Building Resilience into America’s Semiconductor Future

Share this post

Focus: SPA Perspectives

Categories: Capabilities, Software, Cyber, and Cloud Computing, Systems Engineering, National Security, Cabaniss

Risk vs. Uncertainty: Building Resilience into America’s Semiconductor Future

Author: Staff

Alexandria, VA | August 13, 2025

In national security circles, the word “risk” is everywhere. Policymakers, military leaders, and analysts routinely discuss the risks associated with force posture, logistics, and emerging technologies. But when it comes to America’s semiconductor strategy, “risk” is often used too loosely, conflating measurable probabilities with the much broader, more complex concept of uncertainty.

This confusion matters. Semiconductors sit at the heart of not just U.S. military technology but the global economy. The path forward for American security and industrial resilience depends on understanding the difference between risk and uncertainty—and why embracing uncertainty is essential to crafting a sustainable semiconductor strategy.

Read Part 1:

Beyond the Chip: Why National Security Depends on the Entire Semiconductor Ecosystem

The Taiwan Problem: A Case Study in Uncertainty

In Part 1, we explored how semiconductors are not just “chips” but products of an intricate, global ecosystem. Nowhere is the fragility of that ecosystem more evident than in Taiwan. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) alone produces about 90 percent of the world’s most advanced logic chips.

But fabrication is only one piece of the puzzle. The U.S. leads in chip design. Packaging often happens in China. Critical precursor equipment comes from Japan, South Korea, and Europe. Even foundational materials like silicon wafers overwhelmingly originate in East Asia.

This geographic concentration means that geopolitical instability in the region poses real threats. A major disruption to Taiwan’s semiconductor output could cascade across industries globally, halting production of everything from smartphones to military systems. But recognizing this risk is just the beginning. The real challenge is how to prepare for what comes next when outcomes are unknown.

Defining the Difference: Risk vs. Uncertainty

Christian Cabaniss, a military operations analyst with Systems Planning & Analysis (SPA) and USMC Col Ret, argues that many leaders struggle to differentiate between risk and uncertainty, and that distinction is critical.

“Risk is a math problem. It’s about probability and consequence,” Cabaniss explains. “But what we’re really talking about here isn’t risk. It’s uncertainty. And uncertainty requires a fundamentally different mindset.”

Drawing on research like Harvard Business School’s Strategy Under Uncertainty, Cabaniss emphasizes that uncertainty is not just the absence of information. It can range from well-defined potential outcomes to broad ambiguity about future events. The semiconductor industry, given its complexity and exposure to global forces, sits in the middle of the uncertainty spectrum with a broad range of possible outcomes.

From False Certainty to Strategic Flexibility

One of the most persistent mistakes policymakers make is chasing certainty in an inherently uncertain world.

“

“It’s delusional that we’re going to find certainty here. What we need is to be better positioned to understand the range of possibilities and build resilience for those possibilities.”

– Christian Cabaniss, a military operations analyst with SPA and USMC Col Ret

Even within the Department of Defense, the desire for clarity can lead to static planning. Many leaders default to single-scenario risk assessments, failing to account for cascading effects in interconnected systems like semiconductor production.

Take Taiwan as an example. It’s not just that 90 percent of advanced chip fabrication happens there. It’s that those chips then travel through a convoluted web of logistics, testing, and integration before reaching their end users. At every step, new vulnerabilities can emerge—vulnerabilities that may not be evident until a crisis unfolds.

Building Resilience into Semiconductor Strategy

To meet this challenge, policymakers must shift from a mindset of prevention to one of preparation. Total risk elimination is impossible. Instead, the objective should be to build flexible, adaptive systems capable of absorbing shocks and continuing to function under stress.

Cabaniss emphasizes: “Resilience doesn’t come from pretending the world is simpler than it is. It comes from designing systems that can adapt when reality inevitably deviates from the plan.”

Key actions include:

Mapping supply chains beyond the first tier. Policymakers and defense leaders need better visibility into suppliers three, four, or even five levels deep. These hidden dependencies often cause the biggest problems during disruptions.

Investing in redundancy. Single points of failure must be identified and mitigated, even if doing so comes with upfront costs. This could include diversifying fabrication capabilities geographically or supporting domestic packaging and testing industries.

Embracing scenario planning. Strategy should account for multiple possible futures, not just the most likely one. This includes considering geopolitical flashpoints, cyberattacks, natural disasters, and other threats that could disrupt chip access.

Expanding industry-government collaboration. Neither DoD nor any single tech company can solve this challenge alone. Cross-sector and international partnerships are essential for aligning incentives and building resilience throughout the ecosystem.

Mapping supply chains beyond the first tier. Policymakers and defense leaders need better visibility into suppliers three, four, or even five levels deep. These hidden dependencies often cause the biggest problems during disruptions.
Investing in redundancy. Single points of failure must be identified and mitigated, even if doing so comes with upfront costs. This could include diversifying fabrication capabilities geographically or supporting domestic packaging and testing industries.
Embracing scenario planning. Strategy should account for multiple possible futures, not just the most likely one. This includes considering geopolitical flashpoints, cyberattacks, natural disasters, and other threats that could disrupt chip access.
Expanding industry-government collaboration. Neither DoD nor any single tech company can solve this challenge alone. Cross-sector and international partnerships are essential for aligning incentives and building resilience throughout the ecosystem.

Planning for an Uncertain Future

While the spotlight often falls on the technology itself, the deeper challenge for U.S. security is strategic: Can American decision-makers build frameworks that thrive amid uncertainty?

If they can, the U.S. can lead not just in chip design or advanced manufacturing but in shaping a global model of semiconductor resilience that protects both economic competitiveness and national defense.

For foundational context on why semiconductor resilience begins with a broader understanding of the entire production and logistics framework, revisit Part 1 of this series.

Up Next

In Part 3, we examine the physical infrastructure barriers—from permitting delays to power generation limits—that threaten to stall America’s semiconductor ambitions. And in Post 4, we explore how moving from siloed efforts to integrated systems thinking can help align government, industry, and international allies around a more secure and sustainable future.

Subscribe now so you won’t miss a post in this series. We respect your privacy and inbox, sending no more than one email per week.

Subscribe for Future FOCUS: SPA Perspectives Updates