Taiwan air drill highlights US arms sale dilemma

Taiwan air drill highlights US arms sale dilemma

www.seattlepi.com

Taiwan's equipment-challenged air force demonstrated its improvisational skills Tuesday, landing six war planes on a normally busy highway to simulate a response to a Chinese attack on its air fields.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Harmless training incase the SHTF or do they know something we don't?

Looks like America is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" moment - either they supply Taiwan with some newer tech and piss off China, or decline to not exacerbate tensions with China and break long standing diplomatic obligations with a Far East ally.

Dilemma.

www.seattlepi.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Kalby


You don't piss off your depth collector, everyone knows that.

Once they (The West will try to take over China) however that plan will fail, once the west takes over they will attack russia and destroy Moscow to the ground, thats NATO/UN/EUs true plan, never has the current amercia cared for world peace just more conquering, my prediction isn't off.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


Isn't Russia in the UN? They must have missed that Security Council meeting.

So... if I have a company making, say, combat aircraft in the U.S. - and I enter those aircraft into a bid to fill a slot in the U.S. military arsenal, and also offer them for sale to another nation (such as Taiwan) - it is the U.S.'s authority and responsibility to tell me who I can and cannot sell a militarized airframe to?

It's my design - just like a model of car is.

Taiwan needs new gear. If we don't allow our arms manufacturers to sell it to them - someone else will (such as one of the EU designs or a Russian one).

In my opinion - we made huge mistakes in nationalizing many of our arms industries. We should let those businesses do what they do (design effective combat machines) and browse the market like any other nation without domestic military production.

Procuring weapons willy nilly on the open market is a good idea till you try to standardise them to function in cencert.
I think we do a great job of making death dealing devices, mind control technology, and over all WMD.
There is no other country ever that has put so much money into their means and methods for subjugating nations than the USA.
The destabilisation of the worlds despots that is ongoing is not a spntaneous happening as we well know....
When we iternalise the weapons production and developement, we have been able to stay ahead of the curve in most area of warfare except oblique warfare which is a hard nut to crack.....
I think a possible way out for both is for the Taiwanese to suddenly develope their own version of aircraft using off the shelf US parts.
It would be easier to be removed that extra step.
China may or may no accept it better....

Originally posted by Aim64C
So... if I have a company making, say, combat aircraft in the U.S. - and I enter those aircraft into a bid to fill a slot in the U.S. military arsenal, and also offer them for sale to another nation (such as Taiwan) - it is the U.S.'s authority and responsibility to tell me who I can and cannot sell a militarized airframe to?

That depends on the airframe, and on other factors also.

The "joint strike fighter" airframe is designed to be sold to other nations.

In contrast, the F-22 currently has a ban on exports:

F-22 Ban on exports
They kicked around the idea of selling a watered down version to Japan but it didn't happen:

The 2010 defense authorization bill was signed on 28 October 2009, included provisions requiring the DoD to prepare a report on the costs and feasibility for an F-22 export variant and another report on the impact of F-22 export sales on the U.S. aerospace industry.

They're still talking about an export variant, but I haven't heard they've gone forward with that.

Hopefully the US has learned that past allies can become future enemies (and vice versa) so there is a risk involved in exporting your best weaponry.

The US supplied planes to Taiwan as far back as 1958 and I think the US and Taiwan will continue to be allies. But I have no idea if Taiwan will eventually become independent from China or if it will eventually unify with China. Lots of Taiwanese protested China's 2005 anti-secession law, supposedly making it illegal for Taiwan to become independent. This story is still playing out.

reply to post by Kalby

Pretty dumb..
Now the Chinese know to also bomb any decent length highway sections...

reply to post by Arbitrageur


You missed my point, to a degree. I was questioning the practice of restricting weapon sales, and asking what the limitations are.

If I develop a small-scale railgun in my garage and start manufacturing them - I'm free to sell them to whomever I wish to, in theory.

Scaling that up a bit - I've got designs and ambitions for aircraft that make the F-22 look like a cheap, half-witted attempt at aviation designs. Let's say I fall into a pit of capital resources and decide to found a company designing and building combat aviation solutions outside of government contract development. Some would be purely utilitarian airframes, and others would be spare-no-expense, techno-fetish super planes.

I would, of course, place them in the running for bids of various military arsenals - but the idea is that a country would go "window shopping" at various shows and bid for an aircraft they think fits their needs.

Should the government be able to say: "Hey, you can't sell that to other countries" based on the notion that no U.S. manufactured aircraft should be sufficiently more advanced than the current U.S. military arsenal? They can't bind it up in "this airframe was designed using federal grants and therefor cannot be sold without permission." It was developed completely on private funding.

I believe we should allow even very powerful weapon and military systems to be developed by a genuinely free market and governments simply open up bidding for production. Why shouldn't we fly the PAK-FA if it's offered to us and it fits our needs? Why shouldn't Russia fly the A-10?

It ends up costing the tax payer large amounts of money to fund the development, testing, and production of poor or lacking designs that never see export. The JSF is a failed airframe that would have likely been shelved or canceled long ago in the free market world. It's been kept alive by tax payer dollars and decisions made by people on government salaries.

When the thing is going to have per-unit costs approaching that of the F-22 (canceled because it costs too much, remember?) and performance inferior to the Block 60 F-16 (and the F-16E/Block 60 has practically all same combat and EW systems) and more wing-loading that the F-105 (a plane the Air Force would like to forget ever existed) should never see the light of day. Ever.

reply to post by Aim64C


Your theory promotes globalization and would ultimately make weapon manufacturers more powerful than governments. Major countries have their own weapon systems for good reasons. One is weapon development branches, which basically means you're building off of your own technology. When you develop and use your own technology, then you already have the distinct advantage of your rival not using or understanding the full potential of your tech.

And it's really all about a competitive industry. If we have arms manufacturers supplying the same weapons to all governments, then the arms corporations will have the monopoly on war itself. In such a scenario, all they would have to do is raise a private army and they could challenge national governments completely, and what could governments do when they are challenged by the very corporations that supply them with weapons?

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Since governments would be the primary customers of arms manufacturers - I fail to see how that would make them more powerful than governments, themselves.

Now, if we were to go to full-fledged PMC/PDC industries - then, yes, the governments would contract defense with private organizations - which would eventually hold more -military- power than the government, itself. Although I'm not so certain that would be a bad thing. War may be a business to a mercenary - but it's also a risk. It's more difficult to get into 'dumb' wars when no one will take the contract for them due to the risks or lack of mission involved.

Further - just as there would be competing government technologies, there would be competing arms manufacturers. Just as you have competing computer manufacturers. While there would be some standardization of technology (a "PCI" bus or "USB" bus, for example) within the arms business - there would be a lot of competition to best each others' technology.

For example - one manufacturer builds a bomber - another manufacturer builds a means of defense against that - and the cycle continues almost autonomously from the actions and initiatives of government.

Originally posted by Aim64C
You missed my point, to a degree. I was questioning the practice of restricting weapon sales, and asking what the limitations are.

Maybe I'm still missing it. I guess the idea that a private company with private funding can research and develop any weapon system they want and not expect to have the government restrict who they can sell it to seems like an odd concept to me. I will agree with your point that private funding may be able to develop such systems more economically, if I got that point correctly. But I can't imagine any government not caring who I sell my railguns to. Of course they'll care, and if they think it can pose a security threat they'll try to restrict sales to other countries. Heck, the US even restricted export of encryption technology.

Since governments would be the primary customers of arms manufacturers - I fail to see how that would make them more powerful than governments, themselves.

I was pretty intrigued by Eisenhower's 1961 speech, how do you interpret that in this context?

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

He said this after being president for 8 years, so he had the security clearance to know what was happening behind the scenes that most of us don't have access to.

It does seem like our liberties and democratic processes are being eroded by things like the Patriot act, though I can't blame the military industrial complex for that. But it does seem like the case of Area 51 workers getting sick from working with toxic substances and then not being able to sue the government doe to national security reasons may be the type of thing Eisenhower was warning about. In that case it seems to me like the military industrial complex had more power than the judicial branch of the government.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
If we have arms manufacturers supplying the same weapons to all governments, then the arms corporations will have the monopoly on war itself. In such a scenario, all they would have to do is raise a private army and they could challenge national governments completely, and what could governments do when they are challenged by the very corporations that supply them with weapons?

That was sort of the plot of a season of the TV show "24", I think it was the FBI or some counter-terrorist group showed up at a weapon manufacturer to look for a WMD, but their search warrant only covered one building and they had moved the WMD to another building by the time the federal agents arrived. They had a private army and pointed guns at the Feds and told them to get lost. I don't know to what extent that's possible in real life but it made for a good plot on the TV show. They had quite an arsenal.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I'm talking more along the lines of the original Ace Combat storylines. Basically 40 years in the future, some megacorporation builds it's own military force and basically takes on older-generation governments (who end up becoming rebels).

If you think about it, the larger a corporation gets, the greater it's orbit becomes. It attracts more workers (a population), security (military force), and espionage organization (intelligence bureau). A corporation's goal is to always grow, and it will take on a "competitive" government if they are powerful enough.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Of course they'll care, and if they think it can pose a security threat they'll try to restrict sales to other countries. Heck, the US even restricted export of encryption technology.

That's fine. Laborers in South America can be trained and automation can fill in any quality gaps - for far cheaper.

I was pretty intrigued by Eisenhower's 1961 speech, how do you interpret that in this context?

The relationship between the military and its contracting suppliers is a complex and rather chaotic one. On one hand - you have the command structure of the military; if a 'rogue general' had enough sway and influence to command a sizable force, his/her word becomes something of a currency in and of itself. Interestingly enough - the military is about as close to functional communism as has ever existed. It would be theoretically possible for a military state to develop quite rapidly. The contractors know they have a customer in the military and the military provides security and some labor while citizens simply adapt their existing economy to this new concept.

On the other hand - you have contractors who treat just about any government contract as a cash-cow. Unlike individuals and private companies - the government always has something of a blank check. Take research into fusion - the easiest way to get private grants and government funding. On the surface - they are testing a new way of achieving fusion. In reality - they are trying to develop new superconductors, laser systems, computer models, etc. Since these things are 'crucial to the process' - developing them with the money for fusion is justified.

While not military, per-se - it is one of the chief complaints you will hear about contractors from the military. That, and the whole concept of: "it's not in my contract" or "time for me to punch the clock and go home." Military personnel tend to value a completed job over what is or isn't really their job or what time of day it is (unless they are missing out on liberty - then you'd better not be the one messing it up for everyone).

I don't really see it as practical, however, for the two to hold much sway in terms of economic or government power. Sure - the private sector intel wars are spectacular, but mostly focused at defense and counter-defense against other industries. If they were active in the political climate, we wouldn't see near as many nuts elected to national offices (the CIA did more to keep this in line than anyone else - then the politicians finally gutted them at the first opportunity following the collapse of the USSR)

As for economic power - companies like AT&T and Microsoft have a more frightening hold on the economy and even on government affairs. Most military e-mail is handled through Microsoft Outlook as well as most government and government operating systems (most tend to be Windows outside of highly specialized systems).

But it does seem like the case of Area 51 workers getting sick from working with toxic substances and then not being able to sue the government doe to national security reasons may be the type of thing Eisenhower was warning about. In that case it seems to me like the military industrial complex had more power than the judicial branch of the government.

That wasn't the military-industrial complex per se.

Now, were we talking about more 'normal' facilities, the courts would have been able to pursue the case far deeper. The problem with the Groom Lake facility is that it did not, legally, exist - which poses a bit of a problem when trying to file a lawsuit against it.

Of course - I think that the list of activities that require such absolute secrecy as to utilize bases that are non-existent is a very small list. So, I'm generally of the opinion we should say: "yes, this base exists. yes, we develop classified stuff there. No, we aren't going to tell you what it is we are doing."

Although that gets into some opinionated debates.

That was sort of the plot of a season of the TV show "24", I think it was the FBI or some counter-terrorist group showed up at a weapon manufacturer to look for a WMD, but their search warrant only covered one building and they had moved the WMD to another building by the time the federal agents arrived. They had a private army and pointed guns at the Feds and told them to get lost. I don't know to what extent that's possible in real life but it made for a good plot on the TV show. They had quite an arsenal.

I think the Battletech universe gets it about right in terms of politics and arms manufacturers, mercenaries, etc. Granted - humanity is spread out amongst other planetary systems in Battletech - so the more cramped environment of Terra might not play out quite the same - but I think it would probably scale fairly well.

Of all the sci-fi universes out there - it's my favorite, mostly because of the depth of the political climate, the concepts of the various industries, and the way it seems to capture reality in a -real- future. Star-Trek is too utopian - Star Wars is too alien - Battletech is just human - although the games (mechwarrior, MechCommander, and the board games) tend to miss a little of the politics and a -lot- of the industry - but they do an excellent job of capturing the Private Military Contractors (more commonly known as mercenaries).

more damned if you dont than we think

even if we supply taiwan with newer tech mainland china would go steal it and reverse engineer it among other reasons already stated.

someone on here tried to tell me china owns taiwan got into an arguement about it but anyway i'd hate to be in taiwans shoes.

Originally posted by neo96
someone on here tried to tell me china owns taiwan got into an arguement about it but anyway i'd hate to be in taiwans shoes.

...you do realize that Taiwan is a Chinese territory, right? That's where the imperialists ran away to after they betrayed Mao's forces, and Mao ended up routing them on the mainland with superior forces.

Taiwan is also known as the "Republic of China" for a reason.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


It's kind of like Britain trying to say that America belonged to the British Empire just prior to the war of 1812. China says it owns Taiwan. Taiwan already made it pretty clear that they are their own country. Of course, they also insist they are the real china... which - given their history, they are closer to the culture that was obliterated by Mao and the communist revolution in China.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


tell that to them it appears the only people who thinks that china doesn't own taiwan is taiwan themselves.

past arms sales seem to validate that thought hence they are seeking a better means of defense from mainland china.

reply to post by neo96


It's a boondoggle, for certain.

Politically, the U.S. and U.N. take an on-the-fence approach. On one hand - they do not officially recognize Taiwan as sovereign (to the disappointment of Taiwan and the satisfaction of China). On the other - Taiwan is handled in business and diplomatic exchanges as though it is a sovereign nation.

In a practical sense - Taiwan is its own sovereign nation.

In a political sense - they are not, because we don't want to piss off the Chinese and have them invade Taiwan to prove a point (and they will).