[ebruchez]

I am not sure if it is worth answering but here it goes anyway:

1. Taiwan is not China, any more than Ukraine is Russia, except if you believe all the propaganda coming from the mainland (or Russia). Ask any Taiwanese, and while many consider and appreciate a solid Chinese cultural heritage, they consider themselves independent and want nothing to do with China (except business). Newer generations of Taiwanese are even more independently-minded and consider themselves even more Taiwanese than the previous generations.

2. Even if for some reason you truly think that it is the same country or should be the same country, it is immoral to wish that a peaceful, independent, democratic, and open society like Taiwan's should be brutally attacked and absorbed by a war-mongering, authoritarian/dictatorial, opaque country. (Things could be different if mainland China was democratic, but it isn't, and won't be for a long time.)

3. Even if for some reason you are ok with the above, odds are that the difficulty and complexity of an attack on Taiwan would end up being extraordinarily costly for China (and Taiwan of course). It could lead to all sorts of escalations in the region, sanctions, the collapse of trade with China from the US and other countries, nuclear proliferation (see Ukraine considering developing nuclear weapons if they don't get security guarantees), and who knows what else.

[yieldcrv]

I’m aware, both entities have claims to the whole mainland and still have China in their name, and are branches from the same common ancestor in dispute

both entities would have territorial disputes with other neighboring regions, that we don't agree with, since we care about those region’s self determination too

some parts of the ROC have dropped claims to the mainland

and its all so hilarious that it reminds me how we, the US, shouldn't be involved, and wont be after the semiconductor problem is hedged

[ebruchez]

There is absolutely nothing hilarious about any aspect of it whatsoever. We are talking about peace, justice, human freedom and suffering - all values on which the US was founded, by the way.

Whether the US should be involved or not is a valid question: moral, practical, diplomatic. A very recent parallel is that of the war in Ukraine: should the US be involved and be isolationist, or not? I for one think that a more than fair case can be made that holding the moral high ground will also, coincidentally, lead to more stability and more economic rewards. So it's a no-brainer and I don't share your isolationist view.

You should, incidentally, remember that US support for Taiwan goes back to a time when Taiwan didn't even have a semiconductor industry. It's unclear that US support would cease entirely if the US was fully independent in that industry, and it's also unclear whether that will happen in any short-term horizon, or at all.

[yieldcrv]

Ukraine is one of our selective conflicts, partially responded to in order to continue deterring China from invading China

Do you even realize that there are many other conflicts that also involve American values that we aren’t involved in?

Its hard to tell. Its a very selective morality as I already mentioned.

Regarding conflicts you care about subsidizing, there are 185 other countries that could as well. Go ask them and see how absurd it sounds, because the same standard actually applies to the US, you just aren't willing to see that.

And yes, the China situation is a mockery of the nation state concept and is hilarious to me and many others. What is happening in the east should be ignored until a nation state concept emerges that we can relate to.

Let me rephrase: thats whats going to happen after the semiconductor situation is hedged. Everyone knows it, TSMC knows it. Thats why TSMC drags its feet with many excuses about talent because they need to delay as well, for the current personnel’s entire lifespan to be honest.

[squillion]

> Taiwan is not China

Taiwan might be considered a de facto independent country, but according to most institutions it's officially part of China.

1. Taiwan's official name is Republic of China (ROC): it regards itself as part of China, and the sole legitimate seat of China's government. It's true however that "it has not formally renounced its claim to the mainland, but ROC government publications have increasingly downplayed this historical claim". [1]

2. In 1971, the UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 "recognized the People's Republic of China (PRC) as 'the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations'". [2]

3. Only 11 (tiny) countries officially recognize Taiwan as an independent country, i.e. maintain full diplomatic relations. [3]

4. The U.S. official position is that "The United States has a longstanding one China policy", and "we not support Taiwan independence". [4]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan#Foreign_relations_and_i... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Taiwan#Fu... [4] https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-taiwan/

[ceejayoz]

> Taiwan's official name is Republic of China (ROC)

Do you believe North Korea to be a democratic republic?

[ebruchez]

There are several aspects that come into play:

1. How the PRC (mainland China) regards Taiwan (or ROC).

2. How Taiwan regards itself. This has changed over time.

3. How third-parties play that situation.

Since Nixon's visit to China in the 1970s, the world recognized that it was pointless to deny that the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) ruled mainland China for good. From there, the PRC progressively got official recognition in institutions like the UN. In order not to inflame the PRC's leadership and keep access to mainland China, many countries state that they do not recognize or encourage Taiwan's independence. But note that they also maintain de facto diplomatic relationships, being careful not to use the name "embassy" or "consulate".

In reality, Taiwan has been absolutely independent since the 1950s. It's just that it's not officially recognized by most institutions and countries for diplomatic reasons.

I'll add that the "one China policy" is ambiguous by design. It doesn't mean that it must happen in the foreseeable future. It also doesn't mean that the PRC should be allowed to take over Taiwan through military might.

In the end, no matter what the various parties' policies are, almost nobody in Taiwan at this point believes that a peaceful so-called "reunification" is desirable or possible. I put the word "reunification" in quotes in particular because the CCP never controlled Taiwan, and also because in general the historical argument doesn't make any sense. Personally, I think that the principle of self-determination is what should apply here, for moral reasons. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

[squillion]

What you say is true, and I agree on self-determination in the abstract. But I simply can't believe the U.S. is in Taiwan to defend its people, rather than contain and weaken mainland China. The U.S. has demonstrated time and again it will gladly throw an ally under the bus in order to weaken an adversary ("it may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal"). To go back to the OP, moving TSMC to the U.S. looks a lot like preparation for scorched earth in Taiwan. [1]

[1] https://asiatimes.com/2022/12/us-mulls-scorched-earth-strate...

[ThinkBeat]

I presume you are aware that Taiwan is in fact occupied by China now?

The Chinese who ran from the communist revolution, invaded Taiwan, setup their own military dictatorship, and they were extremely brutal to the natives Taiwanese. (Sadly this has been their lot through several occupations by different entities.)

During more recently history they have been polishing more democratic values and life for the natives has improved.

But for Taiwan to be free, in any proper sense, the Chinese occupiers must leave.

[ebruchez]

Saying "Taiwan is in fact occupied by China" is at best a gross misrepresentation. It's like saying "North America is in fact occupied by Europe now [...] for North America to be free, in any proper sense, the European occupiers must leave." Well, maybe, from a certain point of view? But kind of pointless in terms of a realistic path forward.

We are not talking about remaking history here. We are talking about the present and the future of Taiwan. Its population and culture are what they are now.

Chiang Kai-shek's move to Taiwan and subsequent rule was indeed at times brutal, and the immigration massive in relative terms. But that move took place in the 1950s, and since that time amends have been made. You will see monuments and remembrance days related to those events. Taiwan is now a thriving (if at times feisty) democracy where minorities are protected.

During my last trip to Taiwan, I revisited the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall.[1] What struck me is the museum underneath. Here, for all to contemplate, is a documentation of Chiang Kai-shek's life and rule. The striking part is that the errors and brutality of his rule are also well-documented and preserved, officially accessible to all. Try to find anything like this kind of recognition of past mistakes in mainland China (hint: you won't find it).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Kai-shek_Memorial_Hall

[ThinkBeat]

Ok so China invaded Taiwan in 1949.

Per your argument this is so far in the past that the invasion and occupation doesnt matter anymore To the winner goes the spols right. The rights of the natives are well past their sell buy date.

How many years do you count from an occupation begins until it does not matter anymore how or what the nation was has no meaning anymore?

20 years? 40 years?

Do you care to then apply your time of expiration of a nation and its peoples to other conflicts we have had have had in the world?

Or is Taiwan a special case?