Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> unless one considers China and Taiwan to be the same countries

The fact that the CCP is relaxed about core Chinese companies running their manufacturing in Taiwan might suggest that the CCP considers that it can make China and Taiwan one country, at a time of the CCP's choosing.



I've lived in Taiwan for a large part of my life.

They would lose all of TSMC if they do any military actions. It's not the fact that the CCP thinks that they can make Taiwan and China a country, it's the the fact that most of China does in fact consider them as one country. Taiwan is ready to defend themselves, but are very happy keeping their relationship with China the way it is.


"Very happy" is a bit of a stretch, since a significant proportion of Taiwan would prefer to jettison the current pretence of being "One China" and become fully independent.

But I agree that pretty much everybody will happily take the status quo over armed invasion.


I have a friend in Taiwan and he told me they're pretty happy because they have independence this way. If they go for more international recognition etc they'll gain nothing they don't already have but they'll upset the balance and give the CCP a reason to invade. So it will only make things worse.

And a lot of people are sympathetic with the Chinese, just not their government.

I've only visited Taiwan once and I only have one friend there so perhaps what I'm hearing is not accurate.


having lived in Taiwan for a year. that's the sentiment of majority of the population - they want to maintain the status quo.


>sympathetic with the Chinese

and related to, with all that holds in an Eastern mindset. My adoptive grandmother was born in Shanghai in 1927. To my knowledge she never returned to Mainland China, partially because her relatives wen Telswhere when the communists came in.

edit: fixed one errant `t`


> give the CCP a reason to invade. So it will only make things worse.

CCP is not threatening taiwan because it might go for independence. it is _ALL_ about kicking the US out of the west Pacific. because of that, it is never about what people in Taiwan believe/say/do.

It is only about the military balance of the west Pacific.

> And a lot of people are sympathetic with the Chinese, just not their government.

sympathetic of what?

20 years ago, you might be able to play the "CCP regime repressing the people in China" joke, you can't do it anymore especially in such topic of Taiwan. quality of life is significantly better in literally every aspect in China. Taipei in 2026 is getting more and more like a tier-3 Chinese city in 2016.


> it is _ALL_ about kicking the US out of the west Pacific

I think you are underestimating Chinese nationalism here quite dramatically!

Chinese views of sovereignty are quite independent of other concerns. Take for example their actions against Vietnam in the South China Sea, forcing Vietnam closer to the Philippines and even the US: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...


> it is _ALL_ about kicking the US out of the west Pacific.

Hardly. It is all about Xi having declared that taking Taiwan by... I think it was 2049, but could be misremembering. Anyway, Xi made that a test of the legitimacy of the CCP, in some very public statements.

So, no, it's not about kicking the US out of the west Pacific. It's about Taiwan, and it's because if they don't, the CCP is illegitimate, by Xi's own word.


By 2023 Xi ordered the Chinese military to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027.

But that doesn't mean they plan to invade Taiwan by then. One common reading of it is that it was a plan to build up the military to that state with a definite goal date (in the same way the "600 ship navy" plan had a goal date).

https://www.reuters.com/world/cia-chief-says-chinas-xi-littl...


Xi will not be in power in 2049 because he will be dead. He'd be 96yo.


Countries often set goals beyond the lifetimes of the current leaders.


The point is that the goal is far enough into the future that the person making it can't be held accountable for failing to meet it.

If Xi had said "the CCP is illegitimate unless it takes Taiwan by 2025", he would be at real risk of being replaced in 2026. Anyone who opposed him (or just wanted power) would have a perfect reason to replace him.

When Xi makes a goal with a "deadline" he won't live to see, he takes no risk of personally failing to meet the goal. If his successor misses the deadline, he can say things changed, Xi failed to consider factors X,Y,Z, etc.


> If his successor misses the deadline, he can say things changed, Xi failed to consider factors X,Y,Z, etc.

That's not how the CCP operates though.

They are not a country where the puppets matter so much, like in most of the western countries. You would very very rarely see a leader being critical of their predecessor even if they are changing policies (which Xi Jinping definitely did). Because they are the same party and thus they are attacking themselves. The party is really more important than whoever happens to be at the top. The party is always right. Even when the party is wrong. Which it is not because it's always right.

No, if this promise disappears it will be silently. Never to be mentioned again, or else. It just never happened.


It seems to be about much more than just regional power. To China it's a matter of pride and it's a big factor in the century of humiliation.

Even when a country other than the US does something to benefit Taiwan, Beijing is super offended.

And by sympathetic I mean feeling kinship. And the whole concept of bringing everything down to a matter of wealth is so American.


> And the whole concept of bringing everything down to a matter of wealth is so American.

They said "quality of life". Even if they had said wealth that correlates with quality of life so that wouldn't be a very good gotcha by itself, but they didn't say that.


But calling Taipei a "Tier-3" city does refer to economic prowess, that's what I mean.

If you like to say what you think, then trust me, Taipei has much better quality of life. If you see people like Naomi Wu being arrested and gagged just for pointing out a vulnerability in software (which we all agree here is a good thing to do for everyone except the bad guys), that is terrible.


Considering all said so far, and events, it perhaps hardly makes real difference in the diamond era's franchised world.


Not only a few people in and from Taiwan use every chance they get to shit talk the mainland. Be it snark about using simplified characters, or be it trying to prevent their own citizens from taking part in celebrations of victory over fascism. Main theme is being against the mainland, no matter what. They are also very influenced by Japan, whose right wing PM has escalated outrage more than enough recently.

Certainly, somewhat understandable, given the "military exercises" at the doorstep happening every now and then, but also escalatory and idiotically not a good look either. Some of it is just spewed hatred, not taking a high lane when it comes to ethics.


Isn't there some kind of "if you invade us we bomb our strategic factories" strategy? Like "if we can't have them, nobody can"?


I think the plan is to defend, with allies motivated by the goal of saving TSMC facilities. If you destroy them the moment China declares war, Taiwanese allies might be much less invested

But at the same time everyone understands that the Taiwanese would destroy the facilities before they fall into Chinese hands


If both those are true, then shouldn't we expect China to destroy them as part of first offensive?


Ideally every side would prefer a complete victory... who wouldn't? Reality rarely offers such clear outcomes.

Effectively the semantics are like a game of chicken and hostage combined. Might as well be a Prisoner's Dilemma.


Why would China care if Taiwan blows up its fabs?

The talent is still there, so they could rebuild, or recruit the talent to work for Chinese mainland fabs instead?


> The talent is still there, so they could rebuild, or recruit the talent to work for Chinese mainland fabs instead?

Would you voluntarily work in a country that invaded and taken over yours?

Would you ask the same about Russia recruiting Ukrainians?


Not everyone is affected by propaganda, either US/Taiwanese or Chinese one.

Some are.

Some people also want to feed their families and not be unemployed.

P.S. A large number of Ukrainians moved to Russia. Including the ones who wanted to reunite with their relatives. Taiwanese have a lot of relatives on the mainland as well.


> A large number of Ukrainians moved to Russia

Citation very much needed.



> *As of mid-June 2023 an estimated 1.2 million Ukrainians were recorded in the Russian Federation under different legal forms of stay (other than refugee or temporary asylum status)

This means people that have Ukrainian citizenship, which includes lots of families that were on both sides of the border. It does not mean people who were residents of Ukraine before the war, and decided to move to Russia. It does include the kidnapped children, and surviving people in occupied cities.


wouldn't it be more likely that they'd flee to e.g. the US which would poach them and shower them with money?

maybe easier said than done but still


Can't flee if your island is encircled and shooting down airplanes. China's military drills are executing exactly this.


The US could do this TODAY. Just saying.


The US cannot offer lots of money to chip fab refugees today, because they are not refugees. Trying to headhunt people at a high quality job is very different.


The pay might not be as good but they could also go to Europe. Might depend where they've got family / contacts.


Part of the reason a Chinese invasion of Taiwan seems more realistic is Trump being a sycophant towards any dictator who will give him the time of day, including Xi Jinping.

It's not impossible, but I feel as though if Trump decides that China is friends and Taiwan is enemies (as he seems to have done with North/South Korea lately) then Taiwanese refugees might not be as eager to move to the US as, say, Canada, Australia, or Europe.


We are talking about facilities that are extremely complex and expensive to build, to the point that only a very small handful of locations in the world exist today - despite their massive economic value.

TSMC is not something you can rebuild with some brains in front of laptops.


its not official public policy, but there have been people in the US government saying that if there is a war then the US will bomb tsmc facilities in taiwan


Let's say they execute that plan. What then? Would it win them anything?


The whole point of the plan is to remove some of the incentive for an invasion, thus making it less likely.


I think you're missing what I'm getting at. Yes, I understand that part. But do you seriously think that if TSMC was destroyed right now, China would change its decision to invade Taiwan? Can you imagine what the actual consequences of executing that plan would be?


My bet would be that invasion wouldn't look like quick war, but slow control of political power either through light force like economic blackmail, or through something similar to what US did with Venezuela.

Now that US has already opened the gate to labelling nation head as drug seller, this just eases things for China.


Also the US has very publicly shown they don’t have the ability to effectively wage war over any period of time.


Yes and no. The Iran war is deeply unpopular and won’t even pass congressional approval for money. It’s being fought from pocket change budgets because they know they can’t pass a funding bill for it. Also not the same kind of war.

Any period time? US waged war for 20+ years in Afghanistan. Pretty effectively! To what end? Not an end an army can really achieve so… there you are.

But a war that might actually be popular? To save the world from communist dictators and make sure we have chips for our precious devices? I wouldn’t count out the United States. Or nuclear weapons, which still exist and are a thing.


> US waged war for 20+ years in Afghanistan

That was an occupation and a low intensity “pacification” mission. Waging a prolonged war against a military peer on the other side of the continent is a bit more problematic (considering that US is/was on the brink of running out of advanced weaponry in Iran despite having aerial superiority which they won’t over Taiwan, Japan would have to get involved as well cause otherwise US would have to entirely rely on the fragile carrier fleet).

Using tactical nukes (even regardless of the extreme geopolitical downsides that might bring) wouldn’t necessarily give a great tactical advantage either, unless they are willing to do that over Taiwan itself to destroy the landing forces).


Ah yeah that $1T a year for the last forever is just pocket change


And it'd be the kind of war the US is best at. Boots on the ground, against conventional military, with a civilian population that is on the side of the US forces

No guerilla warfare, no insurgents, no need for extended beyond-visual-range warfare that depletes missile stockpiles


> no need for extended beyond-visual-range warfare that depletes missile stockpiles

Was with you until that last one. If you haven't noticed missiles, drones, and interceptors have played a central role in ukraine.


> against conventional military,

Last time used faced a conventional military that could actually challenge it was in Korea.

It won’t have complete areal superiority or entire division surrendering after running into contact with US forces like they in Iraq. “Shock and awe” of course can be very effective just probably not against China. Even now US is running out of materiel against Iran and can’t really sustain a prolonged intense conflict while being able to protect its gulf allies from ballistic missiles and drones.


Iran is not a war funded by congress, so it's really no wonder the US appears inneffective. Trump didn't get the support he thought he would from congress and now he's flailing around trying to save face.

Change the leadership (which will happen soon) and when there is actual support from congress to fund and intervene in a conflict in Taiwan, then you will see a vastly different US military response.


How many boots on the ground could you get and how quickly/safely? The supposed opposition here is MUCH closer to the island.


The war over Taiwan wouldn't be done by soldiers on Taiwanese soil. So you wouldn't need many boots on the ground in a literal sense.

But if you mean in a metaphorical sense, how long until the 7th Fleet could get to Taiwan, the answer is 0 days for first response, 3 days for everything located in Japan, and less than a week for the full mobilization of the 7th Fleet (that's 50+ ships and nearly 30K soldiers). The entire Pacific fleet could be there in a week and a half.

(Granted, we're assuming competent US leadership, which is not the current administration.)


just a gut feeling, but if they had to for some reason, I feel like they'd just go in and bomb as much strategic assets and invade, because in their eyes aside from Taiwan, there isn't much left to "unify" and it'd be historic, not something they'd need to do every decade or even century

I feel like Russia thought the same of Ukraine, even though it is way bigger


Any country that competently adopts Ukrainian drone technology cannot effectively be invaded currently. And that's for a continental invasion.

Taiwan? All surface ships are sitting ducks. Troop transport ships would get absolutely decimated, and then the landing troops would get swarmed by drones all over again, and then they have to maintain logistics to the small minority that land (good luck with that). And that's without naval drones.

With naval drones? I have no idea how China gets anything across the strait.

And all the above is true for a competently organized Chinese invasion. Which it won't be.


> adopts Ukrainian drone technology cannot effectively be invaded currently

The tactical situation in Taiwan is very different though. I think it would come down more to what’s happening in the air since the stalemate in Ukraine is in large because the Russian airforce is almost completely neutralized and can only be used to launch cruise missiles from a safe distance. I doubt China would invade unless they feel they can somehow achieve at least temporary air superiority and achieve their other objectives during that period.

Air defenses are probably much more important than drones overall.


That's why I said it will be slow. I think it will be decades long political control, not a military invasion.

China have more credible threat of bombing economically relevant building like TSMC, or capturing leaders and protestors like they already are doing in Hong Kong.


> I've lived in Taiwan for a large part of my life.

Sounds like you've been fed the US anti-China propaganda for the large part of your life as well.

_China doesn't need to invade Taiwan_

1. 50%+ of Taiwan's workforce are white-collar workers [0].

2. There are 3-4 major underwater internet communication hubs in Taiwan [1].

3. There is a substantial opposition in Taiwan that want reunification (~20% of population support directly Li-Wun) [2].

4. China is close to producing industry-grade EUV [3].

China just can:

* Establish a total naval and air blockade of Taiwan using their fleets stationed in Ningbo and Zhanjiang.

* Cut underwater internet cables in those 3 locations.

* Achieve EUV.

They won't need TSMC soon, and with the blockade they can show the world that TSMC is not a reliable supplier.

Within months the political structure of Taiwan is going to crumble, as white-collar workers lose their jobs.

[0] https://www.cbc.gov.tw/dl-215893-af39cb14b0044d1cb05a60864ec...

[1] https://cablegraph.com/

[2] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3350271/xi-...

[3] https://asiatimes.com/2025/12/made-in-china-euv-machine-targ...


> _China doesn't need to invade Taiwan_

Russia didn't need to invade Ukraine either.

But nonetheless China is clearly preparing itself to be ready to be able to invade, with aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, dual purpose roll-on/roll-off carriers. It doesn't mean it will, but that it wants to be able to.

So basically it will depend on a single dictator's whim if they do or don't.

> Establish a total naval and air blockade of Taiwan using their fleets stationed in Ningbo and Zhanjiang

Which would be considered an act of war, so it's the same scenario again.

> There is a substantial opposition in Taiwan that want reunification (~20% of population support directly Li-Wun)

20% is more than the % of people in the Donbass that wanted unification with Russia, and we can see how well that went. And it wasn't a dangerous amphibious assault against an island with shit terrain.


> Russia didn't need to invade Ukraine either.

Arguable, they had to after the 2008 Buharest NATO summit and Ukraine's militarization going forward, and eradication of Russian language and Russian-speaking population in the east.

> Which would be considered an act of war, so it's the same scenario again.

China considers Taiwan their territory, who is there to protect Taiwan? US?

>20% is more than the % of people in the Donbass that wanted unification with Russia

20% plus part of those white-collar workers who are a backbone of the Taiwan's economy and politics and can be left jobless after China achieves EUV and puts TSMC out of monopoly.

Let's be real. Trump demanded TSMC to invest 100B into US factories and they complied [0].

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/03/tsmc-to-announce-100-billion...


> Arguable, they had to after the 2008 Buharest NATO summit

How dare the countries threatened by Russia, who had seen how Russia invaded and brutalised multiple countries - Moldova, Checnya, Georgia twice - seek protection from Russia. This totally excuses Russia invading and brutalising again, of course.

> Ukraine's militarization going forward

The country was literally invaded (Crimea and Donbass), what the hell did you or the idiots in the Kremlin expect? That it will just sit and allow Russia to take more of its territory unopposed? That it will become a pliant vassal state again?

> eradication of Russian language and Russian-speaking population in the east

Such eradication that the country elected a Russian speaker to be president, on a platform of reconciliation with Russia. So much so, that his opposition called him a Russian puppet. That guy is Zelenskyy.

I'm sorry, but you're either out of your mind, or have been completely brainwashed. Russia chose to invade multiple of its neighbours, and did unspeakable atrocities every time. The only one to fault for all of this, and everyone around them seeking protection from this, is them. This imperialist nonsense brutality does not belong in the 21st century, and neither does its apologia. And no, I don't care about the whataboutism you're preparing to "defend" these actions with, it's beyond irrelevant. It's what the Russian state has been about since it came into being out of the ruins of the USSR. We should have never treated them as anything else.


> How dare the countries threatened by Russia, who had seen how Russia invaded and brutalised multiple countries - Moldova, Checnya, Georgia twice - seek protection from Russia. This totally excuses Russia invading and brutalising again, of course.

That's literally a copy-paste from propaganda pamphlet. Can you back it up?

> The country was literally invaded

You seem to forget the amount of killings Ukraine did there and why it started in the first place.

Why should I discuss that with a person who seems to be unaware of facts?


> That's literally a copy-paste from propaganda pamphlet. Can you back it up?

Back what up? That Russia invaded and destroyed Chechnya? Or Georgia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1999%E2%80%9...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

What exactly do you want backed up? That countries across Eastern Europe saw how the russians operate and decided they don't want to be destroyed?

> You seem to forget the amount of killings Ukraine did there and why it started in the first place.

What killings did Ukraine make that resulted in russia invading Crimea? Or russia starting the invasion of the Donbass? MH17 maybe? Oh no, wait, that was the russians too.


> _China doesn't need to invade Taiwan._

All your points consider what China can do but not how others would respond. Blocking Taiwan when the whole AI economy is running on it will invoke lots of countries to go up in arms. There was a quote from US military that it'd cost less to fight than watch Taiwan fall (invasion or not).

> 4. China is close to producing industry-grade EUV

No where near close. At least not production grade at massive scale.

> * Establish a total naval and air blockade of Taiwan using their fleets stationed in Ningbo and Zhanjiang.

Doesn't work. If they do that the US, JP and others can also blockade around Shanghai, Hong Kong and the other ports.

> They won't need TSMC soon

Taiwan is not just TSMC. There are thousands to millions of things involving Taiwan you're likely not aware of and they might not even be AI or semi related.


> All your points consider what China can do but not how others would respond.

US backed off last year when there were talks about protecting Taiwan. They pulled Patriot missiles from Taiwan and South Korea too.

China and Japan have a beef. Considering the atrocities Japan did in China, the conversation won't be friendly.

None of these are good for Taiwan, during the times when its political system is failing.

> No where near close. At least not production grade at massive scale.

It looks like you have knowledge of the status of that super-secret government project. Can you share some details then?

> Doesn't work. If they do that the US, JP and others can also blockade around Shanghai, Hong Kong and the other ports.

US cannot blockade Hormuz, as we've seen. JP cannot do that with their current constitution unless they change it (the current government is on the road to it, though).

What we've also seen is that Chinese fishing fleet had a military blockade exercise [0].

> Taiwan is not just TSMC. There are thousands to millions of things involving Taiwan you're likely not aware of and they might not even be AI or semi related.

All is around semiconductors.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/01/16/world/asia/ch...


>US backed off last year when there were talks about protecting Taiwan. They pulled Patriot missiles from Taiwan and South Korea too.

>US cannot blockade Hormuz, as we've seen. JP cannot do that with their current constitution unless they change it (the current government is on the road to it, though).

If China really wants to fuck with Taiwan, they had better do it soon while the most incompetent US administration ever to hold office is still there. Because there is change coming to the US and the next president isn't likely to be such a complete moron.


> Because there is change coming to the US and the next president isn't likely to be such a complete moron.

All past elections prove you otherwise.


If you honestly think that, then you are not paying attention, or you're just a typical troll.


Maybe you are? Because so far, I backed up my opinion about China vs Taiwan with facts. And you backed up yours with wishes.


>All past elections prove you otherwise.

This is not a fact. This is bullshit trolling.

This pointless internet interaction is over.


Everybody always forgets George Bush for some reason


Apparently some people think republicans were the only presidents elected in the last 25+ years?

Even senile Joe Biden was more competent than the current malicious moron in power.


Yet he was still a moron


> Establish a total naval and air blockade of Taiwan using their fleets stationed in Ningbo and Zhanjiang.

I would not want to be maintaining a long-term naval blockade while constantly looking over my shoulder worrying about surprise attacks. Everyone knows where you are, and it would give plenty of time for a counter offensive to be planned. The US has something like 50 attack submarines, and a surprise attack from all of them at once would be a nightmare scenario for any fleet.

In the era of drones and missiles having your navy tied down in a blockade like that makes it all the more vulnerable.


US had all of that and still was unable to do anything meaningful around Hormuz.

US had 10,000 miles of power projection, while China prepared for 100 miles of it for the past 20 years, come on. The answer is EUV alternative that would render TSMC useless.

I understand that majority of people here cannot see the bigger picture, by design.


As a resident of Taiwan, would you say the average person there is comfortable obeying a strong central government, whoever that currently is?

As an American, I found the deference to authority very strange.


As an American, what are ways in which you can not defer to an authority - in a way that actually matters? Sure, you can choose to go outside dressed in gaudy colors, or not dressed at all if you are in SF. Or choose to flip the Democrat/Republican bit once every 4 years (usually without any effect on domestic or foreign policy, though not lately). But in a regular person's life, what authority do you want to opt out of? The average person can't do a thing about their HOA board, let alone a government representative.


> As an American, I found the deference to authority very strange.

Are schoolchildren in the US still required to recite the pledge of allegiance...?


No, children can not be forced to stand and recite the pledge.

The Supreme Court ruled, in 1943, that it is unconstitutional to compel students to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/319/624.h...


Required, no.

Strongly pressured, yes.


Really? Surely it can't be unfamiliar at least. So many GOPs anxiously mentioning Dear Leader every chance they get.


> They would lose all of TSMC if they do any military actions.

How is that?

Is there an action movie style self destruct sequence?


Yes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40441650 "TSMC EUV machines equipped with remote self-destruct in case of invasion"


Seems like a risky move - they found just fein invasion, let them nerf their entire economy and then just go home.


A few employees with sledge hammers would be enough. These are rather delicate machines.


To render inoperable sure, but invaders would surely be able to suss out some of their secrets from the remains.


I would suggest industrial espionage and luring away employees instead of invasion, if you are after secrets.

> To render inoperable sure, but invaders would surely be able to suss out some of their secrets from the remains.

Yes, but I have a suspicion the Taiwanese plans are a bit more involved than my sledge hammer idea.


What are you gonna do the day they don't need tsmc anymore


> CCP is relaxed about core Chinese companies running their manufacturing in Taiwan

This whole idea of collapsing everything to some single semi-military geo-political concern is naive and not at all how the world works.

Of course there are people in China who would prefer Xiaomi did all their manufacturing inside China, and there are others who prefer to build stronger economic ties between Taiwan and China to make Taiwan economically dependent on China.

There are others who want Xiaomi to dominate world mobile markets by any means necessary. There are others who want Xiaomi to make the most profit possible, and still others who want Chinese firms to race to match US companies technology on every dimension.

These concerns are all interlinked and play out over years in lots of micro decisions.


They're intentional about economic integration because it will in theory make unification easier without a war.


Its the opposite

China isn’t going to invade China until after we get our semiconductors up and running in Arizona for real

(because US won’t have to think about that situation ever again)

removing dependence imperils that island, CCP already has an EUV machine so the inevitable sanctions and export controls on ASML’s in Europe won’t matter either


It technically does not matter today. Sure the SOTA fabs only exist in a few places, but it’s not like a 2010/2015/2020 era chip is unusable trash. All of which are more geographically distributed.


For any critical workload a chip is considered trash after 5-7 years. They still run , of course, but increased incidents on platforms that are supposed to be 99.99 are hard to work with. Now if you mean there’s unused stock of those , that would maybe work, but I am not aware of significant unused stocks.


I am talking about making new chips on older nodes. If China can only build 7nm, but TSMC is at 3nm, that’s unfortunate, but they will survive.


I agree, a move on Taiwan sets semiconductor industry back like 5 years at this point, down from what I’d say was 10 just last year

yeah equity asset values are going to tank but US will get serious about the supply chain immediately (which is already very much in progress), plus all the older nodes to alleviate some pressure off of the active compute demands


> The fact that the CCP is relaxed about core Chinese companies running their manufacturing in Taiwan might suggest that the CCP considers that it can make China and Taiwan one country, at a time of the CCP's choosing.

I'm not so sure. I would say that perhaps it's an indication that the CCP is ok with the status quo.

The PR Chinese might be able to take Taiwan's land, but they can't conceivable take Taiwan's economy, at least not by force.


That act could throw us all back into the dark ages, though.


They already consider it as one country. The CCP sees Taiwan as a province of China.


Or mainland China is occupied west Taiwan.


And the US is occupied west Britain?


No. Treaty of Paris, 1783.


“West Taiwan”? Why not just say ROC instead of inventing nonsense names..


China and Taiwan are considered one country, even according to US https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12503

How do you make one country into one country? It's already one country and is treated as such by even countries that consider China an adversary


> China and Taiwan are considered one country, even according to US

Your link does not say what you think it does. My guess is you read the first sentence and saw "one-China police" and stopped. But the US's one-China policy is not the same thing as China's one-China principle.

The US's one-China policy is that (continental) China is a single China governed by the PRC. It's silent on Taiwan. But, considering the laws we have on the books declaring our commitment to ensuring the sovereignty of Taiwan, it's a hard row to hoe to get to "the US considers Taiwan to be territory the PRC has a right to control."

The US has an unofficial relationship with Taiwan simply to shut the CCP up. It's like when your partner is complaining about something you did, silence doesn't mean you agree that you messed up. Sometimes it just means you don't want a fight right now.


> The US's one-China policy is that (continental) China is a single China governed by the PRC. It's silent on Taiwan

Oh really?

https://2021-2025.state.gov/countries-areas/taiwan/

>The 1979 U.S.-P.R.C. Joint Communique switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. In the Joint Communique, the U.S. recognized the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.

https://2021-2025.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-taiwan/

>The United States approach to Taiwan has remained consistent across decades and administrations. The United States has a longstanding one China policy, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the three U.S.-China Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances. We oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side; we do not support Taiwan independence

Doesn't sound like silence to me.

>But, considering the laws we have on the books declaring our commitment to ensuring the sovereignty of Taiwan, it's a hard row to hoe to get to "the US considers Taiwan to be territory the PRC has a right to control."

You're moving the goal posts. Sovereignty isn't the same as being a country. States in the US have some sovereignty and their own governance and international relations too, but it wouldn't be correct to say that the US consists of 50 independent countries.

Also, using the word right sounds a bit like muddying the waters. You could argue the United States government doesn't have the right to control their land, as it has been stolen from the indigenous people. But that doesn't mean United States is not an independent country that controls the area within its borders.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: