Other US agencies that regulate exports (quoted from the "exceptions" section of the above wikipedia article):
>The Department of State: the ITAR administered by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls relate to defense articles and defense services on the US Munitions List and section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act
>The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
>The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which controls the export and re-export of commodities related to nuclear reactor vessels, per the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
The Department of Energy (DOE), which controls the export and re-export of technology related to the production of special nuclear materials, per the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
>The Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of State Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program: items that are sold, leased, or loaned by the DoD to a foreign country or international organization under the FMS program are subject to the Arms Export Control Act instead of the EAR.
Semiconductor fabrication was viewed as a commodified cost center until COVID related supply chain instability.
Furthermore, packaging and testing was largely outsourced and the domestic semiconductor industry imploded in the 2010s with IBM Micro and AMD's failures.
The same thing happened to Japan when they began offshoring Memory Fabrication to South Korea and Taiwan in the 1990s-2000s.
That said, from a NatSec perspective legacy processes (28nm, 48nm) and compound semiconductors would be much more critical (and a significant amount of funding has been devoted to that).
Japan is trying to rebuild its leading edge capability with Rapidus using IBM technology. Interestingly, IBM still does the research needed to make a fabrication plant. They just don’t want to assume the risks from deploying it in production anymore as far as I can tell.
> Interestingly, IBM still does the research needed to make a fabrication plant
Yep. They still own the IP from the IBM Microelectronics days.
Much of the breakthroughs in EUV were done in Upstate NY (especially at SUNY Albany, SUNY Polytechnic, and RPI), and a lot of that was co-owned by IBM, ASML, and TEL.
> They just don’t want to assume the risks
The capex - and pretty much.
Semiconductor Fabrication is high cost, low margins, so it's difficult to spin up without industrial policy.
Yep! I lay the blame squarely on the failed NY Nanotechnology Initiative which turned a massive head start in fabrication R&D into corrupt pork barrel politics.
and not going to be our problem for much longer, 2028-2030 can’t come fast enough
the US is selectively getting involved in worldwide conflicts to deter China from invading China, and its awkward, with arduous contrived rationales to maintain its people’s support
and once we get stateside semiconductors at low enough nanometers we wont have to do any of that any more
I cant wait
good thing there are 185 other countries that could care if they really did. this wont be controversial to point out, in the future. it will be a time period that made little sense.
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.
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
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.
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.
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. 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]
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]
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.
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).
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?
China is in the beginning of a 30 year Great Depression, in no shape to invade Taiwan. Consumer spending in Beijing and Shanghai fell 20% y/y in November. Real estate prices have collapsed 50%, even in some parts of Beijing and Shanghai. Trump has filled the cabinet with mostly anti-China hawks, indicating large tariffs coming next year. Capital outflow from China increased to $45B in November, largest monthly deficit ever. China is pretty fucked.
That does sound like a fabulous time to start a jingoistic war to flame the nationalistic sentiments and declare any dissenters traitors to the nation.
Free market doctrine, plus the investor class wanting to be able to reap the benefits of outsourcing without being concerned about strategic issues. Occasional proposals to this effect have historically been denounced as protectionism, industrial policy (practically socialism!) and 'picking winners and losers'. I am surprised you're unaware of this.
Japan itself largely began offshoring fabrication in the 1990s.
It was Japanese OSAT players like Hitachi that sparked the Penang packaging cluster in Malaysia in the 70s-90s and Japanese Memory firms like NEC+Hitachi that started South Korea and Taiwan's fabrication industries.
Taiwan didn't truly become a leader in the cutting edge fab space until the 2010s when US, SK, and Japanese players dropped the ball, and Apple chose TSMC in the 2010s due to their patent litigation with Samsung (nixing South Korea).
So much of TSMC's dominance now is due to the influx of Apple cash in the 2010s boosting R&D spending, which in turn is because millenials bought a shit tonne of Apple devices because they were convinced by marketing.
TSMC's dominance is at least as much Intel's fault as it is Apple's. And even if Apple hadn't been funneling so much money to TSMC, the smartphone industry as a whole still would have been a cash cow for TSMC. Intel sure wasn't going to be in the running as a smartphone SoC designer or as a foundry for somebody else's smartphone SoCs. In an alternative history where Android thoroughly beat out iOS even for high-end/high-margin smartphones, Samsung's foundry business probably would have been a bit better off, but overall it would still be TSMC as the leading foundry, just with Qualcomm as the launch customer for new nodes rather than Apple.
> Intel sure wasn't going to be in the running as a smartphone SoC designer or as a foundry for somebody else's smartphone SoCs
Intel did try doing this in the 2000s, but couldn't justify the resourcing needed for this due to x86 as well as their restrictive licensing of Intel Atom.
Meanwhile, ARM was fabless and just licensed to anyone (a major reason why Chinese challenger brands exist in the Chips space today)
Fundamentally, you cannot be both an IP creator (eg. Design) and chip fabricator, as both functions have different economics and competitive structures, and one BU inevitabely holds the other back.
> Samsung's foundry business probably would have been a bit better off, but overall it would still be TSMC as the leading foundry
Samsung, SK Hynix, and other Korean players dropped the ball due to the Apple lawsuit as well as the 2016-17 SK-China trade war (impacted SK exports to China - including intermediate parts) and the 2019-23 SK-Japan trade war (a number of critical components in fabrication are supplied by Japanese firms like Tokyo Electron and Nikon and were impacted by mutual tariffs)
> Fundamentally, you cannot be both an IP creator (eg. Design) and chip fabricator, as both functions have different economics and competitive structures, and one BU inevitabely holds the other back.
Vertical integration can win too, it worked for Intel for decades.
Most players in the hardware industry try to specialize in one function and do that very well, as this builds your competitive advantage AND allows you to leverage partnerships to further enhance your moat by building an ecosystem.
For example, ARM is purely design driven - targeted specifically at low power compute usecases - and licensed it's IP out to just about any player, which allowed an ecosystem to develop.
Nvidia did the same thing by remaining fabless and only concentrating on GPUs.
TSMC concentrates only on fabrication and doesn't dare enter design because they know all their customers would leave overnight because they would not want to subsidize a potential competitor.
Intel was in too many segments, which meant it was inevitably competing with everybody, which forced everyone to leverage partnerships to challenge the big baddie.
A similar thing happened to Samsung to a certain extent as well.
Apple pays TSMC better than anyone else does since they want the best processes and are willing to pay a premium to cover much of the investment needed to achieve them. Losing them would really hurt TSMC. Not having them in the 10s would have slowed down TSMC’s development of new process technology.
