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...
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.