If that happens, it’s because our Government failed to intervene sooner, and is a damning indictment of Western Capitalism in general.

All the more reason to let Intel (or Boeing, or whoever) fail hardcore while we have time to adapt. Intel falling isn’t going to result in a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, but it would smack the hell out of politicians and consumers both that globalism, while a nice idea in times of peace, is not compatible with interests like National Security and the growth of the Middle Class.

So let me get this straight; Intel fails and the American government drops the ball, therefore Western Capitalism itself is indicted and China should be free to start a war and send Taiwanese people to reeducation camps? It sounds like that's what you're saying.

Here's a tip; part of that "Western Capitalism" thing is governments sensibly not binding themselves to extreme libertarianism and being willing to protect strategic industries when necessary. Maybe you think that's not true capitalism or something, that it's not fair, but so what? The stakes are too high to fuck around with letting strategic industries fail out of some insane commitment to ideological purity.

I was going to take this response seriously and write a thought-out retort, but…

> Here’s a tip;

You’re not looking for discourse so much as to have someone agree with your anxiety about a perceived potential conflict and its stakes, and I am not going to be that person to you, sorry.

I made my statements and I stand by them. If you’re extrapolating to the extremes to justify your point of view, then I hate to break it to you but you’re treading ground my OCD has already mapped down to the millimeter. The “National Security” defense is not a valid one absent plans to prevent the exploit of that reasoning by bad actors.

Extrapolating to the extreme? You're the one who spoke of an indictment of "western capitalism" in respect to a defense matter concerning Taiwan. This isn't an abstract scenario, these are real human lives you would be throwing away.

My point is that "western capitalism" isn't an ideological suicide pact. Letting important things fail because you want the system bound to some rigid of rules isn't an acceptable option. Rules exist to serve people, not the other way around.

And that's assuming that the government protecting a strategic industry from their own blunders is even breaking the rules. It isn't. It's one of the characteristic behaviors of "western capitalism". We're not talking about "Ayn Rand's capitalism", nor "Capitalism as Stego thinks it should work".

The important strategic part of Intel is the foundry business. You can spin it off. It will keep making CPUs designed by multiple other competent US companies. You can let the rest fail.

It might in a few years, but fabs aren't really interchangeable widgets.

Their contract-fab business has been a sporadic joke up to now. Until there's an established toolchain and pipeline, and a history of reliable delivery, will there be anyone designing parts to use the Intel fab capacity?

It is probably a lot more practical to protect Taiwan than hoping somebody may rebuild Intel for the next 5-10 years. Having TSMC production in US is also more approachable for the mid term.