If that's the only reason the US is continuously poking the Chinese panda, we should keep that in mind the next time they invoke the humanitarian card.
It's not and let's refrain from characterizing complex geopolitical issues as simply the "US is continuously poking the Chinese panda" because it does all of us a disservice and lowers the bar.
Anyway - the United States places value on Taiwan not just because of TSMC (otherwise why was there value before TSMC even existed) but because Taiwan serves as a key piece in the so-called first island chain of US-allied nations that sit on the eastern coast of China. This includes Taiwan, but also Japan and others.
The reason today that America is very interested in Taiwan is because in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan - American commitment to the Pacific comes in to question. Will the US respond to, and go directly to war with China? If it does, can it win? If it does, what other nations will come to the aid of the US (or China), and who will stay out? The key piece here is that it puts the American alliance system to the test and some (not I) question whether the United States is committed to defending other countries in the Pacific theater if it means a "real war" - i.e. Japan, Korea.
The US already doesn't need TSMC for any strategic purposes - while the loss of the fabs in Taiwan would be devastating to the world economy, America (and other nations for that matter) still produce semiconductors, just not quite as good. You can still build cars with Intel chips, but you aren't building the iPhone 16 with them. It's not an existential threat, though certainly a very bad thing.
Alternatively, if China were to invade Taiwan and the US failed to respond, that would be an existential threat to the United States because it would effectively kick the U.S. out of the Pacific and cause long standing allies such as Japan and Korea to play both sides instead of being firmly in America's camp.
Coming back to TSMC building a chip plant in the US - even if they were to (and they probably will) it won't really diminish or change the Taiwan Question and undoubtedly as part of increasing US defense aid to Taiwan the US is going to want to hedge its bets a bit and have an operational fab in the US so that if a war does break it the impacts are lessened. I don't see this as a change to US Pacific strategy because it's not a fundamental concern.
> if China were to invade Taiwan and the US failed to respond, that would be an existential threat to the United States because it would effectively kick the U.S. out of the Pacific
Hyperbolic? The US not having a wall of ships on China's east coast is not an existential threat for the US.
No it's not really hyperbolic. I wrote why the US is so committed to the region in my post above.
I'd also say characterizing things as "the US having a wall of ships on China's east coast" is itself a bit hyperbolic itself and taken without context quite meaningless.
One might wonder, well why does the US have aircraft carriers in the region?
Maybe it has something to do with things like China's continued threats of taking over Taiwan, or North Korea's launching of ICBMs into the Sea of Japan?
The comment belies basic geo political understanding. US for a change didn’t start the hostilities. It is China that has a stated policy of “de throning” the US and replacing the US led world order.
China’s actions have been equally concerning, the build up in South China Sea is a naked attempt at imperialistic expansion. Its activities on its land borders echo much of the same sentiment. It is a de facto revanchist power.
When an ex US colony Philippines invites the US to set up military bases it is not the US doing it, it’s because Philippines has concerns about China.
When S.Korea and Japan start putting differences aside it’s because they share a common threat perception of China.
Not to mention China’s abhorrent pillaging of technology, export of dystopian authoritarian control mechanism to government, and its human rights violations which you seem to ignore, yeah the US isn’t the problem here for a change. The CCP is an absolute challenge to liberal values it must absolutely be restrained. Taiwan is a small piece of that the game is much bigger.
China doesn't have the ambition to become the hegemon, this is a exclusively american neocon disease. The Chinese are instead interested in a multi-polar world, and let me tell you, there is a lot of countries out there that are also tired of American Hegemony and would welcome a change in a multi-polar direction.
No. A simple google search would reveal what China intends to achieve . Speech after speech given by Xi are available to refute your point entirely. While I agree China would want a multipolar world but that is just a stepping stone to its eventual goal of being the Middle Kingdom, this really isn’t in doubt, plenty of CCP literature exists to support this argument.
A simple internet search will give you the translated, summarized, and out-of-context Xi speech the neocon propaganda machine wants you to see.
A classical case of manufacturing consent.
Like I alluded to before China’s actions speak louder than words. If speeches aren’t good enough an indicator for you, actions surely should be. China absolutely wants to be a hegemon and is an imperialist power as its actions since the early 1900s depict. Invasion and occupation of Tibet, SCS disputes, routine clashes with Vietnam, Philippines and India. US isn’t even the only aggrieved party here, hell you can even keep Taiwan out if it. It takes staggering amount of stupidity to ignore this reality and parrot tankie nonsense.
It's possible to take this too far. I agree that TSMC is a major piece of the U.S.'s interest in Taiwan. but it's not the only thing. The U.S. supported Taiwan long before TSMC came around.
