> china doesn't want to control taiwan due to any economic reasons
That's absolutely not true if only for the existence of TSMC.
That's absolutely not true if only for the existence of TSMC.
You can wreck production yields by using the wrong color of paint in the break room or running a fan outside the building, no that is not an exaggeration.
But, maybe there's some economic value in invading Taiwan. What's the economic cost, though? Well, besides the collapse of the semiconductor industry that China is quite reliant on. What else? Sanctions up the wazoo. Sanctions from the US, sanctions from Europe and from major US allies, sanctions from anyone in the South China Sea most likely.
Taiwan doesn't have any natural resources, their knowledge workers can just leave (and the US will offer green cards and evacuation to everyone involved in the chips needed by the US army, if China tries to invade), their economy will plummet when imports drop from sanctions, and also China will be at war, and war is terrible for the economy.
If you're not looking only at poor metrics like the GDP or balance of trade, is it the case when it's not happening on your soil? As long as the natural resources are available, it seems like a good way to recenter the economy on what is actually important for survival.
No, only US writings have suggested TW should blow up their fabs, or threatened that US would. To which TW media has told US chuckle heads to knock it off because they're clearly not going to destroy their golden goose that can lay eggs for PRC or US.
Economic value is also denying US who is even more disproportionately affected by removal of 90% of high end nodes, which are already largely denied to PRC.
I wouldn't expect any TW knowledge workers to be able to leave, the runways are going to be cratered, the ports and coasts saturated with mines and overwatching drones. PRC going to make sure their only future is going to be tied to mainland prosperity.
PRC trade to west bloc in general like 5% of GDP... it's not nothing but it's not substantial. If you told Xi he could renunify with TW in exchange for 5% of GDP, he would have loled and smashed that button yesterday.
War is bad for the economy, but it could be even worse for your adversaries. Imagine if US enters fight and lost, entire geoeconomic order would shift. Entire economic order could also shift if US doesn't fight (i.e. abdicate certain 1IC security commitments).
What is the incentive? If China invades, anyone involved in destroying that asset will have a huge problem for themselves afterwards, China won't forgive. On the other hand, see what happened in Ukraine, where in the initial invasion there was quite a bit of collaboration of some Ukrainians, for example Antonov leadership ("Antonov's leadership sabotaged defense of Hostomel airport" -- https://english.nv.ua/nation/antonov-s-leadership-sabotaged-...).
If they will have to live under China's rule, the incentive for the individuals is to cooperate with them and be richly rewarded for it. Who wants to sacrifice themselves - and likely their families too - to benefit some outsiders? Who are leaving you behind to fight for yourself? Which at that point is against your own interest if you don't think you can win. Especially when the invaders are from one's own greater "tribe", so that it is not as bad as being invaded by another people (like the French or the Americans in Vietnam).
I did not forget this. I think you overestimate what the US can and is willing to do there, and also what the incentives would be for people to escape to the US. This is not Vietnam in the 1970s, staying right there may very well be the preferred choice, even if China takes over. Especially if they make a very nice offer in advance. Should Trump win that may look even worse.
The Americans will want the experience of the operators. If those operators refuse to go to America, they'll be unalived with the plant itself.