The United States has just crossed a historic line: deploying its military into Venezuela to capture the sitting president of a sovereign nation.
Whatever one thinks of Nicolás Maduro, the message was unmistakable. Power, not protocol, is shaping the new politics of the Western Hemisphere—and the world is watching.
Precedents travel fast.
If Washington can justify a decisive strike to “resolve” a regional problem, what stops Beijing from applying the same logic across the Taiwan Strait?
A move framed as security, sovereignty, or inevitability—executed not in the shadows, but in full view of the global order.
Picture a single geopolitical flashpoint capable of wiping out years of global economic gains overnight.
A Chinese military invasion of Taiwan has the potential to unleash the most devastating economic shock of the modern era.
According to Bloomberg, the global economy could lose up to $10 trillion in the first year alone, far exceeding the damage from the 2008 financial crisis or the COVID-19 pandemic.
The reason is simple: Taiwan accounts for roughly 92% of the world’s most advanced semiconductor manufacturing capacity—the tiny engines powering smartphones, electric vehicles, and the data centres running artificial intelligence.
If those fabs go offline, the AI-led stock market rally that has pushed the S&P 500 to record highs would likely collapse.
Taiwan’s stranglehold on AI chips
To understand why Taiwan matters so much, you need to grasp a single fact: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, or TSMC, makes most of the world’s advanced chips.
TSMC manufactures over 75% of all AI chips powering the global artificial intelligence boom.
When Apple designs an iPhone processor, it goes to TSMC. When Nvidia builds graphics chips used in AI data centers, it goes to TSMC.
When Google creates custom chips for its AI infrastructure, it goes to TSMC.
The company doesn’t just make chips; it’s become the physical foundation of the entire AI economy.
Speaking to Invezz, Joshua Mahony, Chief Market Analyst at Scope Markets, puts it starkly:
The particular reliance of Apple and Nvidia on TSMC for the fabrication of their chips does mean that the sudden loss of that huge part of their supply chain could be catastrophic for production levels and revenues.
This concentration of manufacturing capacity in a single island nation is unprecedented.
Taiwan’s dominance is as critical to modern economies as oil was in the 20th century. Any disruption wouldn’t just slow production. It would halt it entirely.
The low probability, catastrophic impact paradox
While the potential damage is existential, expert analysis suggests a military invasion remains unlikely in the near term.
Dr. Arun Polcumpally, JSW Science and Technology Fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute, tells Invezz:
China is not likely to invade Taiwan and annex it forcefully, at least in the next 5 years.
So why does geopolitical risk continue to spook investors? The answer lies in financial probability theory.
When the upside is capped, but the downside is catastrophic, you hedge.
Sophisticated investors don’t wait for invasion probabilities to reach 50% before protecting themselves.
They price in tail risk, the chance of an extreme event, even when odds remain low.
This creates a strange market dynamic.
Tech stocks rise on AI enthusiasm. But underneath, investors quietly buy insurance against Taiwan chaos. The market isn’t irrational. It’s just perpetually braced for disaster.
The AI bubble: Concentration risk on steroids
The current tech rally is remarkable but fragile.
The “Magnificent Seven” stocks: NVIDIA, Microsoft, Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon, and Tesla, have driven much of the S&P 500’s gains.
Nvidia alone is worth nearly $4.6 trillion, commanding outsized influence over market direction.
The profitability chain feeding this rally is also circular and self-reinforcing.
Microsoft buys GPU chips from Nvidia to power its AI services.
Those services generate revenue that flows back to Microsoft. Google does the same. Apple uses TSMC chips in products sold to AI data center customers. It’s a closed loop of mutual dependence.
Break that loop, and the entire structure collapses. A Taiwan invasion would do exactly that.
Mahony explains:
Any Chinese invasion that brings a potential halt or restrictions to Taiwanese-US exports will undoubtedly represent a huge potential source of downside as profitability and earnings estimates are revised downwards.
BCA Research models suggest a 40% S&P 500 crash in a full military conflict scenario.
In blockade scenarios, expect 10% declines. These aren’t outlier predictions from doomsayers. They are mainstream financial models from credible institutions.
The numbers behind the nightmare
The scale of economic damage is staggering. Global economic output would contract 10.2% in an invasion scenario and 5% in a blockade scenario.
To put that in perspective, global GDP shrank by around 5% during the 2008 financial crisis.
As per IEP estimates, Taiwan’s own economy would contract by 40% in year one.
The Bloomberg report suggests a 16.7% to 8.9% contraction for China’s economy, depending on the scenario. The United States would see 6.7% to 3.3% GDP decline.
These aren’t theoretical abstractions. They translate into jobs, businesses closing, and supply chains grinding to a halt across every major industry.
Automotive manufacturing, consumer electronics, smartphones, and medical devices all depend on chips flowing from Taiwan.
The Taiwan Strait alone handles 50% of global container traffic. Any blockade would choke trade worth over $3 trillion annually.
The medium-term reality check
But here’s where Dr. Polcumpally injects a dose of realism that markets often ignore. The catastrophe, while severe, might not be permanent.
In case China forcibly annexes Taiwan, there could be a temporary disruption in the semiconductor market and AI value chain for a couple of years, but the markets will absorb the shocks, and TSMC will continue producing the advanced chips with a revamped business strategy.
Markets are resilient. Supply chains are flexible. Given time, a couple of years, alternative arrangements could be made.
This doesn’t mean the initial shock wouldn’t be devastating. It means the world economy wouldn’t stay devastated forever.
That recovery depends entirely on whether Western countries maintain investment in alternative chip manufacturing.
Polcumpally notes that “re-configuring the business deals might take a couple of years but will not be difficult.”
Homegrown advantages of the domestic companies in South Asia and Europe, combined with established US hyperscalers and their investments throughout these regions, would provide resilience against Chinese competition. However, this is possible if the current AI investments are continued.
The emphasis is his. Political will matters. If the US and allies lose interest in building competing chip capacity, recovery stalls.
The reshoring trap
This touches on a deeper problem. The Trump administration has pushed companies to repatriate semiconductor manufacturing through incentives and tariffs. Progress has been real but incomplete.
Mahony explains the challenge:
While Trump has sought to push companies to repatriate manufacturing back into the US through both incentives and tariffs, that reshoring process has a long way to go before these companies are able to entirely replace their imports from the likes of Taiwan.
The hard truth is that the US simply cannot replicate Taiwan’s manufacturing capacity quickly enough to bridge a supply gap if Taiwan goes offline.
The infrastructure doesn’t exist. The expertise is concentrated in Asia.
Most critically, Western labour costs and regulations make replicating Taiwan’s model nearly impossible.
Dr. Polcumpally elaborates:
Replicating China’s or Taiwan’s manufacturing style in the Western part of the world is not possible, given the strong labour laws and the lifestyle. While China might permit some semiconductor manufacturing and outsourced assembly and test facilities to continue operating on US soil, questions would remain about their long-term viability and efficiency under such circumstances.
In plain language: You can’t build a $20 billion chip fab in Texas and expect it to operate like one in Taiwan.
Labor laws are stricter. Costs are higher. Regulatory frameworks are different.
Any scenario where Taiwan falls would create a multi-year supply chain vacuum that simply cannot be filled in time.
How the US, Japan, Korea, and India might react
Former President Joe Biden broke decades of “strategic ambiguity” to state explicitly that the US would defend Taiwan militarily. But what does that actually mean?
Experts are divided. Some envision direct military intervention, American troops fighting Chinese forces.
Others predict a “Ukraine model,” where the US supplies weapons and aid but stays out of direct combat.
Mahony raises a troubling parallel:
The US actions in Venezuela have undoubtedly raised plenty of questions over the prospect of similar actions in Taiwan, with China potentially seeking to gain greater control over its own hemisphere.
This reflects real uncertainty about American resolve. Trump has already questioned NATO commitments.
For Asia, the responses would vary wildly.
Japan has called a Taiwan invasion a “survival-threatening situation” and would likely intervene militarily. Geographically, losing Taiwan leaves the Japanese islands exposed to Chinese dominance.
South Korea faces a painful choice. It borders China and depends on Chinese trade.
But a China-dominated Taiwan threatens South Korean security. Seoul is cautiously preparing for Taiwan contingencies while trying not to provoke Beijing.
India remains strategically hesitant. Despite Quad security partnerships and growing Taiwan ties, New Delhi’s own border disputes with China make direct intervention unlikely.
India would likely prefer neutrality, but would be devastated by a supply chain collapse regardless.
Southeast Asian nations like the Philippines would be caught in the crossfire. The Philippines hosts US bases, making it a potential target for Chinese strikes if it permits American operations.
Most other ASEAN nations would likely choose neutrality, but would suffer economic ruin from supply chain disruptions anyway.
The Chinese double bind
Here’s the cruel irony of Taiwan invasion scenarios: Even if China “wins,” it loses.
Joshua Mahony notes that Chinese competitors might initially benefit:
What comes to the detriment of US tech could benefit their competitors, with the Chinese tech sector benefiting from the increased access to technological expertise, turbocharging their AI push.
But this ignores a critical reality. TSMC has contingency plans to disable its manufacturing equipment if captured. Beijing would gain control of facilities but not the ability to use them. The fabs would be worthless.
Moreover, invasion would trigger immediate sanctions, economic isolation, and a severe contraction of China’s own GDP.
Dr. Polcumpally’s longer-term perspective is sobering:
However, there will be a permanent change to the global semiconductor supply chain with China dominating the ASEAN and African markets in a decade.
It means the global economy would bifurcate into competing semiconductor blocs, one centred on China, one on the West. Trade would splinter. Innovation would diverge. The integrated global economy would fragment.
Whether Western economies can avoid this outcome depends on sustained political commitment.
Polcumpally warns: “This is possible if the current AI investments are continued” in alternative regions and reshoring. But if resolve wavers, fragmentation becomes permanent.
The employment shock nobody talks about
Amid the macroeconomic modelling, one human element gets overlooked: jobs.
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry already faces a shortage of 34,000 workers as of May 2025.
The US semiconductor workforce shortage is projected to reach 146,000 by 2029. Japan faces a 40,000-worker deficit. South Korea expects a 56,000 shortfall by 2031.
A Taiwan invasion would reverse all momentum in workforce development.
Taiwanese engineers would flee to safer jurisdictions, triggering a brain drain that would permanently weaken the island’s competitive position.
Semiconductor companies would pause hiring globally. Unemployment in tech-dependent economies would spike sharply.
The market’s silent assumption
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan may be unlikely in the next five years, according to most experts. But markets have never waited for certainty to price catastrophe.
Low-probability, high-impact events are the ones that matter most in finance—not because they are expected, but because they are survivable only once.
The danger is not Taiwan alone. It is the global economy’s quiet decision to place its most critical manufacturing capacity in a single, irreplaceable location. One island. One chokepoint. No redundancy.
Whether through invasion, blockade, cyberattack, or accident, that concentration is a sword of Damocles hanging over global markets—visible, acknowledged, and largely ignored.
Investors who hedge this risk are not being alarmist. They are being realistic. The AI boom powering record equity highs rests on a foundation far more fragile than Wall Street pricing implies.
That fragility—not the odds of invasion—is the real fault line. And it is already there.
The post A $10-trillion reckoning: how a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would upend markets appeared first on Invezz
