39
TSMC's $65 billion Arizona facility can now match Taiwan production yields according to early trials (www.techspot.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/us_news@lemmygrad.ml
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I have some thoughts on this I'll post as a comment. But basically the predictions of their re-shoring being a total bust were nonsense. It doesn't matter at the end of the day if their efficiency is only 80% of that of their fabs on the island, if it's enough to be part of what supplies the entire west with all they need for laptops and smartphones and gaming consoles then it's enough to no longer need that occupied part of China or care what their actions taken against China result in as far as consequences.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago* (5 children)

With climate change being inevitable now and leading to more and more catastrophes, massive refugee streams and conflict and wars, the USA is in a unique position with only two borders to friendly countries and two oceans effectively protecting them. Especially after the oil that fuel big warships becomes too scarce.

Of course it's speculation how exactly this will play out, but I believe Europe, Africa, India, China, Russia will all be embroiled in the "climate wars" while the US can continue to snipe from their big continent.

The only thing they really have to do is weaken their opponents and then draw back and avoid being drawn into a nuclear war. Then they win by default.

PS: Of course having high tech chip manufacturing is essential to that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    I'm not sure that's actually going to help the US all that much. After decades of destabilizing Latin America, the US will likely be faced with a massive refugee crisis in the south. Meanwhile, Mexico is becoming a lot less friendly towards the US as any body who's been paying attention to the rhetoric from AMLO would know. It's even possible that Mexico may join BRICS in the near future which is an economic bloc in direct competition with the US.

    Not only that, but it may face an internal refugee crises as parts of the country become unlivable. There are already major rivers and reservoirs drying up as we speak, and this will lead to millions of people being displaced. US could also face droughts that could easily lead to food shortages and even famines. The framing practices in US make this all the more likely given that they're stripping the soil.

    Furthermore, the US being geographically cut off while not being self sufficient means that it's uniquely reliant on supply chains across the ocean. As these supply chains become disrupted, that will cause major economic problems.

    Of course it’s speculation how exactly this will play out, but I believe Europe, Africa, India, China, Russia will all be embroiled in the “climate wars” while the US can continue to snipe from their big continent.

    Seem far more likely that Africa, India, China, and Russia will help and support stabilize each other because it's in their common interest to do so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Yeah true, but producing enough basic calories to feed their own population will never be a problem for the US. And they are engaging in protectionism. As long as the US doesn't disintegrate into civil war, this advantage of their geographic location and size remains.

    So yeah the best strategy for China is to remain friendly and non-aggressive and maintain minimal economic stability for their neighbors. And try to increase economic and social instability and dependence in the US. But you see how the US is poking the bear and now china, they want the instability. And Europe, Russia, China and India at each others throats.

    So if / when there is a gradual collapse of our global civilization, the US could switch fully to that strategy and just continue to destabilize and start proxy wars all around the world rather cheaply.

    I don't know about Mexico, but there are studies that large parts of India could become literally uninhabitable with too high wet bulb temperatures. After that you can image the talk about "Living space in the north" in Siberia. Plus many other places and large cities near the rising oceans. How can there not be endless conflict spilling out and through the many porous borders.

    It's painful to consider, but I don't see the US "loosing" except for civil war or nuclear war. They will have massive problems but they just have to loose less quickly than the rest of the world.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    Yeah true, but producing enough basic calories to feed their own population will never be a problem for the US. And they are engaging in protectionism. As long as the US doesn’t disintegrate into civil war, this advantage of their geographic location and size remains.

    Heatwaves have already resulted in massive crop loss in 2021. Over 21 billion in crop losses was recorded both in 2022 and in 2023. Meanwhile, soil erosion makes the problem even worse, and scientists are already warning that it is threatening food security. I encourage you to read up on the dust bowl to see where this is all going.

    Incidentally, here's a good overview of where farming situation is headed https://lemmygrad.ml/post/5633916/5068182

    So yeah the best strategy for China is to remain friendly and non-aggressive and maintain minimal economic stability for their neighbors. And try to increase economic and social instability and dependence in the US. But you see how the US is poking the bear and now china, they want the instability. And Europe, Russia, China and India at each others throats.

    The actual best strategy for China is to make friends with Russia who can guarantee supply of resources that China needs and to focus on developing Eurasia with projects like BRI which is precisely what China is doing. In parallel, China will continue to decouple from the US and western economies. This process is already well under way.

    I don’t know about Mexico, but there are studies that large parts of India could become literally uninhabitable with too high wet bulb temperatures. After that you can image the talk about “Living space in the north” in Siberia. Plus many other places and large cities near the rising oceans. How can there not be endless conflict spilling out and through the many porous borders.

    That may happen, however that's not going to lead to the climate wars you imagine. Once such an event happens, people will simply die out. They will have no time or the means to migrate anywhere. It's also worth noting that US is quite vulnerable to climate disasters as well. The problems of droughts, large scale natural disasters like megafires, hurricanes, and floodings, all apply to US.

    It’s painful to consider, but I don’t see the US “loosing” except for civil war or nuclear war. They will have massive problems but they just have to loose less quickly than the rest of the world.

    Civil war is the most likely scenario for the US in the coming years. It will be fuelled by the collapsing standard of living, natural disasters, lack of social cohesion. This process has already started and it's very likely irreversible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    the dust bowl to see where this is all going.

    Yeah I know but thanks for the links. No question it will get bad, but it will be worse almost everywhere else in the world. The US has much more land compared to the population than it's rivals.

    In the extreme you only need about 90000 km² arable land (~ size of Indiana) to grow enough potatoes to feed the entirety of the US (napkin math). The area of France could feed the entire world population. Today we have insane amount of "calorie waste" growing luxury foods like beef and almonds and chocolate and overfishing. So there is a lot of buffer for calories, even with soil degradation.

    My point is this: Starvation won't be an existential threat to the US. Two oceans provide a lot of security, and options for geopolitical strategies. The only thing that can destroy the US is the US itself. Or nuclear war.

    While conflicts and collapse of global trade could easily make starvation an existential threat or "threat multiplier" for Europe, India and China. And many other countries on their large and porous borders.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago

    Yeah I know but thanks for the links. No question it will get bad, but it will be worse almost everywhere else in the world. The US has much more land compared to the population than it’s rivals.

    That's a bold statement, and not really sure what you base that on. For example, it's almost certain that things won't get as bad in Russia or Canada. The reality is that global climate is an incredibly complex system and nobody really knows how bad things will get, and where it will be the worst. For example, it's quite possible that it's actually cooler climates that will end up being more affected because that's where the most drastic temperature changes will happen as opposed to places that are already close to global maximum.

    In the extreme you only need about 90000 km² arable land (~ size of Indiana) to grow enough potatoes to feed the entirety of the US (napkin math).

    Actually turning all that land into farm land would be a monumental project. The US isn't even capable of maintaining its bridges right now that are at risk of imminent collapse, you really think that the US would be able to mobilize to turn a land area the size of France into effective farmland in time? https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a62073448/climate-change-bridges/

    My point is this: Starvation won’t be an existential threat to the US. Two oceans provide a lot of security, and options for geopolitical strategies. The only thing that can destroy the US is the US itself. Or nuclear war.

    The problem here isn't purely technical, it's a question of policy and logistics. The US is a dysfunctional state that's not capable of marshalling large scale projects. Dealing with climate change is going to require a level of organization that's simply not present in the country.

    While conflicts and collapse of global trade could easily make starvation an existential threat or “threat multiplier” for Europe, India and China. And many other countries on their large and porous borders.

    That's one of the reasons both China and India keep Russia as a close partner. Europe is likely very much fucked however. Also worth noting that China is now leading the world in indoor farming, which is one of the best ways to mitigate unpredictable weather.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent