Well, look at what happened when Hyundai sent their staff over to get a factory that the US wanted built. (My understanding is that they were bending the rules of short term visas because the correct visas were simply not allocated to South Korea in the number required and there was somewhat of a blind eye turned in the past in the interest of getting anything done ever.)
If I were at TSMC, I would not trust that the correct visas would be available in a timely manner to complete the project and also that any staff sent over there might get scooped up by ICE and sorted out later.
Whole Budapest Memorandum and subsequent unwillingness to act as signed sealed the deal to never give up nuclear weapons for nations which got them and also opened other nations to finding a way how to make or get control over their own nuclear weapons - like Poland, Japan or Germany.
Only the threat of glassing a capital city of an aggressor will keep an aggressor at bay.
It is a shame, that thought started in my mind with the invasion of Crimea. France came out looking pretty smart for their policy of entirely homegrown nuclear programs.
NATO membership would not matter much, because the geographic scope of NATO is limited. For example, if someone invaded Hawaii or French Guiana, or if Morocco tried to annex Ceuta, it would not be an attack against NATO.
The limitation was intentional. Many of the founding members were failing colonial empires, and nobody wanted to be drawn into someone else's colonial wars.
>>if it wants ensured protection against a threatened Chinese invasion
If the promised 'ensured protection' of Taiwan was worth anything then why is the security of the United States dependent upon 50% of chip production being moved out of Taiwan?
Sounds more likely Taiwan's 'ensured protection' will only last as long as 90% of chip production remains in Taiwan.
In the 20th century, opposition to totalitarianism in the West was idealistic; in the US it's now transactional. US leadership is signalling Chinese annexation of Taiwan is no longer a red line; it's something to be negotiated—something that Taiwan is expected to negotiate with the US (and perhaps Xi is also invited to negotiate?)
Trump is transactional. We just just transactional now as a country because Trump is calling all the shots while Congress and the courts are mostly ineffective in doing anything about that.
It’s very literally the only thing providing them protection in the first place. They have something the US can not lose and can not replace.
What on earth do you think is going to happen when you suddenly help them not rely on your infrastructure anymore.
There is no way in hell you could ever trust Trump to pick up the phone if you needed help. This is blackmail from a position of weakness from the US here.
Yes, the "or else" appears to be we will leave you at the mercy of China and potentially loose 100% of the chips which are so important to us. Is this just political theatre for home consumption?
They seem to believe Intel is a drop-in domestic replacement for TSMC, or can be made so with enough money injected. This would hand the only place actually capable of making these advanced chips today directly to China.
It's ridiculous to have to put up with this childish nonsense. This would take a decade, if both countries were pouring money and effort into the project. There's no incentives (other than the perceived existential one, where-in the US also loses all access) and the economics don't work. But we are subject constantly to the barrage of fantasy being put on by the nowadays US Government.
The commitment to not doing the right-thing unless you can coopt other people into doing incredibly harmful to themselves things feels like it's giving enormous quarter to the enemy, to the authoritarians of the world. Having an excuse for not doing the right thing, for cry-bullying your way through your inaction, is such a Demon-Haunting move. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45404373
I feel that it would be moronic for them to move any. What incentive does USA have to protect them otherwise?
They just need to say “American not smart enough” lol
Reminds me of Ukraine and the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances from the 90s, where they gave up their nukes for assurances of protection…
Has the US government has gotten more trustworthy in the last 3 decades?
Well, look at what happened when Hyundai sent their staff over to get a factory that the US wanted built. (My understanding is that they were bending the rules of short term visas because the correct visas were simply not allocated to South Korea in the number required and there was somewhat of a blind eye turned in the past in the interest of getting anything done ever.)
If I were at TSMC, I would not trust that the correct visas would be available in a timely manner to complete the project and also that any staff sent over there might get scooped up by ICE and sorted out later.
Whole Budapest Memorandum and subsequent unwillingness to act as signed sealed the deal to never give up nuclear weapons for nations which got them and also opened other nations to finding a way how to make or get control over their own nuclear weapons - like Poland, Japan or Germany.
Only the threat of glassing a capital city of an aggressor will keep an aggressor at bay.
It is a shame, that thought started in my mind with the invasion of Crimea. France came out looking pretty smart for their policy of entirely homegrown nuclear programs.
The only just move is for the US and European countries to recognize Taiwan and add them to NATO - or invite them to be a US state.
NATO membership would not matter much, because the geographic scope of NATO is limited. For example, if someone invaded Hawaii or French Guiana, or if Morocco tried to annex Ceuta, it would not be an attack against NATO.
The limitation was intentional. Many of the founding members were failing colonial empires, and nobody wanted to be drawn into someone else's colonial wars.
They would be well advised to take this deal... in exchange for NATO membership and recognition.
>>if it wants ensured protection against a threatened Chinese invasion
If the promised 'ensured protection' of Taiwan was worth anything then why is the security of the United States dependent upon 50% of chip production being moved out of Taiwan?
Sounds more likely Taiwan's 'ensured protection' will only last as long as 90% of chip production remains in Taiwan.
I feel this WSJ exclusive properly contextualizes the US commerce secretary's threat to abandon an ally:
https://www.wsj.com/world/china/trump-xi-talks-china-taiwan-... ("Xi Is Chasing Huge Concession From Trump: Opposing Taiwan Independence" (2 days ago))
In the 20th century, opposition to totalitarianism in the West was idealistic; in the US it's now transactional. US leadership is signalling Chinese annexation of Taiwan is no longer a red line; it's something to be negotiated—something that Taiwan is expected to negotiate with the US (and perhaps Xi is also invited to negotiate?)
Trump is transactional. We just just transactional now as a country because Trump is calling all the shots while Congress and the courts are mostly ineffective in doing anything about that.
It’s very literally the only thing providing them protection in the first place. They have something the US can not lose and can not replace.
What on earth do you think is going to happen when you suddenly help them not rely on your infrastructure anymore.
There is no way in hell you could ever trust Trump to pick up the phone if you needed help. This is blackmail from a position of weakness from the US here.
Yes, the "or else" appears to be we will leave you at the mercy of China and potentially loose 100% of the chips which are so important to us. Is this just political theatre for home consumption?
They seem to believe Intel is a drop-in domestic replacement for TSMC, or can be made so with enough money injected. This would hand the only place actually capable of making these advanced chips today directly to China.
It is amazing the article fails to point out, but perhaps not so in the current climate of fear.
It's ridiculous to have to put up with this childish nonsense. This would take a decade, if both countries were pouring money and effort into the project. There's no incentives (other than the perceived existential one, where-in the US also loses all access) and the economics don't work. But we are subject constantly to the barrage of fantasy being put on by the nowadays US Government.
This feels only slightly more probable than Trump getting the EU to tariff China at our level (https://www.axios.com/2025/09/13/trump-sanctions-russia-nato...), join the US in economic suicide (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/29/business/trump-tariffs-sm...).
The commitment to not doing the right-thing unless you can coopt other people into doing incredibly harmful to themselves things feels like it's giving enormous quarter to the enemy, to the authoritarians of the world. Having an excuse for not doing the right thing, for cry-bullying your way through your inaction, is such a Demon-Haunting move. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45404373