Intel CEO Asks US Government for More Backing, Calls Taiwan Not Stable

[Pumper]

oh no! a 200B market cap Corporation needs Taxpayers money to keep profits high cause they can't have lower profits for their shareholders and the CEO can't live without their million dollar bonuses...

The US government should help the overall market, not individual companies.

Trillion dollar corporations are fighting for every cent they can get, why wouldn't Intel? Musk and Bezos both are worth more than Intel, but they are trying to dodge as much taxes as they can get away with while asking for subsidies for their trillion dollar corporations at the same time.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Note: The recent failed US hypersonic test was a Mach 20 version...

The Chinese Hypersonic missile is uniquely tailored for its positioning in the Pacific. Its a terrible strategy for the USA, but a great strategy for China.

USA doesn't need hypersonic missiles. Our enemies don't build "Iron Domes" or "AEGIS Cruisers", or "Patriot Missiles". Why would we create a Mach 5 missile that evades missile defenses, when our enemies are going with the "don't build a missile defense" strategy?

Our hypersonic capabilities are there only in case our enemies start developing missile shields of their own. Otherwise, our gameplan is "smack them with 100 Tomahawks", which are relatively cheap and very effective. In fact: the main problem with Hypersonic is that a singular Hypersonic missile is more than 10x the cost of a Tomahawk. Meaning, its more cost-effective to launch 10x Tomahawks simultaneously and hope that the enemy's defenses can't deal with it.

EDIT: The reason why super-expensive hypersonic missiles work for China, is because the USA has $13 Billion dollar Gerald Ford Aircraft "Supercarriers" floating around (plus the cost of all the airplanes and personnel on board). In contrast, China has no such high-value target. Any hypersonic missile we'd develop is more expensive than any ship China has ever made. There's no point.

China's stealth tech is mostly hype :

There's different levels of stealth.

Our F35 probably will pop up on enemy radar screens, just like the Chinese counterpart. If they know that its coming, but if they can't shoot it down in time, the F35 will do its job and come home safely. Same thing with the Chinese counter-part, its not about being "secret", its about avoiding the "lock on" from modern missiles or modern CRAMs.

In contrast, F22 "stealth fighter" and B2 "stealth bombers" are aiming to be completely invisible to radar. Except their paint is so finicky that the F22 and B2 planes are a pain in the ass to take care of and maintain.

Any stealth capability means that US Patriot missiles will become less reliable at gunning down the airplanes. Normally, if we shot 100 Patriot missiles, we'd probably expect to kill 90+ enemy airplanes. However, if they have stealth capabilities, maybe our 100 missiles will only kill 50 of them, as the lock-on system fails spuriously. An F22 or B2 bomber would never get into this situation to begin with, but the mass produced airplanes have a fundamentally different mission...

Its more about a numbers game, cost-effectiveness and the like. Its not perfect stealth, just enough to cut down the efficacy of enemy weapons a notch.

And I'm pretty sure that Japan's sub fleet could single handedly dismantle China's current navy given enough time :

China's Navy currently outnumbers the US Navy in terms of Ships.

https://media.defense.gov/2021/Nov/03/2002885874/-1/-1/0/2021-CMPR-FINAL.PDF

That's 571 Chinese Ships, vs the US Navy of ~500 ships (EDIT: My ship count was wrong, see below). China already outnumber the USA, let alone Japan, and China continues to mass produce even more ships as we speak.

China will outnumber us with "lesser" ships. In the open-seas, I'm pretty sure the USA will beat China's Navy, but China's missile-force has been conducting some very troublesome tests. There's no guarantee that our Supercarriers will survive a fight against China's Missiles.

US Navy is better than Chinese Navy (for now and the foreseeable future). But US Navy vs Chinese MissileForce + Chinese Navy.... that's an open question.

-------

EDIT: I probably should post US Numbers: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL32665.pdf

This is the combined forces of US Navy + US Marines. We got 355 ships vs the 571 ships of China. Now each of our ships are probably "better" than Chinese ships. Those Amphibious ships of the US Marines are practically small-carriers (F35B launch from them, while US Marines storm the beaches).

But as it stands right now, we're already outnumbered by the Chinese Navy, and the Chinese Navy continues to build more and more ships. They're clearly planning something: either a bluff (is this just a diplomatic game to them??) or maybe a serious invasion of Taiwan.

 

[bug]

I think you are overrating China's <current> capabilities.

US successfully tests Mach 5 missile – DW – 09/28/2021

Capable of traveling more than five times the speed of sound, a new generation of missile systems are being designed for speed, stealth and surprise. Russia is already working on developing its own weapons system.

www.dw.com

Note: The recent failed US hypersonic test was a Mach 20 version...

China's stealth tech is mostly hype :

India Claims It Has Tracked China's J-20 Stealth Fighter On Radar

Is there more to this than meets the eye?

nationalinterest.org

And I'm pretty sure that Japan's sub fleet could single handedly dismantle China's current navy given enough time :

Japan Has A Plan For Dismantling China’s Submarine Fleet

The balance of naval power in Asia is shifting, with China building more submarines and other naval vessels while Japan's fleet is stagnant. But Tokyo has optimized its entire fleet—subs, ships and planes—for anti-submarine warfare.

www.forbes.com

True, but look back at WWII: tech superiority didn't matter, production did. And what does the US do these days? Order a number of planes or whatever, cuts the order back when costs overrun and when they're done, they dismantle the factory. They're exactly as prepared for a prolonged conflict as the Nazis were when blitzkrieg stopped working.

 

[MentalAcetylide]

The Chinese Hypersonic missile is uniquely tailored for its positioning in the Pacific. Its a terrible strategy for the USA, but a great strategy for China.

USA doesn't need hypersonic missiles. Our enemies don't build "Iron Domes" or "AEGIS Cruisers", or "Patriot Missiles". Why would we create a Mach 5 missile that evades missile defenses, when our enemies are going with the "don't build a missile defense" strategy?

Our hypersonic capabilities are there only in case our enemies start developing missile shields of their own. Otherwise, our gameplan is "smack them with 100 Tomahawks", which are relatively cheap and very effective. In fact: the main problem with Hypersonic is that a singular Hypersonic missile is more than 10x the cost of a Tomahawk. Meaning, its more cost-effective to launch 10x Tomahawks simultaneously and hope that the enemy's defenses can't deal with it.

EDIT: The reason why super-expensive hypersonic missiles work for China, is because the USA has $13 Billion dollar Gerald Ford Aircraft "Supercarriers" floating around (plus the cost of all the airplanes and personnel on board). In contrast, China has no such high-value target. Any hypersonic missile we'd develop is more expensive than any ship China has ever made. There's no point.



There's different levels of stealth.

Our F35 probably will pop up on enemy radar screens, just like the Chinese counterpart. If they know that its coming, but if they can't shoot it down in time, the F35 will do its job and come home safely. Same thing with the Chinese counter-part, its not about being "secret", its about avoiding the "lock on" from modern missiles or modern CRAMs.

In contrast, F22 "stealth fighter" and B2 "stealth bombers" are aiming to be completely invisible to radar. Except their paint is so finicky that the F22 and B2 planes are a pain in the ass to take care of and maintain.

Any stealth capability means that US Patriot missiles will become less reliable at gunning down the airplanes. Normally, if we shot 100 Patriot missiles, we'd probably expect to kill 90+ enemy airplanes. However, if they have stealth capabilities, maybe our 100 missiles will only kill 50 of them, as the lock-on system fails spuriously. An F22 or B2 bomber would never get into this situation to begin with, but the mass produced airplanes have a fundamentally different mission...

Its more about a numbers game, cost-effectiveness and the like. Its not perfect stealth, just enough to cut down the efficacy of enemy weapons a notch.



China's Navy currently outnumbers the US Navy in terms of Ships.

https://media.defense.gov/2021/Nov/03/2002885874/-1/-1/0/2021-CMPR-FINAL.PDF

View attachment 227483

That's 571 Chinese Ships, vs the US Navy of ~500 ships (EDIT: My ship count was wrong, see below). China already outnumber the USA, let alone Japan, and China continues to mass produce even more ships as we speak.

China will outnumber us with "lesser" ships. In the open-seas, I'm pretty sure the USA will beat China's Navy, but China's missile-force has been conducting some very troublesome tests. There's no guarantee that our Supercarriers will survive a fight against China's Missiles.

US Navy is better than Chinese Navy (for now and the foreseeable future). But US Navy vs Chinese MissileForce + Chinese Navy.... that's an open question.

-------

EDIT: I probably should post US Numbers: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RL32665.pdf

View attachment 227513


This is the combined forces of US Navy + US Marines. We got 355 ships vs the 571 ships of China. Now each of our ships are probably "better" than Chinese ships. Those Amphibious ships of the US Marines are practically small-carriers (F35B launch from them, while US Marines storm the beaches).

But as it stands right now, we're already outnumbered by the Chinese Navy, and the Chinese Navy continues to build more and more ships. They're clearly planning something: either a bluff (is this just a diplomatic game to them??) or maybe a serious invasion of Taiwan.

All that data is fine and dandy, but it doesn't change the fact that nuclear weapons makes all of this irrelevant. As soon as someone starts losing, tactical nuclear weapons will be used, and then from that point on everything and anything goes. Lets not forget that each continent is pretty much a one or two-bomb target and does not require peppering with hundreds of nukes to take down a lot of infrastructure and kill off a majority of its population.
One of the problems I see with the US military is a lot of the spending is wasteful. We have the world's largest military budget, yet a lot of it ends up lining corporate/hidden pockets.

 

[dragontamer5788]

All that data is fine and dandy, but it doesn't change the fact that nuclear weapons makes all of this irrelevant.

No it doesn't. Without homing capabilities, a nuclear missile can't hit a carrier. The DF-21 carries a 300kt nuclear payload, which according to nukemap.com has a 7.8km blast radius. (https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/).

The DF-21 travels at 3000mph (Mach 5). If our ships are 1000km away, it will take 12-minutes for the missile to hit our Supercarriers. Our supercarriers travel at 35mph. They'll be 7-miles (11km) away from the site, which is far beyond the nuclear blast. Carriers can turn on a dime, and our technology would absolutely detect a missile-launch of that speed and guess where its going, so the carrier will be able to "dodge" out of the way.

The only way that DF-21 hits our carriers, be it with a nuke or conventional, is if it has homing capabilities. It needs to be able to detect the ship while flying at 3000mph and "home" into the target.

Missiles aren't laser beams. They take time, even when traveling at hypersonic speeds, to hit their target. 12 minutes is more than enough time for a 35mph vessel to "dodge a nuke".

------

Nukes or no nukes, everything relies upon the homing capabilities of the hypothetical, untested weapon China has developed. Only China will know how reliable that thing is, its probably one of the secrets they won't tell anybody.

EDIT: And that assumes that China can find our carriers. If war starts, I'm pretty sure we'd destroy their satellites, on the chance that their missiles do have homing capabilities. (How do the missiles home? The missile itself probably doesn't have a radar system to find ships, they probably rely upon some other satellite to find our ships and report to the missile where to go. Destroy that satellite, and we're good. Etc. etc. This is "Space Force" stuff but... you can see why USA funded the Space Force to have generals think about this kind of tactic)

------

EDIT2: So now what? Lets say China decides to nuclear-first strike vs our Carriers. And then suddenly they miss. What do you think happens after that? USA's gloves come off and we hit them back with a retaliatory nuke, except we won't miss.

One of the problems I see with the US military is a lot of the spending is wasteful. We have the world's largest military budget, yet a lot of it ends up lining corporate/hidden pockets.

Its a well known fact that Chinese single-party system is more corrupt than us. We may have a lot of corruption, but our enemy in this fight has even more corruption / self-dealing / hidden pockets.

I'm simply worried about evaluating the situation with the pieces on the board. Public information on the military situation is surprisingly easy to find, because the US debates its budget in public. If you read up on the budget requests and reports, a lot of what we know is public information.

All of this money / projects / etc. etc. has been endlessly debated in Congress, in public, with documents that you or I can pull up and debate here if you so wish. China does not have that luxury. We're smarter because of it. But just because we're smarter doesn't mean we're going to win this fight.

 

[bug]

All that data is fine and dandy, but it doesn't change the fact that nuclear weapons makes all of this irrelevant. As soon as someone starts losing, tactical nuclear weapons will be used, and then from that point on everything and anything goes. Lets not forget that each continent is pretty much a one or two-bomb target and does not require peppering with hundreds of nukes to take down a lot of infrastructure and kill off a majority of its population.
One of the problems I see with the US military is a lot of the spending is wasteful. We have the world's largest military budget, yet a lot of it ends up lining corporate/hidden pockets.

That's the general assumption, but I fail to see why it has to be true. Because of the MAD, I expect that even if the order is given, there will be enough clear heads around making sure insanity doesn't prevail. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not a possibility.
Case in point: the US/UN didn't exactly win in Korea, yet they didn't nuke anyone, even in the absence of MAD at the time.

 

[MentalAcetylide]

True, but look back at WWII: tech superiority didn't matter, production did. And what does the US do these days? Order a number of planes or whatever, cuts the order back when costs overrun and when they're done, they dismantle the factory. They're exactly as prepared for a prolonged conflict as the Nazis were when blitzkrieg stopped working.

Well actually, in our nuclear weapons age, its more a matter of who has produced more and is better prepared. Both Russia and China are better prepared than any other country to deal with an all out nuclear war.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Well actually, in our nuclear weapons age, its more a matter of who has produced more and is better prepared. Both Russia and China are better prepared than any other country to deal with an all out nuclear war.

Dude, we're freaking nuts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob .

The USA is one of the only countries to have nuked our own soldiers in a wargame to study the effects of nuclear weapons on military tactics. (EDIT: Right, Russia did Totskoye: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totskoye_nuclear_exercise)

Approximately 18,000 members of the U.S. Air Force, Army, Navy and Marines participated in exercises Desert Rock VII and VIII during Operation Plumbbob. The military was interested in knowing how the average foot-soldier would stand up, physically and psychologically, to the rigors of the tactical nuclear battlefield.

Do you know what a nuke does to a soldier's psyche? Well, of course not. But our generals do. That's part of our secrets and manuals. The pilots have retired / died from back then (old age and/or cancer), but their writing and stories live on. Helicopter pilots, airplane pilots, Navy, marines, and foot-soldiers all participated in the exercises. Learning to fly in nuclear-force winds, how to take shelter, how to advance despite the appearance of giant mushroom clouds.

China simply doesn't have that experience.

------

EDIT: Russia also has this nuclear experience. But that's why we can trust Russia to not use nukes, cause they know the destruction they will cause. I think I can agree with you that China might choose to use nukes, but I don't think that's a fight China would win.

 

[Aquinus]

I think the reality is that Taiwan has been in a stalemate with mainland China for years and given China's attitude and actions towards Hong Kong, I expect them to be just as aggressive with Taiwan. I think the US has a vested interested in maintaining the current situation because Taiwan is a huge economic asset for the US. They're also not nearly as batshit crazy as the PRC.

Taiwan is plenty stable, its relationship with the PRC is not.

 

[MentalAcetylide]

Dude, we're freaking nuts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob .

The USA is the only country to have nuked our own soldiers in a wargame to study the effects of nuclear weapons on military tactics.



Do you know what a nuke does to a soldier's psyche? Well, of course not. But our generals do. That's part of our secrets and manuals. The pilots have retired / died from back then, but their writing and stories live on. Helicopter pilots, airplane pilots, Navy, marines, and foot-soldiers all participated in the exercises. Learning to fly in nuclear-force winds, how to take shelter, how to advance despite the appearance of giant mushroom clouds.

China simply doesn't have that experience.

It wouldn't make any difference, and I'm fairly certain they have a good understanding of the effects of nuclear weapons, both physical and psychological. In the end after all of the dust settles, nobody wins, so it becomes a rhetorical pointless discussion.

 

[dragontamer5788]

It wouldn't make any difference, and I'm fairly certain they have a good understanding of the effects of nuclear weapons, both physical and psychological. In the end after all of the dust settles, nobody wins, so it becomes a rhetorical pointless discussion.

If our carriers dodge their nuke, then they lose. EDIT: Heck, even if they hit one of our 11 carriers, now what? They just pissed us off severely.

Nukes aren't some magic "win" button. They still have to travel and hit their target.

 

[bug]

If our carriers dodge their nuke, then they lose. EDIT: Heck, even if they hit one of our 11 carriers, now what? They just pissed us off severely.

Nukes aren't some magic "win" button. They still have to travel and hit their target.

If they played dead and invited the US to invade, the US couldn't handle it. Too much territory, too much population.
Carriers only pose a threat to fleets. China can just play defense. Let the US come close and swarm with (inferior) planes, conventional rockets and troops.

Of course it's not that simple, I was just listing some scenarios to put things in perspective.

All this talk about threats, nukes and invasions... Fortunately what keeps everybody sane and prevents all that is... trading.

 

[dragontamer5788]

All this talk about threats, nukes and invasions... Fortunately what keeps everybody sane and prevents all that is... trading.

The 1st Great War pretty much disproved that theory. Economic growth and economic trade was highest in Europe than it ever had been before in the late 1800 / early 1900s.

I mean, maybe its true, but I wouldn't rely upon it. I'd be willing to increase trade on the chance that it prevents war. But call me a pessimist on that particular factoid.

If they played dead and invited the US to invade, the US couldn't handle it. Too much territory, too much population.

If China performed a nuclear first-strike against us, the 3750 nuclear warheads launched from a variety of sources (SLBMs in particular are incredibly scary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-launched_ballistic_missile).

What they don't tell you about ICBMs: they travel at Mach 23. Once launched, they are practically unstoppable. They're also not designed for precision, but instead just smacking the country randomly with the biggest bombs we got.

In any case, China doesn't want to use nukes, because we'd retaliate with our nukes. The expectation is that we'd keep things conventional... and ideally focused on Taiwan.

---------

I'd expect China to use conventional warheads on the DF-21. We all know they're nuclear capable, but hopefully our nuclear deterrent is big enough to prevent them from thinking about using their nukes.

 

[MentalAcetylide]

If our carriers dodge their nuke, then they lose. EDIT: Heck, even if they hit one of our 11 carriers, now what? They just pissed us off severely.

Nukes aren't some magic "win" button. They still have to travel and hit their target.

I'm sorry, but this makes zero sense. Aircraft Carriers have always been and always will be slow & easy targets. The only things they have going for them is the ability to project significant air power and that they don't travel alone. Even if they were able to hydrofoil and travel 100 mph on the sea, they might as well just be sitting still in comparison to the travel velocity of anti-ship/ballistic missiles armed with nuclear payloads.
A missile of that type doesn't need to be precise in the way that you're thinking, so its not like dodging it would be an option. Also, you can bet that a couple of these missiles would be launched in unison with enough additional missiles armed with conventional warheads to saturate any countermeasures in order to make it successfully reach near enough to its target. Once it gets close enough and goes off, there goes most of the naval task force.

 

[dragontamer5788]

I'm sorry, but this makes zero sense. Aircraft Carriers have always been and always will be slow & easy targets.

I already covered this. Did you miss my earlier post? I'll quote myself again:

No it doesn't. Without homing capabilities, a nuclear missile can't hit a carrier. The DF-21 carries a 300kt nuclear payload, which according to nukemap.com has a 7.8km blast radius. (https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/).

The DF-21 travels at 3000mph (Mach 5). If our ships are 1000km away, it will take 12-minutes for the missile to hit our Supercarriers. Our supercarriers travel at 35mph. They'll be 7-miles (11km) away from the site, which is far beyond the nuclear blast. Carriers can turn on a dime, and our technology would absolutely detect a missile-launch of that speed and guess where its going, so the carrier will be able to "dodge" out of the way.

The only way that DF-21 hits our carriers, be it with a nuke or conventional, is if it has homing capabilities. It needs to be able to detect the ship while flying at 3000mph and "home" into the target.

Missiles aren't laser beams. They take time, even when traveling at hypersonic speeds, to hit their target. 12 minutes is more than enough time for a 35mph vessel to "dodge a nuke".

Even if they were able to hydrofoil and travel 100 mph on the sea, they might as well just be sitting still in comparison to the travel velocity of anti-ship/ballistic missiles armed with nuclear payloads.

First: 35mph is more than sufficient to dodge a nuke on the open seas. But lets think through the logistics of such an attack...

1. Do not underestimate the complexity of a homing missile at Mach5+ (Hypersonic) speeds. Its hard enough to move that fast, its even harder to steer at those speeds without blowing yourself up. And its even harder for you to communicate with such a missile to provide it with a moving coordinate / homing.

2. What magic sensor network do you have to provide the "lock-on" capabilities? And can it really see further than an E-2 Hawkeye (the "eye-in-the-sky" airplane that would be supporting the Aircraft Carrier) + the supporting AEGIS cruiser ?? If all the enemy sensors are dead, then the Aircraft Carrier cannot be locked on. Its really that simple. Kill the satellites, kill the drones, and the missiles cannot "home". If it cannot home, the Aircraft Carrier can dodge a nuke.

3. Some sensors could be on board the DF-21 directly. But the DF-21 is traveling at Mach5+ speeds and has very little time to calculate its trajectory... and those sensors will be up against Mach5 hypersonic winds (ie: good luck getting most typical sensors to even function in those conditions). Furthermore, the Destroyers that accompany the Supercarrier group are provisioned with anti-missile flares. Meaning the missile won't see 1 carrier in its radar signature, it will see 10 carriers, all in different directions... 9 of them harmless flares: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nulka

As such, 35mph is more than enough to dodge a nuke, as long as the enemy sensor network is down (Or alternatively, if China's homing capabilities are just a bluff and currently don't work as expected)

Also, you can bet that a couple of these missiles would be launched in unison with enough additional missiles armed with conventional warheads to saturate any countermeasures in order to make it successfully reach near enough to its target. Once it gets close enough and goes off, there goes most of the naval task force.

So you're saying that China not only wishes to invoke US-MAD policies with a singular nuclear launch... but instead wishes death upon themselves by launching multiple nuclear missiles at US sailors?

Really think about the risks involved in that. Even one nuke would be a huge escalation from the status quo. If you're saying that China is launching 5 or 6 nukes to ensure a carrier kill, then US nuclear weaponry would be obviously aimed in on China for a retaliatory strike. Even then, I'm still not sure if those missiles will hit a Carrier, or if they'd hit a flare, or if the sensor network would go down before the "lock on". Its very much uncertain.

Worst case: China will have spent like 5 nukes to kill one carrier. Our remaining 10 carriers would send out E2 Hawkeyes to find targets, and then our nuclear submarines will launch our retaliatory nuclear missiles.

 

[hathoward]

Do you think scare tactics is the correct way to do business? It seems more like something a CEO of a company that's lagging behind its competitors would try.
Also, why does Intel deserve special treatment by the US government?

It's not a scare tactic in my opinion. His points are valid and I agree that semiconductor superiority should be a national concern.

 

[WeeRab]

Isn't taking government cash called Communism? Or didn't Mussolini class Private enterprise taking Government cash Fascism?
Either way...It certainly isn't 'Capitalist Market Forces'.

 

[dragontamer5788]

Isn't taking government cash called Communism? Or didn't Mussolini class Private enterprise taking Government cash Fascism?
Either way...It certainly isn't 'Capitalist Market Forces'.

Was Ford communist when in WW2 the US government took over plants to make the M4 Sherman?

That's how we built so many tanks, for Russia, Britain, and ourselves. Wholesale takeover of private company factories.

It is for emergencies, but every factory in the country is innately a potential war factory and key to our defense strategy.

This has been enshrined into the law through the Defense Production Act, and has been involved to speed up vaccine distribution and mask production last year.

We actually ran out of vaccine needles and masks if you don't remember. Defense production act helped.

--------

Today's war machines need chips. The F35 is so unstable only a computer can fly it. Building a defense base for advanced chip production within the country is necessary.

TSMC in Arizona is one piece of that strategy. Intel also wants that money though.

 

[bug]

Isn't taking government cash called Communism? Or didn't Mussolini class Private enterprise taking Government cash Fascism?
Either way...It certainly isn't 'Capitalist Market Forces'.

I think you mean socialism, communism is something else. And no, there's nothing preventing the state from picking things they want to support in a free-market economy (see J.M. Keynes). Problems start when the state goes overboard with involvement - a very, very fine line to cross.

 

[remixedcat]

No bailouts!! Enough of this crap!! It's their fault they won't adapt. Sick of these big companies getting big bailouts while the struggling families get crumbs.

 

[R-T-B]

That would be to intentionally de-legitimize the referendum.

I would argue the invasion delegitimized it beyond repair.

No bailouts!! Enough of this crap!! It's their fault they won't adapt. Sick of these big companies getting big bailouts while the struggling families get crumbs.

This isn't a bailout. This is an economic incentive to build industry, which happens all the time (and works) globally.

 

[dragontamer5788]

This isn't a bailout. This is an economic incentive to build industry, which happens all the time (and works) globally.

Well, it sometimes works, it sometimes doesn't. I can list off plenty of incentive programs that have utterly failed. But there are plenty of incentive programs that are great.

I'm mostly neutral to the idea of Intel getting money. Frankly, GloFo should be pushed instead, as that's the US-home grown fab facility. Sure, they're stuck at 12nm, but some government $$$ would allow them to reach 7nm and 5nm, and 3nm.

Intel almost only makes Intel / Altera chips. I know they technically have other customers but... they're not really comparable to TSMC or GloFo.

I think I overall agree on making sure that the USA has a strategic, domestic, source of chips. Not only for war, but also for economic reasons. Even if no war were to take place, its clear that chips are the way of the future.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I would argue the invasion delegitimized it beyond repair.

I already know the media's propaganda line, you don't need to repeat it.

There would have been no referendum without the invasion. The post invasion independent surveys, along with history, tell the true story.

 

[KCCCC]

I did watch that. Yes their system is very inefficient and corrupt, but you're missing that part about the #1 movie, Chosin river, Korean war.

They turned a battle where they lost 60,000 soldiers vs less than 11,000 US/UN/ROK (S. Korea) into a victory. They still achieved their goal, with N Korea the result. China can lose 5:1 and still win.

That movie is funded by the CCP. #1 in the world, only released in China. They are grooming their people for this type of battle / war.

I think that movie is terrible, and I don’t know why anyone wants to watch it.

 

[remixedcat]

I would argue the invasion delegitimized it beyond repair.


This isn't a bailout. This is an economic incentive to build industry, which happens all the time (and works) globally.

My state (WV) did something like that with some solar or wind company and they never even did anything... I think the money should only be given to them after they have actually done something there. Not just take the money and run kinda shit.