Taiwan - Silicon Shield
U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick recently challenged Taiwan's "silicon shield" defense theory, suggesting that the U.S. would be better able to protect Taiwan with a more balanced global distribution of advanced semiconductor manufacturing. He proposed that Taiwan and the U.S. each produce 50% of the advanced chips needed by the U.S. market, a proposal that Taiwan rejected in early October 2025.
In a September 2025 interview, Commerce Secretary Lutnick questioned the effectiveness of the silicon shield. He argued that if 95% of U.S. chip demand relies on chips made in Taiwan, the U.S. would be unable to resupply itself with chips needed for its military and economy in the event of a conflict. Lutnick believed that a "50-50" production split would better secure Taiwan's stability.
Lutnick said last in an interview to NewsNation, adding that currently 95% of the U.S. demand was met via chips produced within Taiwan. “My objective, and this administration’s objective, is to get chip manufacturing significantly onshored — we need to make our own chips,” Lutnick said. “The idea that I pitched [Taiwan] was, let’s get to 50-50. We’re producing half, and you’re producing half.” US President Donald Trump had also taken aim at the island’s dominance in chips earlier this year, accusing it of “stealing” the US chip business.
The "silicon shield" is a geopolitical concept referring to Taiwan's dominance in the global semiconductor industry, particularly through companies like Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), which acts as a deterrent against potential military aggression from China. The idea posits that Taiwan's indispensable role in producing advanced chips—essential for everything from smartphones and cars to military hardware and AI—creates such high economic costs for any invader that it effectively "shields" the island from attack.
Unlike traditional shields forged in iron or steel, Taiwan’s shield is built from semiconductors, and in particular the world-leading capabilities of the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC). This concept captures how technology, economics, and geopolitics have intersected to create a new form of deterrence: Taiwan’s critical role in global supply chains makes the risks of military aggression against it disproportionately high.
Taiwan produces over 90% of the world's most advanced semiconductors (nodes below 10nm), making global supply chains heavily reliant on it. An invasion or blockade by China could halt production, causing trillions in economic losses worldwide, including severe disruptions to China's own tech sector, which depends on Taiwanese chips. The U.S., Japan, and Europe have an interest in keeping TSMC safe. That provides Taiwan indirect protection, as losing access would cripple their economies and militaries.
This mutual vulnerability is seen as a form of strategic deterrence, similar to nuclear mutually assured destruction but economic in nature. Major powers like the US, Japan, and Europe would face immediate shortages in critical technologies, potentially pressuring them to intervene or negotiate to protect Taiwan. For instance, TSMC's fabs (fabrication plants) are so advanced that replicating them elsewhere would take years and billions of dollars.
The term was popularized in the early 2000s by Craig Addison in his book "Silicon Shield," drawing from Taiwan's transformation into a semiconductor powerhouse starting in the 1980s. At that time, Taiwan produced about 90% of global IT products, evolving into today's focus on cutting-edge chips. It gained renewed attention amid rising US-China tensions and events like the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which highlighted supply chain vulnerabilities.
Critics of the Silicon Shield concept argued that it was fragile—a “glass shield.” In a real war, they pointed out, semiconductor production would almost certainly collapse, whether through direct attack, blockade, or labor disruptions. Rather than deterring conflict, the shield might perversely incentivize China to try to seize TSMC facilities intact, treating them as a strategic prize. Yet, despite these criticisms, the shield still shapes decision-making. Even Chinese strategists recognize that destroying Taiwan’s fabs would devastate China’s own economy, which depends heavily on imported chips for everything from smartphones to advanced manufacturing. This mutual vulnerability continues to function as a deterrent, however unstable.
Taiwan’s semiconductor story begins in the 1970s, when the island sought to move beyond labor-intensive industries into high technology. With strong state backing, government agencies such as the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) laid the groundwork for chip design and fabrication. In 1987, Morris Chang, a veteran of Texas Instruments, founded TSMC under government sponsorship. Unlike integrated device manufacturers in the United States or Japan, TSMC pioneered the pure-play foundry model, producing chips designed by others.
By the 1990s, Taiwan had become central to global electronics supply chains. Companies like Apple, Nvidia, and Qualcomm relied on TSMC’s manufacturing capabilities. This integration into global production networks planted the seeds for the later idea of a “shield”: Taiwan’s value to the world economy was becoming indispensable.
The term “Silicon Shield” appears to have entered circulation in the early 2000s, first among analysts and Taiwanese policymakers concerned about China’s growing military power. Cross-strait relations were tense, with the People’s Republic of China increasing missile deployments opposite Taiwan. While Taiwan had long relied on the “security shield” of U.S. military guarantees under the Taiwan Relations Act (1979), some scholars argued that semiconductors provided an additional, more subtle layer of deterrence.
The logic was straightforward: the world’s dependence on Taiwan’s chips meant that any war would trigger a catastrophic disruption of global supply chains, collapsing industries from Silicon Valley to Shenzhen. Thus, Taiwan’s technological centrality could deter Beijing—not because of military force, but because of shared economic vulnerability.
During the 2010s, the concept matured as TSMC pulled ahead technologically. While U.S. companies like Intel stumbled in pushing below the 10-nanometer threshold, TSMC became the unrivaled leader in advanced manufacturing, mastering 7nm, then 5nm, and soon 3nm processes. Taiwan’s fabs accounted for over 90% of the world’s leading-edge semiconductor capacity.
This concentration of expertise turned the “Silicon Shield” from a theoretical metaphor into a lived reality. The iPhone, global cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and modern weapons systems all depended on chips manufactured in Taiwan. Political leaders and military planners began openly acknowledging this interdependence. Some in Washington saw it as a “golden handcuff” tying the United States to Taiwan’s defense. Others in Taipei promoted it as a guarantee that Taiwan would not be abandoned in a crisis.
In the 2020s, the “Silicon Shield” came under intense scrutiny as U.S.–China technological rivalry deepened. Washington imposed sweeping export controls on advanced semiconductor technology to China, while simultaneously investing billions in onshore chip production under the CHIPS and Science Act (2022). TSMC itself agreed to build cutting-edge fabs in Arizona and Japan, reducing the world’s over-reliance on Taiwan.
While the silicon shield has been credited with maintaining peace across the Taiwan Strait for decades, some analysts argue it's weakening. Initiatives like the US CHIPS Act are pushing TSMC to build fabs abroad (e.g., in Arizona and Japan), reducing Taiwan's monopoly and potentially diminishing its protective value. Beijing is investing heavily in its own chip industry to lessen dependence, though it still lags in advanced nodes. Hybrid warfare, such as cyberattacks or economic coercion, could target the industry without full invasion, testing the shield's limits.
Proponents of a "Silicon Shield 2.0" suggest Taiwan should expand beyond semiconductors into areas like AI and biotech to reinforce its strategic importance. Overall, the concept underscores how economic leverage can serve as a non-military defense in geopolitics, though its future efficacy remains uncertain amid shifting global dynamics.
Some analysts argue the “shield” is more of a “glass shield”—fragile, because war in Taiwan would almost certainly halt chip production anyway. Others suggest it could encourage China to try to seize TSMC facilities intact rather than deter it.
The “Silicon Shield” is often compared to oil in the Middle East - a resource so strategically vital that it shapes international policy. It is also lie nuclear deterrence, not in destructive terms, but as an economic “mutually assured dependence.” In short, the “Silicon Shield” captures the paradox that Taiwan’s vulnerability—its dependence on semiconductors—is also its greatest source of security.
The “Silicon Shield” represents a novel kind of deterrence—economic rather than military, global rather than regional. In earlier eras, natural resources like Middle Eastern oil or South African gold shaped geopolitics by virtue of scarcity and concentration. Taiwan’s semiconductors have assumed a similar role in the digital age. Just as oil defined 20th-century strategy, chips define the 21st. At the same time, the shield illustrates the paradox of globalization. Interdependence was once seen as a path to peace; today, it is both a buffer against conflict and a source of acute vulnerability. Taiwan is indispensable precisely because it is so exposed.
The “Silicon Shield” is less a fixed guarantee than a shifting strategic calculation. Born from Taiwan’s rise as a technological powerhouse, it has evolved into a central metaphor of 21st-century geopolitics. Whether it endures as a stabilizing deterrent or shatters under the pressure of great-power rivalry remains uncertain. But its historical significance is already clear: it shows how economic interdependence and technological supremacy can become as powerful as armies in shaping the fate of nations.
In October 2025, Taiwan's Vice Premier Cheng Li-chiun stated that the proposal for a 50-50 split was "an American idea" and had not been agreed upon in negotiations. Some Taiwanese politicians and scholars criticized Lutnick's demand as coercion, arguing it would weaken the "silicon shield" by stripping Taiwan of its most vital strategic asset and diminishing its leverage. Taipei's leaders see maintaining control over their advanced semiconductor technologies, primarily produced by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), as a matter of national sovereignty.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
