It's not so much that cruise missiles used on civilian targets in South Korea or Japan would not be a reason to start WW3, more that it would be less tempting.
The primary reason that we're concerned about semiconductor fab concentration in Taiwan is that China has consistently stated that it is going to invade Taiwan at some point (and that could be 2049 or in a few years for all we know). This is completely outside of any hypothetical scenarios of who lobs cruise missiles at who during WW3.
You can make the point that relying on semiconductor manufacturing outside of your country/coalition is a bad idea for military self-sufficiency, and I would agree, but that's a much more diffuse risk than the very specific scenario that is driving the CHIPS act and concern about fab concentration in Taiwan.
Japan ? They're as threatened by China as India, and nobody in China is planning for administrative take over of 130 millions Japanese anytime soon. And Japan has so many problems to solve already, they're not looking at bothering China enough to risk missiles.
They want Taiwan not a war with the entire west all at once.
That only works if the rest of the world hasn't already decided to intervene.
And sure - NATO isn't "the rest of the world"; but militarily, it might as well be.
I think China is out of there mind here. They either are A. willing to smash Taiwan to rubble and call it a victory or B. completely overestimate their chance of success.
I think China's real hope is that they can threaten their way to an advantageous position and take Taiwan without firing a bullet, but so far no one is blinking and the west is fed up with autocrats threatening warfare to get their way.
The US has made multiple unclear statements. What one president may say, another may walk back or reverse. Or the US might simply not do what they said, or adopt some face-saving half-measure.
Killing US troops stationed in Japan, OTOH, would force a very strong response; even if the government wanted to deescalate, the public wouldn't let them.
Japan is very able to defend itself against China and the Chinese know that. That doesn't mean the Japanese would win a war with China, but who knows? Who would think Ukraine could take on Russia? If China seriously went to war with the US and Japan China could be blockaded.
The history of the last fifty years suggest the Chinese are pretty measured in their use of force. I'm sure they would try to capture Taiwan if they were confident they could with acceptable losses. But they realize time is on their side and they are not crazy gamblers like Putin.
As important as TW is to rejuvenation narrative, it's ultimately the consolation prize versus dismantling US east asian security architecture and securing regional+ hegemony. That's the grand finale battle for the lightcone of future PRC security/prosperity.
>Japan is very able to defend
Japan (and SKR, and TW, and even PH) like most US allies in island chain are are heavily dependant on energy and calorie imports. They can defend themselves against invasion, but they can't defend against PRC turning them into Yemen by wrecking critical infra (cut internet cables, destroy power nodes, mine ports etc). Stuff that make them non viable as a modern economy/society. The flip side of trying to contain PRC during peace is if they try to contain PRC during war, they're stuck in the island chain with a much more autarkic PRC who can spoil region indefinitely. And because US has security commitments, it maybe in PRC interest to draw US to defend allies where PRC forces balance is strongest.
I also think while CCP obviously prefers low cost reuninfication (even if armed), I personally would not be surprised if things escalate much broader because there are larger (and worthwhile) goals / targets. If Australia is going to contribute to even supporting US efforts in TW scenario, then destroying US military infra in AU (Pinegap, Geraldton, Exmouth) will cripple US Indo Pac operation. If anything, there may come a point of favourable future PRC power balance mixed with levels of percieved US antagonism where PRC will be eager for excuses to eliminate US regional/global military infra.
>The issue is in such a war China is also cut off
The Malacca dilemma was based on assumption that US had unilateral power to blockade PRC imports with impunity due to being domestically energy secure - it was an argument/strategy also based on asymmetric vunerability.
But that's increasingly not true, the TLDR is PRC rocket force likely already has capability or will in short term to _conventionally_ strike major US energy infra... US is existentially dependant on ~150 refineries - they are as dependant on these refineries as PRC is on maritime energy shipping. People conflate resource security as having more resources in your soil but it's really about the ability to protect the critical extraction/delivery infra. Otherwise Saudi wouldn't bribe US for security. Obviously conventional CONUS strikes is also a prelude to MAD, but it is also an equation for PRC establishing mutual vunerability with US, which greatly constrains US actions. Not to mention such capability also functionally dismantles US naval supremacy via port strikes (both capital and support assets) that underpins US global power projection.
My feeling is that the chance of US blockading PRC when she becomes as (conventionally) vunerable as PRC is increasingly remote. It's hard to understate how much geostrategic calculations must change once a relatively autarkic industrial power as massive as PRC is able credibly bring actual war to US homefront. It will be first time in modern history where conventional fires can penetrate CONUS to meaningfully degrade US society. US will have to assess whether it wants to fight a possibly existential war (possibly at best a pyrrhic one where she might not uphold her hegemony after) or abandon East Asia where PRC preponderance is increasingly difficult to match or deter, especially with respect to TW.
This is completely different from the mutual defense agreement that Japan has with the USA, where it has been made very clear that the USA will protect Japan.
I understand you want to have a critical opinion, but you need to look at the facts.
Firstly, completely dismissing Japan as a sovereign state. Complete disrespect.
Secondly, nuclear warfare is the dumbest solution possible. Who ever fires first must accept potentially losing the trust of all nations. No matter who fires for whatever reason. Barring an alien attack or something of that magnitide.
Thirdly, the US power does not come from its military - but diplomacy. Allies in strategic places captured by the flow of capital. The military maintains the status quo but isn't invincible. If it were, Russia would not exist. China would not become a superpower.
These are basics.
Having a critical view of the world is a great thing, and I can only commend you for that. But you need to look into the facts first.
In the case of Japan and South Korea, those are not sovereign states but protectorates of the US. At least because they were occupied by the US post WWII and limited military autonomy because of US directives.
My point being the US is an imperial state masquarading as a cheerleader of democracy. The only reason no one says anything is because the US has the biggest stick in the room and anyone refusing to bend over to be shafted is public enemy number 1 ie. China, Russia and the levant.
Its surprising how weak Europe is considering how much experience they have in warfare but it is what it is.
China. Japan cooperates with AUKUS [1]. If Xi invades Taiwan, it's going to pull in America, Britain, Australia and–in all likelihood–Japan.
That said, we're more likely to see a recapitulation of the Ukraine playbook than direct intervention by American and Japanese forces.
China has said that they believe that, in the event of hostilities over Taiwan, they will be obligated to strike US forces everywhere in the region -- and the US Navy still has a strong presence in Japan. Also S. Korea and the Philippines.
This means potentially launching missiles at these countries too, and the Chinese have made it very clear to all involved that they will consider and/all US allies in the region as potential belligerents and act accordingly. AKA military action against Japan and SK, and possibly Australia and NZ. It is just another part of the Taiwan political calculus.
Point is: moving the fabs out of Taiwan doesn't mean shit if they're still in a country that China could strike, and in the case of Japan, would likely strike, in the event of hostilities.
Do you have a source for this? I haven't heard this stated before, but I'm not an expert here.
Even taking this as true, I think it's a big leap to go from striking US military bases in Japan, to striking civilian infrastructure in those countries.
It seems quite clear to me that the opening salvo you are hypothesizing (attacking multiple military bases and civilian targets) would be an act of war against the USA and Japan. This would certainly provoke all-out war with the US, and they have a first-use policy that could entail a nuclear response.
Frankly the whole scenario above seems extremely unlikely to me, and I think Ukraine is the better example to model here. Essentially, China occupies Taiwan, and dares the US to strike in retaliation, knowing that their retaliation would be the thing that triggers armageddon, and betting that the US is not actually willing to escalate militarily over Taiwan. I predict that China would take an effort to avoid attacking any US military personnel stationed in Taiwan (I gather this is just an unofficial presence), because the rational play is to give the US as little excuse as possible to escalate in response.
In other words, China MUST offer the US a path to de-escalation/capitulation in order to take Taiwan without a war with the USA. It's much easier to take Taiwan without a full war with the USA (obviously, IMO).
They're not even remotely capable of doing that before US intervenes. Taiwan is a heavily fortified island with unfriendly geography and a massive high tech army.
FWIW on the likelihood of this specific claim, my impression is that the Pentagon considers it likely that they will try to annex Taiwan at some point in the next decade, e.g. see yesterday's headlines from Blinken (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-17/blinken-s...).
I don't have any particular domain knowledge to judge how hard it would be for China to occupy Taiwan (or how much more military power China would need to tip the balance in its favor), but I'm interested in any hard analysis that you can share on the subject. The general reading I've seen has suggested that they would be able to do so in the next 10-20 years if current trends in military growth pan out.
This would be starting World War III. It would be akin to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, with the main difference being, we have thousands of nukes and China does not. This course of action is so profoundly stupid that I cannot imagine China taking it.
Countries that have actively threatened Japan with nuclear bombs: China, Russia, North Korea, and the US (which literally dropped a bomb but have yet to make threats since).
Well that was a sarcastic joke at the end. The US has not made any threats to Japan since after the bombing. The other countries listed are a different story though.
Russia: I think you have forgotten that the Kuril Islands are still contested territory between Japan and Russia. Russia's same policy is there that they will retaliate if their territories are "attacked." The exact same line with Ukraine. Putin has suggested he would take out Japan and (South) Korea quickly as they are the US's main launching points of an attack. Getting them out of the war quickly gives Russia a serious advantage and the US a serious disadvantage. This is ongoing and has been in discussion since the Cold War. Policies have not shifted on this. Russia has actively been violating international nuclear armament treaties and this has been big news since 2014. So, current.
China: Has been much more explicit and aggressive, stating that they will nuke Japan until they unconditionally surrender if they even send a single troop to defend Taiwan[1]. This video is 2021. They have also made similar threats to Australia after a deal with the US for nuclear powered subs (which would not have nuclear weapons) saying that any nuclear nation is not immune from nuclear attack.
North Korea: idk, last week when they launched their test missile directly over Japan?
I get that searching with respect to Russia might be difficult right now because everything is focused on Ukraine and Google overfits search results. But this has been in military discussion for decades. Maybe it is just saber rattling, but these are still things that have been said.
[1] https://twitter.com/jenniferzeng97/status/141497128516000563...
If chip fabs are at the top list of your worries, your perspective of war is probably overly informed by being on the side that undertakes imperial adventures against people who can't shoot back. Direct war against an actual superpower is horrific.
It would take a matter of days until they had massive internal protests. Hungry people topple governments in hours.
Yet, it is EXACTLY what Xi repeatedly said in his new-term-inauguration speech
The dictator of China has effectively declared, as publicly as possible, and very specifically, that he intends to invade Taiwan if it does not willingly abandon it's democracy and come under China's rule
He obviously thinks he can get away with doing so without consequences, including those you suggest.
Yet, leaders make such mistakes all the time. Putin just made one on 24-Feb-2022.
It is up to the western world to ensure that Xi sees that such an action would result in bad consequences for him, and deter him from his stated course.
But the fact that it is bonkers is no assurance whatsoever that it won't happen.
That gives us good reason to hope that China will keep behaving that way. We can keep up the deterrence, China can keep on blustering, and nothing bad actually happens. That would indeed be a great result.
Indeed, seems like a most likely scenario.
I think you misunderstand deeply the current equilibrium in the world.
Most of Africa, a significant part of South East Asia, some countries in Eastern Europe would definitely align with China. A significant part of South America would be neutral.
The USA is losing allies nearly as fast as China is making them.
China can get much further than Russia can in that amount of time.
"Star wars" is feasible with reusable launch to orbit vehicles.
Taiwan does have fairly good stocks of weapons and ammo. It's also great terrain for fighting a defensive guerilla war. It'd be China's roleplay of "Russia in Afghanistan".
Observe that "the world" will not be helping Taiwan. India won't. Russia won't. Brazil won't. Nigeria won't. Pakistan won't. Bangladesh won't. Nigeria won't. You get the drill. US will, and probably Europe too, but why assume that these will 1) be able to defeat China in a conventional war in its own back yard, and 2) will even try to do so?
The democratic countries will come together, the same ones that helped Ukraine; delete from that list authoritarian (democratic or not) countries, and democracies that are led by authoritarian dictator wanna-bes (so if Trump comes back he'd be conflicted, because he loves authoritarian power, but indicated his displeasure with China). Probably not Hungry. Russia doesn't matter if they aren't nuking you. India, there is the authoritarian bent the country it is on - non Hindu people aren't feeling so happy about their country. I'd think India will feel torn because they want to fight Pakistan freely but don't want to increase the power of China. Brazil is another partially fallen democratic country, wonder how that vote will turn out at the end of Oct.
There are two reasons those countries will help Taiwan - because they don't want authoritarian dictators to take over democracies, and because Ukraine reminded us all of the importance of stopping dictators - we can't wait for them to decide they have enough. It's over 80 years since the last time the world went through it, German and Japan were the original threats (with Italy and a few others), now it's China and Russia. The chip making part of Taiwan will all be decimated in the first few hours of a war (you thought that would be one of my reasons to intervene ;-)). It will be re-created bit after bombing it and damage and just losing power it will be hugely weakened, hurting both sides.
Ukraine showed how much more powerful the militaries of the western alliances are. I'm sure China will not be so weak and kleptocratically weakened as Russia was, but they haven't been in battles recently so they will need some ramping up to really organize. I'm sure China will be able to do major damage to navys trying to operate around Taiwan, sink a few us carriers. But the US and the other western countries are about a lot more and they can operate in countries around there.
China is a powerful country, they have brilliant engineers and scientists and that economy and a vast population. They are not to be under-estimated. The world must move forward to promote democracy and stop dictators.
When people don't like to discuss what they call platitudes is because they will not benefit. The US has endless problems, with 400+ years of racism, slavery, denial of institutional racism, then our destruction and the big lie about Iraq, and finally Afghanistan had a different situation but still managed to screw that up. My friend who recently moved back to Taiwan to retire will probably also have an interesting viewpoint on such things. "Please don't kill me, China" might describe his views. He thinks (hopes?) there won't be a war because the west will help protect Taiwan.
Edit - the us has a lot more years than 200 of racism, updated that comment.
Practically, PRC can simply mine TW ports, crater run ways, via glide mines and MLRS all within PRC borders (that can hit anywhere in TW + adjacent). US + co doesn't remotely have the demining, sealift or airlift capacity to logistically support TW off PRC waters. Nor will they convince any commercial fleet/insurers to go on suicide mission of... invading One China territory. It's like how Operation Starvation crippled JP during WW2. Except TW is much smaller than JP and PRC is a much larger industrial power than US during wartime. PRC can unilaterally and trivially render TW inaccessible - it can blockade TW with basically zero sustained naval or air effort.
And really if US/JP try to run the blockade they're legally invading Chinese sovereign territory and it's WW3 anyway. TW may have chance to survive a PLA invasion, but IMO no chance of breaking a PRC blockade. Folks are grossly underestimating the proponderous of advantages PRC has near her coast.
Taiwan between missiles and air force elements would be uninvadable. The only way to control Taiwan is to land a quarter million soldiers or more.
I think I also read that the entire foundry would be rigged to blow in the case of invasion. Between controlled demolitions such as these by Taiwan and whatever China has to fire at them to successfully win, there would be very little of value left standing on the island by the end of it. It would take them decades to redevelop it. Very hollow victory for China.
I got a little carried away with the Michigan analogy, but IMO it doesn't go far enough: Taiwan is far more integral to the global semiconductor industry than Detroit is to the global auto industry.
I think if we fast forward 5-10 years, Taiwan will not be this much of an absolute, but it will take years for these new fabs to come online. Until there are viable alternatives, Taiwan is a massive risk.
Taiwan and China account for 70% of contract chip manufacturing. It's absolutely the dominant share... but not remotely to being "all".
I honestly think there is 100% chance that if China invaded Taiwan today, the US would declare war and send troops to defend Taiwan. In contrast, I think there is >0% chance that the US would not declare war on Russia if they did a (tactical) nuclear attack in Ukraine.
We will give Ukraine to Russia if we can save Paris.
Only that you just taught the already aggressive ruling elite of a huge country with an abundance of resources who don't care about anyone including their own except that they need them for work and for the fighting that threatening use of nukes gets them anything they want. Moldova next - it's not EU or NATO, already very low risk for Russia, if they can get there. Which was (is) a stated goal for the current war, to get the entire south of Ukraine to take away their sea ports and to get to Moldova.
They'll try the Baltic states next. Not a full invasion, just lots of little aggressive actions. Even previously they did murders in the EU, financing of radical parties out to undermine current EU country governments, supported by propaganda. I don't know how much it actually influenced US elections, but I think it's save to say they at least tried.
Giving them Ukraine will be massive. They will also have lots more of the oil and gas reserves under Ukraine and around the Krim. They will also get tens of millions of new citizens, lessening the problems of a shrinking number of people available inside Russia significantly. There also are significant parts of former USSR production in Ukraine, which will all go to Russia. They will also own even more of the prime agricultural lands of Eastern Europe, which at least so far seems to suffer less than Western Europe (look at the heat maps of this summer) under climate change so it may become even more valuable than it already is. The land is some prime real estate - unlike Siberia, Ukraine is much better, you can't look at the map and think "it does not add all that much to Russia" because the value of Ukraine lands is much higher.
I have no idea how you get this idea. Giving up Ukraine is really, really massive in its long term consequences, greatly strengthening Russia directly as well as showing them that the means they use actually work. This would be a gigantic loss for the West.
I doubt it. Most people will be passive and will just live their lives. They will get a few for sure, but they won't be able to do all that much. It's not like the ruling elite cares if there's an occasional killing, after all, they already use that method themselves, see the list of Russian businessmen and manager deaths.
I'm afraid Russians have already started re-implementing elements of the same 100 years old strategy: https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/09/01/forcible-transfer-ukrain...
For China it's about nationalism, for US it's about protecting allies/upholding treaties and protecting democracy from the strongest authoritarian regime. Chips are not important. After all chances are high they might be destroyed even in a successful defense of Taiwan.
As a Ukranian American I wish we had and were doing more for Ukraine but it's not about chips or economics. Ukraine had only recently grown closer to the US. The US has promised to defend Taiwan for a long time (well sort of, arguably the US does keep some strategic ambiguity about this which might let it wiggle out)
While upholding treaties is vitally important, I think you’re underestimating the importance of chips(a rare occurrence on HN!).
Wars are generally fought over resources rather than ideas, and pretending that US is defending Taiwan to defend democracy instead of defending its strategic interests (access to vital resources — chips) is misguided.
Loss of TSMC would result in chips shortage, but not when it comes to critical and military infrastructure.
There's a lot of resources at stake, and semiconductors are just one part of the whole.
Ideas like "protecting democracy" are used to sell citizens on wars they don't care about. The full destruction of TSMC is likely preferred over a Chinese dictated world technological economy. The truth is, if one side has TSMC chips and the other doesn't, what we're talking about may necessitate a total war.
TSMC chips aren't critical, considering that ASML can also deliver the same equipment to US... and cut off China from their equipment. (or sabotage in critical cases)
There's a myriad reasons, why US would probably would send in military to protect Taiwan. But it's not going to be "just because TSMC"
I doubt this is true for China (I very much suspect economic concerns trump any other concerns for them as well), but I am quite convinced you are wrong about the USA - one of the biggest supporters of non-democratic regimes in the world. There is little in US history to suggest they have any preference for a democratic regime over a subservient autocratic one. They are also extremely clearly uncaring of international treaties.
And make no mistake: the USA is coordinating Ukraine's defense because it sees it as a good chance to weaken Russia, not out of some deep care for the people of Ukraine.
...to fight the spread of Communism.
Taiwan is an American ally for reasons other than the semiconductor industry.
Don't semiconductors represent a significant military advantage? Would we really want China to control the worlds semiconductor supply?
Our dedication to protect our ally Taiwan has nothing to do with Silicone and neither does China's nationalist obsession over it. If it comes to war, chips will play no role
Why are you so quick to dismiss being protective of such an important resource as a motivation to protect Taiwan?
"Taiwan’s president, Tsai Ing-wen, told one group that she saw the island’s tech prowess as a means of shoring up support for its democracy. Calling economic security a “pillar” of national security, she said Taiwan was willing to work with partners to build sustainable supply chains for what she called “democracy chips.”
> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/29/technology/taiwan-chips.h...
This is hardly an "out-there" take, too.
It is whether the democracies of the world will abandon democracy and allow dictators to take over their societies by threat of force or force.
If we are not both better armed, better prepared, and willing to fight, we might as well hand over the key to Putin, Xi, and Un, and live under their dictatorships.
If we want freedom, we must risk war, and if the threat is nuclear war, then that most of all must be faced down. There is a reason we don't negotiate with terrorists or blackmailers — because if we negotiate and let them gain from terrorism or blackmail, we get a short period of peace before they try it again, along with every other wannabe dictator who can get their hands on some weapons. This all applies even more strongly with nukes.
It sucks, but there is no other choice.
I don't want to be condemned to repeat history because hordes of dolts can't even begin to pay attention
ugh