If Trump or someone similar is in the office I'd expect that there would be demands that the chips stay in the US to protect the country from Chinese aggression unless there is some kind of bribe.
If Trump or someone similar is in the office I'd expect that there would be demands that the chips stay in the US to protect the country from Chinese aggression unless there is some kind of bribe.
I can't see how this wouldn't favor Taiwan? All the US republicans would start screaming about WW3 etc, it would put major pressure on China. I'd say it would be ideal for Taiwan.
The discussion now seems to be, "How do we get the chips out of Taiwan so we can let it fall to authoritarianism with the least political fall out possible".
None of this was ever being done because there an expectation that chips were going to be exported to Taiwan in the middle of a conflict.
Yes, like every other security partner, Trump's immature and inconsistence isolationism makes things worse and unstable. But it was hardly the case that intervention would have be 100% assured under any other President, and it's not the case that that its at 0% under Trump. Improving the odds of intervention, slightly, regardless of who is in office, benefits Taiwan.
Moreover, Putin didn't attack US forces when he invaded Ukraine. There is a significant chance that the PRC would launch a Pearl Harbor style attack on the US and Japan at the outset of a campaign against Taiwan. That dramatically increases the odds of the US being involved in the conflict over the long term. Sure, it's also likely (probably more likely) that the PRC might try more limited form of coercion instead, but one ought to be prepare for the range of possible options.
It is worth observing that one of the major reasons why US conservative China hawks give for not wanting to support Ukraine is because it's not a vital US interest, and they want to focus on preparing for war with China and hopefully deterring it.
It is really unclear you should say why that the Ukraine is being treated "poorly", it is being treated how you'd expect an more isolationist administration who thinks it is a strategic distraction would treat it. The current US administration may well be wrong about this--there's definitely a case to be made that further increasing the cost to Putin for aggression increases deterrence in Asia. But the current administration was very clear in the election about how they felt about Ukraine, and they won.
The argument that unless Trump treats Ukraine "not poorly" no one, anywhere, ever, ought to anything to bend the curve to increase the odds the the US intervening on their behalf seems rather sentimental and unpragmatic.
It seems likely that Taiwan leaders have a better grasp than you do of the strategic choices they are making, and that random feelings about how "poorly Ukraine has been treated" don't enter into it.
If you just hate Trump, it would be easier and more direct to say that, rather than seeming to claim that other people in the world are acting irrationally.
If there will be a change in leadership, it makes sense to wait until the US has weakened every alliance as much as possible under Trump and then invade quickly like what Russia did.
I wouldn’t trust a deal done with the USA to be worth anything right now. I would trust a deal done with Europe, Korea or Japan. All of whom would love to have TSMC build a fab in their respective territories.
Although, between the EU, Japan and Korea there might be enough of an incentive for China to think twice even without the US involved.
There are two countries in the EU that operate nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers. More with conventional subs. Shutting down the sea lanes in that area would be relatively easy for any number of European countries.
One thing that Ukraine (if Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t already) has proven is that it is much harder to win a war for a major power than the posturing would have you believe.
America is nobody's friend, at the end of the day China are still Chinese. Americans are xenophobic and racist. Increasingly anti free trade and isolationist.
Also I am incredibly sceptical that the US wants to go to all out war with China over Taiwan. A war they aren't even sure they can win and that REGARDLESS OF OUTCOME will leave Taiwan in ruins.
I laughed a bit.
How long would it be until their entire fleet is sunk? 2 days? A week?
How long after that should the Three Gorges Dam be allowed to exist?
That's not something you or anyone else could predict.
> How long after that should the Three Gorges Dam be allowed to exist?
This would immediately cause a death toll in the millions and a nuclear response would follow.
You're right: nobody can possibly predict how a nation with no blue water navy, and zero relevant (naval or otherwise) combat experience (ever) might fare against the most expensive, trained, veteran naval combat force in the world - backed by the world's two largest and most expensive, trained, veteran air forces (USAF, USN).
> This would immediately cause a death toll in the millions and a nuclear response would follow.
This presumes that the United States would ever allow a blockade to happen to begin with. The US Navy goes where it wants.