Your last sentence is exactly on point. What's sad is that we spend far more on naval power projection than on detours around obvious risks to prosperity and peace, such as the semiconductor supply chain. We are barely spending 50 billion dollars on domestic semiconductor fabrication in the upcoming legislation, despite acknowledging that the economic costs of the semiconductor shortage are far greater. Contrast that 50 billion number with Apple's expenditures on buybacks and dividends over the past decade. They aren't even in the same order of magnitude.

Indeed, semiconductor industry investment is a drop in a bucket compared to 10 years of war. Not to mention, after a war, there still exists a dependency.

It's funny how most of the semiconductor topics lead to war discussions but no one talks about outcompeting Taiwan. It's doable if there is will and resources (I am a Fab engineer). IMO the best way to move forward.

> Instead of war, invest in domestic technology. It pays back better

is it though? if you got the biggest gun why not rob someone else? do you believe ethics/empathy/humanity plays any role in any form governance? since we know that if you can sell the idea, you can get away with anything. why not just do the thing you know best? this is not singling out USA or China in any sense, they are just ahead of the curve, flower of the century.

a system optimized for only profit with almost no accountability (externalities) reads like a recipe to transfer of the wealth from many to few. if you add war into equation many becomes many-brown, many-yellow, many-black, many-jewish, many-others basicaly many-we-can-target-and-get-away-with. if you remove borders from the equation you end up seeing yourself on the receiving end as well. yet no-surprisingly few remains always the same.

so, the question is 'it pays back better to whom?'.