> I supposed the unstated implication is that the US could just take the IP by force

Isn’t that what China’s stated plan is?

They're extremely careful not to state that as their plan.

In general, they make a huge effort not to talk about their plans vis-a-vis Taiwan at all. They just keep repeating that Taiwan is part of China.

The closest they come to stating that they plan to use force is that they'll sometimes say that they won't reject the use of force.

Given that nobody has proposed a scenario where China actually could do something like "take the IP by force" (since the IP would be gone if they ever tried to invade) and we can generally see that the Chinese leaders aren't complete idiots, it seems highly unlikely that they're planning an invasion any time soon.

If all it costs them were never having access to those chips again the chinese would've taken Taiwan already.

The chinese want to invade Taiwan because they think it's a rebel province, their only consideration is whether the US will oppose them militarily if they do.

> The chinese want to invade Taiwan because they think it's a rebel province, their only consideration is whether the US will oppose them militarily if they do.

IIRC, the US's wargaming shows that if it tries to intervene, it will loose. Taiwan is too far from the US and too close to China.

Exactly.

The US has unrivaled force projection capabilities; half the worlds carrier fleets, the largest navy by tonnage, and the technology to execute unprecedented combined arms maneuvers.

China has insane defense-in-depth; more missiles than you can shake a stick at, the largest navy by number of ships, a vast arsenal of countermeasures, and a 4:1 population advantage.

China can't stand toe-to-toe with the US anywhere except the immediate vicinity of China. In that vicinity, nobody can get close if China doesn't want them to.

> China can't stand toe-to-toe with the US anywhere except the immediate vicinity of China. In that vicinity, nobody can get close if China doesn't want them to.

I think you have a typo there.

Personally, I think if the US wants to defend Taiwan from invasion, it needs to stock them up with a massive amounts of missile/artillery/whatever systems and ammunition, and that needs to be distributed all over the island so there's no concentrated stockpile to attack.

But the US cupboard is bare, and Ukraine made it barer. IIRC, in an all-out war the US itself will run out of missiles in a few days or weeks, and lacks the capacity to replenish them at a reasonable rate.

It's clearly not just about the chips. China didn't attack Taiwan before 1987, when TSMC was founded.

There are many disincentives. The biggest one is that China is confident that they'll get full control of Taiwan without violence.

They believe that the US is in a state of terminal decline and Europe will never overcome centuries of infighting. A significant portion of the population of Taiwan wants to reunify. They fully expect that they can just continue to nurture supporters within Taiwan and wait out the West and Taiwan will just fall into their lap.

Why would they go to war when they think they can get everything they want without war?

If the US bluff is give us what we want or we pull our security guarantee and China invades and you are forced to blow the fabs and move your engineers.

That hurts the US access to chips, short term. But then who is going to fill the demand and where will the talent migrate, and who else is going to build the capacity ($$$)?

The US revealing its true face (the fact it was no allies, only vassals) and trying to bully Taiwan into giving up its most precious economic could be something that help China in the long run. I mean, given two bullies, why try to appease the distant and foreign one, instead of the one with cultural and linguistic ties? Seems an incredibly short-sighted move from Taiwan, but it's good that more people see its true colors. Taiwan should try to gain more protection from Japan.

At some point being assimilated by China starts to look like a good option. Why blow up fabs if you join willingly, and then its China who is blocking US from buying chips made on latest nodes.

IDK... if a profitable market is up for grabs, $$$s are not a problem. The financial system is quite comfortable fronting cash for factories making in-demand products.

Have people suddenly forgotten that markets and enterprises exist, and are quite good at making products. Chips are not minerals. The state department isn't a tool for this job.

In any case, TSMC is currently within the US sphere. Nvidia makes most of the capital gains. US government gets to deny China. US companies get good chips. Where's the upside in blowing all this up?

Perhaps pulling the security guarantee and greenlighting reunification under PRC is the destination, and onshoaring Taiwan's critical industries is deemed prudent in advance of this.

I mean, we have a total moron as a leader, so I wouldn't rule out totally insane things like a 100% tax.

You're selling him short, he's also a felon, sexual predator, fraud, grifter, traitor, conman, Demagogue and Narcissist.

But an insanely ruthless businessman.

I wonder what the Japanese government has to say about it or, whether the Taiwanese government would allow itself to sign a formal trade and security treaty with Japan, apart from their One China Policy stance.

> But an insanely ruthless businessman

Ruthless but ineffective: he'll stiff contractors and suppliers, but still failed to keep a Casino solvent when the house is supposed to always win. He also started a tariff war in his first term that ended up with him subsidizing farmers.

Judging by the rest of the comments from my own, all of this is anecdotal right? I don't know the true facts nor their context. And why is he so irrevocably offensive to ya'll? Has he hurt you in some way personally? (not trolling)

1. It's not anecdotal. There's a very long papertrail if you wish to seek it.

2. I also shared my opinion about Larry Ellison in a different HN thread, and he's done nothing to me except make Java deader to me than it already was.

Do you speak negatively only about those who've personally affronted you?

> Do you speak negatively only about those who've personally affronted you?

Yes? Only if it fuels workplace jokes and casual drama, apart from social media.

> I also shared my opinion about Larry Ellison in a different HN thread, and he's done nothing to me except make Java deader to me than it already was.

Can you link it? Interested in reading about it, the parent threads, and the post.

I'll give you insane, maybe ruthless as he stole from his own charity, but ain't a businessman.

He lost nearly all of daddy’s money. But that’s the thing: when you’re born rich, it’s impossible to become poor.

He is a terrible businessman. How did you get the impression that he is “ruthless”?

His acknowledgement during the 2016 presidential debates that he gamed the system by using chapter 11 bankruptcy laws to restructure his corporate debts and limit his financial obligations to his creditors without taking a significant hit to his personal liabilities. Dave Chappelle even based a skit as a satirical representation of this Trump narrative on SNL and his other shows but the broader drama that followed afterwards with characters like AG Letitia James, Eli Bartov's court testimony, judge A. Engoron's ruling and Kevin O'Leary's subsequent vocal criticism on it, from the perspective of real estate development... ruthless.

Ruthless? Mostly just a penny pinching liar. By all measures (until he started this presidency grift) he would have made more money just putting his inheritance in index funds, he's just projecting.

Ruthless but stupid.

Let's not forget he has gone bankrupt SIX TIMES.

> But an insanely ruthless businessman.

Only according to his own self-propaganda.