The US lacks broad-based public support for new wars.

Also, if China attacks Taiwan's semiconductor facilities aggressively and destructively right at the exposition of a conflict, there will be no strong incentive for the US to get involved because its largest interest in Taiwan will have been demolished.

Isn’t it in taiwans best interest to do mutually assured destruction if China does that a like pointing a few missiles at china’s factories?

Your suggestion implies an assurance of destruction, but China has a geographically broad industrial base with countless production facilities. PRC/ROC is not a symmetric confrontation and we have to view the obvious disadvantages of the ROC very clearly.

To my initial point, though...why would the US care about Taiwan in the morning if all of the fabs get destroyed overnight?

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/05/how-to-win-americas-nex...

How so? No NATO countries involved in this scenario.

Nato just extended its frontiers to Hindukush as german minister said. If they found a pretext to invade afganistan (and irak) they will find a reason to invade other countries also.

NATO only responds to attacks on it's members (and even then, only to attacks on its members in certain areas - NZ attacking a US/UK/French base in the South Pacific doesn't count.) However, where it responds to is not limited. NATO said 9/11 was an attack on a member, so they all went into Afghanistan to respond to it.

A quick search and sums about 88% were US, Canada and UK. So saying NATO may create an inaccurate impression of a lot of countries sending a lot of troops