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.
Please stop saying things like this. It doesn't help anyone.
This invasion is partially an extension of their goal of securing Crimea with a more solid land connection rather than the more easily interrupted bridge connection that was their only connection until they pushed up to their current lines in Eastern Ukraine.
[0] eg: https://preview.redd.it/least-obvious-russian-tweeting-about...
That's just reddit paranoia. "Warm water port" is a term of art which means a port that stays free of ice. It's not about comfortable swimming temperatures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port#Warm-water_port
Reddit just uses this as an excuse to say that anybody discussing reasons Russia might have started this war, other than "they're being evil for the sake of being evil, just like in my manchild Marvel/Harry Potter/Star Wars movies" is secretly a Russian bot, because even if you know such reasons might exist your willingness to discuss them, or unwillingness to go along with a simplistic groupthink narrative, is something which must be suppressed and punished. The cause is more important than your desire to have an honest conversation!
Anyway, this kind of language policing and "shibboleth" crap lame slacktivism. Go enlist. Ooh, that's probably a shibboleth too. Beep boop, Imma robot because I don't walk in lockstep with Reddit!
The amount of times I've seen people on reddit reply to (presumably real) Ukrainian redditors with a show of solidarity composed of some slogan from a Hollywood movie or to try to explain/compare their situation in Ukraine / on the world stage to an Avengers movie is honestly baffling. I genuinely can't believe that people live framing their existence and perspective of the world without the context of cheap power fantasy fiction. It's so cringingly out of touch that I'm almost far more willing to believe people talking like that are the Russian bots people are constantly harping on about trying to make Western public support look bad.
Nah, they are also against Article 4 (regional security), which while not as concrete of a commitment, applies much more broadly, and which leads to things like the current support for Ukraine, not just Article 5 (mutual defense), which only affects hem when they would want to target a NATO member’s territory in and in a couple areas close to Europe or North America.
Pretty sure Putin needs to start wars, conflicts, terrorist events to maintain political stability. That is to say, he can't lose power because they'll kill him.
In the case of Ukraine, Russia's (read: the russian government which is synonymous with Putin who dictator in all but name) motivation is somewhat similar. But they don't see Ukraine as a rebellious province. They see it as a vassal state as they do all of the other former SSRs and members of the Warsaw pact. Putin and his nationalist group have a very old world view of things and a very specific concept of what their rightful sphere of influence is and what exactly it means to control it. This isn't even unique to them. After securing power, the Bolsheviks quickly attempted to bring former Russian imperial possessions back under their control. That included Ukraine, Poland and Finland. Poland and Finland were able to secure their independence, Ukraine was less fortunate. For all the talk of anti imperialism, they were just as imperial as their predecessors. So this is just russians being russians and an inability for their world view to evolve past the 19th century.
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.
You're fooling yourself if you don't think we live in, and have always lived in, this world.
Citizens like me, living in a relatively just society, can tell ourselves the world is not like this because of our daily lives, but the reality is if some group of people even stronger doesn't care, the strong get to do what they want.
I thought the whole Russia/Ukraine thing snapped people back into the reality of the world we live in, and I'm quite amazed that there are still people that don't realize this is how the world is, and always will, be.
But might isn't one thing. Might arises from complex underlying relationships between people and it arises from what people believe in. Might makes right yes. But what people believe is right also makes might. When people stop believing that it's impossible to stand up to totalitarianism - that's when it wins.
I find this particular "You shall believe that things are how we think they ought to be" conformism quite baffling - it's obviously wrong.
While I agree it is different now because everything is in the spotlight and you can’t get away with things like you used to. So not sure I would go as far as “always will be”.
Also not sure there is a need to say how amazed one is about one other’s opinion, since it belittles it.
https://www.dw.com/en/russia-report-damning-of-uk-government...
https://newrepublic.com/article/192078/democrats-become-work...
"We cannot solve this problem without an honest assessment of who we are. How we see ourselves as the Democratic Party—the party of the people, the party of the working class and the middle class—no longer matches up with what most voters think."
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2025/01/21/eric_adam...
The Democratic Party "Left Me And It Left Working Class People"
https://www.thirdway.org/report/renewing-the-democratic-part...
"For the first time since the mid-20th century, the central fault line of American politics is neither race and ethnicity nor gender but rather class, determined by educational attainment. But in the intervening half century, the parties have switched places. Republicans once commanded a majority among college-educated voters while Democrats were the party of the working class. Now the majority of college educated voters support Democrats"
But I suppose there's too many well-off, well-educated, white collar elites on this site who aren't willing to face the reality that their politics have been ruining blue collar lives for decades, and the political backlash has finally hit a crescendo powerful enough to wash over Washington. So I guess we blame it all on disinformation campaigns?
Almost daily, Michigan’s Arab Americans voters in precincts of heavy concentration are receiving glossy mailings with messages like: “Kamala Harris and Doug Emhoff: Unwavering Support for Israel” or “Kamala Harris and Doug Emhoff, the ultimate pro-Israel power couple” or “Kamala Harris and Elissa Slotkin [the Democratic candidate for Senate in Michigan]: The proven team we can trust to stand up for the Jewish community.” And targeted video messaging on social media sites saying things like “Kamala Harris stands with Israel.”
Meanwhile, in areas of Pennsylvania where there are heavy concentrations of Jewish voters, homes are receiving messages like: “Kamala Harris will embolden anti-Semites” or “Donald Trump always stands up for the Jewish people.” And targeted video messaging on social media platforms saying “Kamala Harris will not be silent about human suffering in Gaza” or “Two-faced Kamala Harris: Standing with Palestine and not our ally, Israel.”
These mailings and social media posts are paid for by a dark money group, Future Coalition PAC. Researchers have identified that one of the major donors to this group is Elon Musk, the principal owner of X and a strong supporter of Donald Trump’s presidential bid.
"rogue" means rascal
None of these things requires an education in using the incorrect word. “Irregardless”? Give ‘em what for! Their/there/they’re? A nice reminder. Swapped a couple letters is a plausible explanation? A simple correct spelling followed with a * would suffice.
rogue*
Rouge is red, you rascally rogue!
No, no - don't bother, I'll see myself out :)
THe lands and territories also wax and waned throughout the centuries. A map of the territories controlled by the Qing at its peak is vastly different than that of the Tang or that of the Han dynasty.
This is more like the game of weiqi than it is the game of chess. The endgame isn't necessarily a decisive action with a win condition, but more of an accumulation.
From my observation, the West suffers from the opposite of Chinese or Indian nationalism, in excessive self-flagellation to the point of self-destructiveness. Critical Theory, Identity Politics, Woke, Anti-Woke, Postmodernism (both left & right), etc would be immediately crushed in those nationalist societies, they are very much a unique artifact of the Western order.
I prefer a free market myself, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking there isn't a narrative being pushed by people who profit off of free markets or capitalism.
We know this version is closer to the truth because Mao tried to take Taiwan
There's not always a rational reason. Ideology and nationalism are real things. World leaders do not always act in "rational" ways, nor are they always playing 4D chess.
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.
That statement just made me LOL. In what dimension other than foreign investment do you see Taiwan as more successful than China? In 2025, it's pretty clear that China has self sovereignty, is the world's factory, leads in BRICS, and isn't subject to the US empire.
Yes, China has lifted millions of people out of poverty over the last few decades, but the median person in China is still vastly worse off than the median person in Taiwan.
U.S. Imports from Mainland China: $438.9 billion
U.S. Imports from Taiwan: $116.3 billion
Please explain how your logic survives this basic analysis.
If so, it would sound like the Chinese people are being mislead about the economic history of the island they supposedly claim.
South Korea is just much more successful at putting bread (and many other foods) on the tables of its citizens. It is also more advanced technologically, and, curiously, has a working democratic government instead of a hereditary single-party rule.
do you care about quality of life? literacy? about social justice? about women's rights?
or about who has the most richest billionaires or the strongest military?
or who has the best american football teams?
Not every people care about the same things. Some people would rather live in a country that treats others as shit, and take pride in that and absolutely don't see the point why other other countries have some better metrics on some they may consider useless stuff like education.
EDIT: I mean, I know it sounds silly, but failure to understand that there are so many people who literally don't give a shit about why education matters, or why empathy matters is the reason we are in this situation. We took for granted that there are universal values, and organized our societies around goals oriented towards those universal values and in the meantime we got this resentment brewing in part of the population that got exploited by populist forces
Never bought in to one party rule huh? It seems like people forgot about the 38 years of martial law:
But the fact that the martial law came to an end largely democratically is good evidence that both democratic reform was easier outside of the CCCP, and that the Taiwanese single party rule was probably not as totalitarian as some people claim.
It’s a clear demonstration that failures like the great Chinese famine simply wouldn’t have happened if the communist revolution failed. That’s a significant political issue, because people from that time period are still alive so they can’t simply erase the memory of it.
One piece of history is that after Sun Yat-Sen died, his successor Chang Kai Shek purged the Kuomingtang of any socialist, community, and otherwise left-leaning members of their assembly. When some members escaped the purge, this sowed the seeds of the CCP that came to fruit after fighting off the Japanese during WWII.
When the Kuomingtang retreated to Taiwan, it was not run as a republic or a democratic society. Martial law ended in 1987 and a second political party did not appear until it was illegally formed in 1986. The Kuomingtang and its coalition continues to identify with China -- the civilization -- whereas the DDP-lead coalition is done with that and wants their own national identity of Taiwain.
i think it's more accurate to give credit where earned: one thing the CCP did smart was _win_ foreign business (US Apple and Dell etc) by building the rentable factory system with deep dependable supply chains directly adjacent. That was uniquely able , globally, to compete and win business.
The US didn't seemingly even think to do that, perhaps distracted by the Cold War?
That's completely deranged. The CCP has intended to take Taiwan from day one. Before they even managed to drive the ROC out of mainland China they intended to take all of China, including Taiwan, and their failure to take Taiwan has never been something they were satisfied with.
Manufacturing has nothing to do with it. America only has anything to do with it insofar as they have helped Taiwan resist the CCP so far.
The ravenous wild beast is pounding at your door. The only thing standing before you and certain death is your front door that needs urgent repairs. You call your landlord begging for help but they say it's not their problem.
The beast smashes through the door and eats you up.
Some would agree that the landlord is to blame because of inaction. Some would argue instead that the landlord is not responsible for your problem. You should have not provoked the beast. Or fixed the door yourself. Or paid more rent etc.
This framing only works of the wild beast has no agency at all. It's by definition wild and we all know what it will do and it can't help itself but being a man eating wild beast. It has no moral obligation to not be a man eating beast.
But by applying this framing to Russia and CCP you're dehumanizing them. You're assuming that they are so evil they cannot possibly have any moral obligations and so the burden falls on third parties (or worse, you, their victim!) if they attack you!
This is what happens when you structure your entire economy around exports: artificially weak currency, capital controls, artificially low wages, etc.
(Not saying that the US policy is decent here, or anywhere else, under the current administration.)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Instead of doing blind analogies, it would be alot better just to directly describe the events of what occurred, but that's going to be inconvenient for the CCP and their supporters to introduce some nuance into the conversations.
I personally would guess that the 9-dash line also has something to do with them wanting to take Taiwan.
The CCP primarily wants to gain power. Political, economic, and social. The levels of ambition probably vary by individuals inside the party, but generally involves a uniform level of control across all regions of China (including Taiwan from their point of view), and enough global power to give them a free hand in East Asia.
Chinese nationals may put more emphasis on increasing prosperity. Taiwan nationals may put more emphasis on strict control and global power. Individual reactions largely vary. Out of both groups, limitations on personal liberties cause the harshest criticism of CCP, with the one child policy almost universally seen unfavorably.
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.
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.
> In most scenarios, the United States/Taiwan/Japan defeated a conventional amphibious invasion by China and maintained an autonomous Taiwan. However, this defense came at high cost. The United States and its allies lost dozens of ships, hundreds of aircraft, and tens of thousands of servicemembers. Taiwan saw its economy devastated. Further, the high losses damaged the U.S. global position for many years. China also lost heavily, and failure to occupy Taiwan might destabilize Chinese Communist Party rule.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/first-battle-next-war-wargamin...
Talk to Xi then: "Xi says no one can stop China's 'reunification' with Taiwan":
* https://www.reuters.com/world/china/xi-says-no-one-can-stop-...
Originally, the US was the protector of almost all Asian countries from Japanese Imperialism, an axis power allied with Nazi Germany. How are people like you forgetting the rape of Nanjing or the mass killings of civilians by the Japanese across the Philippines and many other places? How are you forgetting Japanese imperial occupation of Taiwan and Korea? How and WHY are you forgetting Japanese Unit 731 [1]?
Ironically, the government which fled to Taiwan was ousted by a Communist revolution and chased into exile. How likely do you think is it that this operation, destablilising China, was funded and supported by the communist Soviet Union?
Writing that "US is the intruder" in your other comments completely dismisses history and is a ridiculous show of brainwashed anti-Western propaganda spread by Putin, Xi, Trump and such authoritarian dictators.
Of course a whole lot more happened after 1945 and American war crimes in Vietnam and elsewhere are part of that. As a European, I am aware of American cultural and military hegemony but I much rather argue with raging capitalists about workers rights compared to raging authoriatarian communists who kill everybody not on their ideological side.
Given all that, I am also glad that Europe is now moving to emanciapte from the dependency on American security infrastructure but that doesn't mean NATO should stop or that the US should stop being allies with European nations. Trump gets his goal of spending less for European security but that comes with the loss of hegemonial influence.
Those captured by the US military were secretly given immunity. The United States helped cover up the human experimentations and handed stipends to the perpetrators. The US had co-opted the researchers' bioweapons information and experience for use in their own warfare programIsn't this their main point? There's plenty of examples of killing those not on their side outside of "authoriatarian communists" (hint, Iraq, Gaza). You still believe in them and that's fine, but there is a lot of Western projection that they are right and others are not, which is the sense I get from your comment. It's reasonable for people to be against this and "anti-Western". It's also ok to see the strong development brought in from the West and support them. But this is a point for the locals to work through and not pushing a narrative like this one seems to be just as much pro-Western propaganda ignoring anything against it as the other way around.
Edit: More so, the fact that America's initial response to Japan's imperialism was diplomatic rather than military undermines the narrative that America was just using Japan as a pretext to cover for America's own imperial ambition. America, far from leaping at an opportunity to invade Asia, was committed to diplomatic resolution of the matter until Japan's imperial ambitions drove them to directly attack the American military, forcing America to respond in kind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bases_in_the_Phi...
You'd be surprised. I'm not saying that all of them (or even most of them) will accept the payment, but there have been multiple cases of espionage committed by Taiwanese military personnel for extremely trifling amounts of monetary reward from the Chinese. Here's just one example: https://www.worldjournal.com/wj/story/121222/8572208
Excerpt:
"檢警調查，李慧馨陳姓小弟在台北市中山區放款接觸軍人，2023年6月李女以新北市蘆洲區瑞磘宮主身分及宗教交流名義至澳門，再到大陸接觸國安情資人員，返台以金錢引誘缺錢軍人。
李女等人要求軍人交出軍人身分證審核後，穿制服拿五星旗拍攝宣告投降影片，呼口號「中國人不打中國人，我反對戰爭」，用Telegram傳送交付影片「閱後即焚」，偷公務文書，交付航線圖、演習時間等多項軍機，收賄依資料機密程度計價，吸收同袍可提高報酬。
張、林、劉、吳、彭、李姚姓及兩名陳姓現、退役軍人涉案，涵蓋陸軍、海軍、憲兵軍官、士官、士兵，最高階為中尉，僅劉獲利15萬元台幣(約4500美元)，其他人尚未拿到犯罪所得。"
Translation:
"According to the investigation by the police and prosecutors, Li Huixin's younger associate, surnamed Chen, was involved in lending money to military personnel in the Zhongshan District of Taipei City. In June 2023, Li traveled to Macau under the pretense of religious exchange and as the head of Ruixian Temple in Luzhou District, New Taipei City. From there, she went to mainland China and made contact with national security intelligence personnel. Upon returning to Taiwan, she used money to lure financially struggling military personnel.
Li and her associates required military personnel to submit their military identification cards for verification. Afterward, they were asked to wear uniforms and film surrender videos while holding the Chinese five-star flag, chanting slogans such as "Chinese people do not fight Chinese people, I oppose war." These videos were then transmitted via Telegram with a self-destruct feature. The group also stole official documents and provided information such as flight paths and military exercise schedules. Bribes were paid based on the confidentiality level of the data, and recruiting fellow soldiers could increase rewards.
The case involves active and retired military personnel with the surnames Zhang, Lin, Liu, Wu, Peng, Li, Yao, and two individuals surnamed Chen. The suspects come from various military branches, including the Army, Navy, and Military Police, spanning officers, non-commissioned officers, and enlisted soldiers. The highest-ranking officer involved was a lieutenant. Among them, only Liu received illicit gains amounting to NT$150,000 (approximately USD 4,500), while the others had not yet received any criminal proceeds."
Finding someone who meets Criteria X is a long way from finding either a Majority or even just enough of a minority to make a difference.
When people believe their action will not make a difference, they pay less heed to the consequences of their actions. People will take money to do things if they don't think it will change much.
There are probably plenty of gun runners who sell guns to rebels that would should they succeed in their rebellion it would be detrimental to the gun-running business. Nevertheless they would happily sell them guns to them while they think the rebellion is doomed.
It's not always that simple though. Significant strategic decisions can involve projecting ineffectiveness to obtain the support of those who do not want you to be effective. Because of this, people have committed betrayals that have turned out to be far more significant than they imagined. I suspect this happens more often in fiction than real life, but fiction more frequently focuses on the significant. Real life produces the significant by having millions with the one in a million chance of being significant.
So in a completely hypothetical scenario, if the CCP surreptitiously offers 10,000USD (or pick any other amount you want) to each Taiwanese citizen who votes in favour of reunification, might we not potentially end up in a situation where >50% of Taiwanese voters accept the deal because each of them labours under the erroneous assumption that he or she is in the minority?
The PRC already buys the loyalty of who they can in Taiwan, but Taiwan nevertheless remains resolute.
For the PRCs invasion of Taiwan to work with minimal risk of excessive losses, they need to do it very quickly so that it's a fait accompli, minimizing the chance of any American response at all.
Though with an AI race going on and Musk practically living in the White House, I can't imagine the US would let China have Taiwan without a fight right now.
Also, forcing TSMC to build a number of modern fabs in the US is sort of a warning to China to stay away AT LEAST until those fabs are done. If China attacks right now,I think we would see the full might of the US forces coming to their defense.
AI right now has the same role as nukes had during the cold war. Nobody really knows how quickly it will develop, and many scenarios would allow those who get it first to take out all enemy nukes without much risk of receiving a retaliatory strike.
For instance, AI may make it possible to build a virtually perfect missile defense against ICBMS, it may may allow perfect tracking of subs and other submarine threats, it may power drone swarms capabable of disabling any integrated air defense network, and even to destroy all enemy missile siles and nuclear subs whil minimizing loss of life.
The US is not going to let China get there first, if they can stop it.
Massed ICBM defense is a matter of sheer volume - with the current GMD system the US can throw enough exoatmospheric kill vehicles (and THAAD to handle the leftovers) to counter a handful of re-entry vehicles from a smaller nuclear power like North Korea or Iran. Not hundreds (vs China) or thousands (vs Russia) that you would see in a peer-level nuclear exchange where everyone has multi-megaton MIRVs, decoys, and SLBMs with much shorter flight times.
Some fantasy future AI with the right sensors may perfectly track all of that sub-orbital mayhem. Without an enormous fleet of thousands of kill vehicles to actually defend against that threat, and the logistics to keep that fleet operational, it can do nothing about it. Building and supporting that sort of strategic defense is obscenely expensive, and as such it remains a Reagan-era fever dream.
1) If you can strike the the ICBM's before the MIRV's separate, you only need a fraction of the number. To do this, you need to already have the interceptors (or whatever else used to shot them down) in orbit before the ICBM's launch.
Independently of AI, Starship is making it much cheaper to place objects in orbit, and can help with this. (Though it could trigger a first strike if detected, it might be possible to hide interceptors within Starlink satellites, for instance.)
2) Coordination and precision. This is what wasn't in place at all in the 80s. I'm old enough to remember when this was going on, and labelled impossible. I still remember thinking, back then: "This is impossible now, but will not remain impossible forever".
Whether it applies to interceptors already placed in orbit, novel weapons such as lasers, typically also placed in orbit or interceptors intended to stop reentry vehicles one faces a coordination problem with time restrictions that makes it very hard for humans or even traditional computer algorithms to solve properly.
This, more than the volume, was the fundamental showstopper in the 80s (the willingness to pay was pretty significant).
Now, with AI tech, plenty of known options open up, and an unknown number of things we didn't think of yet, could also open up.
Accuracy and coordination is the most fundamental one. Here AI may help distribute the compute load into satellites and even independent interceptor vehicles. (Both by making them more autonomous and by improving algorithms or control systems for the dumber ones.)
But beyond that, AI may (if one side achievs a significant lead) also a path to making manufacturing large numbers much cheaper, meaning one could much more easily scale up enough volume to match whatever volume the enemy can deploy. Also, with more advanced tech (allowed by ASI), interceptors can potentially be made much smaller. Even a pebble sized chunk of metal can stop most rockets, given the velocities in space. The hard part is to make them hit the target.
Basically, what I'm saying is that whoever has ASI first may at minimum get a time window of technological superiority where the opponent's ICBM's may be rendered more or less obsolete.
In fact, I think the development of the Poseidon by Russia was a response to realizing decades ago that ICBM's would eventually be counterable.
However, AI tech will possibly even more suitable for detecting and countering this kind of stealthy threats. Just like it is currently revolutionizing radiology, it will be able to find patterns in data from sonars, radars, satellites etc that humans and traditional algorithms have little chance to detect in time.
He's very much in favour of the CCP.
Elon Musk suggests making Taiwan a ‘special administrative zone’ similar to Hong Kong (2022): https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/oct/08/elon-musk...
Tesla commits to promoting 'core socialist values' in pledge with Chinese auto companies (2023): https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/tesla-commits-promoti...
Tesla’s path in China clears as Musk courts both Trump and Xi (2024): https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/nov/22/elon-musk...
He and his mother are also wildly popular in China, and we all know how susceptible he is to flattery:
The rise and rise of Maye Musk: China’s love affair with Elon Musk’s mother (2024): https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/dec/25/the-rise-...
If you adjust for population, that's like Mexico bombing nearly every building in the US and killing 8 million people.
Hamas is the aggressor only in a very immediate sense. Israel holds millions of Palestinians under military occupation, steals more and more of their land over time, and kills Palestinians all the time. From January 1st through October 7th 2023, when there was no war going on, Israel killed 234 Palestinians in the West Bank. That's just business as usual for Israel.
Not quite. He favours isolationism. It's just that Israel is an exception because many Americans (especially religious right wingers) view it akin to a 51st US state.
What is your response to this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD_KEFpuIro
Transcript here: https://singjupost.com/transcript-jeffrey-sachs-on-the-geopo...
>What was Putin’s intention in the war? I can tell you what his intention was. It was to force Zelensky to negotiate neutrality. And that happened within seven days of the start of the invasion. You should understand this, not the propaganda that’s written about this.
>Oh, that they failed and he was going to take over Ukraine. Come on, ladies and gentlemen. Understand something basic. The idea was to keep NATO. And what is NATO?
>It’s the United States off of Russia’s border. No more, no less. I should add one very important point. Why are they so interested? First, because if China or Russia decided to have a military base on the Rio Grande or in the Canadian border, not only would the United States freak out, we’d have war within about ten minutes.
>Sachs has suggested that the U.S. was responsible for the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline. In February 2023, he was invited by the Russian government to address the United Nations Security Council about the topic.
On day 7, the three-day military excursion to Kyiv had stalled, the Russian army was scrambling to establish supply routes and figure out logistics for a war that should have been over, and Putin was trying to convert a stalemate into something he could call a success. Nobody at the time would have claimed that his behavior on day 7 was reflective of his plans on day 1, when days 3-7 were clearly not going his way.
That you really can't know, and
>That's like beating someone up to get them to like you.
Is a very flawed analogy.
Or maybe Russia see eastern and central Europe as their sphere of influence, which they lost. And now they're using any excuse to try to re-establish that.
What kind of NATO danger did they expect from Georgia?
Russia had zero reason to see de-militarised Europe as a threat.
That's certainly true now, even if it wasn't true before. So why would Putin act in a way that was absolutely guaranteed -- win, lose or draw -- to fortify and entrench NATO's presence on Russia's borders?
His NATO excuse never made any sense. Don't invade anybody, and you have nothing to fear from NATO.
May be he is/was worried about USA
Umm, no. Bullshit. That's my response. It's the 3rd time in a decade Putin pulled this off. Let's not pretend this is anything about NATO obligations. He wants to take back land he feels was always his (aka the most common reason for war)
The only reason why Russia is so much against NATO is the article 5, because it makes attacking peaceful nations expensive and risky for Russia.
They could stroll into Taipei and Trump wouldn't lift a finger.
I'm not going to bat for Trump – I don't like the guy – but this seems provably false just based on the fact that Trump has already applied tariffs to Chinese imports. Not only that, he's ratcheting up those tariffs because Beijing has so far refused to come to the table. He seems to be continuing his 2016 policy of economically antagonizing the Chinese.
Apple, Microsoft, LVMH, Volkswagon, Ferrari, etc don't have that.
Donald Trump is also deep in debt to Chinese banks.
China's arsenal of standoff weapons is orders of magnitude more potent than it was during the last Taiwan Straits Crisis.
That may be more than worth it if they succeed.
Taiwan is not like Ukraine. As long as TSMC has monopoly on the latest AI chips, it's at least as important as access to oil.
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.
Taiwan doesn't have a huge data center capacity. A lot of services are in Hong Kong, Tokyo, Singapore, etc...
Of the big clouds e.g. AWS is only opening a data center later this year.
It's also not so simple. Even local servers / services might have all sorts of "needs" to phone "home" elsewhere e.g. for analytics. A lot of software might not have been tested and will crash. Even the big clouds might not work in isolation.
Then there's also things like patches, updates, firmwares etc. A lot of things like kubernetes clusters may be set to auto update and crash. If you need a docker image the local CDN didn't cache then it is gone.
Have you ever worked on a military contract? Or even just a regular government contract? It's a whole other type of sales, contracting, and fulfillment process.
Yes
> You seem to believe that military networks are slapped together with off-the-shelf SaaS apps
You seem to believe I was talking specifically about the military. Taiwan isn't Ukraine. China has infiltrated the every day lives etc over the years. It's not unified.
The chaos just from the everyday citizens, protests, etc might cause enough trouble for the military / government. Those aren't "air-gapped".
There have been plenty of polls / surveys and it isn't united. Lots of people living there were originally from China or have some relationship to it.
Ukraine put up a mostly unified front and managed to do so for so long. Not every place can or will.
Despite what the US media keeps making of it, China isn't all evil nor does >50% of Taiwan think this way.
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.
This is not why the CCP cares about Taiwan.
And they’ve cared quite a lot since before there were semiconductors.
Hong Kong was a threat because it showed Chinese people directly that economic growth was possible without the CCP.
Doesn't make his point less valid, in fact it makes it probably more valid. When other people are acting irrationally you might as well do so too since you can't predict what other people will do in response.
I don't think these options are exclusive; more than one party can act irrationally at the same time.
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.
If anything, China's rising wealth and living standard is a threat to the United States' sense of superiority. I don't see the US saying "Screw it, let's try totalitarianism" if it wasn't falling behind.
Sure, you can write all sorts of alt-history fanfiction about how great it would be if 2014 didn't happen, but that's just one of many possible futures.
USA will not have a hostile cuba, just as Russia won’t have a hostile Ukraine, and China won’t have a hostile Taiwan on its doorstep.
USA will, from all signs, not only continue to have a hostile Cuba, but also create a hostile Mexico.
And that's even before considering the internal hostility to the regime that the deliberately-engineered major economic collapse--that is already happening despite numerous policies that will deepen it still being in the pipeline and not yet in place--will create.
The US withdrawing from international engagement, trashing alliances, and trashing its own economy may enable competing powers more space to dominate their own regions, but it doesn't do anything to strengthen the US's regional position, it radically weakens it.
EDIT: I'm literally factually correct. In 5 of the 6 indexes China has a Democracy score where as Brunei, an absolute monarchy, doesn't!
Regardless of which democracy index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_indices) you consult, they all disagree with that statement.
Because China is a democracy and Brunei is not a democracy.
I think you confuse being listed on those indices with being a democracy.
On V-dem China takes place 177 of 179, the Bertelsmann index categorized China as "hard-line autocracy" and EDI categorizes it as "authoritarian"
This definition is nowhere to be found. I assume it's your interpretation, which, as already said, is flawed.
For example Saudi Arabia is listed on all of those indices even though its an absolute monarchy and the poster child for an autocracy.
The EDI explicitly does not try to asses whether a country is democratic or not, but just allows relative comparisons. It also doesn't include smaller countries but doesn't have as clear of a cutoff.
If you are going to use inclusion on one or more of these lists as an argument, you'll have actually cite where those lists use status as a democracy as a criteria for inclusion and how that is assessed.
In China, you can vote for The Party, or, for The Party. Much like how in the USA, you can vote for the red wing of the Centralized Corporate Power Party, or the blue wing of the Centralized Corporate Power Party.
Much like how in China, you have the freedom to stand in Tienanmen Square and shout "Down with the USA, long live Chairman Mao, long live The Party" much like you can do so in Times Square or in front of 1600 Penn or in downtown LA.
In the sense that they're on the V-Dem index, they have election laws, they have voter rolls, they have voter turnout, etc. Yes they have one party, so you don't directly vote for the President, but neither do Americans.
Yes, the KMT dictatorship era was awful. You might be surprised to know that in Taiwan there are national holidays commemorating those persecuted by the KMT. The reason The ROC (Taiwan) is more aptly comparable to the Union when making an analogy to alternative American history is because it was the original, legitimate government of China and the PRC were the rebels, just like the USA and Confederacy.
You get to vote sometimes but there's only one party...
It's autocracy with democratic characteristics.
I agree your criticisms of democracy in the US and Taiwan have some validity but in terms of deciding whether China might be a democracy or not they seem like whataboutism.
by that definition, the united states wouldn't even be called a democracy
There was life lost in Hong Kong. Potentially not the same amount, but yes lives were lost (not just what was mentioned in the media or from protests).
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.
2) Taiwan does not represent unprotected border territory. Heck, attacking it sustainedly would require significant and slow naval logistics
3) Other than human intellect, there is little in the way of natural resources to obtain out of Taiwan. It's economy is manufscturung and export driven.
Other than some nationalistic pride to recapture teritority, they are not much alike.
To add, Taiwan uses traditional Chinese and is more conservative to traditional Chinese culture. China abandoned all of that during the cultural revolution. There's been a recent nationalist push to embrace "traditional" Chinese identity, involving mainand Chinese people going to sites in Japan and elsewhere wearing "traditional" Chinese clothing. Imagine the nationalistic outrage if someone wore a kimono in China. In practice, these traditional Chinese clothing are cheaply made cosplay from Taobao
Existing US land and sea based nuclear weapons could hit targets in China in a matter of minutes. Being based closer to China/Taiwan might shouldnt matter in the age of ICBMs.
Why do people keep spreading misinformation?
E.g. Taiwan grows and produces some of the best tea and coffee in the world. High end tea leaves costs more than some stock grants here. China tried for years to replicate it and has some success but definitely still far off.
Taiwan is renown for many things - not just semiconductors. It's just you might not know about it. A lot of your every day life might have something to do with Taiwan.
I'm not defending autoritarianism or communism, but I think you're just not putting yourself in their shoes and looking at things from their POV. They supress other viewpoints not because they're afraid to be shown wrong, but because they believe it's best to supress them and not have people confused by enemy missinformation.
(Not an expert, but this is my impression from talking to both chinese and vietnamese people who defend or at least don't oppose their communist governments, and also spanish autoritarians who defend the Francoist regime. I used to think they were brainwashed/dumb/evil, and now I think their worldview makes a bit of sense, even if it's still misguided.)
To the extent that party elite started building their own, parallel universe of food, summer camps for kids, apartments, shops, etc. closed to the ordinary people. It was clear to many people that the Soviet road, as followed, goes to a variant of a North Korea lifestyle.
Just goes to show how ridiculous arguments by "history" are.
As though a people have no right to change their minds about their affiliation or government.
Is Czechia historically and culturally German? Sort of.
Is Ukraine historically and culturally Russian? Sort of.
Is Pakistan historically and culturally Indian? Sort of.
Once you have to ignore the wishes of the population and resort to historical arguments, forced reunification becomes a conquest.
I certainly wouldn't like my own government to start expansive wars into, say, Silesia, because it used to belong to the Czech crown for 500 years. But I have a say in this. The Chinese population might not.
CCP and internet police are much more likely to use this logic than anti-Israel Americans. If they were, in fact, an American that was anti-Israel, they wouldn't be so riled up about defending the CCP first and foremost. I'm reminded of the island of Truth Teller and Liar problem: https://sites.millersville.edu/bikenaga/math-proof/truth-tel...
My argument had nothing to do with pro or anti-Israel, I was just point out that I've only encountered this archiemedean lever/pivot point namely "Israel" in the USA.
It usually goes exactly like in this thread -- someone saying common sense things like not re-drawing borders and killing other humans today, just because something someone did 100 years ago -- and someone, from the opposite side (nothing to do with Israel) asks if this applies to Israel as well -- because they know damn well it applies to Israel and the point either puts Israel in a bad light or Israel would not like that particular point.
At this point if someone asks if "does this apply to Israel" it's usually the bad guys trying to use Israel's name as a logical nuclear weapon.
I was adding to your comment about OP.
You suspect OP to be based in American and influenced by some American line of reasoning towards Israel. I'm saying that someone from the CCP is more likely to change the target by attacking American hypocrisy towards Israel
I don't support Israel. I just find it too obvious the way you try to shortcircuit and distract away from accusations towards the CCP by moving the point of contention elsewhere. Yes, America can be hypocrital but it doesn't change what people have said here about the CCP.
Free Tibet first.
It’s a win-win for Trump because he keeps China at bay for three years, which is good enough for him.
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.
While we can't know what the central party committee is thinking, we know what they are saying, Xi in a speech in 2021 set the priority of having the capability of taking Taiwan by force by 2027.[2] Additionally they are probably not building the largest navy in the world and the largest collection of civilian roll on roll off ships for show.
I am not saying they will attack, but they definitely want to have it as an option.
[1]. https://warontherocks.com/2025/02/is-the-peoples-liberation-...
[2]. https://news.usni.org/2021/06/23/milley-china-wants-capabili...
Essentially salami slicing Taiwan sovereignty, in order to undermine their authority and erode their red lines without triggering a conflict, and attempting to demonstrate resistance as futile.
[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.
It's not a dictator issue. The stock markets have been crashing lately due to "non-dictators".
> Even if a million people dies, Xi would still be considered a hero by most chinese people if he took back Taiwan.
I doubt most Chinese people care. They have better things to worry about these days e.g. crashing real estate.
Regarding "crashing real estate": actually, most other countries would love to have built enough to bring down real estate prices. Being able to afford a place to live is good for most people! But of course, investing in real estate makes you interested into increasing the value of your property, so you're now incentivized to stop more real estate being built (and also to stop anything else that might decrease the value of your property - thus NIMBYism).
If Russia wouldn't have started a war, it could have focused on building huge datacenters. It has all the energy it would have needed, now all it can do with it is sell it to China for cheap.
Remember, he's old, probably a bit tech incompetent (compared to most people here).
> [Russia] could have focused on building huge datacenters.
Maybe that's what you think is important (or even what is important), but Putin is a different creature
Vladimir Putin, 2017-09-01
https://www.twz.com/14141/putin-says-whoever-has-the-best-ar...
"The most powerful AI chips in the world will be made right here in America and it'll be a big percentage of the chips made by this company (TSMC)"
Donald Trump, 2025-03-04
Huh, anybody with a laptop and an internet connection can be in the AI race within a few months if not weeks or days.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16827/russia-to-build-riscv-p...
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted but you are completely right. I would refer people who don’t believe this to Stephen Kotkin or Sarah Palin.
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?
Here is the exact quote:
> The [US State] department's fact sheet on Taiwan-US relations earlier included the phrase "we do not support Taiwan independence" - this was removed last week as part of what it said was a "routine" update.In fact we have already seen how they cosy up to dictators during wartime. The USA spent decades and decades backing military coups and assassinating democratically elected leaders all over the world under the guise of fighting the Cold War only to suddenly do a U-turn and pander to Putin. Russia has won the Cold War without direct military confrontation with the US.
We have also seen how Trump's first administration betrayed the Afghan government by negotiating directly with the Taliban and locking the Afghan government out of the process. He's doing the same now with regards to the war in Ukraine.
If you know any Taiwanese people, ask them whether the removal of "we don't recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation" brings them any comfort in light of how the Trump administration is treating Zelensky and America's NATO allies. Ask them what they think of Trump's expansionist rhetoric about annexing Canada, one of America's most steadfast allies with centuries of friendship.
Talk is cheap, and Taiwan as well as America's other Pacific allies are beginning to see through it.
Let's not rewrite history just to score some cheap propaganda points: the USSR lost the Cold War, and lost it badly. Russia (or rather, putinism) might be winning Cold War II, or The Oligarchic Wars, or whatever you want to call this new conflict, but the actual Cold War ended in the 90s.
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
Existential threat arguably is a much better motivator for making the sacrifices necessary than "wanting".
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.
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.
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.
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..
Team democracy tech only. Everyone seems aligned on that.
Will never happen during Xi's life.
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.
Air forces, navies, and drones cannot conquer a country. For that, you need ground forces with plenty of heavy equipment. Which can only cross the sea in slow and vulnerable ships. To stop them, you need long-distance firepower with large enough warheads. A carrier strike group is the least vulnerable way of delivering such firepower.
The job of a carrier strike group would not be defending vulnerable targets, as in Israel or the Red Sea, but destroying them. Its job might not even be engaging the attacking forces. It could be a reserve force beyond the reach of the initial aerial campaign but still close enough to move in when the actual invasion starts. It could even be a force that remains neutral if the actual invasion never comes (unless China attacks it first).
China will reciprocate with sinking some escort ships of the carrier groups, just to make a point and demonstrate their hypersonics. Another step up the escalation ladder.
At which point, the carrier groups either back off to de-escalate and avoid losing a capital ship. Or stay there and continue the escalation. As mentioned in another comment, this is projected to stop the Chinese invasion at the cost of losing two carriers. That is, if WW3 doesn't start first.
If the deterrent works and China does not invade due to the risk of a major war, it's the best-case outcome. If it fails and a war breaks out, massive casualties are likely. Wars are usually not as one-sided as the ones the US has fought in the past decades. But it would not be WW3, as most countries have no reasons to get involved.
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.
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%?
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Don't get me wrong: the trend is towards Chinese dominance, but I don't think we're close yet. China would have to throw everything at Taiwan, and it would turn into a shooting gallery.
When was this a thing? Britain gave up control "voluntarily". There's been no military conflict whatsoever.
Yes, I get that there were changes in law, protests and all sorts of things but those all already happened when Hong Kong was part of China i.e. there was no "invasion".
Maybe. I never commented on if the situation is good - just that invasion is the wrong term. Perhaps it should be self-implosion.
I'm well aware of what happened in quite some detail. As I said I'm not saying I agree with what happened, but it's still not an invasion. You'd at most be stopping an internal riot / protest if that's what it is.
That's like saying if the military moved between Texas and California is that an invasion? Even if you count the whole thing as a civil war that's still not an invasion. Hong Kong returned to China in 1997. Too late to be complaining in 2025.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12503/1
"1982 U.S.-PRC Joint Communiqué/Six Assurances
As they negotiated establishment of diplomatic relations, the U.S. and PRC governments agreed to set aside the contentious issue of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. They took up that issue in the 1982 August 17 Communiqué, in which the PRC states “a fundamental policy of striving for peaceful reunification” with Taiwan, and the U.S. government states it “understands and appreciates” that policy. The U.S. government states in the 1982 communiqué that with those statements “in mind,” “it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan,” and “intends gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan, leading, over a period of time, to a final resolution.” The U.S. government also declares “no intention” of “pursuing a policy of ‘two Chinas,’” meaning the PRC and the ROC, “or ‘one China, one Taiwan.’”"
The One China Policy was and remains a convenient status quo for all parties. The risk is that China decides that it's newfound economic and military might have changed that calculus.
- reuniting with China
- getting your only industry stolen by the USA
Quick, you have less than 5 years to answer
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:
Taiwan Econ has stagnated for decades.
Hence the top low birth rate in the world
Avg salary of tw is 1.5k usd. The same as 20-30 yrs ago
Average monthly wage:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/319845/taiwan-average-mo...
2000 - 42k NTD
2023 - 58k NTD
Converted to USD:
https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/histo...
https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/histo...
2000 - 1270 USD
2023 - 1870 USD
US tariffs will not matter when you are blockaded and Chester Nimitz is very much dead.
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.
Taipei needs nukes. There simply isn’t another guarantor of sovereign security anymore.
This essay explains very lucidly why it's not as straightforward as you think: https://taipology.substack.com/p/no-nukes-are-not-going-to-s...
This is correct and why any such project would need to be intensely covert and/or externally facilitated.
> doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) rests on both parties being left in guaranteed ruins
You don’t need MAD. Tehran isn’t aiming for MAD with America, and neither is Pyongyang. The threat of even a tactical retaliation has, to date, been sufficient to keep great powers at bay.
Oung is speaking the language of deterrence and non-proliferation; we are past that, unfortunately [1].
Good neighbours, strong fences. You don’t need to hate your neighbour to appreciate sovereignty. If anything, returning to mutual respect between Taipei and Beijing, a stance which was being moved towards until Xi, should further cross-strait ties.
Regardless there’s very probably multiple USA nuclear subs surrounding the place.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cmCKJi3CKGE&t=226s
There's a huge reason for Taiwan to announce that: their primary opponent already has nuclear weapons!
The reason Israel is heavily encouraged to maintain nuclear strategic ambiguity is an attempt to dissuade the entire Middle East from developing nuclear weapons in response.
If I were China, I would give them relative economic independence if they limit advanced process silicon to other countries and let Huawei and others monopolize the advanced nodes. The US at present does not appear to be a dependable partner.
Being a realist Taiwan joining China willingly under those conditions before they basically technology transfer to America and make themselves worth much less (In China's eye), is their best bet, or I would say if ASML wasn't a thing.
Sadly for Taiwan they are between a sword and a wall, ASML is required for them to continue innovating, if they were to annex themselves to China they would lose access to EUV and High NA EUV and basically lose their ability to produce sub 5nm semiconductors no matter how talented they are, and I don't think that SMEE in China is close to EUV let alone High NA EUV.
I understand this comment will upset some people but I tried to be a realist about what would happen if things were to hit the fan
I wonder if China actually benefits from this drama and rather not claim Taiwan (despite what they say out loud).
It's currently:
- the best place to show military might (the "drills")
- the best place to continue a proxy war with the US / EU
- replaces Hong Kong as the gray area to do business
If China says they want control of Taiwan, the base scenario is they are serious. The only thing holding them back is how expensive it is to execute on that want. Although since the action is off the Chinese coast and China appears to be stronger than the US right now I don't see how this ends well for Taiwan.
Even if China can control the waters around them, they may find them selves boxed in. It doesn't take a lot of sunken cargo ships for operators to refuse to run the boats
explain?
Taiwan has most of its trade with China (like it or not).
There are numerous things that are e.g. illegal in China but "legal" in Taiwan and so Chinese business is conducted there e.g. online gambling sites.
Then there are plenty of Taiwanese companies that end up being a disguise for China 1 way or another e.g. to bypass sanctions (well so is Singapore as per recent news on nvidia gpu smuggling). 1 of the best examples is VIA technologies, that helped China create x86 CPUs back in the days.
A lot of Chinese gangs in Asia used to operate out of Hong Kong. When 1997 happened (i.e. return to China), most of them gave up or moved to other places like Taiwan since China has the death penalty.
Does that make it a place for shady deals?
> There are numerous things that are e.g. illegal in China but "legal" in Taiwan and so Chinese business is conducted there e.g. online gambling sites
Gambling is illegal in Taiwan
> Then there are plenty of Taiwanese companies that end up being a disguise for China 1 way or another e.g. to bypass sanctions (well so is Singapore as per recent news on nvidia gpu smuggling). 1 of the best examples is VIA technologies, that helped China create x86 CPUs back in the days.
Citation needed
China does. Xi does not. Trump has been the bailout to Xi that China’s wolf warriors and Putin were to America after the Iraq & Afghanistan wars.
At the end of the day the leadership is who makes the decisions. The notion of a "country" does not.
What Xi has said so far may have been misrepresented by the media, and exaggerated to rally public support for the new Cold War and for more military spending. What Xi actually said is he would not allow formal independence of Taiwan, and that he prefers closer relations/integration with Taiwan for an eventual "reunited" outcome, saying nothing of the status quo or that he would change it by force. For as long as the economic deterrence exists, I highly doubt that a war would happen over Taiwan barring one of 2 scenarios: 1)Taiwan declears formal independence by amending its Constitution, or 2) western troops, bases, or "security guarantees" are established over Taiwan
What authority do you think China has over Taiwan?
Authority, none. Power, plenty.
By this logic China should be returned to the winners of the Opium Wars [1]. No countries for losers! (To say nothing of the CCP’s inaction against Imperial Japan in WWII [2].)
Anyone can come up with reasons for stealing stuff based on decades, centuries or millennia-old gripes. What matters is where the people alive today live and how they identify. For good reason, the Taiwanese have been drifting away from China since Xi.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War
[2] https://thediplomat.com/2014/09/the-ccp-didnt-fight-imperial...
No. Similar to how the Han Chinese don’t have one to Tibet (and other parts of modern-day China).
Practically all land touched by humans has multiple verifiable historical claims to it. The further back we go, the more there are and the more ambiguous they become. The only thing we can say with certainty is who is there today. Every other path means violence and is honestly a bit stupid.
Current administration is fast tracking nuclear prolifiacian. A future president might want to stop such trends.
This is correct. Gone are the days when countries could count on the US to provide some protection against illegal invasions. All nations without nukes have to be considering them seriously now. Sure, they signed the NPT. But agreements no longer mean what they used to. Russia violates most of the agreements it signs. US already trashed the Budapest memorandum that it signed in 1996. We were supposed to provide security to Ukraine in exchange for them giving up nukes.
This is a common misconception. If you read the memorandum (it's rather short) you'll see it isn't true. We only promised to seek UN Security Council action. We went far beyond that.
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P...
And ended up voting with Russia anyway.
A treaty where the guarantor is known to give sketchy legal interpretations about why them backstabing you is actually faithful to the treaty they signed is barely more useful than a treaty where the guarantor won't honor their word.
The ripple effect is already there: many NATO country are now wondering whether the alliance is worth the paper it’s written on.
The promise to seek UN Security Council action is only in case Ukraine is attacked with nuclear weapons.
The language does seem really ambiguous though. I'm surprised it wasn't written more clearly.
It’s also a common misconception that NATO article 5th means immediate military action by rest of the alliance. It actually says that an armed attack against one shall be considered an attack against all, but crucially, the assistance provided is “what each of them deems necessary”
With the current administration I’m not convinced the US assistance that it’d “deem necessary” would amount to anything more than a call to Vladimir Putin to see how best to help him.
And to gain those allies they will give them control over these key supply lines so that said allies can dictate America's foreign policy?
I would be surprised if he doesn't do this, judging by his long track record of not paying his contractors and business partners after receiving their goods and services.
But it's very worth pointing this out. The Taiwanese announcement is just an announcement. When a chip, any chip, rolls off the line (from this investment) let me know.
The reality is that in 4 years Trump will be gone. Building a plant will take longer than that. This is nothing more than good PR.
Besides, that rests on the assumption that the US is going to have a “free and fair” election in 2 and 4 years. Trump said loud and clear on the campaign trail that you need to come out and vote for him just this one last time. Won’t need to vote afterwards at all, they’ll fix it.
This seems like one of the promises he’d be really inclined to hold, if he can.
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.
In practice, probably yes, officially probably maybe. Giving a security guarantee would allow Taiwan to do provocative things, so hence, why there isn't a formal one.
If it actually came to be today, I guess the US would at-least offer token support. To (a) embargo China, (b) ensure chip facilities Taiwan aren't surrendered intact.
Both of which doesn't require winning a conflict, just making it painful.
'Security guarantee' conjures thoughts of defending a population and its cities from destruction, whereas what it actually means is the opposite: to ensure all items of value are fully destroyed before they're taken.
And without it, Taiwan would probably press harder for nukes.
The world is largely dependent on TSMC, not only for the latest GPUs but also for embedded chips that we keep putting into everything from cars to toasters.
For me the questions isn't whether the US would help Taiwan because we're dependent on them. I wonder whether we actually have the backbone to step in militarily at all, and whether out military is as combat ready as we like to think they are.
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.
As if you needed more proof, covid hickup disruption of the supply chains were an ample demonstration.
The US gets this, and has now turned towards being less dependant. The EU still doesn't understand, or is willfully blind as an acknowledgement would mean giving up some fantasies they have.
Since the 70's the US' main export has been printed money, 'IP' and war. The first two are worthless if not backed by the threat of the third. Weapons is about the only thing dollars can buy if oil can be traded in other currencies. BRICS is rapidly becoming a contender for a trade platform that they failed to stop.
You can't wage war in the manufacturer you rely on.
This means drastic changes in US policy are needed. This means returning to self sufficiency. This will take time even when you try to speedrun it.
The whole premise of TSMC is that losing TSMC would cause such a global economic collapse that defending Taiwan is the only option to prevent this from happening. All high-performance computing is dependent on TSMC right now.
This never works. The security through economy pitch. It has never, ever worked.
America was a reliable security guarantor. We promised to protect and had honour. Honour isn’t in the American cultural vocabulary anymore. So the guarantees are proven useless and everyone has to scramble back into realpolitik.
TSMC just hits the media often. If Taiwan goes the global economy will have way more problems than just TSMC. There is a long list of companies in many supply chains that would be impacted (not just computing).
How many of us really depend on the latest cpu to survive ?
The question is, is it better to wage a massive war that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and many lives than to make an equal investment into the semi-conductor industry.
A managed escalation would blockade China, or at least ensure the rest of the free world never trades with China again.
Similarly, a local conflict could ensure chip facilities in Taiwan aren't surrendered intact.
The US doesn't have to win a hot conflict. Just start a cold war.
I still think the US has allies in Europe that would sanction China indefinitely. They'd probably also show up with something, if called.
And by "free world" I guess you mean the anglosphere, gradually shrinking globalist parts of the EU, and perhaps Japan/South Korea. That's now less than 15% of the global population and declining. Economically BRICS overcame the G7 back in 2018 [2], and the difference has only grown far more stark since. The times have really changed a lot over the past ~20 years. I think the collapse of the USSR was probably the worst thing to ever happen to the US, because it gave us a taste of global hegemony that was never sustainable, yet left us addicted to its fleeting flavor.
[1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_density_of_T...
[2] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1412425/gdp-ppp-share-wo...
As is China in respect of energy.
Beijing knows this. But the timeline on which they become energy self sufficient unfortunately meshes poorly with their military demographics. Of course now, they have former American allies from which to recruit manpower if necessary.
Aren't they buying cheap oil and natural gas from Russia?
Most of China’s energy arrives by sea. That makes them intensely vulnerable to blockade.
which is why china is pre-emptively claiming ownership of the south china sea, in an attempt to prevent the ability for any blockades to form in the first place!
While on paper, the US makes "guarantees" about freedom of navigation, this is even less reliable than the toilet paper it is written on.
And how will the free world replace goods and raw materials they now buy from China?
Apart from NATO countries all the rest will continue to do business with China. They do not care about the quarells between US, EU and China.
If a collective west made transitive trade embargoes, anything could happen.
But yes, the world is growing, and the west is a smaller piece of the pie than we used to be.
China only needs to wait for a couple of years for Musk, Trump and Vance to have destroyed any remnants of the alliances, though.
It is, but it also isn't, given the US forces on Okinawa, and also just generally in the region. The US military is not a force that exists for homeland defense, it's a force designed purely to project power across the ocean.
> engage militarily
This can mean a lot of things though. A steady flow of matériel and intelligence given to an island that's basically a giant and highly-defended mountain-range is going to go a very long way.
> is any US president
I mean in the last 150 years they've shown a remarkable willingness to intervene, more than once in proxy wars against the Chinese.
How will they project power? With aircraft carriers? China can destroy those in hours once in close range.
China has more ships than US and 100x shipbuilding capacity.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/16h4gw8/us_militar...
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.
Granted, the US president who was pushing the most for inspections of Israel's Dimona nuclear facility was JFK, who ended up no longer being a problem for them (how very convenient).
Really, personal opinion, yet America and most countries on Earth, should probably be able to get lithography machines cheaper than $380,000,000. However, that's an argument for the lithography industry. At an average Taiwanese salary of $18,000 / yr (NT$50,000 / mnth) that's 21,000 labor years / machine. Even with amortized development that seems like a lot.
[1] https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/manufacturing/asm...
We do?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St...
or: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/programs/growthpol...
etc.
The T word...
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.
They still think it's worth more than surrendering now to China.
While US is dependant of Taiwanese fabs, they will intervene if China tries to occupy Taiwan. But US is working towards not relying on Taiwan's fans, so US based security won't last long.
In the end, they'll either have to surrender or build nuclear deterrent fast and unnoticed.
I think the whole "minerals" thing is a play. Trump gives Zelensky the "deal" he cannot accept even theoretically. Zelensky predictably plays the tough guy by telling him to pound sand. Trump throws Zelensky under the bus and negotiates repayment of loans with his (now scared) successor.
With respect to Taiwan, it is not really possible to "win" in any real sense against China in Taiwan. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a dimwit who can't even do cursory research on industrial capacities of the potential belligerents, not in terms of dollars, but in terms of units/tons/etc. That is where the comparison is very strongly not in our favor. Especially when it comes to shipbuilding.
Best case if things kick off (which I hope to god they do not) - only Taiwan gets destroyed, a-la Ukraine. Worst case - both US and China really go at it directly, full bore, and then we will lose due primarily to our weak industrial base, and far more extended logistics. Moreover, a lot of other countries will totally provide "lethal aid" and intelligence to China, if it needs it, in hopes of taking the hegemon down a few pegs. Nothing personal - just business, such alliances happen in every major war. The extreme case one of the sides feels they're gonna lose and presses the red button, in which case everyone dies in a fire.
All of these options are objectively extremely shitty and incompatible with prosperity, and in the extreme case, with survival. All of them mean millions of body bags for the parties involved, far more body bags than either country has ever seen.
Both Biden and Trump administrations understood this, hence the strong-arming the re-industrialization, especially in higher end fields, which started under Biden. The era where you could just get your stuff made elsewhere for pennies and then charge $$$ for it is coming to an end.
Zelensky flew to Washington to sign the agreement, and fully expected to--they waited an hour after the blown up press conference before being told to get out. Diplomatically, Zelensky wasn't even badly behaved in the press conference. Vance and Trump kept escalating the discussion. If there was a play, it was one constructed by Trump to give himself a reason to withdraw aid from Ukraine when he clearly wants to side with Putin.
Sequence of events -
Trump downplays the need for security guarantees. "Security is maybe 2% of the problem, security is the easy part, I'm worried about getting the deal done."
A "reporter" from OAN asks a kiss-ass question that can be summarized as "President Trump, how amazing and courageous are you for negotiating with Putin?"
Trump gives a rambling answer including his usual vague statements of how the war wouldn't have existed if he'd been in power and then starts talking about Hamas for some reason.
There's a moment of levity where Trump says Zelensky's attire is fine.
Zelensky indicates he wants to respond to some of the earlier statements. He says Russia has broken many promises made in past negotiations and this is why security guarantees are actually critical to Ukraine.
"Reading the room" in this situation would mean "buying into the Putin-led narrative currently being peddled by the Trump administration."
Fuck that.
Zelensky correctly recognizes that appeasing bullies does not make the bullying stop. At best, it slightly delays the bullying.
Much of the US population desperately needs to reach the same recognition.
Emotional thinking and platitudes about "bullies" are not really applicable here. You have to think about the eventualities that we could be affected by if things go sideways, and with the current set of characters in Ukraine, they most definitely will, and soon.
Here's John Mearsheimer telling you _exactly_ what was going to happen, in 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
As if taking the hundreds of nuclear red lines Putin has laid down and allowed to be crossed without a nuclear response, isn't "emotional thinking".
No one in that room recognized more than Zelensky that worthlessness of American promises of security. What value then to humiliate oneself? Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal on American promises of security, and look where that got them.
On the contrary, the display in the press conference did do some good for Ukraine. There was an emergency summit in London that weekend where the heads of Europe agreed to step up their support for Ukraine, increase defence spending, and to work towards total independence from the US in 10 years. NATO is now a vestigial treaty that's a foreign policy option rather than a commitment. Who's responsible now for pushing us closer to WW3?
Living 200km from the Russian border, I worry that 10 years is far too long. If Putin “reads the room”, he knows his best bet is to push things forward before the midterms. In case Tramp doesn’t manage to rig the elections.
So militarily, we might have less than 2 years.
I really, really, really hope I’m wrong.
From analysts I follow, the feeling is that EU support will sustain Ukraine at least through 2025, with the greatest weakness being ammunition for Patriot and GLMRS systems (though thankfully those have decreased in importance as drones take over). And 2026 is when the cumulative damage to Russia's economy really snowballs. If Ukraine makes it through 2025, I'm relatively optimistic.
My great fear in 2024 was the flagging support for Ukraine due to war-weariness and lack of a resolution, would push some parties towards a more passive, accommodationist outcome. We can thank Trump for this: the fire to see Ukraine win has been lit again.
Slava Ukraini, my friend. Stay safe.
This seems...not true. The Phillipines especially would like a word. Most of China's neighbors are begging for more American Hegemony (America is just not good at it anymore). China's industrial prowess is clear, but it's also true that. China (esp the CCP) has a lot more to lose from a direct confrontation with America. America could lose a president, China will lose a whole regime.
BRICS will support China. Most of the unaligned countries will do the same.
It will be US, EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, Philippines against the rest of the world.
And it's not so much about military might as is about industrial capacity, raw materials and logistics.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_Russian_invasion...
P.S: I especially question the mental faculties of someone who can't see other angles to a problem. China's hegemony is the mainstream opinion, it's obvious. Maybe try to question what you're not seeing now.
Not really a good comparison. Trying to build a coalition of people who didn't really care vs supporting countries in the region who are highly motivated by their own self interest.
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.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_St...
China did an extreme move here. It’s bad. It’s not slave camps but more education camps or indoctrination camps. It’s forced indoctrination into modern society.
The thing with this is that it destroys cultures and eliminates freedoms but it is largely effective in the long run. Terrorist attacks no longer happen. People are not getting slaughtered by terrorist attacks anymore. Part of the question is which evil do you prefer more? There’s no easy answer. But western propaganda paints only one side of the story here.
Arguably there’s less blood on government hands here for China. The resulting war after 9/11 killed far more innocents than the education camps.
And it’s not just this. When you make progress and societal well being putting it as a priority ahead of individual freedoms you get china building an entire network of rail systems in less then a decade when California can’t even build a single high speed rail in 3 decades because it obstructs some nimbys freedom to have a good view.
"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons."
And the US didn't start camps after 9/11.
Civilization is the same everywhere. Utopia can’t exist because of fundamental aspects of human nature.
I think the real difference between the US and China is that the US is sort of delusional. They hide the truth of themselves and live under a mirage of moral idealism while Chinese people are fully aware of the moral issues with their own government.
A good example is you. You’re well aware of Guantanamo bay and extraordinary rendition. Your delusion just prevents you from thinking about it.
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.
With missiles and submarines presumably.
> That woulde be a heck of a blockade, with or without Taiwan.
Of course, due to China's military build up around the sea. Due to their being afraid of said blockade. The one they want Taiwan and other disputed islands to help counter.
All I said was that China is terrified of naval blockade, which it is. You're the one being hilarious here.
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.
But, I think I see where you’re going: the US preemptively destroying Taiwan’s fab capacity…
In the way Ukraine’s only card is its mineral wealth, sure.
Taiwan is the Belgium of the American security system. If our guarantees are useless there, they’re useless everywhere and new global security guarantors are needed. If Taiwan falls, moreover, China has unconstrained access to the Pacific. That brings the next conflict closer to American shores. It also threatens American naval power globally given our reliance on Korean and Japanese shipyards.
I have nothing to say about Ukraine. My original root comment is simply that weakening TSMC’s capacity by spreading it to the US is not in the interest of Taiwanese security. But as I responded elsewhere, this is probably just optics.
Ukraine's $500 billion rare earths scam: they don't exist, and we should know better
No it isn't.
> But, I think I see where you’re going: the US preemptively destroying Taiwan’s fab capacity…
I'm not going anywhere. China would bomb TSMCs factories itself and spend hundreds of times more on an invasion and subsequent sanctions and costs than it spends on funding its own semiconductor development, if it meant it could control Taiwan. Taiwan's cards are that it is a linchpin for air and naval control of the South and East China seas, and that it is protected from invasion by a hundred miles of water and challenging geography. That's why China wants it. That's the card.
Blow up all TSMC's factories on Taiwan tomorrow and relocate its scientists and engineers and you think China would suddenly drop its ambitions to "reunify" and take control of the island? Since its alleged only card was gone?
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.
Still it might be cheaper to just give him worthless wins with no follow thru.
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.
Yes, and then the US will force its way. It's quite funny that you even mentioned nukes. Taiwan did attempt to build nukes and the US destroyed the project.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/01/asia/taiwan-cia-informant...
We “destroyed” it inasmuch as we said we won’t be friends if you do this. We didn’t threaten to invade.
America has resisted geopolitical balancing to date because we resisted the temptation of realpolitik. America’s allies are, on average, richer and more peaceful than her enemies. That’s now beginning to change. For the first time in modern history, we may see a system of alliances emerge that credibly counter American economic and military might.
During the cold war, there were certainly planners in the west that thought the west would loose a conflict.
So maybe not the first time.
US loves Taiwan so much, they won't allow them to build independence and rely less on US provided security.
Unless its leaders and ruling class are owned by US. It wouldn't be the first time US is directing some puppet governments.
Most of us like the US. And we knowingly elect politicians who will promote a good relationship with the US.
* 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.
1. I don't like the characterization of "go it alone" because it obviously implies adherence to some kind of extreme that simply isn't represented in reality. No one is shutting down the ports and firing ambassadors; if it were possible to quantify these things (it isn't), reducing global power projection from 100% to 80% is not "going it alone".
2. The true form of "economic largesse" the US has given the rest of the world is Security. Its come at great cost to the country; America has lost ~600,000 souls in conflict in the past 80 years. I'm not saying America has a unique claim to losing lives in battle, Russia and China and others can claim much more devastation, but America is unique in the sense that nearly none she's lost were in her home hemisphere.
9/11 was maybe the only attack since Pearl Harbor that a foreign adversary successfully executed on American soil; but the wars that followed were really a tipping point in American force projection. We'd already been fighting wars in the middle east, then you go back further with Vietnam... America is a country that's spent eighty years chasing the Moral Righteousness it felt when it helped win WW2 for the Allies. The American people are tired of it; her sons and daughters work two jobs, can't afford a home, yet are asked time-and-time again by the latest rich disconnected President to deploy across the world to fight for "Freedom". Or, now, to send a hundred billion in military aid to Ukraine.
I think that's the "clawing back" the poster was talking about: maybe the story of the next century is one where America still projects force globally, but toward the more specific goal of Peace rather than post-WW2-era Western Idealism, and with an expectation of economic cooperation. Money has, after all, been the American God for many decades now.
3. The idea that the rest of the world would simply continue on in the wake of some idealized "US full-on isolationist pull out" is not rooted in reality; and that's part of the reason why this is not happening on the extremes. The US has been a critical force for both War and Peace over the past 80 years. If the US hadn't sent a hundred billion dollars to Ukraine over the past three years, Russia would own the country and share a new, huge border with NATO ally Poland. Implicit and Explicit US security guarantees have stopped China from projecting naval power across Taiwan and other SEA countries. US Support of Israel has... well, the region would look very different if we weren't there, whether there would be more or less war is another debate. My point is: The suggestion that America would lose relatively to the rest of the world in this unrealistic, hypothetical scenario, is not rooted in reality. The far more likely outcome of this unlikely scenario is: War, amongst military peers, the worst and most bloody kind of war, while America enjoys massive oceans, a trillion dollar defensive military, the most economically prosperous natural resources on the planet, and neighbors who could never put up a fight.
No one wins, but America and her western hemisphere allies would lose the least. Fortunately: This is not what America, today, wants. Its not even what the Trump administration wants. Again, a reduction from 100% to 80% is not a "full-on isolationist pull-out".
The other equally important thing in my mind which seems to get a bit less popular attention is trade balances. There are certain countries the US is engaged with where A) the US puts very low tariffs on them and they do not reciprocate; meanwhile B) the US provides some form of economic assistance to them whether it may be through military support, contribution to NGOs etc.
Those specific relationships I think the US can and will eviscerate or at least play serious hardball when it renegotiates, because what is it gaining today? Do you want a CIA listening post in northern Thailand or do you want to home-shore production of some of the things you've been buying from them, creating some working class jobs along the way? The US is not a one party state so its direction on these questions may be unclear for a while, but I think I know how Trump, Gabbard, Rubio etc. will answer that question as the working class very much put them in office (and there are plenty of Democrats who would be sympathetic to this approach too -- they just seem to get sidelined by their party leadership a lot).
Endless misdirection of targeted greedy promises and opportunism did. The coins launched right before the election blew through the emoluments clause, and the tweet threatening removal of funding from universities with "illegal" protests is targeting the first amendment along with news organizations that are feeling the pressure.
The opposition will be but a token, and the bargaining power of the average person is the ultimate target for destruction.
>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.
Big gamble, especially when we gut the DoE.
I mean, they already had to pay to rediscover fogbank once right?
But, the direction won't change: More isolationist, greater investment in homeland manufacturing and less global force projection, but still a significant and growing international trade presence, and a signatory to global security guarantees.
Here's how I put it: America bared the brunt three MAJOR, timeline-altering events in the past 25 years: 9/11, the global financial crisis, and COVID (I am not saying the rest of the world did not bare some of these, just that the US did). To think we'd just roll with the punches and there'd be no consequences of these is, frankly, ridiculous:
9/11 led to multiple forever wars that cost America an extreme amount of money and lives for almost no gain, not really even victory. Its lasting impact will be an America that is more hesitant to project force globally.
The GFC led to massive debt spending and an ongoing financial crisis that America still hasn't fully recovered from. Just when we were ramping up to start recovery, COVID hits and we do it all over again. Its lasting impact will be an America that is more hesitant to give away free stuff or take the raw end of trade deals.
Yes but until the trump era, things remained relatively consistent in terms of international relations.
Flipping on and off 25% tariffs (or even the threat of) is going to have a long term effect regardless.
Flipping on and off the level of interest in international norms, is going to have a long term effect.
And its already ratcheted, things are going to be worse this term than Trumps last term. The next MAGA presidents term is going to be worse again.
Just because its not a paved road doesn't mean you aren't going down a hill.
For me however, this might just be the justification we need to close Pine Gap and US access to the joint submarine radio in WA.
- Biden won more popular votes in 2020 than any candidate ever (81.2M, versus Trump's 62.9M in 2016 and 77.3M in 2024).
- Trump's second term was the first Republican presidential candidate since Bush's second term, 20 years prior, to win the popular vote; and Bush had 9/11 to campaign on.
- If you discount that you have to go back to his father in 1988 to find a Republican Presidential candidate that won the popular vote. Seriously, again, I cannot stress this enough: Americans prefer progressive policies. We just tend to prefer cults of personality more.
- Many congressional districts swung Republican in 2024 by only four or five figures of votes, and Republicans only gained Congressional majority by a couple seats.
- Its very likely the United States is currently experiencing or will soon experience a recession. Its likely this would have happened with or without Trump, but the person in charge gets the blame, and it'll be very difficult to fight that claim when tariffs have been such a hot topic.
- Its also the case that DOGE's cutting of the Federal workforce has alienated a ton of Trump supporters who worked for the Federal government or related NGOs.
I think this is pretty clear when looking at the administration's actions: They know that they have to move quick on a ton of stuff in these first two years, because they only have two years with Congressional majority. The last two years of Trump's presidency will be a Republican executive branch and Democrat congress, and nothing will get done. Then whatever happens in 2028 will happen; hard to predict that far out.
You can go read my other comments if you think this position is coming from some crazed TDS democratic lunatic; I'm not. I'm generally pretty moderate and understanding of the more complex macroeconomic and sociopolitical context which has influenced Trump's policies. This is just the facts; anyone with money to bet would absolutely be betting that the American left is more pissed than they've ever been, and the blue wave in 2026 is going to be pretty decisive.
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.
Can't build chips, can't make ships, can't make furniture, can't make clothes, can't make enough weapons to supply Ukraine, let alone for any real war. Globalization hollowed the capacity of the country.
True, but that's true for every country, even Taiwan. If ASML (Dutch company), Applied Materials, LAM Research, KLA, Synopsys, Cadence (US companies), Tokyo Electron, Shin-Etcu (Japan) and literally hundreds of other companies didn't cooperate, TSMC couldn't function either. BTW, that's why China can never "take over" TSMC - they can just make it defunct when all these other companies stop doing business with it after the invasion.
Basically, the planet is making chips, not any individual country.
> can't make ships,
I suggest you look-up the Jones Act and its unintended consequences.
And then think why American voters never consider this kind of stuff when voting.
> can't make furniture, can't make clothes,
Fair enough, though this is more a matter of what is economically viable vs. what is possible. There are economic losers, sure. But there are big winners too, most notably in the "tech" industry. It's incumbent on the US to smooth-out the transition for their own citizens, instead of allowing special interests and monopolies to run amok and incumbents to Gerrymander themselves into office.
Ultimately, American voters allowed this to happen, and when they saw the results, they fell for a demagogue.
> can't make enough weapons to supply Ukraine, let alone for any real war.
I hope you are not suggesting Russo-Ukrainian war is "not real". This is almost WW2-level stuff. I suggest you take a look at the photographic evidence of vehicle losses, keeping in mind that the actual losses are likely higher:
Attack On Europe: Documenting Russian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine (main battle tanks: 3786, total: 20577) https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...
Attack On Europe: Documenting Ukrainian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine (main battle tanks: 1092, total: 7965) https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...
And are we cranking up our industrial might to make more tanks? No, we aren't making any, not for Ukraine, not for US. Sometime in the 2030s we are supposed to have a modified and improved M1E3.
The success of the tech industry is orthogonal to globalization.
GDLS in the US is making new-build M1A2 SEPv3 tanks for Poland and Australia.
A sane alternative would have been for the government to spend the surplus on deliberate policy goals such as infrastructure development, preserving the industrial base, scientific research, forward looking renewable energy and less polluting processes, restoring the expectation of full time employment to 40 hours per household, etc. Distorting prices in those sectors in service of deliberate goals would have been much better than making housing unaffordable and calling it progress.
That means the problem is where the money is.
Americans will always do the right after they do everything else first
It seems accurate to our national history, in broad strokes at least
You think we’ll still have elections?
If you throw away democracy do you still have a USA to speak of?
I think the answer to that is no, though perhaps I am mistaken that every US patriot has fealty to the constitution.
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.
The political faction pushing this kind of thing (and viewing it as a clawback) is also the one fanning the nativist (and racist!) embers as political cover for while advancing policies that entrench wealth inequality, There is literally no significant faction both interested in this kind of "clawback" and interested in dealing with, rather than exploiting and exacerbating, the other things you point to.
You need to address the nativist tendencies in your country. You can't just bulldoze through them.
You need to address the wealth inequality.
And yes, I think you -are- allowed some degree of "clawback", especially if it helps address the other two issues. I think America specifically is allowed some degree of "clawback" (for example, a reduction or drawdown of military support to Europe).
For a country to be just to its own citizens, it does need to respect the citizen body's wishes about immigration (though it can also choose to attempt to shape those views to some degree). And it does need to address wealth inequality. And it -should- prioritize the welfare of its own citizen to those of its allies and trading partners (at least at a 1:1 basis).
>You need to address the wealth inequality.
I'd suggest that you solve the former with the latter. The nativist tendencies are stoked by economic insecurity.
They have a plan for that: birth control will be made illegal or access highly curtailed, starting with the "abortive" ones as the foot-in-the-door.
> It also requires structural fixes within America (mostly looking at the wealth inequality)
I think the US will make some positive strides here soon - there is a real effort at the FTC and DOJ to reduce monopolization, consolidation and exclusive dealing, which are some of the primary drivers of wealth inequality. This began in a limited way under Trump's first administration (mainly tech focused), expanded in a big way under Biden, and every indication from the Trump admin is that they are substantially going to continue with the direction Biden went. Anti-trust is a dry topic so it doesn't get a lot of media attention. But the push here is real, it began in the executive branch, and we are starting to see it expand into the judicial branch as judges start to agree with the government's arguments. What is really significant is that both parties seem to support it to some degree so the momentum will be hard to stop.
> as well as properly address the nativist embers that are currently lit.
Could be a concern but as long as the US is a two party state, this is unlikely to become systemic, at least at the federal level, it is more likely to be a gory see-saw. The US will always be more immigrant friendly than its geopolitical rivals, it will always do a better job at importing new people and turning them into citizens and Americans than China or Russia does. Its native population also reproduces today at higher rates than the native populations of its rivals.
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.
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!
I consider US to be like brain of earth / humanity. Dollar Reserve Currency is like nerve signals. It can give that printed money to an African nation and make it buy wheat from Ukraine. Or give that money to Myanmar so that it can buy weapons from other countries. The whole setup is brilliant. Making one hand cooperate with another or hurt another if we extend the brain body analogy. US is holding a structural proverbial gun to other nations' head.
It is only a matter of time, when the body of humanity revolts against the excesses of brain's unrealistic demands.
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.
Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason. It can also simply be a pragmatic decision.
The "getting stuffed" thing would be big words from a nearly bankrupt company, don't you think? Intel's investors will take whatever deal that gives them the biggest return on their dollar.
I find it so hard to take this point seriously. Without security guarantees, you are asking Ukraine to “end the war” and give up massive territory and give Russia plenty of time to re-arm. They have broken treaties before.
Even still, why should the US care if Ukraine wants to keep defending itself from Russian aggression? They are a primary geopolitical rival and the ROI of sending Ukraine our old equipment to directly weaken them is massive compared to almost any other defense related use of it.
What’s more than this, we would be abandoning an ally and signaling that it is safe for countries to do these invasions without significant pushback. The destabilizing result of this will be felt around the world.
Plenty of time for Ukraine to re-arm as well. Ukraine is the one kidnapping men on the streets to send to the front line.
> ROI of sending Ukraine our old equipment
But that's not the only thing getting sent.
> we would be abandoning an ally
What alliance did US and Ukraine have? They were friendly but there wasn't any sort of alliance. No defense pact.
Conscription as an enemy army marches through your borders is neither uncommon nor concerning.
> But that's not the only thing getting sent.
This line is essentially devoid of meaning without naming anything specific. The point is that what USA is sending is tremendous ROI in terms of damage to its enemies.
Are you familiar with Budapest Memorandum? Even if not official allies with a mutual defense pact, United States had commitments and more importantly the following dual interests that support aiding Ukraine:
1.) Weakening Russia 2.) Global stabilization / aggression deterrence
Having to rely on forcing men to the frontline is a clear indicator that the war is not going in your favour and you may need time to rebuild. It's also questionably immoral - forcing someone to fight.
> This line is essentially devoid of meaning without naming anything specific. The point is that what USA is sending is tremendous ROI in terms of damage to its enemies.
US has spent over $100B, in return for what? How has the average American benefited?
Are you okay with sacrificing hundred of thousands of Ukrainian lives to damage your enemies? Is that acceptable?
> Are you familiar with Budapest Memorandum
Yes. And it's not a defense pact. US followed through on all commitments it made.
The US is not "sacrificing Ukrainian lives". Russia will keep the war going with or without us. American support saves Ukrainian lives and makes better outcomes possible.
Without American support, Russia doesn't stop, they grind faster and demand more consessions.
> Russia will keep the war going with or without us
Actually, Ukraine and Russia were close to signing a deal in Istanbul, but were pushed not to by US/UK - allegedly. but logically, without US(and EU) support, Ukraine would have been more inclined to sign the deal which would have avoided hundred of thousands of lost lives.
It was a surrender on a timer doomed to fail just like Munich 1938 did.
It would inevitably have been violated just like the two Minsk agreements were, just like the Black Sea grain initiative was, just like the humanitarian ceasefires in Mariupol and Debaltseve were, just like Prigozhin's deal was - and a dozen others.
Ukrainian politicians have called the "UK pressure" narrative nonsense. Negotiations were called off because of what happened in Bucha + promises of arms supplies.
Your narrative is propaganda. Ukraine didn't want to sign that deal because it was a total shit deal made by someone who broke all their previous deals, and the West was giving them an opportunity for a better one.
Ukraine now faces almost total destruction because they didn't take the deal.
It should be a clear lesson to other countries - don't be belligerent with your much stronger neighbors.
The US and Europe getting involved simply increased the death and destruction.
I'm not saying it is fair or right or just. It simply is.
> Black Sea grain initiative was
Citation needed. As far as I'm aware it was just not renewed.
As per Minsk, Ukraine also violated it. There were a lot of violations from both sides. It was not an agreement that would have worked long term.
https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine/5...
> Ukrainian politicians have called the "UK pressure" narrative nonsense
Which are as worthy source as Russian politicians.
> promises of arms supplies
From US and UK? Aka pressure from them?
> Your narrative is propaganda
Your narrative is propaganda.
> and the West was giving them an opportunity for a better one.
Where is that deal? So far a lot of Ukrainians have lost their lives for what exactly?
And again, do you support Trump's demand for ceasefire?
There were violations. They used the "inspections" process to continually delay & block ships from going to Ukrainian ports.
"Ukrainian Deputy Renovation Minister Yuriy Vaskov accused Russia of a "gross violation" of the agreement. All ships are inspected by a joint team of Russian, Ukrainian, Turkish and U.N. inspectors, but Vaskov said the Russian inspectors had refused to inspect ships bound for Pivdennyi since April 29."
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/ukraine-says-rus...
And then of course it wasn't renewed, followed up by immediate missile strikes on Ukraine's grain infrastructure over the following couple of days. Which does speak in some sense to Russia's willingness to do deals and hold them. (That didn't end up working out for them as expected, because Ukraine subsequently sank half of what remained of their Black Sea Fleet).
I notice you don't address all the other deals they violated either.
> Which are as worthy source as Russian politicians.
What source do you consider credible? Random tankies on twitter? Nobody who was actually involved in those discussions gives that narrative any credence.
>Where is that deal? So far a lot of Ukrainians have lost their lives for what exactly?
Ukrainians decide what deal they're willing to accept, not you.
>And again, do you support Trump's demand for ceasefire?
No, because Trump isn't trying to make Russia sacrifice anything, he's just trying to force Ukraine into submission. Which, by the way, will not work.
> What source do you consider credible? Random tankies on twitter? Nobody who was actually involved in those discussions gives that narrative any credence.
Reputable news sources, ideally multiple different sources that say the same thing. Ukrainian politicians will not say anything that would potentially harm their war effort.
> Ukrainians decide what deal they're willing to accept, not you.
They can do it without my aid then.
> No, because Trump isn't trying to make Russia sacrifice anything, he's just trying to force Ukraine into submission. Which, by the way, will not work.
So, what's the end goal, as far as you see?
It’s the terms of how it ends that need to be reasonable.
Do you think the allies should have just given the axis the territory they demanded to prevent war?
I am finding it tremendously hard to take you seriously.
Why are you okay with USSR controlling those territories but not the axis?
In international relations, power is relative (see: the security dilemma). A weaker adversary means a more powerful USA. USA Spends much more than that every year on its military. I claim the ROI is much better here.
> Are you okay with sacrificing hundred of thousands of Ukrainian lives to damage your enemies? Is that acceptable?
We’re not sacrificing any lives. Russia is stealing them by illegally continuing their a war of annexation. If Mexico invaded Texas, should USA “sacrifice” no lives to take it back?
Should Europe offer no aid because “the war really should end”.
> We’re not sacrificing any lives. Russia is stealing them by illegally continuing their a war of annexation. If Mexico invaded Texas, should USA “sacrifice” no lives to take it back?
Mexico is considerably weaker. Here's a more accurate analogy; if USA decided to annex Canada, should Canada throw millions of lives in trying to take it back? against a significantly stronger opponent?
> Should Europe offer no aid because “the war really should end”.
The aid should only be until a deal can be made, like one with Trump. It should not be given to prolong the war indefinitely. I do not want to suffer economically so that Ukraine can kidnap men to send and die to keep some eastern territory.
I can’t figure out if you’re being serious. They are the adversary of USA because they directly seek to oppose USA and the rules based world order it leads. Russia is the adversary of USA because wars of conquest in Europe are diametrically opposed to the interests of the United States.
> if USA decided to annex Canada, should Canada throw millions of lives in trying to take it back?
It’s up to the invaded country to decide how long. I know that if China invaded Florida, I would be very comfortable with UK sending USA weapons for as long as USA wants to try to fight the foreign invaders.
> I do not want to suffer economically so that Ukraine can kidnap men to send and die to keep some eastern territory.
Are you being serious? I’m sorry if you are, I just find it hard to imagine someone who is generally aware of the world could think this, especially since they are known Russian propagandists talking points. To be clear: America is absolutely not suffering economically as a result of supporting Ukrainian resistance to Russian invasion.
> They are the adversary of USA because they directly seek to oppose USA and the rules based world order it leads
How so?
> I know that if China invaded Florida, I would be very comfortable with UK sending USA weapons for as long as USA wants to try to fight the foreign invaders.
USA is more powerful than China in military - not to mention UK is an ally of USA. And sure, it's up to the invaded country, but at a certain point countries don't want to keep sending money into a blackhole.
> Are you being serious? I’m sorry if you are, I just find it hard to imagine someone who is generally aware of the world could think this, especially since they are known Russian propagandists talking points
It's so easy to call something a Russian propagandist talking point or Russian bot instead of actually addressing points. Let's have a discussion without resorting to calling the other side propagandists.
> To be clear: America is absolutely not suffering economically as a result of supporting Ukrainian resistance to Russian invasion.
I can't comment on America because I don't live there, but European countries have suffered hard. Especially by not buying gas from Russia. Our industrial economy takes a massive hit due to increase in power. A lot of residential houses pay a lot more for gas/heating/electricity - and those are European, already a lot poorer than the Americans.
Wars of aggression in Europe are against the interests of the USA.
I’be been addressing your points. It’s just hard to take them seriously as known Russian propaganda.
You have not provided any reasoning, just talking points.
This is what I call the "just let Hitler have Poland" theory.
Is it a good idea? You can't evaluate that without having an understanding of why an independent Ukraine is considered important internationally, what the function and reason of NATO is, what a third world war would realistically look like, what Europe and Asia would look like with an expanded totalitarian Russian empire, what AI-driven done warfare will look like, what the actual (vs merely rhetorical) threat of nuclear arms use is, what will happen with global climate goals if Russia is unopposed (considering Russia considers itself a potential "winner" if climate change intensifies), and what the famine/disease/refugee situation looks like if climate change does intensify.
There are simply too many variables for random internet commenters to have an informed opinion on most of these things. And I would guess that even world leaders with full access to all the classified information can't be certain about most of these questions.
But it does seem to me that an independent Ukraine (with its natural resources intact) is the ultimate Chesterton's Fence right now.
But who is better at it than the USA ?
When every nation fights against each other to prop up their population numbers, immigrants will choose the place that's the best for them. Think of it as product competition, and consumers are the immigrants that pick what's best for them.
Immigrants have always done this, that’s why they emigrate in the first place
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.
Narcissists embrace and promote tribalism, which shores their power and volatilises their circles and communities. As conflicts arise, individuals are forced to take side. It is better for the narcissist to lead a battle to disaster than to be the benign civilian in a country at peace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disor...
Surely you can see that's an easy choice. And if you can't perhaps read one of the articles on Bucha?
Pretty much all these conflicts are pretty limited and there's very few states focused on war (whereas before Nukes in the 20th century essentially all of Europe and Asia was focused on war, constantly)
So yes, I find the idea that the nuclear weapons threat is preventing a LOT of wider wars and is responsible for the most peaceful period ever in human history pretty convincing.
When it comes to relations between states, arguments go between capitalism and war (ie. just taking what you want vs trade)
I get that capitalism (selling/exporting their oil) brought Soviets enormous success and taking what they want in war brought the USSR down. And yet, despite that, here we are with Russia and Ukraine. You'd think recent Russian history would convince anyone the Ukraine conflict is not worth it, obviously not for Ukraine, but also not for Russia. It's an easy argument to make that for Russia abandoning the war today, just going home right now, will provide more rewards for Russia and Russians than a complete victory would bring, even if that victory ALSO came today ... and yet nobody thinks Russia will abandon the fight. As for their ability to wage war, the sad truth is, Putin has conquered more people than he lost, and Russia has conquered more minerals' than they lost in equipment. If Putin wants to use both resources to create more war, he will be able to do so.
Something very similar can be said about China and Taiwan. Not having a conflict is obviously the best option ... and yet, there's very little doubt that conflict will erupt in a few years, not decades.
Also, it's not clear what you're getting at... perhaps you can elaborate on your thinking?
It doesn't matter what I propose or not, this is the only international order we have, and the best one that has ever existed. And yes, I will agree with what Einstein said, namely that he's extremely disappointed in it.
Vietnam wasn't nukes, and it wasn't just a fluke. Gaza wasn't nuked, yet the whole area is now flat.
In your own response you've extended the subject to MAD. And there are dozens of other factors that will impact a country's geopolitical position.
None of this is obvious.
Even China and Iran didn't vote with Russia on that one, they abstained.
> The US version was also adopted (93 in favour, eight against and 73 abstentions), but Member States also voted to add the European Union amendments with 60 in favour, 18 against and 81 abstentions.
There is no world where NATO/US invade Russia. That is literally the end of the world.
Perhaps two dozen Trident missiles equipped with nuclear warheads would be all that's really necessary. Russia is only invading because Ukraine believed it would honor its word in the Budapest Memorandum, which was why it surrendered its key strategic defense. With that agreement breached, Ukraine deserves its deterrents back.
I also agree that a concession will need to be made, and I think that's very appropriate. Reparations need to be paid for the war of aggression, and those guilty of war crimes need to be given fair trials by international tribunals.
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).
So much so in fact that you’d think more rich countries would help pay to maintain it.
But yet here we are…
Germany didn't want that role too, as one of the biggest economies in Europe, because of... History.
Germany just enabled 1 trillion in spending for the military. That's historical
1,7 trillion of the Norway fund will be enabled ( partially ofc), that's entire Russia's GDP alone.
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).
- re-iterated threats about Greenland ( one way or another we'll get it)
- tarrifs India
- tarrifs South Korea
- tarrifs China ( that one I get)
- Seize Panama canal ( forgot that)
- threatening US students and schools for protesting
- removing a black congressmen from Trump's speech
- banned intelligence sharing to Ukraine
Ho boy, at this rate. No one will be left from US allies within months.
Do you have a source for this or is it just some vibey rant? That last part seems ridiculous.
He is giving many good reasons to be anxious or concerned. Are these normal behaviors? Is his conduct likely to weaken our institutions, rather then strengthen them?
Is there a reason that you consider people in vietnam, indonesia, the philippines, slovakia, mali, and dozens of other countries that are recent/ongoing victims of the rapacious and ultra-violent "good europeans" or the liberal-imperial US in recent ( < 100 years ago) history to be either:
A) Not part of the world (since you're explaining the GP statement about the world)
B) Or are somehow a self-evidently inferior subspecies for whom you assume it is impossible for people on HN to be friends with?
If you use "all the people in the world" and "a handful of majority-white former or current imperial-colonial powers" interchangeably, I don't see how anyone can assume in good faith that you're not carrying water for a set of very unpleasant european ideas used to rationalize dehumanization.
Is there a reason you are getting offended on behalf of other people that weren’t mentioned?
1. "Everyone on earth hates X now"
2. "Well, not the whole world, that's not a serious claim"
3. "My evidence that it is indeed true that everyone on earth hates X is that a majority of white western europeans hate X, as will all of your non-american friends, all of them."
4. "Equating a majority of white western europeans as evidence of the feelings of all people on earth is implicitly exclusionary and illogical."
5. "I'm going to ignore the original claims being discussed and their context even though there are literally nested comments to show associated thoughts and doing so violates the basics of reading comprehension."
So that should catch you up. Again, I'd like to assume good faith but "pretending top level comments don't exist or inform subsequent comments" indicates some kind of learning disability or lack of socialization.
Which is ridiculous because that's not even what was said.
As we said, go check up on your non American friends to see what the world outside of the US thinks about Trump and his threats.
https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20250305-macron-to-addre...
Canada - Ontario ( most populous province) - ends contract with Starlink and refuses to sell US alcohol ( 1 billion $/ year). I know a lot of Canadians and they are stopping US subscriptions everywhere.
Things are changing fast.
At this point, basic facts no one disputes in other contexts are furiously downvoted when it inconveniences an increasingly authoritarian and racialized europe.
How did those military bases get there? And how did they remain? You are either very ignorant or you are intentionally mendacious to avoid the obvious reality that your prosperity and their poverty are deeply connected.
This is the top level comment in the thread.
We're at the level of psychosis now where you're arguing with and furiously downvoting matters of agreed upon fact that are like... HTML elements.
If you are angrily in denial about which elements are nested, I can also well understand you might believe that western european empires and their successor states are in fact, the only human beings on earth.
I have friends who live in south-east asia and western africa and they cannot understand why I am so tepid to negative about Trump domestically, because everything he is doing is very positive for their countries.
Probably the reason you haven't heard about this is that intelligent people with options will tend to not maintain friendships with people who think of them as part of a lesser race without the right to interests or opinions.
Check your own resources / circle. It's pretty easy to verify.
Ps. Don't argue against the dictator https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/c0q184n7qnjo
Many don't seem to realize that removing bureaucracy and installing loyalists is exactly how a dictator becomes a dictator
And that's exactly what Trump is doing.
Eg. 6 january, it's really not that hard to see that Trump wants to cling to power and just earn an insane amount of money ( Trump coin, Melaniacoin, ... ), ignoring court orders, ... ( It's project 2025 and happening for weeks)
Claiming to have won the previous elections, with no proof
Do you have any proof that he isn't? Everything seems to support my opinion that Trump wants to be a dictator. He literally said so himself.
"I'll be a dictator for one day", we're currently 6 weeks in.
During protests in his first presidency in 2020 he asked his security advisors “Can’t you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?”
Combined with his persistent attempts to overturn the result when he lost to Biden, and retribution against Repubican election officials that certified Biden wins, and I’m frankly confused what isn’t clear about what’s going on.
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...
I don't really want to defend the US here, God knows we have no shortage of extremely serious flaws, but the PRC is much, much worse.
In practical terms, we can see how Huawei is not banned in the EU, the EU isn't in a tariff war with China either, while it's also not a clear Chinese ally, also having a independant stance from the US in most geopolitical fights.
Apart from the genocide of the Uighur, the brutal oppression of Tibet, the complete lack of even the pretense of democratic rights, the total lack of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and on and on. Last I checked not wanting your ethnicity eliminated or brutally repressed isn’t just a European thing.
Taiwan would be quite invested in TSMC being a supplier of these.
As I understand it, the military generally isn't a big fan of "move fast and break things". They prefer mature, well-designed, and reliable products because it's a matter of life and death - and development takes years.
A 2025 tank isn't going to use chips made using TSMC's cutting-edge 3nm node. Personally I'd expect the fastest chips to be using at best something like the decade-old 14nm node, with the vast majority being on even more mature nodes. Sure, TSMC can produce them, but so can pretty much everyone else. Losing TSMC would be a major blow, but I doubt it'd have a huge long-term impact logistics-wise for the military.
First, the history of chip design and manufacturing is the history of modern weapons design[0]. As long as chips have existed we've been sticking them in brand spanking new weapons systems precisely because it's a matter of life and death. Chip makers of all kinds live and die by defense contracts.
"Because it's a matter of life and death" as a roadblock only makes sense if you don't think about it at all. If I offload some of my SIGINT processing to my brand new 3nm nodes and they don't work, won't my scheduler just mark them bad and reallocate the work back to the machines I had before? If my first shipment of 3nm drone chips doesn't deliver as promised, I've still got my existing inventory of 5nm drones and plenty of suppliers. You balance the inherent riskiness of new technology via redundancy, not avoidance.
> A 2025 tank isn't going to use chips made using TSMC's cutting-edge 3nm node.
No shit. But 2025 servers can, so can 2025 drones, so can 2025 bombs, so can 2025 satellites. Do you think whoever figures out how to communicate via quantum entanglement[1] is going to just not do it because "it's a matter of life and death"? Hell no. They're going to use it to run circles around their enemies while it's working, and they'll fall back to older communication channels when it isn't working.
[0] https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0310bombs/ [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-reaches-new...
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.
Also, the longer they wait, the more tech gets transferred to the US, so even if it were all about TSMC, they would still be incentivized to act as soon as possible.
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.
The frontline troops - sure, but officers and up?
Now think if the Chinese will be willing to take part in a meat-grinder war?
> 1960s tanks from Soviet stockpiles.
You mean in a battle-tested equipment. China got some-quality modernised soviet equipment with operators that never took part in any operations.
China has certainly a weaker military than Russia before the war. And a society that might not be willing to die in millions to occupy a small island where their fellow people live, for no good reason other than political.
So decades of military theater from China regarding Taiwan is for no purpose?
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?
The fabs anyways don’t ship chips to the devices they go into, they do to a separate site where they get tested, packaged and then are sent off.
The reason to onshore this is not about scale but process capability and adding security to supply chain in case Taiwan gets in a conflict. It’s not about scale but ability to produce high yielding chips at shrinking technology size, is vastly becoming a physics problem at smaller nodes.
Reality is that Samsung and Intel could run a similar fab but their yields, efficiency and process development is lagging behind TSMC. So easier to onshore TSMC process here that help Intel learn how to speedrun transition to foundry model (producing others chip designs)
I see, but I think you are still skipping the major point that the chips need to be installed in a device to be useful. That device assembly is largely in Asia, and the US does not have the ready capacity to suddenly start assembling devices.
> not about scale but process capability and adding security to supply chain in case Taiwan gets in a conflict
> Samsung and Intel could run a similar fab but their yields, efficiency and process development
If we don't need scale, then why couldn't Intel just produce the chips inefficiently in case of conflict? Or if this is about protecting the supply chain for consumer goods as well, then I am back to my initial question about siting chip production far from the places the chips are installed into devices.
1. Chips have a very high $/kg density, so logistics isn't go to change unit economics a lot. 2. These assembly lines are much easier to construct than chip fabs, so if there is any reason to keep the two close, it's not going to be a problem anyway.
Doesn't the shipping time matter, though? And haven't we recently seen that long supply lines are brittle?
> These assembly lines are much easier to construct than chip fabs, so if there is any reason to keep the two close
I was thinking also in terms of the scale of people required to operate them, plus the transport etc. infrastructure to keep them running. All that, and a hypothetical US factory would have labor costs 5x or higher. That would seem to make it an emergency-only scenario?
I just don't see the scenario where such a fab would make economic sense.
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.
[1]: https://www.nextplatform.com/2022/10/13/tsmc-the-leading-ind...
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.
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?
Why?
TSMC was likely threatened by Trump to invest in America. TSMC likely didn't want to do this. However, because they will have more fabs in the US, they'll likely avoid the tariffs as part of the deal. Further more, TSMC will still make chips in case of of a China take over. The risk here is that the US will simply confiscate TSMC's fabs if China uses military action on Taiwan based on security measures. That's the worst case scenario for TSMC.
For Taiwan, it's a terrible deal because the money is not invested in Taiwan and the island becomes less important in the world. The "silicon shield" would also be broken and the Taiwanese government has zero control over fabs in the US.
It remains to be seen if this will truly happen. Perhaps TSMC will always keep its most cutting edge node in Taiwan. Perhaps they'll drag this out over the next 4 years in hopes that Trump's party gets voted out.
[1] https://www.oscepa.org/en/news-a-media/press-releases/press-...
The security guarantees for Ukraine stem from a 1994 agreement that assured some ex-USSR countries that they could safely give up their nuclear stockpile in return for guarantees that their sovereignty would be protected.
Europe supports Ukraine because it is in Europe, European countries were part of that agreement and European countries do not trust Russia. Not counting Belarus, there's 7 countries with direct borders to Russia, 4 of which used to be part of the USSR, 1 of which is being invaded and the other 3 wonder if they're next.
Whereas Taiwan is not in Europe and doesn't have any historical agreements with European countries.
Canada & Australia have cultural, racial and historical ties to Europe, so it is understandable they often align with Europe.
If they send enough engineers over, we won’t actually learn how to make the chips. Then when the next election happens they can re-evaluate.
If China invades in the next four years, I guess… I dunno, at least they’ll have gotten some people out. It is a pretty bad situation, I guess they are just doing what they can.
(A) China would suffer intensely under a blockade.
(B) A few missiles could ensure chip facilities are surrendered intact.
(C) Even a short conflict where a few missiles hits boats invading Taiwan would ensure the rest of the world never trades with China.
Point being: The US doesn't have to win, don't have to fight with everything, just make the invasion hard and isolate China in a new cold war.
See the Cuban missile crisis. It is an act of war but certainly not as escalatory as direct attack.
In fact the history of China is just constant famines.
Declare all coastal areas around China a conflict zone.
Declare anyone trading with China can't trade with the US. If backed by allies, China could perhaps be boxed in.
But, hey, who knows. It's entirely unclear what is possible.
And much depends on whether Taiwan falls in 3 days, or stays in the fight for 3 years.
Or so one would assume.. current administration is proving that they'll abandon freedom at minimal cost.
But it’s in Taiwans interest for us to continue to provide them arms, training, and build regional alliances to pressure China.
I’m also not as convinced the US wouldn’t respond, but it would depend on South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and ASEAN nations to call for such action — if they felt threatened enough by China’s actions in taking Taiwan and Philippine islands to declare war themselves.
Edit:
Including article discussing blowing up fabs and Taiwanese response that cutting off ASML and similar would be just as effective.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-would-destroy-taiwan-semi...
We’d blow up the fabs ourselves.
Not to mention it's the quickest way for Taiwanese people to completely turn on the US.
Taiwan currently produces over 85% of the world’s advanced semiconductors. Letting China take Taiwan would hand the CCP control over the global tech supply chain, crippling the U.S. economy and military. That’s a non starter.
No nation with anything to lose will be using nukes..EVER. The game has been understood for 75 years: mutual destruction means no winners. The U.S. has more nukes, better missiles, and full second-strike capability. China knows this, so nukes aren’t on the table.
The U.S. doesn’t need to invade just stop China’s invasion. Amphibious assaults are the hardest military operation, and China has zero real world experience in them or in fighting hot wars at all. We only need to sink their fleet or disrupt shipping to and from their ports. They know the risk, which is why they haven’t tried.
Now 5 years form now if we are much less dependent on them for semi-conductors that is a different story, but the realities of today. For now? Yeah, we throw down.
Also there is the scenario where China co-opts or influences Taiwans elections such that leadership moves back to a pro China stance. Not impossible, that would really put the US in a bind and I am not sure what would happen then but military engagements would seem much less likely.
To be honest this is a really immature depiction of the conflict, especially for a site like HN. China has demonstrated their willingness and capability to stage a credible naval assault, if you're still skeptical then I think you're blinded by jingoist ambition. Taiwan is a long ways from home, America can't deter China just with their surface fleet.
I think every sensible ally of the US would now be developing (if they haven't already) contingency plans for any scenario in which they might get embroiled in that would (under previously agreed terms) require an ally to support them. Who can believe in an unconditional military alliance, when the US government is so nakedly prioritising economic transactionalism, even at the expense of their own long-term security (there's a reason countries get into alliances). This US government's handling of the Ukraine situation will undoubtedly turn out to have been the biggest geopolitical footgun for many a decade.
I wonder if they don’t really believe we’d come to defend them regardless of the incentives, at this point. In that case, might as well try to avoid the tariffs.
Ultimately, China won't invade as long as Taiwan plays its cards right. China wants to retake Taiwan without firing a single shot and then quickly re-integrate Taiwan. As long as Taiwan doesn't do anything to provoke China like inviting Nancy Pelosi or voting in more pro-independence politicians.
I actually think these events decreases the chance of a Chinese invasion but increases the chance of a peaceful reunification because the Taiwanese government will look to rely less on the US and positive impression of the US is decreasing in Taiwan.
Take. They can’t “retake” something they never had.
Historically, Taiwan was governed by Chinese administrations for a significant period. In 1683, after defeating the Ming loyalists in Taiwan, the Qing dynasty extended its rule over the island, eventually incorporating it as part of its empire. By 1887, Taiwan was officially designated a province of China under Qing rule. However, following the First Sino-Japanese War, Taiwan was ceded to Japan in 1895. After World War II, Taiwan was placed under the administrative control of the Republic of China. Today, its status remains politically and historically complex, with ongoing debates over sovereignty.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_(1912%E2%80%...
The CCP never controlled Taiwan: it remained independent and under the previous regime. So the CCP would need to take Taiwan as their regime never controlled it.
You’re the one rewriting history.
Most MSM stories on Taiwan take pains to point out the PRC/CCP have never controlled Taiwan. That is technically correct but intentionally misleading, counting on the (mostly American) readers to not understand the difference between a government/dynasty/regime of a country and the country itself, which has histories extending back beyond the founding of its current regime.
The current demand of China to Taiwan, is that Taiwan must continue to claim itself as a rival regime to the PRC vying to control, and represent, all of China. What will trigger war is formal Taiwan "independence", defined as Taiwan rescinding claims on PRC territories and declaring itself a sovereign country independent from not just the PRC, but the ROC (Republic of China) or any other concept of "China" altogether
Both consider themselves the temporarily embarrassed rightful heir to the centuries old concept of China.
The distinction between take/retake in this scenario is a shallow attempt to peacock your political opinion for everyone to see.
This is an outdated take that does not reflect the contemporary feelings of the Taiwanese people and at best only describes a facet of KMT party policy. Bear in mind the KMT does not hold a majority in the legislature - they had to form a coalition with a third party to do so - and the president is from the DPP, which explicitly considers Taiwan a sovereign nation and does not buy into the notion that Taiwan is secretly the real China.
With the exception that “take” is technically correct, as the area in question is a remnant of the already existing government which has maintained independence in a cease fire. Both claim the other, but facts still matter. You don’t “retake” an area that was never under your control.
The RoC lost mainland China to the CCP, but the CCP was never the owner of Taiwan.
I think his perspective is: "If the Qing were the Chinese Goverment and they had Taiwan, and the CCP is the Chinese Government does not have Taiwan, so they will be retaking the island".
His conviction speaks to the strength of the CCP narrative that they ARE China though.
When / if TSMC secures that all lifecycle for advanced large scale chip manufacturing is in the US, Taiwan might find themselves in very iffy waters.
Now that righteousness and moral high grounds don’t matter any more, it’s the only thing keeping Taiwan safe.
> Maybe TSMC has big influence over Taiwan's government or just outright owns key politicians under the table.
I’m pointing out this is just plain Wrong. TSMC was created by the government and invested in by the people.
Taiwanese independence is primarily about containing China's naval power projection and their ability to keep unimpeded shipping lanes open during times of war.
China can currently be easily blockaded, and within a few weeks of such blockades, their supplies of food and energy will be put under tremendous strain. That's why it's so important to the US Navy that China does not obtain Taiwan.
Fighting a war with a superpower that has that kind of Achilles heel is much easier.
You are right that Taiwan makes it harder for China to project its navy, but chips are by far more important now. Building fabs in the US means we don’t have to defend Taiwan, because it’s looking less and less possible.
Also, China has a huge internal border, including a shared border with Russia. Even with a total naval blockade it would only increase food and energy costs. And sanctions won’t work, they didn’t even work with Russia and China is the number 1 trade partner globally.
China will eventually get Taiwan without firing a shot. Pretending that the US can defend an island next to a Chinese border is a pipe dream.
China needs to win this quickly, because any sort of kinetic war is going to put freeze the global economy and likely cause a mass recession, while the USA (& India) can blockade China's supply and oil chains from the Middle East beyond their force projection. Russian-Chinese infrastructure in Siberia isn't well developed and could also easily destroyed with strategic weapons from Alaska. Not to mention the sheer logistics of sending and maintaining millions of men across the strait. One missile and those troops sink into the ocean.
Trying to do a blockade on Taiwan premature isn't a good idea either, because it's conversely giving the USA the first move to organize it's forces out of harm's way, and basically turns a signficant chunk of the PLAN into sitting ducks out at the sea. Most Chinese victories are predicated on the China quickly wiping out US assets in Japan, Korea and Guam, if they don't manage to do that and fail to achieve air superiority, their troop carriers are going to sitting ducks for drones and fighters in the air.
Anyway, the whole thing won't require a single shot. The island and the mainland have close economic ties; people that determine taiwanese policy are heavily invested in China. All the tough words that are being said are for public consumption.
A regional conflict over Taiwan is highly unlikely to result in ICBMs headed for NYC and DC, because China knows that’s effectively the end of modern China. And sinking carriers would also be a very risky escalation given the ability of the US and other allies to retaliate.
I do think you’re right that Taiwan will ultimately lose without much warfare, because Trump is a world-class coward and rolls over for every autocrat who looks in his direction.
If that was how it worked, why wouldn’t China declare all their transport boats sacrosanct?
If we think our retaliation to getting a carrier sunk would be to end the world, we should probably not use them.
That’s not really how war works.
So how does war work? Only one side gets to fight?
Here is my suggestion to people who want the US to play part in Taiwan/China affair: they should take their broomsticks and volunteer. And that includes the war in Ukraine, too.
And blockade options go both ways: China could blockade Taiwan? They have more and more attack submarines and anti-aircraft missiles - which may be good enough.
Back in the day we used to add [citation needed] to statements like that.
Sure, if anyone tried to blockade continental China (coastline from Vietnam to Korea!), controlling Taiwan would be helpful, but chances are it would not really make all that much of a difference. It's not exactly Gibraltar or the Bosporus.
China's interest in Taiwan is ideological. It is not at all determined by whether the Taiwanese destroy their own fabs in the event of an invasion.
(My comment should not be read as an endorsement of the CCP's willingness to force Taiwan into a reunification.)
Pointing this out always looks like endorsement of the CPC as it’s always a point that is pointed out as justification to claim Taiwan is part of China.
My previous comment was meant to provide some context. It was not an endorsement of China's stance.
It's a complete misreading of the situation; the US is in fact actively undermining Taiwan's national security, both 1) by coercing Taiwan to transfer its technology and human capital and 2) by banning chip trade between Taiwan and China.
It's a complete misreading of the situation; the US is in fact actively undermining Taiwan's national security, both 1) by coercing Taiwan to transfer its technology and human capital and 2) by banning chip trade between Taiwan and China.
My apologies, I should have been more clear. Here is my read of the situation:
China doesn't care in the sense that the threat of destroying fabs isn't going to factor into the Chinese leadership's desire to reunify. The issue of reunification is ideological; many Chinese people themselves view Taiwan as a break-away province.
China also does care, at least a little bit, in the sense that having access to Taiwanese chips will free up some economic resources within China itself that could be used in another strategically important industry instead. Allowing chip trade between Taiwan and China also encourages some Chinese economic dependence on Taiwan, though still not a decisive factor in whether China wants to reunify (by force if needed). But it buys Taiwan a bit more time, at least for now.
Banning chip trade between China and Taiwan weakens Taiwan's national security because it immediately removes even that smidgen of Chinese economic dependence on Taiwan (thus possibly accelerating Chinese plans for reunification), and it makes Taiwan much more dependent on the US, which has in recent weeks thoroughly proven itself to be an unreliable partner.
Is there anything I'm missing?
The US had military bases in the Philippines at the time. They did and still have military bases in Japan. Taiwan was right in the pincers of the US, and China, having all the power and development of a mid-tier African country, would have no hope of taking the country without absolutely massive losses and possibly collapsing their government.
Now China is undoubtedly the most powerful country in Asia, in terms of both military strength and economic power. They could blockade Taiwan, fire a few missiles in strategic spots, and fight a war of attrition against the import-dependent island without having to put a single boot on the ground.
Ukraine made protection guarantees with the west in exchange for giving up a key aspect of its defense (nuclear weapons). Russia had collapsed and people assumed they weren't a major threat anymore. Now Ukraine has nothing to wield against Russia and the US is saying "Give us your minerals, and not in exchange for defense. Just give us your resources." Russians are dying by the thousands but their leadership still considers it worth the cost.
Now imagine the Chinese government. They see Taiwan giving the US government their most valuable resources. They see the US government having no interest in helping countries that they've partnered with for decades. They realize they don't have to shove tens of thousands into a meat grinder to get what they want. They realize that the one thing Taiwan could wield to make the world support their cause (chips and the risk of the global tech industry falling into chaos should manufacturing be interrupted) might be moved outside their borders. Not taking advantage of this opportunity would be China ignoring a huge sign that says "It's free real estate."
This is to re-secure the advanced chip supply in case a conflict actually breaks out in the pacific.
For China, taking Taiwan isn't really about TSMC. It's an ideology that stems from the century of humiliation. Furthermore, once they take Taiwan, SK, Japan, PH will eventually bow as well.
Taiwan Is Getting Its U.S. Weaponry—but Years Behind Schedule: https://www.wsj.com/world/asia/taiwan-is-getting-its-u-s-wea...
U.S. delivered "wet and moldy body armor" to Taiwan, Pentagon watchdog says: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-wet-moldy-body-armor-to-tai...
The US has not been a good partner to Taiwan, truth be told. If you browse social media that are popular among the Taiwanese, you'll discover that there is quite a bit of resentment towards the US, because they see the US as coercing them into transferring their much-needed human and intellectual capital in world-class semicon technology. (E.g. ~50% of the staff now working at the Arizona fab are TSMC engineers who moved from Taiwan, because American workers allegedly do not have the requisite skills or work ethic.) And yet the US is not willing to reciprocate by transferring its military technology.
I'm sure Trump's disastrous meeting with Zelenskyy has greatly damaged confidence among the Taiwanese. At some point more and more Taiwanese might just decide that a mob boss who speaks their language is better than a mob boss who doesn't.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10256
Sounds like we've been a great partner with Taiwan. Also, wanting to trade on "business I.P." would make more sense if you mentioned we're already doing around $158 billion in business with them. Each side's businesses have a lot of mutual dependence where you'd want a higher production of chips that each side could trust. We had a supply shortage with fabs not long ago, too.
Whereas, military tech is a strategic advantage we owe to nobody. They can buy it or not. I'd rather they not be ripped off in the process. Helping us make cutting edge chips here is different than giving people weapons.
For example, I'm American. I'm allowed to have business, but not military, technology. I can probably license and operate a fab. I can't buy fighter jets at all. That's despite how Harrier jets as a solution to traffic congestion could boost my personal productivity.
For the Taiwanese, their semiconductor prowess is a strategic advantage for them. It's even informally known as the Silicon Shield. Taiwan's hope/expectation that US reciprocates with strategically important technology is perfectly reasonable.
The Silicon Shield is something the US is actively trying to undermine by coercing Taiwan to transfer its technology. In addition, every TSMC engineer that moves from Taiwan to the US is someone who isn't contributing to Taiwan's local Silicon Shield. And yes, "coercing" is the right word when you are a mafia-like superpower threatening 100% tariffs -- though at this stage I am not sure why the Taiwanese should hold out any hope that the US is a reliable or trustworthy guarantor of their security.
> They can buy it or not.
Obviously Taiwan cannot. The US refuses to sell F35 fighters to Taiwan. And even countries that do buy these weapons do not have full operational control -- e.g., the U.S. has the capability to remotely disable or restrict the functionality of F-35 fighter jets purchased by other countries.
> I'd rather they not be ripped off
Taiwan is getting ripped off. 1) Delivering equipment years behind schedule as well as 2) delivering moldy dilapidated equipment are forms of ripping off your customer. And in this case America's customer is too afraid to dare offend it.
I'm not clear why you think the two are different from an ability to wheel and deal standpoint other than because that's big bros narrative?
The play is to create trouble to the PRC, to bar open access to Pacific and to control trade routes to Japan/Korea.
The US do not care about Taiwan beyond its "usefulness".
I think that ship has sailed under the current administration.
The US abandoning European allies can be perceived through the lens of general isolationism (or even an outright support for fascism) but it can also be perceived as part of this pivot to Asia.
Time will tell. Elon Musk has so much of his net worth tied up in China, however, that I would bet more on abandonment. If Elon was out of the picture I'd bet more on support.
Only a fool would expect America to come to their aid now, and we'd better hide our oil/minerals lest we get a double dose of dictator-flavoured freedom...
And the Europeans are helping. Trump is not getting the straight forward quick foreign policy wins that he was chasing. Europe is going to keep sticking their "European peacekeeper" (however you want to characterize it) proposal into the Ukraine mix, and Putin is going to have a hard time swallowing that deal.
When the EU tariffs come, you can bet that EU is going to try to make it sting as much as possible.
But ultimately it's up to Americans to make the best of these opportunities.
The last war fought on American soil was in 1815 ignoring the civil war and fights against native Americans.
Was Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan or either Iraq war about American interests?
> 1815 ignoring the civil war and fights against native Americans.
Why would you ignore those?
Also WWII was fought on American soil in the pacific. The various guano atolls, as well as the islands of the Phillipines.
> Over 60 percent of 2016 enlistments came from neighborhoods with a median household income between $38,345 and $80,912. The quintiles below and above that band were underrepresented, with the poorest quintile providing 19 percent of the force and the richest Americans enlisting at a rate of 17 percent. The modern force comes predominantly from the middle-class households highlighted in Reeves’ article.
I can personally tell you that minorities don’t join the military because they think the country has been so great to them. This goes back to how the military treated Black Americans during WWII (The Tuskegee experiment) and when they came back they were still subjected to Jim Crow laws and how White upper class Americans avoided the draft at a much higher percentage.
The idea that “no Vietcong ever called me ni%%%” was pervasive.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/black-americans-are-much-...
All of the recruiters who come to minority majority high schools and colleges don’t mention “patriotism”. They mention job and education opportunities.
Serious question.
It was that way for most of our existence (and empire building). The whole world police thing came after WWII.
I don't necessarily believe maintaining a ludicrously strong military for the purposes of defending our homeland is a bad idea. Maybe I'm just being silly, but like, why would you not want the strongest military you could possibly muster to defend your nation?
Maybe I'm thinking about it wrong? But I don't think so.
(I'm wondering about this after reading today's NYT article about the escalating use of drone warfare in Ukraine.)
The same will happen here. I guarantee you, the American military will be among the best in the world at employing the services of satellites, autonomous ordinance and surveillance, and cyber offensives.
You have concerns about our facility with drones? Be assured, we'll be able to work out how to create nightmarish swarms just as well as Europeans or Chinese can. We'll have the same facility with working with countermeasures and mitigating countermeasures as well.
Actually, it did. At the beginning of its intervention, US weaponry and tactics were way below their European counterparts, even in nuclear research. The difference was made through sheer power of scale and speed of adaptation, not pre-war innovation.
In the same way, the US military is currently as good as it is precisely because it sees significant deployments very frequently (Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq), which means they learn hard lessons and develop technologies solving real problems, at a rate that no other military can match.
But hey, if you believe it, my pointing out the flaws in the arguments is not likely to change your mind. So I’ll just politely disagree with you.
You have a good evening sir or ma’am.
Because it comes at the opportunity cost of other things we could spend money on. For example, you could cut education to fund military even more, but it would eventually catch up to us.
Laughs in Barbary Wars and Monroe Doctrine
Given that we would be forced to 'participate,' with isolationism no longer being an option, it was logical enough for us to strive for domination.
That actually worked pretty well, considering that we were the only genuine superpower left on earth at the dawn of the 21st century. It worked until our enemies figured out how to attack us from within by playing a literal Trump card.
“And so I come full circle on this response and just want to encourage you with some substance that we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”[1]
[1] https://apnews.com/article/project-2025-trump-american-revol...
A draft is highly unlikely.
A draft is highly unlikely.
>Are you implying that only people serving in the military should have a say in foreign policy?
No, I'm implying before people rah rah to defend Taiwan, they actually understand what that means; it probably won't mean sending only active duty and reserves after a year or two and that a draft will most likely occur.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_global_manpower_fit_fo...
Even with a full, aggressive draft, we'll need allies who are also willing to draft their citizens.
If China has us completely militarily outmatched then of course we can’t afford to provoke them, but it’s not my sense that we’re ready to accept that currently.
Like you said, we haven't had a draft in decades. People might think we won't ever have one, and those people would be mistaken.
The US alone would lose in that as well, because its shipbuilding capacity is minimal. But together with South Korea and Japan, it could compete against China on a level ground.
We’re also at risk of losing strategic depth: how many more years of provocations from Washington do you think it would take a South American, Mexican or the Caribbean country to start letting Chinese drones, ships and missiles on their territory? (How confident are you in our intelligence community that this hasn’t already happened?)
>If so, take a guess what WW1 and WW2 would have looked like if everyone had that opinion.
WWI Would have been merely a local conflict between Austria and Serbia. WWII would have been about the same as it was historically, if it happened at all, see previous answer on WWI.
As an aside and ironically, both Wilson and FDR campaigned on not getting us into WWI and WWII.
Just being realistic. Americans were committed to these things because leadership committed us to these things and would make it illegal for us to get out of it. Given an actual choice, not many Americans would have willingly gone to, say, Vietnam. Maybe a few brainwashed anti-communists, but the average American thought, "Hey, not my circus, not my monkeys." I suspect even fewer would be willing to go fight for Taiwan.
The average American's attitude is, "Call me when they attack Hawaii." Until that point, most genuinely don't care. That's why Trump's current moves in Europe will be applauded by his base. Because people have severely overestimated the desire of the American every-man and -woman to defend foreign nations.
You can't give people a choice. If given a choice, they'll always say no.
That's just the sort of macho thinking that has caused so many military endeavors to fail throughout history. Maybe the politics is about soundbites like that one? I don't know? I'm not a politician. But the actual prosecution of a military conflict is about outcomes. Not soundbites.
Will there be a good outcome or not?
I mean, if it makes you feel any better, you can think of it this way. Our past has taught us that, without question, it is best to fight far away, but only after an enemy has been weakened by others.
I know how that sounds to many non-US citizens. But I'm just being honest about how the thinking in America has developed historically.
Letting Ukraine fall will embolden Russia who will continue their march across Europe until it is necessary to spill American blood.
Similarly we may not have a choice in Taiwan. Japan and The Philippines at least aren’t keen to have an emboldened imperialist China in their backyards. If they intervene US aid at least will be in our best interest.
Isolationism is not a guaranteed ideal strategy in all situations. Looking only at boondoggles like Vietnam, Iraq 2, and Afghanistan doesn’t mean all US intervention is harmful to the national interest.
After seeing people convinced to send their children to the Middle East for more nebulous reasons, I wouldn't be surprised if a significant portion of the country can be found willing.
and it was also get downvoted
I have to say, americans love wars, it's some kind of american spirit
wars made american great, wars will make american great again
I'm a chinese living in china, i'm interest topics abt china, how strange
instead of reading some 'analysis reports' by sponsored medias and think tanks, now you leant to read ones by LLMs, such a progress
Do I look like a devil that tempts innocent Americans/Westerners to be corrupt to you?
be vigilant, we're everywhere
No comment on Korea, but Vietnam wasn't exactly popular.
Once that is even partly done. There is no reason Trump will send US troops to defend Taiwan.
Further more, China doesn't care about TSMC. It's a nice bonus. But re-taking Taiwan is an ideology.
Didn't Trump terminate the Chips act?
Example 1 - Trying to take $20 billion from Citi: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5161849-inflat...
Example 2 - The pause preempting the defunding of USAID: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/reev...
Example 3 - CHIPS act would have had funding withheld if a Federal Court hadn't stepped in, but it's unclear what enforcement mechanism can force the funding to resume: https://archive.is/BxjHw
What about the other rules? The ones protecting you and the country? Is due process not valuable any more? What protects us from people with bad or selfish intentions?
> The Inspector General also warned that $489 million in humanitarian food aid was at risk of spoiling due to staff furloughs and unclear guidance. The Office of Presidential Personnel fired the Inspector General the next day, despite a law requiring 30 days notice to Congress before firing an Inspector General.
At least Trump is trying to do something about the runaway government spending. We can spend and spend, but at some point the treasury will not find the buyers for that paper, and that's when the lights will go out.
Watching Trump illegally destroy institutions that collectively use <5% of the federal budget, while increasing the defect, and rationalizing it as "At least Trump is trying to do something about the runaway government spending" is stupid. Straight up stupid.
Are you seriously suggesting that the only way we can prevent these institutions from growing is to illegally and rapidly take a hatchet to them? Please. Trump can just not sign any bill that expands their budgets. Cutting spending can be done rationally and in a considered way, not stuff like firing people that maintain the nuclear stockpile then hurriedly offering them a job again. That damages the nation.
>As for the USAID... like I said, good riddance. Take the Dept of Education with it, too.
When the world becomes a place hostile to America and (assuming the states don't step up in education) the youth of various (poor, red) states become unemployable beyond factories, think back to these times.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Imp...
Trump is ignoring the law now.
But DOGE has been trying to do effectively that for the past month, and has been distressingly successful at it. (For all that conservatives whined about the existence of an unaccountable deep state override elected officials making laws, that's basically an accurate description of DOGE.)
I hear that a lot, but is it true? I don't see signs that this Admin is doing anything to prepare for a confrontation with the PRC; rather, signs of the contrary: TikTok ban reversed, conciliatory tone towards Xi, talk about a 50% reduction in defense spending, even nuclear disarmament, not to mention the mess DOGE is doing at the DoD. And Musk has significant exposure in China.
Of course, I'll be glad to stand corrected if I missed something.
Until the right Chinese person sucks up to Trump. Maybe someone with a less ..ehrm. . Asian look that Xi? (I don't know why, but Trump seems to admire Putin and despise Xi. . could be for all sorts of reasons, I guess)
Could learn from him, how to sell yourself
https://www.theverge.com/policy/2019/4/26/18518650/foxconn-w...
Diversifying chip manufacturing more globally is pretty crucial to maintaining the world order though. Sadly, having a fab in the US under the current administration is not helpful to the west in general. Getting TSMC or building an alternative to TSMC in Europe, UK, Canada, Australia, would be very smart.
I believe a lot of the machines TSMC depends on are even produced in Europe, so there should be room to make some deal!
Average US house uses about 12600kWh per year[4], or 1.44kW average across a year. So that means one foundry takes about what 70k to 140k houses would take.
[1]: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_serv...
[2]: https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/6/24091367/semiconductor-man...
[3]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02786...
[4]: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/c&e/pd...
I think the bigger reasons are the security and trade issues. The US has embraced protectionism and is withdrawing from security obligations, yet Taiwan requires both US trade and US security guarantees to survive. Unlike with Ukraine, no other powers look capable of filling those roles if Trump keeps pursuing his America First agenda.
As for Europe, you are right, partially it's a matter of a mindset, however there are objective reasons for expensive energy. France's access to cheap uranium is almost gone. Europe refuses to sign long-term russian gas delivery contracts and are buying spot which costs arm and leg (whatever is left of it). German power plants are shuttered. LNG imported from the US is very expensive.
Some German CEOs (I think Volkswagen if I recall correctly) said recently that Germany offers no competitive advantage these days. I agree.
Where do you think manufacturing will go? Energy is everything.
Euro nationalism is so weird to me. I can't think of any metric where the US is doing worst (a part from healthcare and other social issues but those have always been worse in the US). Like in what way do you think that Europe is somehow stronger than the US? By the way this is coming from someone who isn't american, it's just weird that you actually think that Europe's trajectory is somehow towards a thriving future but the US is on its way to fail.
I remember the same doom and gloom and boasting from Europeans back in 2016, but it turns out that even with Trump Europe still didn't manage to outpace economically the US by 2020, or 2024. In fact the gap has widened.
So yes, energy will be built in Europe and elsewhere.
With your optimism, they would have tackled this problem already.
Texas already paid its price for their lack of investment in traditional generation facilities.
2- The US is also the only country which threatens the world with tariffs for political concessions
Maybe TSMC will go to Europe as well, but for now it makes a lot of sense why they choose the US.
It was what this administration did in Afghanistan, it's doing in Ukraine, and nothing tells us it will be different with Taiwan.
"TSMC plans to invest $65 billion to build three semiconductor fabs in north Phoenix, the largest investment in Arizona history." - https://www.azfamily.com/2024/11/16/tsmc-arizona-secures-fun...
He then bragged that Trump extorted TSMC using tariffs and forced TSMC to invest another $100 billion to avoid tariffs.
The US is using tariffs to have other nations build "their" industry. After that work is done, these nations will be ready to become new theaters for US proxy wars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa7MH1zLEYU
Lutnick:
"America um under the Biden Administration uh tsmc received a $6 billion Grant and that encouraged them to build 65 billion dollar so America gave tsmc 10% of the money to build here and now you're seeing the power of Donald Trump's presidency because tsmc the greatest manufacturer of chips in the world is coming to America with a hundred billion dollar investment and of course that is backed by the fact that they can come here because they can avoid paying tariffs so the idea is come to America build greatness in America."
TSMC never pays tariffs anyways, whomever did the importing does so companies like Apple, GM, Tesla, etc.
An announced deal really should be worthless politically, we've all seen Foxconn or Apple announce big investments during Trump's first presidency for them to just walk it back later.
Roughly 100 miles of open ocean separates the Chinese mainland from Taiwan. It may as well be 10,000 miles. The difference is the same. That is an absolutely uncrossable gap for the Chinese military. Taiwan has a standing army of 150K+ and a million+ reservists. I've seen estimates that China would need to land half a million troops to invade and occupy Taiwan, minimum. China simply does not have that amphibious capability.
Beyond the direct military capability, you need supply lines. The logistical effort is so easily disrupted.
On a clear day, you can see the white cliffs of Dover from Calais in France yet for 5+ years the German Army, being millions strong, was completley incapable of crossing that gap of roughly 17 miles. It took the Allies years to muster the logistics necessary to invade Europe and it really took bad strategy by the Germans to allow that to happen (eg the whole Fortress Europa effort was silly and a complete waste of manpower). A wide enough river is sufficient barrier to stop even a modern army.
Could China lob missiles at Taiwan? Sure, but to what end? Could they institute a naval blockade of Taiwan? Absolutely. But again, to what end? The American State Department will tell you it's because China is the Big Bad, the USSR 2.0. But just like with the USSR< the US likes to have an ideological foe to distract ordinary people from the fact that they're getting fleeced by the wealthy.
It's worth adding that the official policy of the US government is the One China policy [1]. The US isn't actually interested in an independent Taiwan.
So let's stop talking aobut invading Taiwan like it's a thing that's going to happen.
What I suspect TSMC is doing here is hedging against a tarde war, diversifying their production and ingratiating itself with the US for when things like chip fabs become a sufficient national security interest that the US actually wants domestic supply and/or starts restricting what can be exported to Taiwan.
[1]: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/understanding-the-one-chi...
They already lost access to Taiwanese chips, why would they let US to build capacity?
China wants to retake Taiwan without firing a shot.
Lack of domestic fabs is going to be least of US worries.
Seems more likely that the Trump admin was pressuring them to possibly invest in Intel, acquisition was briefly considered and instead this compromise of expanding their own US operations was chosen.
I expect INTC to retract back towards $18-19 from this news. Recent rally was largely based on hopium surrounding either TSMC investment/partnership or Broadcom/TSMC breakup and acquisition. Probably this kills the Broadcom deal as well. If I were Intel, I wouldn't wanna sell off the more successful chip design division if I couldn't also sell off the floundering foundry.
Context matters.
Trump is cancelling the CHIPS act and Taiwan is more valuable with TSMC in Taiwan. They need as much guarantees as they can under an untrustworthy US ( with Trump).
In 2017, Trump and Scott Walker did a whole dog an pony show about how they convinced Foxconn to spend $10 billion in Wisconsin on a factory that was going to employ 13,000 people. Trump got a giant pile of good press about it.
Then nothing happened, then the agreement was scaled down, then more delays. A couple of buildings were built then left empty and eventually sold off.
But Trump supporters never followed up to see what happened. They just saw the initial press releases, declared a win, and forgot about the whole thing. Now we're doing it again.
You know, the one that the Trump team cut to shreds?
This feels like it's all TV. Trump is doing what he's great at: slapping his name on work other people did in order to steal credit.
I looked this up and sounds like they let probationary employees go (40/140 employees at dept of commerce CHIPS office) + 20 voluntarily resigned. I wonder if that was intentional or just the usual DOGE indiscriminate chaos.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-chips-act-office-losing-191830...
The article does claim:
> The staff cuts, while significant, aren’t as deep as some within the government and chip industry anticipated. In particular, they won’t have a major impact on the teams responsible for negotiating with companies and evaluating their progress toward contractual benchmarks, a person familiar with the matter said. The chips office leadership urged against cuts to those departments in recent meetings with Lutnick.
Addtionally, NIST's CHIPS office also had probationary cuts...CHIPS has two parts, one subsidizing companies via Dept of Commerce and a 2nd big investment in public sector research which NIST was doing.
https://www.trendforce.com/news/2025/02/21/news-trumps-moves...
It's also congress assigned money so they probably can't claw it back (legally), the legislative branch controls the purse. But they could slow walk it or try to change the rules.