News Semiconductor analyst theorizes that China might want to destroy TSMC instead of capturing it — a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would destroy supply c...

[Admin]

The current prevailing thought is that TSMC's existence and the threat of its destruction are among the things holding back China from invading Taiwan. But what if we're wrong?

Semiconductor analyst theorizes that China might want to destroy TSMC instead of capturing it — a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would destroy supply c... : Read more

 

[MacZ24]

Now, do that with ASML factories as the target of intercontinental missiles (not necessarily nuclear, just explosive+carbon powder for example).

Also, count the number of wars that involved China in the last 30 years.
Now do the same for the US.

Democracy Perception Index

 

[evdjj3j]

Tom's has officially jumped the clickbait shark.

 

[hotaru251]

...not gonna lie this type of "story" is not tech related even if its about tech. this is 100% geo-political "what if".

 

[isofilm]

Intel Paid Ad's...

are getting increasingly desperate 🤣

 

[domih]

Oh my, it's again time to dig a nuclear shelter in the backyard!

 

[Notton]

Yeah, that'll win over the hearts of Taiwanese... Destroy their biggest cash cow, surrounding markets and jobs as collateral.

 

[bluvg]

Once again showing the interconnectedness of politics and tech. Sometimes you simply cannot separate discussions of one from the other.

 

[bit_user]

This immediately came to mind:

“He who can destroy a thing has the real control of it.”
― Frank Herbert, Dune
​

It's not that they necessarily would, but that they might not view it as a worst-case outcome that should be disturbing.

See also: Chapter 12 in Sun Tzu's The Art of War for an exploration of the possible strategies involving incendiary weapons. Back in the 5th century BCE, such weapons were probably about the closest thing they had to WMDs. Their use potentially meant destroying a prize you might value.

 

[usertests]

Yeah, that'll win over the hearts of Taiwanese... Destroy their biggest cash cow, surrounding markets and jobs as collateral.

As the article notes, it would raise demand for their own chips. China is a lot more likely to have a complete supply chain than the United States. They are working on their own EUV tools. While way behind ASML for now, an unexpected advance in other technologies (e.g. Canon's nanoimprint or that Japanese particle accelerator), or surveillance of ASML and its employees to get trade secrets, could yield some good results.

It definitely won't win over the hearts of the Taiwanese, but neither would an invasion. Basically, China/Xi has to decide that they don't care about the consequences.

Once again showing the interconnectedness of politics and tech. Sometimes you simply cannot separate discussions of one from the other.

That is a very intriguing theory. 🙂

 

[Sippincider]

we'd still gladly buy (electronics) from the cheapest quality supplier

Oh? Any move at Taiwan will mean a full trade embargo from the US and likely others. Not to mention military options.

Trouble seeing much upside for anyone. Yes China could claim "Victory!", but the scorched earth and Pyrrhic cost don't seem worth it.

 

[NinoPino]

Another hallucinated and improbable idea that picture the "Bad China (TM)" vs "The Rest Of The World (TM)".
Another ugly "tech" article from Tom's Hardware.

Warning, political comments are not allowed on this forum.

 

[bit_user]

Another hallucinated and improbable idea that picture the "Bad China (TM)" vs "The Rest Of The World (TM)".
Another ugly "tech" article from Tom's Hardware.

No, you fundamentally misunderstand the article. This is not an editorial! They're reporting on remarks by Claus Assholm, a semiconductor analyst with a firm called Semiconductor Business Intelligence.

Whether you disagree with the assessment is another matter, but that doesn't erase the fact that someone with deep industry knowledge and a platform is saying these things. As long as the underlying logic is sound, I think it's a perspective that's worth considering.

 

[bit_user]

Trouble seeing much upside for anyone. Yes China could claim "Victory!", but the scorched earth and Pyrrhic cost don't seem worth it.

If you're talking about destroying TSMC's fabs, I disagree that it's their goal. However, the value in such an analysis is that it tells us they might regard it as an acceptable cost, and that should be very disturbing. I tried to say this above, but maybe I wasn't very clear.

In spite of the analysis, I believe China would still see it as a best-case scenario to have TSMC relatively intact. That gives them a much greater capacity & capability than they'll currently have + more bargaining leverage to use with the main countries who would oppose such a move. Who wouldn't want more leverage?

 

[bluvg]

Warning, political comments are not allowed on this forum.

In which case there can be zero substantive discussion about this very article--in which politics and tech are inextricably intertwined--which was posted to this very site.

 

[bit_user]

In which case there can be zero substantive discussion about this very article

I disagree with that. It's not for me to say, but I believe you can address the specific claims, statistics, and logic of the case laid out in the article.

Actually, on that subject, I want to address one point the article gets wrong:

The U.S. has even been said to be willing to bomb TSMC facilities themselves in case of a Chinese invasion

OMG! No, it did not! I've followed Rep. Moulton enough to know he was speaking metaphorically, as in simply cutting off TSMC from the requisite support it needs from its suppliers (ASML, chief among them). Moulton is definitely not a firebrand, or given to overstatement, and not one to speak loosely about use of force. There's no way he was being literal.

Furthermore, his comment doesn't reflect any sort of policy of the US Government. He's just one of 435 members of the House, where you can find a wide diversity of opinions and statements. They only determine government policy when enough of them agree and actual legislation is passed (then, passed by the Senate and either signed by the President or passed with such a margin that he can't veto it).

The linked article says that Taiwan’s Minister for National Defense addressed his statement literally, which is understandable. If someone is talking like that, it's reasonable to address it head on, even if you don't believe they're serious.

@JarredWaltonGPU can you please mention this to Jowi? That statement is a bit reckless and not well-supported by facts.

 

[bit_user]

The CHIPS Act spurned chip fab investments to greater heights than the past 28 years combined.

Spurred, not spurned. Look it up.

 

[bluvg]

I disagree with that. It's not for me to say, but I believe you can address the specific claims, statistics, and logic of the case laid out in the article.

Honestly, I'm not sure how one can avoid it for this article. Everything about it falls into this category, including the rest of your post.

 

[bit_user]

Honestly, I'm not sure how one can avoid it for this article. Everything about it falls into this category, including the rest of your post.

The rest of my post was simply a fact-check. A key detail might be that I didn't extend the scope of it beyond what was required for the fact-check.

 

[bluvg]

The rest of my post was simply a fact-check.

The trickiness of objectivity aside, political facts are nonetheless still political. Unless the definition is quite a bit more scoped than common understanding (which it doesn't appear to be, based on previous experience), I really don't see how it can be avoided in discussing an article like this.

To your point, though, I will attempt to make an allowed comment: it's an intriguing analysis. If true, the immediate and long-term impacts are hard to contemplate fully. We could have situations where old tech would greatly outperform new, which would lead to very interesting market dynamics.

 

[bit_user]

If true, the immediate and long-term impacts are hard to contemplate fully. We could have situations where old tech would greatly outperform new, which would lead to very interesting market dynamics.

This leads down an interesting rabbit hole I've found myself contemplating, in recent years. Tech is a consumable, including storage media. The cloud must replace its storage media on a somewhat regular schedule (not to mention enterprises, phone users, and all the rest of the tech world). Every hard disk will eventually die and every SSD will eventually suffer either the loss of its controller or accumulate too many unrecoverable errors to be usable.

So, if supply chains were ever disrupted to an extent that storage media and the minimum processing power & communications infrastructure necessary to maintain it weren't available or reasonably economical, for an extended period of time, we could be looking at a wholesale breakdown in society.

On the other hand, if we had to gradually downgrade to less-dense storage and slower processors & network speeds, that could be managed in a slightly less catastrophic way. But, I think the limit might be about 5 years. If you had to go back much further that that, it could be too disruptive.

 

[KnightShadey]

OMG! No, it did not! I've followed Rep. Moulton enough to know he was speaking metaphorically, as in simply cutting off TSMC from the requisite support it needs from its suppliers (ASML, chief among them). Moulton is definitely not a firebrand, or given to overstatement, and not one to speak loosely about use of force. There's no way he was being literal.

He wasn't speaking metaphorically , read (or listen to) his comments from the Milken institute panel, he is being quite deliberate in his statement, and also in his follow-up response to incredulity that this would destroy a two trillion dollar sector of the economy, he clearly states "I'm not promoting the idea... these are some of the things that are actively being debated amongst US policy makers... and BTW if China takes over TSMC... we could very well face the same economic consequences.. "🧐;
https://milkeninstitute.org/panel/1...-navigating-strategic-competition-invite-only


He's referring to a widely held position (especially by " select committees" and other secretive groups) that's been brought up many times, including by former Trump WH national security advisor Robert Obrien twice in interviews leading up to those comments by Moulton, first with the Council on Foreign Relations in Wash months before, and then repeated again in Doha just weeks before Moulton's own comments referencing those opinions ;
https://www.cfr.org/event/conversation-robert-obrien

Understand that the reference to the French Fleet, means destroying an asset to deny the enemy it's use.

Additionally, before that, a widely circulated paper from the Army War College outlining such a plan made waves, of course garnering the same standard defensive/dismissive reactions that greeted Claus' article...

Broken Nest: Deterring China from Invading Taiwan

Deterring a Chinese invasion of Taiwan without recklessly threatening a great-power war is both possible and necessary through a tailored deterrence package that goes beyond either fighting over Taiwan or abandoning it. This article joins cutting-edge understandings of deterrence with empirical...

press.armywarcollege.edu

This doesn't even include the additional such articles in magazines like Foreign Affairs, Economist, etc that vaguely hint at / reference the possibility of countermeasures.

All of that supports the comment in the article "The U.S. has even been said to be willing..." the Congressman & Ambassador's statements quite clearly point to more than one person saying that the US would be willing to do so, and among those are people with direct involvement in that very planning.

Contingencies, doctrines, policies, and strategies regarding conflicts are in place long before action is required, let alone Congress being required to declare war. Even in converting many of those plans into action doesn't really require congress, as proven by strikes in Yemen, Syria before that, Lybia before that, etc.....

The original article, and even the typically meh summation on THG of more complex subjects, are pretty objective in covering a topic that usually elicits more emotion than logic in coverage & response.
Especially compared to other recent articles on THG that lean heavily on editorial perspective, both political and otherwise.

 

[bit_user]

He wasn't speaking metaphorically ,

Nothing in your post or the references you cite supports the notion that he was speaking about literally attacking TSMC with military force. To do so would be a war crime, as the rules of war do not permit targeting of civilian facilities or infrastructure and you certainly couldn't do it without many civilian casualties. Furthermore, from China's perspective, it would be a direct military strike on Chinese soil and assets. I can assure you that we're not willingly walking into a shooting war with China.

Again, it doesn't have to be military. Why would anyone undertake the cost, risks, moral injury, and collateral damage of a military attack, when you can effectively achieve the same result by simply cutting off their support from ASML and their supply chain?

 

[KnightShadey]

Nothing in your post or the references you cite supports the notion that he was speaking about literally attacking TSMC with military force.

His quote is pretty clear: "I'm not promoting the idea... these are some of the things that are actively being debated amongst US policy makers.."

Which satisfies the requirements of the article's statement, and is corroborated by the Ambassador's words.

Meanwhile you "follow" the congressman and therefore "know" what he meant. 🙄

With ironclad proof like that 🫠 , who can argue. 🤣

As for your war crimes argument, pfft sure, like that ever stopped anyone, especially countries with a UN Veto who chose to ignore ICJ and ICC rulings when it suits them. In light of history, it's not an effective deterrent, and even less effective as an argument.🧐

 

[bit_user]

His quote is pretty clear: "I'm not promoting the idea... these are some of the things that are actively being debated amongst US policy makers.."

Yes, I saw that and it doesn't nullify any of my points.

Which satisfies the requirements of the article's statement, and is corroborated by the Ambassador's words.

It doesn't, because it was never stipulated that they meant a military strike vs. disabling by other means. The quote in this article specifically says "bomb TSMC facilities", which would be inaccurate if they weren't talking about the former.

To the extent they were talking about it as a military strike, it's clearly just a bluff. However, it'd be such a transparent bluff that I doubt it would fool China for even a minute. That's not to say I think it was, but probably a further argument that it wasn't what they meant, especially when the non-military option isn't a bluff at all.

As for your war crimes argument, pfft sure,

In such a situation, the moral high ground is of utmost importance. You can't simultaneously criticize one country for attacking another de facto country and changing boundaries by force, while at the same time attacking civilian targets, not to mention destroying such a vital global resource.