EU's members in NATO have the same safety guarantee provided by the USA as Japan. The US and Japan have a direct alliance that is a treaty guaranteed by the US if Japan is attacked compared to Ukraine's Budapest Memorandum.
EU is no safer than Japan. see the current Ukraine-Russia war.
Japan and Taiwan have similar work cultures and are far closer to Taiwan compared to the US. A 45-minute plan ride for TSMC's higher-up to check on their fabs in Japan is far easier
>EU is no safer than Japan. see the current Ukraine-Russia war.
Ok, IDK why I keep seeing this but I have yet to see any basis in objective reality for it.
Two years ago? Sure. But now with Russia having expended a minimum of half of all of its military stores on a proxy war with a previously insignificant former Soviet vassal, there is no rational reason to consider them to be a security threat in the region. Yes they still have enough nukes to level pretty much everything but if that happens, everywhere becomes insecure so it's not a real consideration.
The worst possible case for the EU (aside from general nuclear exchange, but again...) at this point is some sort of migrant tsunami (pun intended I guess) from a failing Russian state and subsequent loss of stability in neighboring regions to the south but I'd absolutely take that over being within rock throwing distance of an exponentially militarizing China, particularly given that the EU and China aren't even really adversaries in any meaningful way.
> there is no rational reason to consider them to be a security threat in the region
Putin is a dictator. Actions irrational for Russia could be rational for him. Would NATO risk broad conflict if he puttered around in the Baltics? I think so. But do I know so? And wouldn’t challenging NATO like that play rather well domestically?
It's easier to hire in Japan when you already have Sony and the optics makers (Nikon, Canon etc) with past knowledge in fabbing than in many other countries.
That said, I think TSMC had plans for factories basically anywhere they could, not laying they eggs in any single basket. The difference will probably be in process levels.
makes sense, I thought that the situation is similar in Germany (Zeiss, experience in fabbing too* ) but I guess Japan is more stable now
*afaik TSMC will open a fab in Germany, but for bigger nm's for car industry
Perhaps some ideology makes you ignore the otherwise obvious similarities between the peoples of Taiwan and Japan - including but not limited to intelligence, work culture and education - but to me, Taiwan and "some EU country" seem to be a world apart.
I don't think they were talking about the people, but the geography. The Taiwan and Japan are both physically close to China. Taiwan is 125 miles away. Japan is 500+ miles away. Germany is 5,500 miles away.
There are select EU nations that fit that bill. I'd be more suspect of the fact that the EU's political future (not existence, but future) is more uncertain than is communicated to the public. East-West political instability would be a concern in terms of ip control and espionage, at minimum. For more context, historically Europe is a powder keg.
imo Switzerland/Germany could be a good fit too(tsmc will open a fab but for bigger nm so I was wondering why not open another fab but for smaller nm, but maybe you are right- timezone sync can play a big factor)
Place like France or the Netherlands are safer than Japan, but not by _that_ much, and Japan is far less likely to end up in a trade war with the US. Europe may have had a tough few years, but it's pretty much the one place on Earth that could be capable of going toe-to-toe with North America.
Japan is one of the most armed countries in the world and one of the most defensible. I highly doubt that Japan is less safe than most of the EU in practical terms.
Kumamoto, where TSMC's plant is located, is rich in water resources. I don't know much about it, but it seems that water resources are essential to the semiconductor manufacturing process.
I wouldn't put much stock in the strategic implications of these publicized papers outside of the strategic implications being that they want you to think China is a discernible threat.
It's similar to the Israel/Iran thing with the end goal being trying to drum up the warmongers.
Just reading a few sentences of that, it reads exactly like warmonger rhetoric that we all know intimately rather than inside baseball.
Uh, are you saying that Iran wouldn't erase Israel from the Middle East if they had the capability to do so? Where are you going with this? It's indisputable that Iran sponsors anti-Israeli militias across the Middle East, which would qualify them as a threat.
I believe that whether or not Iran would erase Israel from the Middle East, which they probably would, along with a certainty than Israel not only would erase Iran from the Middle East, but has been actively trying to get the US to do so for some time -- the reality is that the only erasure thus far that has been actually executed in earnest is by the Israelis on behalf of the Gazans.
Which would, you know, qualify Israel as "a threat". And they certainly are, in many ways.
To what or whom, you haven't really made clear, but certainly a threat.
Anyhow, I'm really not interested in this level of discussion because it feels extremely superficial. It also feels quite gross to either take seriously or promote warmonger rhetoric, but that's just my personal opinion.
Also, please do not predicate your posts with "uh", it's a bit silly.
Iran is pretty darn hard to actually invade - unlike Iraq, Iran has tons of mountainous terrain and a huge army, and even the US hasn't tried it. So while it would be very unfortunate for Iran if they got into that war, the regime might survive. The US could probably do a lot more, but if they did then Iran could go metaphorically-nuclear and block the strait of Hormuz, destroying global oil supply and supply of LNG to asia, causing mass blackouts there. So the US would be quite leery about doing so.
Israel could nuke Iran, but then they'd be utterly fucked politically. Not just for breaking the nuclear taboo, but because Hezvollah et al would cream themselves and have basically infinite recruitment.
In contrast, Israel has recently had some of its citizens killed by the Iran-backed Hamas, and are bordering both Lebanon and Syria. This didn't hurt Iran from political backlash, not at all, Iran's been pretty open in their hating Israel. If for any reason the US withdrew its military backing for Israel, Iran could and would support an extended proxy war between Israel and its neighbors. Not Gaza (Israel controls their water and fuel supply, so if they're not concerned about pissing off the US and rest of the world then they can kill them all fairly easily) but Lebanon and Syria via Hezbollah and some 'renegotiation' over Golan heights.
What's more, Iran could just invade Israel outright, with Syria's support. Iran has 9x the population size and their army is reasonably modern. Without US backing, Egypt's current dictator could decide to provide military support of their own. And if they win that war then Israelis will be ethnically cleansed. Which is arguably a worse threat than what Israel could do to Iran.
There you go, it can be argued! I wouldn't normally argue for it, I'd say they're about equal personally. It's kind of weird to compare them; neither is really in a good position to fight the other in the first place.
Good post, I basically agree - hence the current policy Israel and America have cooked up of isolation and embargo.
Regarding ethnic cleansing, while you speculate, the Gazans suffer under it in reality.
I'd give Iran the implicit moral highground because they are pretty peaceful and haven't attempted to ethnically cleanse anyone, unlike Israel in both aspects.
Just on the basis of what has actually happened, Israel is an egregiously immoral state. Rich man, eye of a needle and all that.
Now, as for whether or not they would... I think they probably would. But that's speculation, not reality.
Iran hasn’t directly started any wars, but has been fighting proxy wars across the Middle East and Africa for over a generation. You are seriously misinformed here and should not be discussing this stuff until that changes. The entire spectrum of conflicts in the Middle East right now are all coordinated by Iran and its revolutionary guard.
How is it meaningless? Japan was conquered and has had its constitution written by the US while hosting a large number of its troops. The only difference between this and any other historical vassal state is the US paints an illusion of not being one and its economic system doesn’t require tribute to profit greatly as it favors trade.
It also is free to amend and revise its constitution, to terminate the US-Japan defense treaty (Article 10), to pursue its own foreign policy goals, etc. "Vassal state" is an old term with specific connotations that fits Japan if you sort of squint the right way but really doesn't.
To military conflict? I doubt it. To political and economic conflict? Probably. The same thing would be true of France or Poland. That's generally what happens when an ally country stops being an ally country, but it doesn't imply that they're a vassal state.
France and Poland are also US vassals lmao. France can make a better case but that’s because it admitted that all of these alliances subserve it to the US in the 60s and has fought hard to retain some semblance of independence.
Here's an interesting and often used Chinese government propaganda word they use: vassal. It's meant to insult any U.S allies that work together with U.S against Chinese aggression, and to try to drive a wedge between the countries. Nevermind that it's so obvious it never works. And they never call Russia or North Korea a Chinese vassal officially - although some Chinese netizens do
