IIRC, this isn't happening because Europe doesn't have a large enough industry to purchase chips at the scale required to have such a huge investment.
This one in USA is for political reasons and likely will be feasible only if US manages to preserve the global political order.
Maybe Europe could have had force having a latest node FAB by banning exports of EUV machines and have factories built in Europe through flying Taiwanese engineers to build and operate it and call it huge success like USA is doing now.
I don't know if its worth the cost though. Sure it is good to have it bu in USA's case they even haven't built the industry around it, they will produce the chips in USA, call it "Made in America", collect the political points and ship the chips to the other side of the planet for further processing.
Is it really that big of a deal to have European machines being operated by the Taiwanese in the USA to print chips that need a visit to China to become useful? If the global world order collapses, will the 330M Americans be able to sustain the FAB? If it doesn't collapse, will that be still a good investment considering that Taiwanese have the good stuff for themselves and integrated into the full chain without flying parts across the world?
That narrative doesn't make sense, making Taiwanese build and run a factory in USA is not much different than an oil rich Arab country luring a western institution opening a campus in their desert. Its good to have but it doesn't make you a superconductor superpower.
To be fair, the USA does have many of the key companies and technologies that make these ICs possible in first place so it's not exactly like that but in the case of TSMC it kind of is.
Says the US who can't manufacture anything modern unless they urge a Taiwanese manufacturer using European lithography machines to make chips. Let's please not do this senseless patriotism that so en vogue in the US right now.
The United States possessed approximately 12% of the world's global chip manufacturing capacity as of 2021. This is a notably lower percentage of global capacity than the US enjoyed just a few decades previously (37% in 1990, for instance), before countries such as Taiwan and China ramped up their semiconductor production capabilities. Despite this decline, the semiconductor industry remains quite lucrative in the US. According to the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA), semiconductors exports added $62 billion (USD) to the US economy in 2021, more than any product other than refined oil, aircraft, crude oil, and natural gas. Many of these imported chips return to the US in the form of finished consumer electronics.
Although the US held just 12% of the world's total semiconductor manufacturing capacity in 2021, US-based companies held approximately 46.3 percent of the total semiconductor market share. This seeming discrepancy can be explained by both the dollar value of imported US semiconductors, outlined above, and the fact that many US-based companies own and operate semiconductor fabrication plants in other countries, such as Japan. In such cases, the manufacturing capacity is added to that country's capacity rather than the capacity of the US, but the profits typically count as part of the US economy.
They do in Dresden Germany, but not nearly as cutting edge as the ones in US and Taiwan. US is a more useful strategic ally for Taiwan than EU. Not to mention the more expensive energy in Germany vs the US.
EU finds out the hard way that not having had energy independence plus a weak/non-existent military relying mostly on the US, has costly second order externalities that voters never think about or factor in their decisions(I'm European).
The best way to have peace is to always be ready for war. Being a non-armed hippie pacifist nation sounds good in some utopic fantasy world like the Smurfs, but in reality it only invites aggression from powerful despots like Putin and Xi and even your strong ally, the US, can exploit your moment of weakness and security dependence on it, to push its own agenda and trade terms on you.
That's true, but there is a large financial cost to always being ready for war. The US has spent 80 years being the "policeman of the world" for good or bad. Lots of bad decisions but the world also takes for granted the open seas, etc. that come at a great cost to Americans in reduced social services like health insurance and higher education.
Firstly, you don't need to spend America levels (more than than the next world powers combined) to have an efective military deterrent, since currently most EU member states barely spend 2% GDP on defense which is too little. You can have a strong military AND welfare services if you're smart about your state finances which many EU members are not(looking at you Germany), especially since defense investments create more jobs and innovations flowing back into the state coffers. Switzerland is a good example.
Secondly, America's defense is way more expensive than it needs to be due to a lot of high level corruption and lobbying from the military industrial complex profiteering when it comes to purchasing decisions, where a 10$ bag of bolts is bought by the military for 50K$, shovelings taxpayer money into the right private industry pockets. EU can achieve similar results with way less cost if it wanted to by minimizing this style of corruption but that's easier said than done. The only one rivaling America's military inefficiency is Germany who spends more than France, a nuclear power with aircraft carriers, but can't afford to issue underwear and dog tags to new conscripts.
Thirdly, America's lack of social services is not due to its powerful military, but due to political choices and inefficiencies. It could easily have better welfare if it wanted to since it can afford it with the world's largest GDP, but it chooses not to, since the current status quo is enriching a lot of private enterprises and parasites, while the concept of even more welfare is usually not a popular topic with the US voters which see welfare recipients as lazy and an unnecessary money sink funded by higher taxes on the middle class which they don't want. So their issue is social and political, not economical.
> Firstly, you don't need to spend America levels (more than than the next world powers combined) to have an efective military deterrent,
Would you consider most European countries to actually have an effective military deterrent?
By troop count, munitions stock, or the number if tanks and jets I don't see anyone as having a particularly impressive military in Europe. That doesn't mean they couldn't organize one if needed, but that's a different issue.
> Thirdly, America's lack of social services is not due to its powerful military, but due to political choices and inefficiencies.
You're missing a big factor here, cultural differences. America was built on the idea of people making a way for themselves and living or dying by their own successes or failures. We've moved pretty far away from that and do now have social programs and safety nets, smaller than many European countries' nets, but the expectation of making a way for yourself is still under the surface. Many people simply don't want the level of welfare programs seen in other countries.
> By troop count, munitions stock, or the number if tanks and jets I don't see anyone as having a particularly impressive military in Europe.
compared to what? Who does Europe need to fight who has more ammo, tanks, jets and nukes? Russia has proven itself unable to take on Ukraine with half-assed support by the west, China and India are far away.
Shall Europe prepare to fight the US for Greenland?
Russia has an estimated 1.5 million troops and plenty of equipment. They have seemed to still be very lacking in military logistics, which is crucial, but they also haven't seemed to be throwing everything they have at Ukraine.
I'd strongly recommend you not underestimate Russian ability by assuming Ukraine is the best they could do. That doesn't mean they are going to invade further into Europe, but we're talking about military size and deterrence here.
I'm sure Russia can do more, e.g. they have not enacted martial law and forced conscription. What I'm saying is that the current level of deterrent seems enough given what we now know about Russia's military might.
NATO-without-USA has more aircraft, tanks, and watercrafts than Russia. Less stored ammo for sure, and probably not as effective, but on the other hand: nukes.
I'd be curious if NATO would actually stay together without the US, though to be clear that's a theoretical curiosity that I'd be happy never to see answered.
It sure seems to me like NATO is largely built on the assumption of US involvement, but I could be biased there.
that was a somewhat defensible if somewhat silly position back in 2022, but in 2025 with part of Russia occupied by Ukraine, the Soviet stockpiles emptied, and North Koreans being brought in to fill the gaps, what the hell are you talking about?
I actually expected them to do better (militarily, obviously worse for Ukraine) in the first few days of the war. They showed the Russian military hadn't learned much from their previous logistics issues, but resources wasn't the problem.
Sounds like we just have different expectations of how stretched the Russians are today, nothing wrong with especially as I'm assuming neither of us have access to the most meaningful field assessment reports.
My view on how the Russians have handled the war, since losing their chance at a quick sweep, has been that they are doing only enough to keep pressure and roughly maintain the front line gains they made. Sure that line has moved, and Ukraine did a pretty impressive job capturing some Russian territory which I don't think was expected by many, but the Russians seem to be balancing a lot more than just a single goal of victory.
I'm curious where you are getting reliable Intel on the Russians current stockpile of munitions, I haven't come across anything meaningful there publicly beyond potentially politically motivated statements and reporting regurgitating those same claims.
Edit: its worth noting there are other reason the North Koreans may have sent troops. If the country is feels the military needs actual combat experience for whatever reason, for example, they could send troops regardless of whether it actually helps the Russian effort.
People don't want to be taken care of if they're sick or injured? They'd rather be backfired or dead because of an accident? Unless if they participate in the American employment cabal?
Please. People want to be taken care of. America was built by people escaping famine and people escaping poor living/working conditions.
In other words, it was built by people trying to make a better living for themselves. Living or dying by your success or failure wasn't a desirable feature, it was an incidental side effect of colonizing a new land.
You're cherry picking only the benefits of welfare programs and ignoring downsides.
Ask a person if they would prefer to be taken care of when sick and of course the answer would be yes. It isn't that simple.
Welfare programs require taxes to fund them and larger government bureaucracy to manage them. Not everyone agrees with that, and not every government is actually trustworthy to manage the programs well.
But being the "policeman of the world" has helped with preserving dollar's status as the major currency for international transactions between third countries, and in particular for oil, which in turn makes the dollar a desirable currency, because everyone has and wants to have dollars, and has allowed the federal central bank to print the trillions of dollars it had been printing over and over without it losing its value. Any other country's currency would have been super-inflated if they did the same.
The open seas is a myth. It is the American seas unless you have a lot of nuclear weapons.
> that come at a great cost to Americans in reduced social services like health insurance and higher education
But also brought lots of business and investment too. On total it's positive, otherwise the US would not do it. *I am not saying the distribution of the incoming wealth was equal.
> Lots of bad decisions but the world also takes for granted the open seas, etc. that come at a great cost to Americans in reduced social services like health insurance and higher education.
The reason the US defence budget is so sky-fucking-high is because we effectively pay for everyone's military, though.
I doubt the other budget line items would see an increase with defence cuts, but we certainly don't need the entire defence budget for just our own sake. America doesn't need 11 nuclear aircraft carriers or nearly 2500 F-35s, among other excesses.
Also: Attitudes like yours sincerely make me want to see America First pushed more literally to the point of leaving those who don't appreciate us to fend for themselves. Japan, EU, and so on.
Obama already declared we aren't the world police anymore, for better or worse.
Any talk that assumes the US defense budget is massive is silly. It's approx 12% of the federal budget and 3.4% of the nation's GDP. It seems large because the US is rich and it seems large compare to the EU because most of the EU, besides Poland, decided it was a lot cheaper to have a token force and leave the real work to the Americans.
Size of the budget is all in the eye of the beholder though. I don't think its unreasonable for someone to see 12% of the total budget going to defense as massive, especially when the country isn't actively at war.
It takes all nine of the top 10 countries besides America (#1) to finally match and exceed the American defence budget. Of those nine, only two (Germany and France) are EU members.
In a word, the American defence budget is fucking massive and we certainly don't need anywhere even remotely most of it for ourselves.
You’re missing the parent’s point. It’s large in absolute terms but not as a percentage of GDP (3.5%). And for countries spending less, once again the point is that they’d rather spend less and lean on the US when things really hit the fan (see: European countries not chipping in the requisite 2% of GDP for NATO funding; roughly half of that “OMG so massive” US military spending goes towards NATO).
Edit: yes my bad, I was meaning this comment for another poster in the thread.
> The reason the US defence budget is so sky-fucking-high is because we effectively pay for everyone's military, though
Yes, but don't act like that is some kind of selfless act. In the end, it benefits the US more if they do that and have military bases and influence all over the place, than not doing that. If that also protects their allies, even better, since then it can be used to better justify the international meddling (as you're doing now).
Nonsense, Americans pay the most for health insurance. It's merely about how you use the money. Same with education. The American economy is so great it could afford an entire second military industrial complex and still have enough money left for healthcare and education.
well, EU are enjoying NATO Protection (what I mean nato is only few nato country that really spend money on their military)
some country didn't spend as much even almost downscale its military and you expect the same benefit while didn't want any cost associated with it, how it make sense and fair for everyone???
TSMC also builds facilities in europe but they are not as advanced. Europe's strategic budget to finance such moves is much smaller. And this is purely strategic, these plants are a technology transfer program meant to de-risk the Taiwan/SK issue getting ugly. From an economic point of view, production in Asia is cheaper.
