I would instead assert that it is very likely that the US would destroy the fabs rather than allow China to gain control of them through an act of aggression.

The doctrine of mutually assured destruction has been around a long time. The international players are familiar with it.

The current U.S. leadership is so chaotic and seemingly uninvolved in strategy that predictions about whether/how MAD would play out are difficult to make.

And mututally assured destruction has nothing to do with the US destroying an industry in Taiwan. MAD specifically refers to the idea that superpowers cannot engage in nuclear war against one another without also being destroyed themselves, because of a Nuclear Triad.

For "Mutually Assured Destruction" to be in anyway applicable, you'd have to say that the second that the US destroyed "Chinese" fabs (Taiwan), China would destroy American fabs. Thus, the US would not attack China without risking itself. The US making targeted strikes on Taiwan is one sided destruction. But to be clear: MAD doctrine is specifically about fullscale thermonuclear war.

The valuable bits and pieces are already equipped with a self destruct mechanism.

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/tsmcs-euv-machine...

Being a small island it’s much more of a zero sum / all or nothing fight than say Ukraine where at some point they can agree on a line on the map for Putin to walk away with a territorial partial win.

Lot of headwind for US between ship building, distance, whether Japan allows usage of bases, total manpower, Chinese ship killer missiles, authoritarian dictatorships willingness to throw manpower into meat grinders, etc.

Not that it’s a slam dunk for China either - beach landings are hard, and their war machine is largely unproven.

The most likely outcome is Taiwan or US destroy the fabs in event of invasion.

The mask slips: I thought the USA wanted to protect Taiwanese democracy.

Silly me.

Because yes, a protracted conflict on the island would mostly reduce it to rubble.