ASML and TSMC Can Disable Chip Machines If China Invades Taiwan(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
ASML and TSMC Can Disable Chip Machines If China Invades Taiwan
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-21/asml-tsmc-can-disable-chip-machines-if-china-invades-taiwan
71 comments
Starlink, satellite phone, always online DRM going offline etc etc.
But really PRC more likely to reverse engineer kill switch, unless it's physical.
I'd more more surprised if TSMC engineers oblige to sabatoge, because doing so would turn them from being valuable collaborators with a job who are going to get 10x paperclip raises to becoming unemployed drone targets. All these TW will sabatoge TSMC forget the self interest a involved. These people want to make a living during and after the war. TW as province of China post unification still needs industry to maintain local economy, high end industries to sustain developed country QoL. Even ASML wants continuity in service contracts. That means doing everything to keep TSMC fabs running and relevant. Chances are good none of them will have a chance to make it off the island in a blockade. They're not moving to Arizona, their lot is tied to future prosperity of TW. There's a reason TW officials keep telling western chuckleheads to knock it off with the destroy TSMC talk, because they aren't going to kill their golden goose to spite PRC, because whoever controls the golden goose still has power in a post war world. How does a TWnese semi worker instantly propel themselves from expendable to privileged? By being paperclipped and collaborating with PRC.
But really PRC more likely to reverse engineer kill switch, unless it's physical.
I'd more more surprised if TSMC engineers oblige to sabatoge, because doing so would turn them from being valuable collaborators with a job who are going to get 10x paperclip raises to becoming unemployed drone targets. All these TW will sabatoge TSMC forget the self interest a involved. These people want to make a living during and after the war. TW as province of China post unification still needs industry to maintain local economy, high end industries to sustain developed country QoL. Even ASML wants continuity in service contracts. That means doing everything to keep TSMC fabs running and relevant. Chances are good none of them will have a chance to make it off the island in a blockade. They're not moving to Arizona, their lot is tied to future prosperity of TW. There's a reason TW officials keep telling western chuckleheads to knock it off with the destroy TSMC talk, because they aren't going to kill their golden goose to spite PRC, because whoever controls the golden goose still has power in a post war world. How does a TWnese semi worker instantly propel themselves from expendable to privileged? By being paperclipped and collaborating with PRC.
> I'd more more surprised if TSMC engineers oblige to sabatoge, because doing so would turn them from being valuable collaborators with a job who are going to get 10x paperclip raises to becoming unemployed drone targets.
The world is full of zealots willing to die for a cause.
The world is full of zealots willing to die for a cause.
who’s to say it would be engineer employees responsible for sending (or stopping?) the signal? For all we know it’s the US government with the finger on the button.
> For example, if China decided to launch an action against Taiwan, it would destroy the latter's cellular network, cut all the fiber all the island, etc, and at that point no command is going to reach the machine.
Maybe lack of signal is the signal.
Maybe lack of signal is the signal.
A deadman switch
Well an explosive charge can be communicated with over a detcord. Sometimes practical solutions are best.
I'd argue they(CPP) don't even need to worry about the fabs. Let's face it, if the invasion happened and it wasn't a 3 day military operation, they need to be careful. Even if they somehow managed to basically teleport to Taiwan and take the entire area with little to no resistance, they have to be restrained in the use of force or risk disturbing the entire fab floors. Sure they got seismic protection but who knows how well that will handle nearby energetics going off.
Let's say some act of divine intervention happened, and they take the entire facilities with zero resistance and no one sabotaging the cleanrooms.....they still need to have the know how to use, operate, and export those chips. If the US and EU block chip exports then Afric, Russia, and the middle east will be the only potential customers left. TSMC makes chips not equipment, and they only manufactured the chips. AFAIK they don't actually create the chip design or the photomask etc. Which means TSMC would have a useless supply chain in the CCP hands.
Would it be a major setback, and a global supply chain crisis given chips are in everything.....yes.
But the IP, the trade secrets, Eu and american intelligence has probably already captured any critical assets just in case this were to happen. In fact if this were to happen, I would see America totally profiting off this, which is another reason China dosnt do anything. They know if they take Taiwan and tsmc, America will pump so much money into make US chips that the covid money printing would look like pocket change. It would enable america to capture the production even more, and you just know that the US and other countries would ban semiconductor chemicals and key raw materials that the Chinese need to keep tsmc running. If they capture the ASML machines they probably would not use them to make more chips, it would be a better idea to disassemble every devices inside a fan, recover every document, so they can reverse engineer the technology and not rely on ASML or foreign hardware.
The non credible defense: TSMC has built-in talks of pure HF and anhydrous hydrazine that can instantly douse the entire machines so as to destroy the major details in case they were ever to get captured. Lord knows they got plenty of hazardous chemicals laying around.
Let's say some act of divine intervention happened, and they take the entire facilities with zero resistance and no one sabotaging the cleanrooms.....they still need to have the know how to use, operate, and export those chips. If the US and EU block chip exports then Afric, Russia, and the middle east will be the only potential customers left. TSMC makes chips not equipment, and they only manufactured the chips. AFAIK they don't actually create the chip design or the photomask etc. Which means TSMC would have a useless supply chain in the CCP hands.
Would it be a major setback, and a global supply chain crisis given chips are in everything.....yes.
But the IP, the trade secrets, Eu and american intelligence has probably already captured any critical assets just in case this were to happen. In fact if this were to happen, I would see America totally profiting off this, which is another reason China dosnt do anything. They know if they take Taiwan and tsmc, America will pump so much money into make US chips that the covid money printing would look like pocket change. It would enable america to capture the production even more, and you just know that the US and other countries would ban semiconductor chemicals and key raw materials that the Chinese need to keep tsmc running. If they capture the ASML machines they probably would not use them to make more chips, it would be a better idea to disassemble every devices inside a fan, recover every document, so they can reverse engineer the technology and not rely on ASML or foreign hardware.
The non credible defense: TSMC has built-in talks of pure HF and anhydrous hydrazine that can instantly douse the entire machines so as to destroy the major details in case they were ever to get captured. Lord knows they got plenty of hazardous chemicals laying around.
On my script as a Michael Crichton wannabee, China invades but gets their forces quickly disabled by a super advanced software worm that Taiwan have been developing for years as a precaution.
Chinese forces lay down their arms and the revolt causes the Chinese elite to run. Elections are held in China and it becomes a Democracy.
Taiwan institutes a temporary government and proposes a EU style agreement with China. Xi ends up his day incarcerated, and painting Chinese vases in the same facilities previously used to house Uyghurs...
The US does not intervene because by then is fighting the second Civil War led by Texas...
Chinese forces lay down their arms and the revolt causes the Chinese elite to run. Elections are held in China and it becomes a Democracy.
Taiwan institutes a temporary government and proposes a EU style agreement with China. Xi ends up his day incarcerated, and painting Chinese vases in the same facilities previously used to house Uyghurs...
The US does not intervene because by then is fighting the second Civil War led by Texas...
During the Cultural Revolution, Xi's family was purged and he was sent to a reeducation camp. He even escaped once.
Pretty amazing how he survived that and became the most powerful man in China.
Pretty amazing how he survived that and became the most powerful man in China.
> if China decided to launch an action against Taiwan, it would destroy the latter's cellular network, cut all the fiber all the island, etc, and at that point no command is going to reach the machine
Many good arguments against this have already been made, but I will point out one more: Taiwan has many of their people overseas, working in IT roles. The killswitch could be activated from another place in the world. I'd slip the code into a DNS server.
Many good arguments against this have already been made, but I will point out one more: Taiwan has many of their people overseas, working in IT roles. The killswitch could be activated from another place in the world. I'd slip the code into a DNS server.
> I'm not clear on how this works if the transport over which the kill command is issued is degraded or interrupted.
Perhaps if the system doesn’t receive a signal after a period of time it will disable itself or there are agents sufficiently close to send a signal through jamming, or who have a secret hard line in. If I were ASML, TSMC, the CIA, and definitely Taiwan itself I’d have many layers to this.
Perhaps if the system doesn’t receive a signal after a period of time it will disable itself or there are agents sufficiently close to send a signal through jamming, or who have a secret hard line in. If I were ASML, TSMC, the CIA, and definitely Taiwan itself I’d have many layers to this.
Dead man switch?
Lately I was wondering if it was possible to move the entire population out of China’s neighborhood.
Let them have an empty island and preserve a free society that is an antithesis to their model.
Crazy and unrealistic. I know, I know…
Let them have an empty island and preserve a free society that is an antithesis to their model.
Crazy and unrealistic. I know, I know…
I am sure that I am being very naive, but prior to evacuating the island, why not try some "crazy" stuff to prevent the war?
Why not officially rename the Republic of China (the current official name of Taiwan) to Taiwan, and make a big deal out of giving up any claims on China, so that the CCP saves face when making the practical decision of not invading?
Why not officially rename the Republic of China (the current official name of Taiwan) to Taiwan, and make a big deal out of giving up any claims on China, so that the CCP saves face when making the practical decision of not invading?
Because abandoning the One China Policy would make the PRC much more likely to invade?
Does the government of Taiwan subscribe to the One China Policy? My understanding is that it does not. I would hope that they are the ones with the agency here.
The CCP sees the Taiwanese as rebel separatists, so renaming "Republic of China" to "Republic of Taiwan" would increase, not decrease, the odds of invasion by confirming their propaganda. The CCP wants the island of Taiwan itself; it doesn't care about the ROC's claims on the mainland.
I would very much like that if it works.
Re evacuation: I guess many, many people will be evacuated in case of a war. But people will be dispersed like with the Ukraine refugees.
Re evacuation: I guess many, many people will be evacuated in case of a war. But people will be dispersed like with the Ukraine refugees.
Sad to see more and more country giving up on recognizing Taiwan as a state.
Which empty, Taiwan-sized island did you have in mind?
I know, I know…
But let me dream on: Tasmania could work. It has 500k people and 25k sqm. Taiwan has 25 million people on 36k sqm.
But let me dream on: Tasmania could work. It has 500k people and 25k sqm. Taiwan has 25 million people on 36k sqm.
Tasmania was already the site of the modern Western worlds first genocide - an event which went on to inspire many more attempted genocides by Western powers, including some of the worst we have seen so far.
You want to bring more suffering and misery to that part of the world?
This is imperialist thinking. Please try to understand the harm you are doing to the world by proferring this view, even in jest. The idea that you can just 'take' an island to solve some imperial problem is heinous.
If you can just 'take' Tasmania for the hell of it, why not just 'give' Taiwan to China, and end the issue entirely? (/s) By 'taking' Tasmania, you are behaving no better than the perceived view of China in 'taking' Taiwan.
You want to bring more suffering and misery to that part of the world?
This is imperialist thinking. Please try to understand the harm you are doing to the world by proferring this view, even in jest. The idea that you can just 'take' an island to solve some imperial problem is heinous.
If you can just 'take' Tasmania for the hell of it, why not just 'give' Taiwan to China, and end the issue entirely? (/s) By 'taking' Tasmania, you are behaving no better than the perceived view of China in 'taking' Taiwan.
>Tasmania was already the site of the modern Western worlds first genocide
Why not specify it was the British Empire and instead move the guilt to some vague collective "west", which is a relatively modern concept from the cold war, which didn't exist back then?
Why not specify it was the British Empire and instead move the guilt to some vague collective "west", which is a relatively modern concept from the cold war, which didn't exist back then?
Unlike the current Autocratic regimes, like Putin's Russia, or Xi's China, the "Western Worlds" - whatever that means - don't hide or rewrite their History.
You haven't seen any "Western" leader try to justify Hitler's invasion of Poland, and the start of WW2, by blaming Poland and apologizing for Hitler, like Putin did... conveniently so, perhaps because of the role the USSR played in it? Which Russia likes to omit, you know, their alliance with Nazi Germany.. WW2 started in 1939, not in 1941 as Russia claims. Or maybe because Russia is now using the same false casus beli the Nazis used to invade Poland, so Putin needs to legitimize Hitler's claims and grievances?
Or perhaps China attempts to hide its own atrocities?
So that whole "imperialist thinking" propaganda logic seems very flawed, and more like an excuse the new autocratic regimes are using to expand their borders by force, and be themselves imperialistic.
The good whole "so only you could be imperialistic, and now we can't?! Hypocrisy!!!", disregarding that in their History, they were also imperialistic at some point too.
The world moved on in the meantime, you know, since the founding of the UN and such.
It's much easier to blame the autocracy's shortcomings on the success of others, by framing everything as "Western Imperialism", and the forced expansionism of autocracies as a "multipolar world".
You haven't seen any "Western" leader try to justify Hitler's invasion of Poland, and the start of WW2, by blaming Poland and apologizing for Hitler, like Putin did... conveniently so, perhaps because of the role the USSR played in it? Which Russia likes to omit, you know, their alliance with Nazi Germany.. WW2 started in 1939, not in 1941 as Russia claims. Or maybe because Russia is now using the same false casus beli the Nazis used to invade Poland, so Putin needs to legitimize Hitler's claims and grievances?
Or perhaps China attempts to hide its own atrocities?
So that whole "imperialist thinking" propaganda logic seems very flawed, and more like an excuse the new autocratic regimes are using to expand their borders by force, and be themselves imperialistic.
The good whole "so only you could be imperialistic, and now we can't?! Hypocrisy!!!", disregarding that in their History, they were also imperialistic at some point too.
The world moved on in the meantime, you know, since the founding of the UN and such.
It's much easier to blame the autocracy's shortcomings on the success of others, by framing everything as "Western Imperialism", and the forced expansionism of autocracies as a "multipolar world".
> Unlike the current Autocratic regimes, like Putin's Russia, or Xi's China, the "Western Worlds" - whatever that means - don't hide or rewrite their History.
Sure we do. All the time.
> WW2 started in 1939, not in 1941 as Russia claims.
Or it started in 1931 according to the chinese.
> So that whole "imperialist thinking" propaganda logic seems very flawed, and more like an excuse the new autocratic regimes are using to expand their borders by force, and be themselves imperialistic.
Because the west hasn't expanded by force?
> The world moved on in the meantime, you know, since the founding of the UN and such.
And that's why the western world hasn't invaded dozens of countries since. Right?
> and the forced expansionism of autocracies as a "multipolar world".
So you are defending the unipolar world? The same unipolar world maintained by force?
It's hard to take you seriously when your points defending 'the west' actuals exposes all the evil the west has done.
Sure we do. All the time.
> WW2 started in 1939, not in 1941 as Russia claims.
Or it started in 1931 according to the chinese.
> So that whole "imperialist thinking" propaganda logic seems very flawed, and more like an excuse the new autocratic regimes are using to expand their borders by force, and be themselves imperialistic.
Because the west hasn't expanded by force?
> The world moved on in the meantime, you know, since the founding of the UN and such.
And that's why the western world hasn't invaded dozens of countries since. Right?
> and the forced expansionism of autocracies as a "multipolar world".
So you are defending the unipolar world? The same unipolar world maintained by force?
It's hard to take you seriously when your points defending 'the west' actuals exposes all the evil the west has done.
> Sure we do. All the time.
I gave you a few examples, please do share instances of rewriting the History of the "Western Worlds" - again, whatever that means. But I have a feeling you're soon going to find yourself in a pickle.
> Or it started in 1931 according to the chinese.
Rightfully so, the difference was that the Chinese weren't allies of Japan invading other countries... Like the USSR allied with Nazi Germany, and be an active part on the hostilities and genocide, right? It's like the same thing Germany denied WW2 ever happened.
> Because the west hasn't expanded by force?
When? Where? Who? Tell me a "Western Country" that expanded by Force since the founding of the UN - because, you know, that was kind of the point of it.
> And that's why the western world hasn't invaded dozens of countries since. Right?
Of course it has, or do you think just because of the founding of the UN countries got a green card to commit genocide and invade neighbors? Like Serbia, or Saddam's Iraq?
> So you are defending the unipolar world? The same unipolar world maintained by force?
Where did I say I defend a unipolar world? I'm saying the world is already multipolar - it's like all of a sudden the last 30+ years of global trade, alliances and investments never happened. It's especially funny coming from China, or from Russia who thrived with this multipolar world.
I gave you a few examples, please do share instances of rewriting the History of the "Western Worlds" - again, whatever that means. But I have a feeling you're soon going to find yourself in a pickle.
> Or it started in 1931 according to the chinese.
Rightfully so, the difference was that the Chinese weren't allies of Japan invading other countries... Like the USSR allied with Nazi Germany, and be an active part on the hostilities and genocide, right? It's like the same thing Germany denied WW2 ever happened.
> Because the west hasn't expanded by force?
When? Where? Who? Tell me a "Western Country" that expanded by Force since the founding of the UN - because, you know, that was kind of the point of it.
> And that's why the western world hasn't invaded dozens of countries since. Right?
Of course it has, or do you think just because of the founding of the UN countries got a green card to commit genocide and invade neighbors? Like Serbia, or Saddam's Iraq?
> So you are defending the unipolar world? The same unipolar world maintained by force?
Where did I say I defend a unipolar world? I'm saying the world is already multipolar - it's like all of a sudden the last 30+ years of global trade, alliances and investments never happened. It's especially funny coming from China, or from Russia who thrived with this multipolar world.
> Like the USSR allied with Nazi Germany
Was there another Germany at that time so you have to specify which Germany do you mean? I understand saying South Korea, because there are two.
Was there another Germany at that time so you have to specify which Germany do you mean? I understand saying South Korea, because there are two.
This is very interesting: why are you bothered by me using the Historical name for Nazi Germany[0]?
Would you prefer that I used "German Reich" instead of "Nazi Germany", to be more accurate?
[0](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany)
Would you prefer that I used "German Reich" instead of "Nazi Germany", to be more accurate?
[0](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany)
Just Germany is fine, like every other country. Historical Germany name is Germany or Reich not Nazi Germany. Germany had German soldiers speaking German language, not Nazi soldiers speaking Nazi language.
Ah yes, let's omit the defining factor of Nazi Germany which wasn't the same before WWI - and in case you didn't know - was not the same after WW2.
> Historical Germany name is Germany
Right, there was no such thing Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic, just "Germany"? Right?
Literally, two different countries, which were different from Nazi Germany, which was different from the German Empire. Yet to you, this is all the same.
I'm struggling with where you're trying to get to with this one.
Is it a new propaganda spin? The "Let's ignore History, and how things are called" because you're bothered by Historically referring to Nazi Germany as Nazi Germany? Like the Russian propaganda addressing British People as "Anglo-Saxons"?
I'm assuming your goal is to bring clarity to History, and not confusion right wink wink?
Well unlike you, I agree with the Historical designations, and it's important to bring clarity, so I see no problem in saying: the USSR was an ally of Nazi Germany.
> Historical Germany name is Germany
Right, there was no such thing Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic, just "Germany"? Right?
Literally, two different countries, which were different from Nazi Germany, which was different from the German Empire. Yet to you, this is all the same.
I'm struggling with where you're trying to get to with this one.
Is it a new propaganda spin? The "Let's ignore History, and how things are called" because you're bothered by Historically referring to Nazi Germany as Nazi Germany? Like the Russian propaganda addressing British People as "Anglo-Saxons"?
I'm assuming your goal is to bring clarity to History, and not confusion right wink wink?
Well unlike you, I agree with the Historical designations, and it's important to bring clarity, so I see no problem in saying: the USSR was an ally of Nazi Germany.
Why only Germany has that magical defining factor that you must use?
Why not Japan, Italy, Poland, Czech Republic, plenty of other that were different?
For people in Europe Germany was just Germany, they didn't know the word Nazi exists. It is only after WW2 German government coined a new name for it's country to blame everything that was done during WW2 on that other country.
Why not Japan, Italy, Poland, Czech Republic, plenty of other that were different?
For people in Europe Germany was just Germany, they didn't know the word Nazi exists. It is only after WW2 German government coined a new name for it's country to blame everything that was done during WW2 on that other country.
Could we move Israel there too ? It would solve myriad problems.
There's just the small problem that Tasmania is part of Australia?
Wyoming
There was once a (joke) civil service paper on moving Hong Kong to Northern Ireland (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/03/uk-officials...).
And while you are at it, move Israel to a coastal area of Washington state and Oregon.
There are places in the US that we could move them to.
I would not mind having Taiwan as a neighbor.
I would not mind having Taiwan as a neighbor.
Despite the hostility, the people are still connected.
Heck, have Xi invade that island instead
I’m 41 and have been hoping for over a decade that I can get through my life before a conflict with China. Alas, I don’t think I’m going to be so lucky.
I think western mindsets overemphasizes time. What i could glimpse at chinese strategy from my taiwanese colleagues, they assume it’s more of a 200-500yr plan.
There are lots of Chinese who think that reunification is something that can wait for centuries even though it’s important. However, this raises the question of what the purpose of the current PRC naval buildup is. Some observations.
1. China is no longer so weak or unconnected that PLAN expansion serves to protect its sovereignty from Western intrusion. It would be utterly bonkers for the West to launch a preëmptive or unprovoked attack on China. There is no credible risk of a recurrence of a century of humiliation that is being prevented by the current naval buildup.
2. Current PLAN expansion is useful on a scale of decades rather than centuries. It is doubtful that the same ships will be helpful in two or five hundred years.
3. PLAN expansion is part of a broader more hawkish strategy (also in Hong Kong) that makes much more sense on the scale of decades rather than centuries. Taiwan was on a very slow path to HKSAR-like status in the 90s, and both HK and Taiwanese separatism are fundamentally reactionary phenomena that would not have gained significant traction but for fears of an /illiberal/ China. Peaceful economic integration and close people-to-people ties would have been far more effective on the scale of centuries—the problem is that one has to wait.
4. The strategic advantage PLAN expansion confers is plausibly time-limited. The PLAN is building ships far faster than everybody /right now/. That advantage may well diminish soon, depending on US/Aukus/Japanese politics.
5. Demographic factors (on the scale of decades) will soon pose a problem.
Given this combination of factors, there is a period in the next decade or two that will plausibly mark the best opportunity for decisive action to take Taiwan for perhaps the next century, and the zhongnanhai clearly wants to make the most of it. It doesn’t follow that invasion is guaranteed, but it seems a fairly safe inference that the zhongnanhai wants invasion on the table.
1. China is no longer so weak or unconnected that PLAN expansion serves to protect its sovereignty from Western intrusion. It would be utterly bonkers for the West to launch a preëmptive or unprovoked attack on China. There is no credible risk of a recurrence of a century of humiliation that is being prevented by the current naval buildup.
2. Current PLAN expansion is useful on a scale of decades rather than centuries. It is doubtful that the same ships will be helpful in two or five hundred years.
3. PLAN expansion is part of a broader more hawkish strategy (also in Hong Kong) that makes much more sense on the scale of decades rather than centuries. Taiwan was on a very slow path to HKSAR-like status in the 90s, and both HK and Taiwanese separatism are fundamentally reactionary phenomena that would not have gained significant traction but for fears of an /illiberal/ China. Peaceful economic integration and close people-to-people ties would have been far more effective on the scale of centuries—the problem is that one has to wait.
4. The strategic advantage PLAN expansion confers is plausibly time-limited. The PLAN is building ships far faster than everybody /right now/. That advantage may well diminish soon, depending on US/Aukus/Japanese politics.
5. Demographic factors (on the scale of decades) will soon pose a problem.
Given this combination of factors, there is a period in the next decade or two that will plausibly mark the best opportunity for decisive action to take Taiwan for perhaps the next century, and the zhongnanhai clearly wants to make the most of it. It doesn’t follow that invasion is guaranteed, but it seems a fairly safe inference that the zhongnanhai wants invasion on the table.
Its essential for the Chinese to have a strong navy because they depend on imports of food and energy. What happens when country X blocks the Persian Gulf or the Malacca strait? China needs the ability to unilaterally restore maritime trade. Until they can do that they will lose even a war with Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia, anybody.
In various speeches, Xi has made reunifying with Taiwan by 2049 (IIRC) a reflection of the legitimacy of the CCP. They can't wait centuries and continue to rule China (unless there is a lot of re-writing the past, which is certainly possible).
Hypothetically if the machines were not rendered inoperable - either physically or by a remote 'kill switch' how self-sufficient could an operator be without support of ASML or TSMC personnel?
I've been wondering the same about arms exports for a while. Why wouldn't exported arms all have a killswitch?
Things like airplanes require a steady supply of spare parts, so they effectively already do. (It just takes a while to kick in.)
But, yeah, I’ve wondered that too, especially for advanced armaments.
But, yeah, I’ve wondered that too, especially for advanced armaments.
part of the issue is how you communicate with the weapons. a lot of jamming happens in a warzone. high tech weapons would be easily jammed by the enemy, and low tech weapons would get hacked by the former friend.
Dead man interlocks should work reasonably well, assuming the computer is tamper resistant. (It would need to see a “still OK to use” code every N days”, or disable itself.)
Would those machines even survive?
Only if Taiwans government surrenders without a fight. Which seems unlikely.
This isn’t a problem worth worrying about. Hell, given how easily it’d be to detect preparations for an invasion with any chance of success I don’t think worrying about an invasion at all is worth it.
A blockade could be worth worrying about though. The people I know in Taiwan don’t worry much about an invasion, but some of them worry about a blockade. If China can pull that off they could perhaps make Taiwans government give up without a fight. Taiwan depends on imports for food.
Then again I suspect USA would call Chinas bluff and break the blockade by escorting critical shipments to/from the island.
This isn’t a problem worth worrying about. Hell, given how easily it’d be to detect preparations for an invasion with any chance of success I don’t think worrying about an invasion at all is worth it.
A blockade could be worth worrying about though. The people I know in Taiwan don’t worry much about an invasion, but some of them worry about a blockade. If China can pull that off they could perhaps make Taiwans government give up without a fight. Taiwan depends on imports for food.
Then again I suspect USA would call Chinas bluff and break the blockade by escorting critical shipments to/from the island.
> If China can pull that off they could perhaps make Taiwans government give up without a fight
Then what purpose does Taiwan have for arming up? What purpose does Taiwan have for needing to lean towards Japan and the West? It removes China as a threat and changes the entire political dynamics in Taiwan with really minimal change for China. If anything, it may be a big step towards normalizing relations between China and the West.
Taiwan and the surrounding waters is not so rich in resources that conquering it makes a material difference to China -- it's a tiny island with just 20 million people. Destroying Taiwan's infrastructure destroys Taiwan's value from a technological perspective. Simply normalizing relations with Taiwan would seemingly offer China much greater gains by taking away this point of conflict; there is very little for China to lose and a lot to gain by simply letting Taiwan go.
> there is very little for China to lose and a lot to gain by simply letting Taiwan go.
The thing about autocracies is that they fight every day to remain in power - they're very hollow things, that need to clamp down on their own people. Even if people seem fine with it, things can go sideways quickly.
Now imagine having a thriving democracy right next to them, where people have the perks of freedom that comes with democratic values.
That's what this is all about. The same in Ukraine - imagine seeing another former Soviet country, Ukrainians thrive as a democracy aligned with the EU - which by the way is an ethnic group many Russians see as inferior (addressing them by "ethnophobic" terms, like they did with Chechens). It's a threat to the regime.
These are the claims of autocracies, everyone around them must be less than them in comparison, else people will start to get agitated and might they are better off with democracies.
The thing about autocracies is that they fight every day to remain in power - they're very hollow things, that need to clamp down on their own people. Even if people seem fine with it, things can go sideways quickly.
Now imagine having a thriving democracy right next to them, where people have the perks of freedom that comes with democratic values.
That's what this is all about. The same in Ukraine - imagine seeing another former Soviet country, Ukrainians thrive as a democracy aligned with the EU - which by the way is an ethnic group many Russians see as inferior (addressing them by "ethnophobic" terms, like they did with Chechens). It's a threat to the regime.
These are the claims of autocracies, everyone around them must be less than them in comparison, else people will start to get agitated and might they are better off with democracies.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40427620 brings an excellent counterpoint to your post - why won't Taiwan itself drop the unrealistic claims on all of China?
Let's be real here: no one thinks that Taiwan is in any capacity to invade and take China.
The BBC had an interview with Tsai Ing Wen that I think that offers a really good perspective on how Taiwan sees itself on the world stage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9d_S_K5X_k
The BBC had an interview with Tsai Ing Wen that I think that offers a really good perspective on how Taiwan sees itself on the world stage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9d_S_K5X_k
Taiwan doesn’t fully drop the legal pretence of being China because the /mainland authorities/ would complain. Otherwise, they would do it immediately.
(Compare the CPG’s vetoing of democratisation in Hong Kong prior to in the 50s and 60s.)
(Compare the CPG’s vetoing of democratisation in Hong Kong prior to in the 50s and 60s.)
the Republic of China in Taiwan is the legitimate government of the country west of Taiwan.
Even forgetting context behind reunification, PRC accepting US has forever military presence in East Asia is not easy, it's impossible. Medium/long term, the only way to pacify region for PRC is to unify with TW _AND_ kick US military out of east Asia, that includes JP/SKR/PH. TW is just another link in US security architecture preventing PRC regional hegemony, as long as that exist there will always be friction. PRC not interested in normalized relations with US under those circumstances anyway. Don't forget TW was/is explicitly used to contain PRC, it's threat by proximity throughout history = it has has lost privelege to even be non-aligned in the future. As long as there's US military hardware in region, kicking US out of East Asia makes a material difference, and TW as unending civil war that PRC has legal right to restart at anytime is as legitimate freebie cassus belli as PRC will have to try to dislodge US presence in the region. Accepting US has forever military presence in East Asia is not easy, it's impossible. It's not about how little to loose, but how much to gain.
> PRC accepting US has forever military presence in East Asia is not easy
I have cousins that moved to China and married Chinese citizens because that's where the the opportunity and money is. If China wanted to garner allies in SE and east Asia, it's actually easy: be a better ally than the US rather than be a bully.
The fact that Japan and SK exist as a democracies right next to China means that a fully free Taiwan isn't a threat at all. China changing their stance on Taiwan would quite dramatically shift the political dynamics with virtually no sacrifice on their end.
PRC historically did out of inability, but now actively developing military so eventually they won't have to concede to status quo contrary to their interests.
US IndoPac presence is massive and increasing. Largest theater in terms of deployed US military in recent times. Currently US bases in region used to deploy US ELINT up to territorial waters of PRC. THAAD in SKR gathering info on PRC MIC. This kind of behaviour was worse when PRC had basically 0 military capabilities, infact US/ROC "aggression" even worse when PRC incapable, ROC had port closure / blockade policy on PRC shores for decades, US used ROC based blackcat squadron to fly U2s into PRC territory. This is what happened when PRC was largely harmless.
Historically, US+ROC has always caused friction for PRC, regardless of what PRC was doing/could do. The entire US post war security architecture in region was deliberately created largely for PRC containment. Hence PLA build up with long term goal of driving US out. And one day PRC will likely fight for it, because war is going to be ultimately preferrable / easier than to normalize / "accept" relations with current levels of US presence/influence in region, which has been sufficiently antagonistic for PRC interest historically that it's not long term sustainable. US could either abdicate influence voluntarily (unlikely) or PRC can fight for it, because traditionally that's how outside hegemons gets displaced. There's no reason for PRC to concede to US dictating terms in region if she doesn't have to.
>If China wanted to garner allies
IMO PRC does not want allies. PRC wants regional hegemony. PRC wants to kick US out. Possibly punish JP/SKR into Cuba for choosing to align with US in TW scenario, it gets to dictate more terms in region by default. ASEAN gets to hedge right now with SKR offshoring, JP infra investments until they don't, after which hedging stops. SKR/JP in PRC hegemony universe will acquiesce to PRC interests if they want to avoid Cuba treatment. Let's not forget US didn't exactly "garner" allies, it made them by military intervention in those countries and spending generations purging anti US influence and cultivating pro US influence. Trying to peacefully win over region is a suckers game. The hegemon racket isn't to compete for influence, but to eliminate competitors, and reeducate populations so they align with hegemon interests over multi generational time scale. TBF, historically war IS the easy option to mold regional geopolitics. Maybe the only option left, can't alliance via marriages, and any PRC softpower efforts on democracies will just be met with foreign influence accusations by western propaganda, which has weight because US hardpower allows her softpower to flourish in region.
>virtually no sacrifice
This presumes long term PRC is also fine with US aligned JP/SKR in region. PRC's not. SKR/JP/PH can exist as democracies in post US Indopac world, the system doesn't really matter. Democracies may even be preferrable since it's easier to elite capture, see how compromised KMT was. Just like how US fine with MENA autocrats as long as they buy into US order for region, and operate US military hardware. Region can do whatever they want, as long as they don't support US security architecture explicitly contrary to PRC interests. Note recent (and reoccuring) joke of TW legislature boxing match. Entire narrative PRC threatened by neighbouring east asian democracy is western wank. PRC simply wants US military out of region, it does not want to settle in a framework where US can limit PRC ambitions in her backyard. To accept so is to accept PRC should be subject to US whims, it is sacrificing EVERYTHING. It's not about PRC can't coexist with democracies, PRC can't coexist with US in her backyard. PRC can't coexist with US postwar vision for East Asia designed to limit PRC, which also means PRC can't coexist with independant TW. Those historically aligned with US to contain PRC are still ongoing threats and can't be accomodated long term. TLDR is there's too much tainted history for US security in region for PRC to settle. It's simply not in their self interest. Hence IMO "easier" / "better" to eventually fight to reset regional order and reapportion long term spoils. Which of course is going to be terrible, but increasingly likely.
US IndoPac presence is massive and increasing. Largest theater in terms of deployed US military in recent times. Currently US bases in region used to deploy US ELINT up to territorial waters of PRC. THAAD in SKR gathering info on PRC MIC. This kind of behaviour was worse when PRC had basically 0 military capabilities, infact US/ROC "aggression" even worse when PRC incapable, ROC had port closure / blockade policy on PRC shores for decades, US used ROC based blackcat squadron to fly U2s into PRC territory. This is what happened when PRC was largely harmless.
Historically, US+ROC has always caused friction for PRC, regardless of what PRC was doing/could do. The entire US post war security architecture in region was deliberately created largely for PRC containment. Hence PLA build up with long term goal of driving US out. And one day PRC will likely fight for it, because war is going to be ultimately preferrable / easier than to normalize / "accept" relations with current levels of US presence/influence in region, which has been sufficiently antagonistic for PRC interest historically that it's not long term sustainable. US could either abdicate influence voluntarily (unlikely) or PRC can fight for it, because traditionally that's how outside hegemons gets displaced. There's no reason for PRC to concede to US dictating terms in region if she doesn't have to.
>If China wanted to garner allies
IMO PRC does not want allies. PRC wants regional hegemony. PRC wants to kick US out. Possibly punish JP/SKR into Cuba for choosing to align with US in TW scenario, it gets to dictate more terms in region by default. ASEAN gets to hedge right now with SKR offshoring, JP infra investments until they don't, after which hedging stops. SKR/JP in PRC hegemony universe will acquiesce to PRC interests if they want to avoid Cuba treatment. Let's not forget US didn't exactly "garner" allies, it made them by military intervention in those countries and spending generations purging anti US influence and cultivating pro US influence. Trying to peacefully win over region is a suckers game. The hegemon racket isn't to compete for influence, but to eliminate competitors, and reeducate populations so they align with hegemon interests over multi generational time scale. TBF, historically war IS the easy option to mold regional geopolitics. Maybe the only option left, can't alliance via marriages, and any PRC softpower efforts on democracies will just be met with foreign influence accusations by western propaganda, which has weight because US hardpower allows her softpower to flourish in region.
>virtually no sacrifice
This presumes long term PRC is also fine with US aligned JP/SKR in region. PRC's not. SKR/JP/PH can exist as democracies in post US Indopac world, the system doesn't really matter. Democracies may even be preferrable since it's easier to elite capture, see how compromised KMT was. Just like how US fine with MENA autocrats as long as they buy into US order for region, and operate US military hardware. Region can do whatever they want, as long as they don't support US security architecture explicitly contrary to PRC interests. Note recent (and reoccuring) joke of TW legislature boxing match. Entire narrative PRC threatened by neighbouring east asian democracy is western wank. PRC simply wants US military out of region, it does not want to settle in a framework where US can limit PRC ambitions in her backyard. To accept so is to accept PRC should be subject to US whims, it is sacrificing EVERYTHING. It's not about PRC can't coexist with democracies, PRC can't coexist with US in her backyard. PRC can't coexist with US postwar vision for East Asia designed to limit PRC, which also means PRC can't coexist with independant TW. Those historically aligned with US to contain PRC are still ongoing threats and can't be accomodated long term. TLDR is there's too much tainted history for US security in region for PRC to settle. It's simply not in their self interest. Hence IMO "easier" / "better" to eventually fight to reset regional order and reapportion long term spoils. Which of course is going to be terrible, but increasingly likely.
> IMO PRC does not want allies.
Whether they are formal "allies" or not, being on good terms with an important economic partner like Japan and the US is in the best interest of China.
PRC doesn't need to conquer Japan, it can cripple it same way US did Cuba for going against regional hegemon interest. Remember Operation Starvation in WW2 that crippled JP as a viable country was US bombers based from Chinese mainland. Today is PRC has magnitude more theatre strike fire power to turn Japan into Cuba/Yemen/Gaza than US vs JP in WW2. Ask why aren't US and Cuba allies, because US would rather have Cuba as an example. Why are US and Canada allies, because US kicked British Empire hegemony out of North America for trying to wield British Canada to contain US, so much so that US tried to annex Canada twice. It wasn't until Canada, a fundmentally anti-America project fully made herself subservient to US foreign policy that "good" relations and even alliance is possible. Those are the increasingly likely options options for US partners around PRC, be PRC's Cuba, or PRC's Canada.
>Japan and the US is in the best interest of China
Why not flip that, why isn't JP and US being on good terms with PRC, with closing military gap, in their best interest? They're the ones contemplating meddling in an ongoing Chinese civil war, one that they've kept frozen for last 70 years. They clearly don't have PRC interests in mind. It's a little absurd to think it's on PRC to make nice on their terms that's premised on violating on PRC sovereignty.
The economic reality is JP and US are not "important" trading partners in the sense that PRC isn't trade dependant anymore, PRC exports to entire western bloc is ~10% of GDP. US/JP also relatively low export GDP. The reason WHY war is likely between these powers is because they are some of the least trade dependent large powers, for reference SKR export GDP is 40%, TW is like 60%. PRC/US/JP mutual trade is A LOT in absolute terms due to sheer size of economies, but is still single digit percentage of GDP with ongoing decoupling in strategic sectors. It's not worth concessions on important sovereignty issues.
>Japan and the US is in the best interest of China
Why not flip that, why isn't JP and US being on good terms with PRC, with closing military gap, in their best interest? They're the ones contemplating meddling in an ongoing Chinese civil war, one that they've kept frozen for last 70 years. They clearly don't have PRC interests in mind. It's a little absurd to think it's on PRC to make nice on their terms that's premised on violating on PRC sovereignty.
The economic reality is JP and US are not "important" trading partners in the sense that PRC isn't trade dependant anymore, PRC exports to entire western bloc is ~10% of GDP. US/JP also relatively low export GDP. The reason WHY war is likely between these powers is because they are some of the least trade dependent large powers, for reference SKR export GDP is 40%, TW is like 60%. PRC/US/JP mutual trade is A LOT in absolute terms due to sheer size of economies, but is still single digit percentage of GDP with ongoing decoupling in strategic sectors. It's not worth concessions on important sovereignty issues.
And then the rest of the "technologically-advanced" world would slowly crumble anyway.
There’s a typo here. The “if” word should be written “when”.
For example, if China decided to launch an action against Taiwan, it would destroy the latter's cellular network, cut all the fiber all the island, etc, and at that point no command is going to reach the machine.
There is also the fact that should China actually invade (gulp) they would, presumably, send a crack team of engineers, accompanied by soldiers, to these fabs to extract whatever tech they needed before the inevitable response from Taiwan and its allies. If (and this is speculation, of course) these machines are so exotic that even Huawei's brightest people cant reproduce them in house, and that they would be a game changer for China's military capability, then it would be worth a raid during the initial invasion attack even if the overall invasion is repulsed. Then they can pick apart the machine in their own time. Of course, a lot of people would die, but military planners might ignore that.
I rather suspect that this story is a kind of gentle psyop to the hawks inside China to remind them not to bother attacking Taiwan because what they think theyll get isnt what theyll get.