Hacker News

TSMC to make advanced AI semiconductors in Japan

2026-02-094:38242183apnews.com

Taiwan’s TSMC, the world’s largest contract computer chip maker, has announced it will be manufacturing advanced 3-nanometer semiconductors in Japan to meet booming AI demand.

TOKYO (AP) — Taiwan’s chipmaker TSMC said Thursday it will be manufacturing some of the world’s most cutting-edge semiconductors in Japan to meet booming artificial intelligence-related demand, in a boost for the country’s chipmaking ambitions.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp., a major chip supplier to companies such as Nvidia and Apple, said Thursday it plans to make 3-nanometer semiconductors — advanced chips that are used in areas such as AI products and smartphones — at its second factory in Japan’s Kumamoto Prefecture, which is under construction.

The decision by TSMC, the world’s largest contract chip maker, was a coup for Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi ahead of a general election on Sunday, where she hopes to secure the public’s mandate for her policies riding on high approval ratings.

The announcement came while Takaichi was meeting with TSMC’s CEO and Chairman, C.C. Wei, in Tokyo.

“It is very meaningful from the perspective of Japanese economic security, and I would like the project to move forward as proposed, by all means,” Takaichi said during the meeting.

The advanced chips set to be made in Kumamoto will be used in AI, robotics and autonomous driving, sectors that Takaishi’s cabinet has designated as strategically important fields.

TSMC’s first Kumamoto plant started mass production in late 2024 and makes less advanced chips. The company also is building new plants in Arizona in the U.S. to create a fabrication plant cluster and meet growing demand from customers building on the global AI frenzy.

TSMC said in a separate emailed statement that Wei believes Japan’s “forward-looking semiconductor policy will deliver significant benefits to the semiconductor industry.”

As Japan looks to gain ground in global advanced chipmaking competitiveness, it is also providing huge subsidies for its domestic chipmaker Rapidus, which is advancing towards mass producing cutting-edge chips.

“There is a huge significance to have the world’s most advanced semiconductor factory in Japan from the perspective of economic security,” the Prime Minister’s Office said in a message posted on X on Thursday.

Despite growing concerns over a potential AI-related bubble where massive investments may not pay off, TSMC’s Wei said last month he was confident the growing AI demand from its customers is “real.”

Last month, TSMC said it plans to increase capital spending by up to nearly 40% this year as AI-related demand lifted its profits. It plans to raise its capital spending for 2026 to $52 billion-$56 billion, up from last year’s $40 billion.

___

Chan reported from Hong Kong.


Read the original article

dev_tty01

Karma: 4777
...
 @Hacker__News
@hacker._news

Comments

  • By kyboren 2026-02-096:175 reply

    Japan and America have now both gotten TSMC to commit to a decent level of domestic advanced-node fabrication.

    Meanwhile Europe only got 40k WSPMs of 12+ nm capacity: https://overclock3d.net/news/software/bringing_advanced_semi...

    • By avhception 2026-02-096:296 reply

      Germany squandered so much money on nonsense, when they could have simply driven the few kilometers over to Eindhoven and bought an ASML machine for "Silicon Saxony". Sure, it would have taken years and years and serious commitment by the government and private sector to make that a successful move. But instead of putting in the hard work with a clear vision for the future, we mostly spend our time whining and wailing. It's a shame.

      • By jorvi 2026-02-097:197 reply

        High-end chips should be more of a EU concerted effort rather than every country for itself.

        The problem is that unlike Airbus, which (highly inefficiently) can be made in multiple countries, you can't really spread out parts of a fab that way. The most you can do is fab machines + chips + chip packaging. Netherlands already has fab machines and in packaging there isn't a high margin.

        That leaves chips, and you can be sure that whoever gets the fabs, the other EU countries will throw a shit fit and demand counter investments to compensate. And on top of that there is also regional animosity. So even if it makes logical sense to pop the fab down in the middle of the blue banana, it won't make political sense because France and all of South and East EU will be angry about "the rich getting richer".

        • By joe_mamba 2026-02-097:514 reply

          >High-end chips should be more of a EU concerted effort rather than every country for itself.

          And how are we gonna do that exactly? EU runs on national interests of those footing the bill, mainly France and Germany as the largest net contributors.

          When you're relying on national subsidies to build and run a factory and adjacent infrastructure in a country, you're tied to national interests and demands of those countries footing the bill for all that infrastructure.

          So the likes of France and Germany aren't gonna give billions in subsidies from their taxpayers' money to semiconductor companies so that they can incorporate in Netherlands to dodge taxes and then create jobs in low-cost Poland and Romania instead of at home, even though that's already been happening to an extent in other industries over the last 20+ years.

          It's the same with arms purchases now. France blocked Ukraine from using its money to buy British made weapons that are already available, since it expects that money to go back into the French economy, not to the economy of a competitor, even if the much needed weapons will arrive much later.

          Yeah I know, UK isn't EU anymore, but the point still stands, as EU nations are still economically competitors to each other and they're not gonna spend their tax money to fund competing economies even in the EU block.

          • By jorvi 2026-02-0913:032 reply

            > And how are we gonna do that exactly? EU runs on national interests of those footing the bill, mainly France and Germany as the largest net contributors.

            The top net contributors are countries like Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, etc., I'm not sure where you get the idea that France and Germany are.

            I will say you point out another big problem with the EU: its budget is tiny compared to the member states themselves. I do think as time goes on and millenials get in real positions of power, the idea of a more unified EU will get much broader support. So more of an EU army, much more of a single market, etc., but this will be a 25-50y timescale. I would have said it might have taken much longer, but the US and China bullying single EU countries has really displayed how exposed the current situation is.

            > It's the same with arms purchases now. France blocked Ukraine from using its money to buy British made weapons that are already available, since it expects that money to go back into the French economy, not to the economy of a competitor, even if the much needed weapons will arrive much later.

            > Yeah I know, UK isn't EU anymore, but the point still stands, as EU nations are still economically competitors to each other and they're not gonna spend their tax money to fund competing economies even in the EU block.

            No, that is just reasonable. Theoretically I am all for open trade in the name of efficiency, but in the coming multi-polar world, there is real advantage to having more onshored production. This also really makes me want to integrate Ukraine into the EU. Their troops are very battle-hardened at this point, and would bring ample experience to EU armies. Especially in the field of drone warfare.

            • By joe_mamba 2026-02-109:101 reply

              > and millenials get in real positions of power, the idea of a more unified EU will get much broader support. So more of an EU army

              Wow, how convenient that millenials who age out of military conscription , become more pro-military conscription.

              Also, check the stats, majority of EU youth don't want to fight to even protect their own country, let alone other EU countries. For example Only 16% of Germans would "definitely" take up arms to defend Germany if attacked. Let that sink in.

              Because why would they? What's to fight for when you can't afford to own a house and people aren't starting families anymore? Go fight and die to protect your landlord's, Blackrock's and Vanguard's wealth? N'ah bro, I'm packing my bags and fleeing across the border any way I can.

              So no, the "EU army" fantasy is not happening no matter the propaganda, unless you put a gun to their head.

              > I would have said it might have taken much longer, but the US and China bullying single EU countries has really displayed how exposed the current situation is.

              You didn't have to wait for US and Chian to bully, you just had to watch the EU's share of global GDP completely slide into oblivion over the last 20 years compared to US and CHian to figure that when you're economically weak you become more exploitable. More EU military will not change that balance unless the EU military can somehow surpass US and CHina combined to dictate world politics and trade in their favor, which let's be real, is not happening.

              • By jorvi 2026-02-1014:101 reply

                You're nuts dude. All the stuff you say is cherrypicked, taken out of context or just a straight up lie, just so you can paint the world in your strange perspective.

                > Wow, how convenient that millenials who age out of military conscription , become more pro-military conscription.

                The youngest millenials are still ±30 now, they would still be eligible for conscription until 45.

                > Also, check the stats, majority of EU youth don't want to fight to even protect their own country, let alone other EU countries. For example Only 16% of Germans would "definitely" take up arms to defend Germany if attacked.

                First of all, you decided to be cute and pick the country that is the most reluctant about war, due to having an uneasy past. Like Japan. But let's roll with it. That poll says 16% "definitely", but also an additional 22% "probably". 59% would "probably not" fight. But of those who would not fight, 72% are women who would be unlikely to be in conscripted combat roles, so the real percentage of refusals would more likely be 17% (59% - 42%). And there's also the factor that a people gets incensed when their homeland is actually attacked, so the actual willingness is likely to be higher under pressure.

                > Go fight and die to protect your landlord's, Blackrock's and Vanguard's wealth?

                You're so unknowledgeable you confused BlackRock with Blackstone. Anyway, all three of those own minimal percentages of EU (or US, for that matter) housing stock.

                Landlords are another matter, a huge amount of stock is in the hand of small 1-5 domicile owners. They are mostly boomers.

                You are right to be irate at how millenials, gen z and gen alpha are getting the shaft right now. But that has nothing to do with war or the EU's economic situation, and everything with policy choices of the past 30-40 years that coddle boomers (housing stock, pensions, healthcare) at the cost of everyone else.

                > N'ah bro, I'm packing my bags and fleeing across the border any way I can.

                Good riddance, no one in the EU wants to host a seditious clown.

                > So no, the "EU army" fantasy is not happening

                The train of progress steams ahead unbothered. A couple of decades ago the EU or the euro "fantasy wasn't happening". And the current population is more pro-EU than ever, and the like has only been trending up since the EU's inception.

                > you just had to watch the EU's share of global GDP completely slide into oblivion over the last 20 years

                The EU actually had the biggest economy from 2008-2015, although that was more an artifact of exchange prices. The last decade has indeed been mismanaged but we have certainly not "slid into oblivion".

                The US has had an economically amazing decade, and China was always going to become number 2 considering the population it has. And then on top of that, lots of countries in SEA, South America and some in Africa have grown to be a much larger slice of the global economic pie. And that's good! A rising tide raises all ships.

                In general, the economic center of gravity was always slowly going to shift to Asia, and thus the Pacific seaboard.

                > More EU military will not change that balance unless the EU military can somehow surpass US and CHina combined

                The US military doesn't surpass the combined militaries of China and the EU either.. nor has it used its hegemon power to "dictate world politics", even if it has meddled in other's affairs sometimes. The main mission of the US military is (was?) security for itself and global stability & free shipping lanes to allow as much trade for the US as possible.

                • By joe_mamba 2026-02-1016:101 reply

                  >You're so unknowledgeable you confused BlackRock with Blackstone. Anyway

                  No, I was talking about Blackrock specifically, don't put words in my mouth. BlackRock is a significant shareholder in many of the EU's biggest corporations, who are the ones lobbying and dictating policies you have to live by.

                  > people gets incensed when their homeland is actually attacked

                  That's why the whole EU if full of military aged Ukrainian males, because they all love defending their homeland ... from their apartment in Berlin.

                  >Good riddance, no one in the EU wants to host a seditious clown

                  I'd rather be called a clown by losers on the internet and survive, than be a virtue signaling "patriot" online dying in someone else's war.

                  > And the current population is more pro-EU than ever,

                  Yeah, the EU population is so pro-EU, that the EU has to constantly buy propaganda ads on radio, TV and social media to remind us to be pro-EU, and then ban/censor/arrest those saying mean things about the EU in public.

                  • By jorvi 2026-02-1017:18

                    I wish you good luck, considering how you appear to be drowning in alt right (or left?) disinformation, probably from some weird filter bubble. You'll need the good fortune.

                    ∗<:o)

            • By mamonster 2026-02-0913:531 reply

              >The top net contributors are countries like Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, etc.,

              Not by raw amount of euros no. By % of GDP or per capita maybe.

              • By jorvi 2026-02-0918:321 reply

                Per capita yes, which is the only logical way to compare it.

                • By slaw 2026-02-0921:171 reply

                  The only logical way to compare is by amount of money.

                  • By jorvi 2026-02-1013:40

                    No, because a Dutch citizen in the EU is paying a lot more into the system than a French citizen in that same EU.

                    If "per country" is the logical way to compare it, then the Dutch (and all other small countries) are severely lacking. If you compare it per capita, then the citizens of those countries I named are already carrying a ridiculously undue burden.

          • By ido 2026-02-099:135 reply

            The solution is to make the EU more like an actual unified economic and monitary union- with a central fiscal authority, unified public debt, all member states joining the Eurozone, unified tax system, etc.

            • By bojan 2026-02-099:411 reply

              Be aware that you are discussing with a 48-days old account that is almost exclusively posting doubious takes like this.

              • By joe_mamba 2026-02-099:483 reply

                >48-days old account

                Since when is the quality of arguments and the understanding of economics and politics tied to the age of your account? Is this how arguments are won here? Age discrimination goes against HN rules. Your opinion on global events is not automatically more correct than others just because you've been on HN 10 years longer than others.

                >posting doubious takes like this

                Universally recognized and factually proven facts = dubious to you?

                What (counter-)arguments do you actually bring to this discussion, other than throwing ageism and baseless accusations at people as your strategy to discredit their opinions you dislike?

                That's exactly the opposite of the HN rules.

                • By lynx97 2026-02-0911:042 reply

                  They're trying to imply that fresh accounts might be used to steer opinions, IOW, they're trying to imply that you are a politically motivated kind of bot...

                  I agree, its a rather shady approach. But here you go, we'll get more and more of this, its a conveneient method to discredit discussion partners with unwanted opinions.

                  • By throw20251220 2026-02-0912:39

                    It's also a little bit more prevalent since after 5 or 6 comments you get soft-banned for hours, cannot have a decent discussion here anymore.

                  • By joe_mamba 2026-02-108:55

                    Except mine is not a fresh account though. THis is just moving the goalposts in search of vapid things to discredit people for unpopular opinions without arguments.

                    Calling people whose opinions you dislike but can't refute as "bots" is the lowest of the low copes of losing arguments.

                    Not accusing you of this, just pointing out the hypocrisy of those doing it.

                • By stingraycharles 2026-02-0911:302 reply

                  Your response is, completely expected, an appeal to outrage.

                  You’re asserting that account age shouldn’t matter, and that any scrutiny is morally illegitimate.

                  Nobody is discriminating against you. It’s just that account age is one of the few signals that an online platform has to go by.

                  HN absolutely recognizes this in their policy, considering that they give new accounts an entirely different color to make them stand out from the rest, and that they don’t allow downvotes unless your account has achieved a certain karma level.

                  • By joe_mamba 2026-02-0911:361 reply

                    >Your response is, completely expected, an appeal to outrage.

                    How do you react towards ageism and discrimination?

                    >It’s just that account age is one of the few signals that an online platform has to go by.

                    None of that invalidates or even addresses my arguments. It's still about exclusion of people based on account date rather than WHAT they say.

                    >HN absolutely recognizes this in their policy, considering that they give new accounts an entirely different color to make them stand out from the rest, and that they don’t allow downvotes unless your account has achieved a certain karma level.

                    Except that my account is not green, and I AM allowed to downvote.

                  • By gosub100 2026-02-0912:01

                    Did you check what zodiac sign the account was created under too? That's another signal for you.

                • By tovlier 2026-02-0910:39

                  [dead]

            • By Gud 2026-02-0910:231 reply

              No thanks.

              Look across the Atlantic for what will eventually happen once you concentrate the power.

              I say the power should remain close to the people, decentralized and democratic, not centralised and concentrated.

              • By ekianjo 2026-02-0911:332 reply

                The EU is exactly the image of a central government and worse of it all, its bureaucrats are not elected by anyone so you get bullshit like the zombie Chat control coming back every 2 months. The most dysfunctional system of all.

                • By jorvi 2026-02-1014:28

                  "Bureaucrats" are rarely elected, that's what makes them bureaucrats. They're appointed.

                  As for the EU, you have the Commission who are unelected and the Parliament who are elected. The Parliament has to confirm laws like chat control.

                  If a majority of Parliament votes in chat control (they haven't and probably won't), that means a majority of the people want chat control. Or think they want it, anyway.

                  I'm also not sure why you think the EU is the pinnacle of central government. It carries vastly less power over its constituent countries than the US does over its constituent states.

                • By rich_sasha 2026-02-0912:221 reply

                  I'll take the EU over US, China, UN or any other bit bureaucracy you can think of. And I'll take the EU over ni EU as well.

                  • By ekianjo 2026-02-0914:332 reply

                    that seems to be an unpopular take in Europe right now since you have a clear rise of extremist parties in all its corners.

                    • By rich_sasha 2026-02-0915:54

                      Theres more of them for sure, but net they are a minority. It's big news when one, in one country, comes close to a majority.

                      Even the extremely Eurosceptic Orban seems much happier in the EU than out.

                    • By stingraycharles 2026-02-105:37

                      In most countries those are the minority, and they seem to be riding a mostly populist wave. The EU isn’t going anywhere any time soon.

            • By Culonavirus 2026-02-0910:55

              Of all the things that are never going to happen, this one will never going to happen the most.

            • By lynx97 2026-02-0911:011 reply

              No, thanks, we really don't need a US of E.

              • By NicuCalcea 2026-02-0911:051 reply

                Speak for yourself.

                • By lynx97 2026-02-0911:101 reply

                  That's a funny reply coming from a "data journalist". I hope you do the same when publishing your stuff.

                  • By NicuCalcea 2026-02-0911:301 reply

                    Do the same what? I don't position my personal opinions as statements of truth that "we" all believe, if that's what you mean.

                    The Eurobarometer and other surveys clearly show the majority of EU citizens want further integration in lots of fields including defence, foreign policy, fiscal matters, etc. Further integration, such as the adoption of the Euro, is legally mandated and pretty much inevitable.

                    So when you say "we", you should clarify who you're claiming to represent, because it's not most of us.

                    • By joe_mamba 2026-02-0911:391 reply

                      >The Eurobarometer and other surveys clearly show the majority of EU citizens want further integration

                      Where, when and how were the samples for that barometer taken?

                      If they're really so confident those number being accurate, why don't we have referendum and we can decided there and ink it to make it official.

            • By joe_mamba 2026-02-099:193 reply

              So in your opinion, the solution is that individual national serenity should be abolished and the EU should have the liberty, nay, the authority to fleece its highest payers into the system, like France and Germany, and then redistribute their money to whoever and whatever it sees fit, for the "greater good" of the union, with no accountability or obligation to provide them equal benefits in return?

              How is this not communist tyranny with extra steps?

              How do you expect those people footing most of the bill to give up their status quo and voluntarily sign up for something like this? Oh wait, I remember, that's why they're pushing chat control and digital-ID on us.

              • By throw20251220 2026-02-0912:49

                > How do you expect those people footing most of the bill to give up their status quo and voluntarily sign up for something like this?

                If you do not see how someone like US or China can play 27 individual countries and divide Europe by propping one nation and discrediting another, for example recent Trump admin meddling with Poland, or Musk fiddling with German and Spanish government, then it's going to be difficult having this discussion with you.

                Another aspect... Spain stopped being a dictatorship 51 years ago, half of the continent was under Soviet influence until something like 35 years ago, communist for that matter. The continent has been consolidated over the last half a century. Painting EU as the root of all evil is not a way forward.

              • By petesergeant 2026-02-099:273 reply

                > How is this not communist tyranny with extra steps?

                Isn’t this exactly how the United States and every other country works?

                • By joe_mamba 2026-02-099:291 reply

                  Firstly, NO, the US is a country, the EU is not.

                  Secondly, even if the US as a country is tighter integrated and more financially successful than the EU as a union, the US is not a successful model example of a well functioning society that people in the EU would aspire to emulate, on the contrary, they'd rather preserve the status quo than turning into something resembling what the US has become.

                  • By selestify 2026-02-099:432 reply

                    Ok, well I guess if Europe is fine with a continued slide in global economic relevance, they can keep their status quo.

                    But something tells me that's not what Europeans generally want...

                    • By joe_mamba 2026-02-099:52

                      >Ok, well I guess if Europe is fine with a continued slide in global economic relevance, they can keep their status quo.

                      EU citizens understood and recognize that economic supremacy of some private sector industries is pointless if the gains all go to the hands of a few tax dodging trillionaires with sex trafficking private islands, while the externalities get outsourced to the environment and the public sector to deal with leading to increased wealth inequality, homelessness, crime, drug addiction, etc

                      That's why they want to see policies that will first address the environment and quality of life, before shareholder returns, even if that makes them less economically dominant.

                      EU people don't want to live in a world of fent zombies on the streets, cars with smashed windows from petty crime, food deserts, homeless people, all in the name of economic superiority.

                    • By lynx97 2026-02-0911:06

                      European here, you can keep your US of E stuff... We dont need more concentration of power, we need less of it. The EU is a hopeless cause anyway...

                • By ido 2026-02-099:401 reply

                  Right. That's exactly what I'm claiming, that the EU has to become more like a confederation, more closely integrated than it is now but less integrated than modern federations like the USA or Germany. Closer to the early USA (where the states had more power compared to today and the federal government less).

                  It has zero to do with communism.

                  • By joe_mamba 2026-02-0910:20

                    >that the EU has to become more like a confederation, more closely integrated than it is now but less integrated than modern federations like the USA or Germany. Closer to the early USA (where the states had more power compared to today and the federal government less).

                    Do you see the perfectly exemplified contradiction here? Centralized government power always tends to want more and more control, more and more power over time, while shedding any and all forms accountability. It never stops and says "ok, we have just the right amount of control now, we can start back off and leave everyone be". That never happened in history of humanity.

                    The evolution of the US central government you gave is the perfect example of this overreach that grew with time and the best argument why we shouldn't try to emulate that. Because so is the EU compared to how it was 30 years ago, and it will just keep growing and swallowing more control and influence over its members, with less and less accountability, and it won't just stop when you think the right balance has been achieved. It will only stop when IT decides it wants to, but by that point it will be too late for you to have a choice in this.

                    Plus, even ignoring all that, what worked in the US 200-300 years ago, can't simply be applied to Europe now. You can't simply copy-paste policies across continents, cultures and time, and imagine it will simply Just-Work™.

                • By DeathArrow 2026-02-099:45

                  >Isn’t this exactly how the United States and every other country works?

                  EU is not a country. It's a political and economic union. And I think it can't become a country since peoples of member states desire to keep a degree of national sovereignty.

              • By sham1 2026-02-0911:56

                > So in your opinion, the solution is that individual national serenity should be abolished and the EU should have the liberty, nay, the authority to fleece its highest payers into the system, like France and Germany, and then redistribute their money to whoever and whatever it sees fit, for the "greater good" of the union, with no accountability or obligation to provide them equal benefits in return?

                There indeed won't be equal benefits, but instead France, Germany etc are going to benefit a lot more in this kind of situation than without the integration. We've already seen the massive benefits of the single market integration for example for the German economy and industry. It'd be strange to think that further erosion of barriers and better integration wouldn't bring further benefits to the economies involved.

                > How is this not communist tyranny with extra steps?

                Um, by the fact that the EU wouldn't be taking over the means of production when it'd be integrating? Like come on, this is just silly, to call a block dedicated to free market principles and social capitalism "communist tyranny".

                I swear, this kind of economic illiteracy is going to be the end of us all.

                > How do you expect those people footing most of the bill to give up their status quo and voluntarily sign up for something like this? Oh wait, I remember, that's why they're pushing chat control and digital-ID on us.

                The EU isn't pushing for the Chat Control and whatever, it's only certain member countries like Denmark doing that. They should absolutely be reprimanded for that, but nevertheless the difference is important.

                Also, the people "footing most of the bill" would also be benefiting massively, for example by making sure that we would no longer have a situation like the Greek debt crisis messing everything up for the entire currency block.

          • By bjourne 2026-02-099:091 reply

            Specialization takes away a lot of the competitive pressure.

          • By ffsm8 2026-02-098:561 reply

            > Yeah I know, UK isn't EU anymore, but the point still stands, as EU nations are still economically competitors to each other and they're not gonna spend their tax money to fund competing economies even in the EU block.

            Uh, no the point doesn't stand anymore if your example isn't actually a reflection of it - at least not anymore then any other unfounded opinion pieces with no collaborating evidence

            • By joe_mamba 2026-02-099:001 reply

              >Uh, no the point doesn't stand anymore if your example isn't actually a reflection of it

              What part of my original statement you quoted

                 "EU nations are still economically competitors to each other and they're not gonna spend their tax money to fund competing economies even in the EU block"
              do you think does not stand anymore and why?

              >unfounded opinion pieces with no collaborating evidence

              Maybe reading comprehension or understanding of international politics within the EU is not your strength, but I gave you the evidence and arguments in the comment you quoted. Maybe you don't like to hear what I said, but that's another thing entirely.

              • By ffsm8 2026-02-0910:041 reply

                The preceding example to the quotes excerpt. I was just under the seemingly mistaken assumption you'd remember the contents of your own comment.

                • By joe_mamba 2026-02-0910:071 reply

                  You again brought no argument when I asked you to. How can anyone have a conversation out of this when you refuse to play ball and are only interested in throwing hissy fits at comments you disagree with?

                  • By ffsm8 2026-02-0911:131 reply

                    okay,the preceding paragraph I referenced of yours was

                    > It's the same with arms purchases now. France blocked Ukraine from using its money to buy British made weapons that are already available, since it expects that money to go back into the French economy, not to the economy of a competitor, even if the much needed weapons will arrive much later.

                    Which you the followed up with

                    > Yeah I know, UK isn't EU anymore, but the point still stands, as EU nations are still economically competitors to each other and they're not gonna spend their tax money to fund competing economies even in the EU block.

                    To which I responded with (just in case your ability to recall that fails you again) with

                    > Uh, no the point doesn't stand anymore if your example isn't actually a reflection of it - at least not anymore then any other unfounded opinion pieces with no collaborating evidence

                    • By joe_mamba 2026-02-0911:461 reply

                      >unfounded opinion pieces with no collaborating evidence

                      My evidence was (as you typed it yourself) that with the war in Ukraine and arms demand flourishing, France only spends money on subsidies with the guarantee that money is going back towards its own economy, as does every other major EU economy, not just for arms, but for semiconductors too.

                      If you were too thick to get that, or you refuse to belive it on some ideology, or want to die on a hill over a technicality, then I'm sorry, but nothing more I will do or say will convince you, when you've already made up your mind otherwise.

                      • By ffsm8 2026-02-0912:09

                        Yes, and you then followed it up with pointing out yourself how this is just your unfounded opinion because the example you cited doesn't actually reflect the situation you extrapolated to, because the UK is not part of the EU

        • By acatton 2026-02-0911:142 reply

          Airbus was never born as a European giant. It was a merging of many national champions (Aérospatiale, DASA and CASA) that were each already making full airplanes. They figured out how to spread out the manufacturing later.

          Airbus currently has two factories finalizing the airplane assembly: one in Toulouse and one in Hamburg. You could copy this model and just open different fab in different countries to spread production.

          Also, another model is one country making wafers, one country making EUV-lithography machines and parts, one country mining and refining silicon, etc.

          • By throw20251220 2026-02-0912:57

            There's no "one country making lithography machines". The mirrors come from Germany already. Other parts from about 160 other countries around the world. The EUV tech itself is an American invention and was picked up by ASML. That is why USA has the say in who gets it.

          • By panick21_ 2026-02-0911:17

            Fabs are so expensive and profit from local knowlage. 2 full leading node fabs seems optimistic.

        • By whstl 2026-02-099:152 reply

          Good point, but gotta remember that people don't buy chips, they buy products. There's plenty of stuff to be produced. From components to PCBs to casing to packaging.

          China didn't become the manufacturing giant it is because of a single product, they did because the whole supply chain was moving there while the EU and US were only concerned about higher-margin products and activities.

          I'm sure some town in Italy wishes it was still the world's #1 diode manufacturer or something.

          • By joe_mamba 2026-02-0911:351 reply

            >I'm sure some town in Italy wishes it was still the world's #1 diode manufacturer or something.

            Except that's exactly what happened. EU semi fabs like the ones in Italy mostly make diodes, mosfets, microcontrollers and other such low margin products. Nobody here tapes out GPUs and CPUs, that's all Korea, Taiwan and US.

          • By xorcist 2026-02-0911:31

            I wish more people understood this. Or perhaps they do, but it doesn't fir their political pitches or something.

            Funding an enormously complicated semiconductor facility from a blank sheet of paper somewhere in Europe is a very expensive way to accomplish little, if the rest of the supply chain from materials to products is in non-friendly nations.

            The way to bring in an industry the same way you do anything complicated: You start small. Get the specialized diode factory up and running again, and then build out supporting industries and value chains as needed. Complex lithography equipment can wait until last.

            It wasn't long ago we built mobile phones in Europe. Ericsson, Nokia, Siemens, Alcatel and Bosch all had production and most if not all components were sourced from Europe or the US. Two decades ago is the blink of an eye in the larger scheme of things, not even a generation, and many who worked on this are still in their working years.

            Without being directly related, it would also be a good opportunity to chisel out a crack in the Android/Apple monopoly. Then maybe in a decade or so you could actually live as a functioning citizen without giving remote root to the oligarchs and self proclaimed supranational kingmakers.

        • By bigbadfeline 2026-02-0919:33

          > you can't really spread out parts of a fab that way. > That leaves chips, and you can be sure that whoever gets the fabs,

          "a fab" or "the fabs"? We are commenting on news about TSMC building fabs in 3 countries across 2 continents, multiple fabs in each - I counted 23 of them here [1].

          Surely, the EU can commit to a few fabs and research labs in different countries, semis are equipment and labor intensive, there's work for more than the EU. There's no need to build all of them at once, a clear commitment will suffice.

          [1] https://www.tsmc.com/english/aboutTSMC/TSMC_Fabs

        • By rich_sasha 2026-02-0912:21

          EU has a solid path of a lot of money to be spent in the next 5-20 years. Chips, AI, advanced weaponry, more advanced weaponry etc. If there was a program where everyone gets a slice, I'm sure it would work - a bit like ESA. It is doing it piecemeal that runs into the very problem you describe.

        • By Gravityloss 2026-02-0910:03

      • By assaddayinh 2026-02-098:03

        Cultural failure on a massive scale

      • By roenxi 2026-02-097:443 reply

        That seems a bit too simple. I saw one particular graph [0] once that really stuck with me illustrating just how decisively Europe was ejected from the semiconductor market. It takes more than just inaction to achieve results like that. In many ways it could be called an impressive feat that only the Europeans could achieve. 44% of production to 9% - losing a steady 1% of the market every year, largest to smallest player. No other region is even in a position to do that badly even if they tried.

        [0] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/...

        • By ifwinterco 2026-02-099:171 reply

          I think it can just take inaction, because it's a market that moves so fast and requires constant enormous investment to keep up.

          If you just do nothing within half a decade or so you'll be far behind the cutting edge and at that point the decline gains its own momentum

          • By roenxi 2026-02-099:301 reply

            It is possible. But that seems out of character for the Europeans, they're pretty consistent about going the distance to make absolutely sure that the next new thing doesn't happen in Europe.

            It seems much more likely they had a suite of environmental, social and trade policies carefully calibrated to move semiconductor manufacturing somewhere else.

            • By ifwinterco 2026-02-0912:01

              Part of it is simply the Euro being too strong. Taiwan has a (deliberately) undervalued currency that makes exports a lot more competitive, the EU does not.

              It's a super simple strategy with profound effects but somehow still very underappreciated

        • By IsTom 2026-02-099:15

          I wonder what that would look like on an absolute scale instead of relative %. Might be that just the market grew really big, really fast.

        • By simgt 2026-02-098:40

          Wow, I had no idea. Thanks for sharing!

      • By joe_mamba 2026-02-097:451 reply

        >when they could have simply driven the few kilometers over to Eindhoven and bought an ASML machine for "Silicon Saxony"

        That's not at all how it works. You're talking as if you're buying a plug-and-play Xerox copy machine that you can just unbox and start printing copies of your work and make money.

        Buying the latest EUV machines doesn't get you the latest nodes and economically viable yields.

        Intel, Samsung also have the latest ASML machines that TSMC has and yet they haven't caught up to TSMC because there's a lot more to semi manufacturing that just the machine itself.

        If Germany just buys an ASML machine it would be an expensive paperweight without the process know-how that engineers at TSMC have amassed over the decades in order to get the most economically competitive yields.

        • By i5heu 2026-02-097:522 reply

          It is so absurd to think that an investment in even the most uncompetitive fab while one has currently none is uneconomical.

          Even if this fab is 3 times more expensive then other ones, the result of not having one will tank the entire economy and GDP of a nation if things go bad.

          We speak here about trillions of damage while a fab costs only a few billions.

          This is like a complete non brainer.

          • By raincole 2026-02-098:581 reply

            > Even if this fab is 3 times more expensive then other ones, the result of not having one will tank the entire economy and GDP of a nation if things go bad.

            That's hogwash. Sorry. Human society won't simply stop working just due to the lack of 2nm chips.

            There are plenty of chip manufacturers around the world, including EU ones. Taiwan only has the quasi-monopoly over the cutting edge process.

            • By alephnerd 2026-02-0913:35

              > Taiwan only has the quasi-monopoly over the cutting edge process

              Not really. Taiwan has commanding market share in legacy process nodes (28nm and above) as well.

          • By joe_mamba 2026-02-097:58

            >while one has currently none

            What are you talking about? There's a lot of fabs in Europe, just on much older nodes than Taiwan, US and Japan or even China have.

            >We speak here about trillions of damage

            Where did you get the trillions from?

            >a fab costs only a few billions

            Billions just to build, but then who's gonna foot the bill for running it, if the fab is not economically competitive to those from Taiwan and Japan, at EU domestic wages, EU environmental regulations and lacking knowhow supply chains that needs to be built up in the EU? The taxpayers again?

            The German government (meaning the taxpayers) are still subsidizing energy costs to keep manufacturing from collapsing or leaving the country altogether because it's not internationally competitive anymore.

            So how much more of the private sector should the taxpayers subsidize before we take a look at ourselves in the mirror that everything is FUBAR and that endless taxpayer funded subsidies(aka corporate welfare) are just disguising the endemic rot while not actually fixing the problem?

      • By danielbln 2026-02-096:362 reply

        The only forward facing government that actually had a drive to change anything useful for the future broke apart with internal squabbles, with a big part of it by the market liberals torpedoing things left and right. And now we're back to a government of stand still, like we did the almost two decades before.

        We get what we deserve.

        • By throwaway_20357 2026-02-098:22

          Not sure what you're talking about. The last "forward facing" government was about 50y ago, the last one at least driving meaningful reforms almost 25y ago. To me it seems the more Europe got integrated, the more Germany lost the plot.

        • By Flatterer3544 2026-02-096:44

          This standstill mostly started happening when the capitalism took hold too deep and wide, look at Sweden and its golden age that lasted until all the restrictions on capitalism were silently removed.

          While capitalism is a good model, it needs to be kept balanced, restricted..

          Shareholder primacy is ruining everything, too much influence in politics from too many external sources.

      • By 15155 2026-02-097:261 reply

        [flagged]

        • By virgildotcodes 2026-02-097:331 reply

          If every time you’re shown an inkblot you see right wing talking points materialize in front of your eyes, it may be time to take a break from social media.

          • By simianparrot 2026-02-098:103 reply

            If you think net zero’s failures are a right wing talking point it might be you failing the Rorschach test

            • By sehansen 2026-02-098:231 reply

              Bringing up net zero in a thread about semiconductor manufacturing is a complete non sequitur. Fabs run on electricity which is quite easy produce without emitting any CO2.

              • By simianparrot 2026-02-0914:11

                Only if you ignore supply chains, manufacturing, procurement of raw materials, grid balancing, and so much more.

            • By virgildotcodes 2026-02-103:201 reply

              You're, of course, misrepresenting what I was replying to. Here it is again:

              > 'green everything, at all costs' and importing millions of unskilled people who don't share your values

              Are you in good faith attempting to argue that those sentiments are not predominantly right wing talking points?

              • By simianparrot 2026-02-1010:411 reply

                They may be but that doesn’t make them wrong. I don’t keep track of what everyone on any “side” tall about and how many percentages do what. That’s noise. The arguments are valid regardless of who says them.

                • By virgildotcodes 2026-02-1111:06

                  Was there anything in my initial post that made a judgement as to the validity of these talking points?

    • By mrtksn 2026-02-0911:251 reply

      What you are suggesting is vertical integration. If Europe goes crazy, can do that. From start to finish this chip thingy can become "magic crystals from Europe" as they already have control over the tooling. How many billions it will take to build the fabs with these tools and hire the talent from all over the planet and put all that in special economical zones? I don't know but I bet its less than those who don't have and end up buying the tools.

      Europe is already a great place to build your life and despite the narrative about "EU killing businesses with over regulations", Europe is an exporter, that is EU makes physical things in large quantities(that's why USA is able to blackmail EU with tariffs). EU produces and exports so much, more than it consumes. Its closer to China than USA in this regard, you can check out the recent stats here: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-euro-indicators/w...

      The infrastructure is in place and there are both many nuclear reactors that were decommissioned early or not yet commissioned but canceled/put on hold as well as regions with plenty of sunshine or hydro power opportunities and also has all the expertise to re-work those quickly.

      It's really a political decision to push for something like that or not. Geopolitics may eventually make it happen, who knows? At this time it makes more economical sense to make the tools and send them close to the larger supply chain of electronic products production.

      • By philipallstar 2026-02-0911:572 reply

        > Europe is already a great place to build your life

        Agreed. Its countries' long-standing equivalents of America First policies mean that they spend far more on their own citizens, import far fewer people, and leave most of the charitable, defence, and research spending to the US taxpayer. Good for them.

        • By mrtksn 2026-02-0912:192 reply

          I kind of agree that "America First" policies tend to be Europeanization type policies and as a result quite un-American and that's also why USA will end up like Europe if it keeps course.

          Europe is great in many ways but lacks the dynamism exactly because of its highly controlled immigration policies instead of free market ones. Bureaucrats actually are terrible at picking who should come. A major example are the Turkish immigrants to Germany, where they imported huge numbers of Turkish immigrants for their booming car industry in the 60s and instead of just treating them like normal people they did this "guest worker" thing and as a result those Turks failed to integrate and remained in the low socioeconomic status with exception for some high profile cases like the inventors of the mRNA vaccine or the Crysis founders. In other places like UK or USA, Turkish immigrants tend to have much higher socioeconomic status.

          If EU end up doing its chip and energy industry push, better be following the pre-Trump era immigration policies because that's how USA got is all the workforce that make USA leap ahead in many industries. Some French or Swedish immigration officer would not be picking people better than industrialists or startup founders. Immigration and its integration are not Europe's strong traits.

          • By philipallstar 2026-02-109:54

            I think that's a good point, but with the caveats that:

            Immigration and benefits are in opposition - the more immigration you allow (unless it's careful, skills-based) then there's a strong risk of costs of living rises (e.g. housing becomes more expensive with immigration) and benefits systems requiring higher taxes to pay for them. European countries can sometimes be very strong on immigration (e.g. Denmark) likely because of this reason.

            Entrepreneurialism and benefits are in opposition - the more benefits you offer, the higher the taxes need to be, and so the less worth it it is to take risks with money or with time. It's just a tradeoff between risk and safety, and Europe in general (or Western Europe, at least) is more tuned for safety. And why not, if the US is willing to take the risks?

    • By joe_mamba 2026-02-097:401 reply

      >Meanwhile Europe only got 40k WSPMs of 12+ nm capacity

      EU leaders and VCs gave up on the electronics industry 20+ years ago and just kept offshoring it to the cheapest suppliers to lower costs and increase shareholder value.

      You can validate this by looking at which sectors pay the highest EU wages and you'll see that hardware and electronics are not in the top.

      And working in the electronics industry requires highly skilled knowhow and academic specialization, and you're not gonna attract people there if you don't pay them top wages if they can get more money and an easier job somewhere else like writing CRUD SW or pushing pencils in a bank.

      • By gjadi 2026-02-0913:411 reply

        Not everyone is motivated by the highest wage they can get.

        Good enough can be good enough and then aim for fun/interesting/challenging/fulfilling work instead of a fatter check.

        • By joe_mamba 2026-02-109:011 reply

          >Not everyone is motivated by the highest wage they can get.

          THis idealism always goes away once you have to buy a home, and realize you're working more hours and getting less money than your mates in other industries that are easier to get into, so you start to switch really quick.

          People aren't selfless when it comes to being exploited by private sector entities, they'll always go towards the ones with the best wage/hour ratios.

          People aren';t stupid. Why would they voluntarily choose to work harder and be less well off? It's not like this is working for the public good like medicine, firefighters, EMT, education, etc.

          • By gjadi 2026-02-109:36

            There is always more money elsewhere.

            But once you have a home, enough to raise your family and save for later, when is enough enough?

            And is the work fun? Fulfilling?

            Money is a mean to an end.

            Sure you can aim to earn enough to get FIRE asap. In my case, I aim for FIRE in the next 40y while maxing my fun in the meantime :)

    • By chvid 2026-02-096:432 reply

      ASML and its mostly European suppliers is still the key chokepoint that prevents highend semiconductor fabrication from moving to China.

      • By whp_wessel 2026-02-098:41

        If Trump was European he would have long ago said “i only allow export of ASML machines if openai/nvidia/tsmc build 5gw urgently here in Europe with advanced nodes”. Fair if you ask me tbh

      • By joe_mamba 2026-02-098:031 reply

        Except China has fabs on smaller nodes than Europe, so why can't Europe?

        • By ekianjo 2026-02-0911:361 reply

          Because they don't invest. It's always the same problem. Lack of capital directed in that field.

          • By joe_mamba 2026-02-0911:43

            Well there you go. The EU talks the big talk on "domestic sovereignty" but never puts their money where their mouth is, or when they do, it's breadcrumbs, just enough to keep it on life support, let alone to be in the top contenders.

    • By insane_dreamer 2026-02-0915:16

      EU never had significant chip fabrication (instead having a lock on the tooling) whereas Japan and the US essentially pioneered high-end chip manufacturing before losing ground to Taiwan and Korea.

  • By yanhangyhy 2026-02-096:028 reply

    Taiwanese politicians, like those under American-style democracy in many regions, only care about safeguarding their own interests and have no concern for how to protect the interests of the public. Once TSMC’s factories are completed in Japan and the United States and the technology is secured, Taiwan will no longer have any value worth protecting. Of course, the politicians can always take planes and leave in advance.

    • By earthnail 2026-02-097:04

      Not necessarily. If TSMC doesn’t build these fabs in Japan or USA, these governments might just mandate that chips are manufactured elsewhere. Intel could have a big comeback.

      This keeps ppl locked in to the TSMC universe. The Japan and US fabs produce just a fraction of what these countries need.

    • By contrarian1234 2026-02-097:292 reply

      Right now is an AI goldrush. They can get crazy lucrative investments and lock in amazing deals. In a decade the Chinese tech will catch up and the AI boom will slow down and the Taiwanese will have to coast on what they have. They have to capitalize on this moment as much as they can b/c it's not going to last long. Things are going to get much tougher very soon

      • By colechristensen 2026-02-098:31

        If there aren't significant changes in the trajectory of world politics the people in charge might just be planning their exit to the fabs they're building in Japan and the US.

      • By Sammi 2026-02-0913:551 reply

        You speak like the Chinese catching up with the technology is inevitable. The Chinese aren't behind in semiconductor and airplane technology for lack of trying. They are constantly trying to catch up to a moving goal post.

        There is an established playbook that the Chinese have used for decades when taking over an industrial sector from other countries. They funnel vast amounts of state funding into it, sell at or below cost for decades, win the low end market, and then slowly and gradually move up the technology chain. It's worked for almost everything, but it's this last part that just isn't working for them with semiconductors and aviation. They aren't capable of catching up fast enough in these two fields. These are sectors that are both too large for any one country to do well on their own. Even for someone as large as China. It requires a global supply chain.

        • By maxglute 2026-02-0918:30

          PRC generating as much STEM/skilled talent than OECD combined... that's enough for entire semi supply chain and 2 civil aviation companies.

          Aviation is functionally caught up, as in if PRC wants to throw together a narrow or wide body on domestic components short term, they can at scale and service domestic market with less fuel efficiently. The primary reason COMAC uses western components is for faster global certification.

          PRC Semi progress beating western analysts of catchup, instead of 10 years to EUV they're looking ~7/8 years. Again global semi supply chain is just a handful of countries with fraction population as PRC. And all western semi players projected to have talent shortage in the 100,000s, so that moving goal post likely going to move slower and slower vs PRC convergence.

          Semi easier medium/long term problem since PRC _only_ country projected without semi talent shortage, i.e. current trends and forces point to inevitable convergence and PRC.

          Ironically aviation harder problem because exporting outside of PRC market is matter of geopolitics vs pure technical/state capacity.

          Looking at trend lines, west simply not capable of staying ahead.

    • By KK7NIL 2026-02-097:054 reply

      The US protected Taiwanese sovereignty for decades before they even had a single semiconductor fab. This idea of "the silicon shield" just shows a complete ignorance of the history of Taiwan and its place in the geopolitical order.

      • By XorNot 2026-02-097:23

        The US historically did not threaten military action against NATO allied nations as well.

        The past is of no value in predicting the future right now.

      • By mayama 2026-02-099:12

        Decades in which China started as peasant army(US admin view) and wasn't mostly a peer adversity. But, that changed almost a decade ago and defending Taiwan will become more costly and time passes. New American security document, mostly focusing on America, even acknowledges this.

      • By mschuster91 2026-02-0911:201 reply

        > The US protected Taiwanese sovereignty for decades before they even had a single semiconductor fab.

        That was before the current administration wiped out the very idea of "soft power" and put everything including NATO up for disposal.

        There is, frankly, no way for anyone to trust the US again until the US undergoes steps similar to post-1945 Germany.

        • By johanyc 2026-02-0918:09

          This isnt about soft power. Taiwan's location is too important for the US to not intervene in some way.

      • By misja111 2026-02-0911:561 reply

        Trump has openly stated that there would be no military retaliation by the US in case of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Only an economic one. And we have seen what that is worth after the Krim was taken. It lasted a few years and then sanctions started getting dropped.

        So the time of military US protection is behind us.

        • By johanyc 2026-02-0918:19

          I believe you mis remembered it. He didn't rule out military intervention.

          In an interview reported by Reuters, he said he’d impose 150%–200% tariffs if China “went into Taiwan,” and when asked about using military force against a blockade he said it “would not come to that” because Xi “respects me” and knows he’s “crazy.”

          https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-says-he-would-impose-tar...

    • By zarzavat 2026-02-099:042 reply

      TSMC can shut the fabs down whenever they want. If the US think they can take over a fab like it's a t-shirt factory and keep it running without TSMC's cooperation they are sorely mistaken. What are you going to do when none of the Taiwanese workers turn up for work, or worse they do turn up and sabotage the fab.

      • By petesergeant 2026-02-099:333 reply

        If you don’t think the US security apparatus will come up with a reasonable plan for doing just that within 2 months of it opening, I don’t think you’re thinking hard enough about this.

        > What are you going to do when none of the Taiwanese workers turn up for work, or worse they do turn up and sabotage the fab.

        You’re going to offer them a lot of money, citizenship, and exfiltration of their family to turn up at work, and threaten them with lifetime in supermax if they sabotage anything.

        What US judge isn’t going to allow you to do what the hell you want under national security provisions if it comes to that?

        • By zarzavat 2026-02-0913:58

          > You’re going to offer them a lot of money, citizenship, and exfiltration of their family to turn up at work, and threaten them with lifetime in supermax if they sabotage anything.

          This is exactly the attitude I'm talking about. You can't operate a fab based on coercion. It requires positive relationships. There are simply too many people involved doing things that the would-be coercers don't understand.

          The idea that an entire TSMC fab is going to commit treason en mass is about as believable as thinking that NASA faked the moon landings and covered it up en mass. Large groups of people don't behave the same way as small groups of people.

          If the US wants a fab, just give Intel money to build one. Trying to steal one from TSMC is a nonsensical plan. At least Intel would know how to operate their own fab.

        • By lotsofpulp 2026-02-0910:18

          > If you don’t think the US security apparatus will come up with a reasonable plan for doing just that within 2 months of it opening, I don’t think you’re thinking hard enough about this.

          The current US security apparatus is led by highly incompetent and corrupt people willing to sell the country down the river, so I would not count on them coming up with a plan, much less a reasonable plan, for anything.

        • By decimalenough 2026-02-0911:001 reply

          > If you don’t think the US security apparatus will come up with a reasonable plan

          Have you seen the US security apparatus's track record at coming up with reasonable plans for what happens after the military victory? See Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

          • By petesergeant 2026-02-0913:22

            I mean these things sit on opposite ends of the “organising a pissup in a brewery” to “teaching a fish to ride a bike” continuum.

      • By stingraycharles 2026-02-099:13

        Of course you’re right, but it’s a hell of a lot easier than when the fabs are located exclusively in Taiwan.

    • By hirako2000 2026-02-097:15

      More so a damage control move. In the eventuality Taiwan, and its factually on Chinese land production sites get affected, it won't affect as much the supply chain as it otherwise would.

      The U.S and Japan indeed will have less incentive to defend the sovereignty of Taiwan, but other reasons remain to ensure the statu quo remains. Purely geopolitical, not just industrial.

    • By gexla 2026-02-097:221 reply

      I would argue the chips don't even matter (important, but not as a reason for defending Taiwan.) It's a strategically important location that is a stone's throw from Japanese islands. If Japan feels the need, then nukes may be on the table. If that were to happen, S. Korea may not be far behind. And the cycle spirals.

    • By yieldcrv 2026-02-0913:21

      America selectively gets into conflicts worldwide to deter China from invading China

      As soon as we get the right semiconductor supply chain stateside can switch up on that island and reach parity with the rest of the world’s contribution to that issue: none.

    • By ekianjo 2026-02-0911:37

      Nobody was ever going to war with China over TSMC. Whoever believed that has been conned.

  • By SilverElfin 2026-02-095:1612 reply

    Isn’t this an erosion of the silicon shield Taiwan is protected by? If they make semiconductors everywhere else then the world has less economic incentive to protect Taiwan from war.

    • By typ 2026-02-096:46

      The silicon shield became a slogan that has only been popularized in recent years. The potential crisis of war has been there for more than half a century (even before semiconductors became a thing). The real value proposition of the status quo is the freedom of navigation between the northeastern Asian countries and the SEA (the Strait of Malacca, aka the lifeline of energy imports), and the consequential domino effect of the entire western Pacific.

      Also, not sure why everyone forgets about it. People should have learned from the experience of the pandemic that the cutting-edge foundry nodes are not really the crucial ones, as being the bottleneck of industrial infrastructure. A delay of the next-gen iPhone or RTX gaming card isn't that catastrophic. But a shortage of embedded MCUs, which are actually fabricated by mature nodes, could stall the entire industrial base of a country.

    • By david2ndaccount 2026-02-095:19

      The world won’t allow a dependence on a single geopolitically threatened entity in the long run, so either they defuse that risk themselves or risk a competitor filling that role. This move is better for TSMC itself.

    • By porridgeraisin 2026-02-095:25

      America doesn't defend taiwan for its semiconductors - it's all american IP anyways. They defend it for the same reason they defend japan and Phillipines - to control the pacific "frontier" these three countries form before guam. Typically against China, but they would do the same nonetheless.

    • By AlexCoventry 2026-02-095:594 reply

      Seems likely that Takaichi has given Taiwan a Japanese security guarantee. [1] This may be a quid pro quo.

      [1] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/p-4nFgs9fRE

      • By raincole 2026-02-096:183 reply

        She didn't give a security guarantee. And even if she wanted she can't.

        Japan can't even sell arms to Taiwan right now. Even starting selling arms would be a huge change, let alone a mutual defensive pact.

        It's extremely hard to change the constitution of Japan. It's the only constitution that has never been revised since WWII. LDP has been pushing this agenda for decades and nothing really happened.

        • By p-e-w 2026-02-097:26

          > It's extremely hard to change the constitution of Japan.

          It’s easy to ignore or work around it though, just like it routinely happens for every other constitution in the world.

        • By Jean-Papoulos 2026-02-097:24

          Japan's foreign policy about Taiwan includes the notion that an attack on Taiwan is an "existential threat" to Japan, enabling a constitutional reasonning for a war in such a case.

        • By Izikiel43 2026-02-096:202 reply

          She just won a super majority in their legislature, she can even amend the constitution now.

          • By raincole 2026-02-096:331 reply

            No, she can't.

            The process to amend the constitution of Japan [0]:

            1. two thirds of the house

            2. two thirds of the senate

            3. referendum

            LDP just won the house. IF all LDP house representatives agreed with Takaichi then she could pass the first stage. Only two left!

            [0]: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E5%9B%BD%E6...

          • By Hamuko 2026-02-096:33

            Can she? As far as I've understood it, the LDP isn't a particularly united party.

      • By jeeeb 2026-02-097:24

        Japan giving a security guarantee to Taiwan would be major news!

        In reality no such thing happened and one YouTube video of a handful of protestors doesn’t make it so.

        What she did say is that a Chinese attack on Taiwan _could_ clearly become an existential threat to Japan. Note that key word _could_

        Which… of course it could!

        Japan hosts multiple US military bases. If it developed into an armed conflict between the US and China then it’s exceedingly likely that Japan would be attacked. Think Chinese missiles aimed At Yokosuka, just south of Tokyo.

        Not only that but Japan and China have multiple territorial disputes. It’s not hard to imagine China deciding to go all in and settle those as well.

      • By topsykrates 2026-02-096:122 reply

        Despite what Takaichi says, if there is a war in Taiwan, Japan can only defend itself and it's interests in its sovereign territory. Japan's pacifist constitution only allows defense, even building an aircraft carrier was very controversial because it's considered to be too offensive. It's highly unlikely that Japan will actively help Taiwan defend itself

        • By tommica 2026-02-096:18

          Laws and rules can be changed.

          Or defending taiwan can be PR'd into a self-defending message.

        • By Izikiel43 2026-02-096:21

          > Japan's pacifist constitution only allows defense

          She just won a super majority in the legislature that allows her to change the constitution.

      • By mullingitover 2026-02-096:16

        My guess: Japan deletes the pacifist promises in its constitution, fully rearms, announces nuclear weapons capability (or does an Israel and ‘refuses to confirm or deny’), and signs a mutual defense pact with Taiwan.

    • By stingraycharles 2026-02-095:19

      Yes, it is. The unfortunate reality is that western societies care more about TSMC than Taiwan, and they’re hedging their bets this way.

    • By tzahifadida 2026-02-095:483 reply

      Disagree. Making the world less centralized to TSMC chips makes less incentive to invade at the near future. There is no strategic upside to do it right now. If nothing else, to me it seems china is a strategic mover, and will not sacrifice anything for no strategic value.

      • By bschwindHN 2026-02-095:52

        China doesn't want to invade Taiwan for TSMC.

      • By diego_sandoval 2026-02-096:09

        If TSMC didn't exist, China would probably have already invaded Taiwan.

      • By Waterluvian 2026-02-095:571 reply

        That’s a deeply oversimplified understanding of Taiwan and reunification. There’s so much good reading on the topic out there and it’s really worth even just skimming the surface of it.

    • By raincole 2026-02-095:43

      Yes.

      But it will happen one way or another. Taiwan's Sovereignty is completely depending on one single country, the US. It's not like that Taiwan can just say no if the US demands more diversified chip production.

    • By dd_xplore 2026-02-095:34

      But why should the world depend on a single country or entity? Everything should be diversified.

    • By 3eb7988a1663 2026-02-095:211 reply

      Who would protect Taiwan anymore? I have my doubts that any prior defense agreement would be upheld today.

    • By coffinbirth 2026-02-095:542 reply

      [flagged]

      • By avhception 2026-02-096:021 reply

        The US has done a lot of unsavory things. But this comment is just disingenuous.

        For example, discounting Ukraines unwillingness to simply accept foreign rule by the country that brought them Holodomor as purely based on American propaganda and arms sales is either delusional or Russian propaganda.

        • By coffinbirth 2026-02-096:34

          Then please explain why Victoria Nuland was giving out cookies in Maidan Square in 2014? #NoForeignInterference

      • By AlexCoventry 2026-02-095:56

        The weapons are sent on the basis that more expensive the PRC anticipates an invasion of of Taiwan to be, the less likely it is to invade.

    • By trvz 2026-02-095:23

      No. To get to Taiwan, Mainland Taiwan first has to go through China, the ocean, and Taiwan. They’ll be fine without anyone else’s help.

HackerNews

About