do think there is some aspects of resources and territory though. More access to warm water ports and controlling essentially the bread basket of Europe. Lets not act like Ukraine isn't strategically important for Europe has a whole. Taking Ukraine along with having Belarus in his pocket also significantly shrink the amount of border they actually need to defend because of the mountains.
I not arguing there are no strategic importance. If he'd managed to successfully assasinate or overthrow government in 3 days then it's would be the way how Kremlin will talk of their great victory.
The deal is: neither Putin nor population of Russia give a damn about this territory control. If Ukraine will free Donetsk and Luhansk tomorrow and Crimea in a year no one in Russia will care about it. Except of course people living on occupied territories, but FSB will shut them up.
On 30 September 2022 they announced annexiation of Kherson. Claimed it's will be part of Russia forever. Just a bit more than month later on 9th November 2022 it stopped being part of Russia and no one cared about it since. And too talkative members of occupation government just died under strage circumstances.
It's really odd to fathom who someone would not understand why Xi wants to take Taiwan, and 'chips' has nothing to do with it.
People need to take a much, much broader mindset. China views Taiwan as part of China, and that's that.
I personally don't, and the Taiwanese population ought to chose what they want without material interference, and 'we' should respect that by recognizing their sovereignty and statehood if that's what they want, much like at this point we ought to be recognizing Palestine as a state, if that's what they want.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is pure classical Imperialism, Ukraine is a 'sub Russian vassal' and Russian Imperialism is part of the Russian identity - it was 'secularized' during the time of USSR, now it's just old school.
If you look at geopolitics from the 19th century it's all very clear.
That said, it is odd Apple would do this in Taiwan, and, it's a much bigger jump than people think.
This is a bold move and will reshape what Apple is, and maybe what a true international megacorp of the future looks like.
It could also make them more fragile and if they start to falter, it could really fall apart. You need a lot to work well for this to be pulled off.
I don't think the political situation has changed that much since 1949, except for minor updates in 1971 and 1992. Besides, as the sibling commenter mentions, Apple (and every other consumer electronics manufacturer in the world) is in deep trouble if war breaks out.
If they de-risk by doing this in the US or India, what are they going to use the screens for?
Sure, I was being a bit flippant. The world is different in many ways, including more interdependence between Chinese and Taiwanese economies. Without getting too deep into it, the issue mostly comes down to whether the US decides to intervene.
Everybody suffers massively if there's hot war in the strait. The main point is that unless supply chains are unwound from both countries, it doesn't matter that much where you put a new screen factory.
Of course it matters… It’s completely absurd to think it doesn’t matter …or are you being flippant again. I don’t have time to burn so say what you mean. If you really don’t understand, I can explain the obvious advantages to not placing a factory in a potential war zone.
I'm not being flippant, and I think my meaning is clear. You're avoiding the original point, which is that if the majority of your factories are already in a potential war zone, the risk calculation doesn't change by adding another. What do you think happens to Honhai's Chinese facilities during this hypothetical invasion?
Arguing over US strategic ambiguity is probably too off topic for this thread. I live in Taiwan, so I guess I've put my money where my mouth is.
“Since the beginning of the 2020s, TSMC has expanded its operations outside of the island of Taiwan, opening new fabs in Japan and the United States, with further plans for expansion into Germany”
Now, would building the only plant that makes your displays in a potential war zone increase your risk? Common sense is all you need to answer the question.
majority != all, and my argument is based on the idea that:
(1) Invasion is very unlikely
(2) If there is an invasion, it's very likely that the US and Japan have something to say about it.
Anyway, I wonder if there's other reasons for it to be in Taiwan. The article isn't very substantive, but it links to another one that says:
"European company ams OSRAM will be the primary supplier of microLED chips for Apple, but there is potential for Taiwanese suppliers like Epistar to become additional suppliers of microLED chips by 2026-2027..."
Maybe there are some partnerships aside from TSMC that are driving the decision. The article says the process will be developed in Longtan (Taoyuan), which happens to be where at least one other company is setting up microLED production:
Ukraine had the third largest nuclear weapons arsenal. Now they are fighting for survival.
What the US, and how much the US, will do, with respect to Taiwan depends on politicians in Washington D.C., public sentiment, etc. and that changes over time.
Naval landings are never easy. Suicidal if you don't have complete air dominance. In World War 2 the Nazis were able to conquer all of western Europe in weeks, but were completely stopped by the mere 50 miles of English Channel. And this was in the days before Radar was well understood and deployed and before guided cruise missiles were a thing.
There is only one scenario where the invasion of Taiwan isn't a long and drawn out affair that costs the Chinese hundreds of thousands to millions of troops, and that's the one where they start off by nuking it flat in a massive surprise attack and end up winning only a radioactive wasteland for their troubles.
