[fn-mote]

> how could the US possibly dislodge them without destroying the thing they want to protect?

I would instead assert that it is very likely that the US would destroy the fabs rather than allow China to gain control of them through an act of aggression.

The doctrine of mutually assured destruction has been around a long time. The international players are familiar with it.

[criley2]

I highly doubt it. Taiwan would destroy their own fabs before someone else did. But that's likely unnecessary, China would be unable to operate the fabs anyway and they've already stolen the relevant information and are trying to recreate it. TSMC would get their experts out of the country and their trade partners would simply stop supplying the vital materials.

And mututally assured destruction has nothing to do with the US destroying an industry in Taiwan. MAD specifically refers to the idea that superpowers cannot engage in nuclear war against one another without also being destroyed themselves, because of a Nuclear Triad.

For "Mutually Assured Destruction" to be in anyway applicable, you'd have to say that the second that the US destroyed "Chinese" fabs (Taiwan), China would destroy American fabs. Thus, the US would not attack China without risking itself. The US making targeted strikes on Taiwan is one sided destruction. But to be clear: MAD doctrine is specifically about fullscale thermonuclear war.

[almosthere]

Yeah I think everyone understood that analogy you spelled out w/respect to MAD.

[criley2]

China would not engage in nuclear escalation in response to the US striking Taiwan, and China does not otherwise possess the ability to strike the US homeland without incurring a nuclear response, so there is no mutually assured destruction with regards to semiconductor industry. In this hypothetical, the US would succeed in striking Taiwan and China would not escalate into nuclear war. But, the US would not strike Taiwan. Taiwan would destroy their own industry before that happened.

[kashunstva]

> The international players are familiar with it.

The current U.S. leadership is so chaotic and seemingly uninvolved in strategy that predictions about whether/how MAD would play out are difficult to make.

[dumbfounder]

An unpredictable enemy is way scarier than a predictable one.

[9cb14c1ec0]

This is Trump's precise strategy. He's even said so in so many words.

[ta20240528]

But he is predictable, so predicable in fact that they gave it a name: TACO.