|
|
|
|
|
|
by phcordner
1981 days ago
|
|
|
> And in that planning the fact that TSMC’s foundries — and Samsung’s — are within easy reach of Chinese missiles is a major issue. Are processor fabs analagous to auto factories and shipyards in World War II? Is the United States military's plan for a nuclear exchange with China dependent on a steady supply of cutting edge semiconductors? Even if it is, is that strategy really going to help? This article is mostly concerened with Intel's stock price. Why bring this into it? Let's say Intel gets its mojo back and is producing cutting edge silicon at a level to compete with TSMC and supplying the Pentagon with all sorts of goodies... and then China nukes Taiwan? And now we cash in our Intel options just in time to see the flash and be projected as ash particles on a brick wall? "The U.S. needs cutting edge fabs on U.S. soil" is true only if you believe the falied assumptions of the blue team during the Millenium Challenge, that electronic superiority is directly related to battlefield superiority. If semiconductors are the key to winning a war, why hasn't the U.S. won one lately? And what does any of this have to do with Intel? Why are we dreaming up Dr. Strangelove scenarios? Is it just that some people are only comfortable with Keynesian stimulus if it's in the context of war procurement? |
|
|
The world does need some meaningful fabs outside of Taiwan/South Korea. All of the <10nm semiconductor and most of the >10nm semiconductor fabrication takes place within a 750km/460mile radius circle today. That is risky.
Israel, Mexico, Germany, Canada, Japan (not that it would grow the circle much...) are all viable places to run a foundry. The fact that Intel is one of the few outside that circle doesn't inspire confidence in the security of the global supply chain.