US-Taiwan Multi-Billion Dollar Arms Deal Creates Stir in Far

[ArmorPierce]

Yeah, but currency valuation in the same list as "net censorship"?!! Why should China "compromise" with the First World on currency valuation - because the First World so desires? Why the fuck should they have anyone come and tell them how to manage their economy? That's not "diplomacy", that's fucking bend-over and we fuck you, and it worked so well last time (the Washington Consensus)!

Only a nation which is strong enough to be able to control it's own currency regardless of the wishes of the First World can be considered a significant world force.

I agree, instead I think America should just put major tarrifs on goods produced in China.

Currency reevaluation is the talking point of idiot Trade Protectionists who pin all the blame on China for the trade imbalance and not on say I dunno... building a car worth two shits that they can sell in Chinese markets?

Wow... do you really not see the irony in this statement? Care to explain the logic to it being merely a 'talking point' rather than merely waving your hand and proclaiming that it is?

[ArmorPierce]

Delete this post

[Sea Skimmer]

Hang on a minute, there is 100 or so patriots. Won't Taiwan just run of missiles in the very very unlikely event the Mainland simply fires missiles at them.

Those would be primarily to arm the three new Patriot firing units (aka batteries) the offer also includes. Taiwan already has a number of armed Patriot firing units and existing orders for more missiles, plusits own domestically built long range Skybow III system, plus a number of medium range I-Hawk Batteries which are slowly being replaced by medium range Skybow II, all of which have significant ABM capabilities. SkyBow III is also capable of a surface to surface mode, and can hit a number of sites on the Chinese mainland.

So while running out of ammunition is still a concern, Taiwan has a quite large and improving ABM capability and could expect to shoot down hundreds of incoming Chinese ballistic missiles. Ammunition for SAM batteries are usually the kind of thing you buy slowly over many years, owing to the high cost of each one and because the factories physically don’t produce much. Even the US only buys about 100 new PAC-3 missiles each year. Right now Taiwan is more interested in obtaining more firing units then a really large pile of missiles, because a big pile of missiles is of no use of you only have a few radars to control them that might just be saturated and destroyed.

[K. A. Pital]

As far as I gather, tactical SAM systems have a poorer reaction time (due to lack of early warning against BM launches), and the distance between China and Taiwan is very small. I think the prospect of a decently functionin ABM there is just absent, reaction times are very small. Does Taiwan even have ABM EW radars with ranges of a few thousand km to provide warning?

[Archaic`]

...when other nations is meeting with a person that wants a huge chunk of China to secede, I think it is fair for them to bitch about that.

Well that is only an issue if you consider Tibet to be a part of China. It is hardly as if the Lama is arguing for the secession of down town Beijing.

And why would you consider them to be apart from China? Even if they did gain independence, letting them be a theocratic state is hardly the wisest thing to do. Then consider the fact that the Dalai Lama wants "greater" Tibet to be independent...

Since when did the Dalai Lama ever want independence? Not since his initial efforts In fact, I'm sure he's clarified this point many times himself, that while he does get painted as a secessionist by Chinese authorities (and by Western "Free Tibet" campaigners who really should be paying more attention to him), what he wants is for Tibet to remain a part of China, but to have more self governance and autonomy. Think more along the lines of what Québec is to Canada.

[ray245]

Since when did the Dalai Lama ever want independence? Not since his initial efforts In fact, I'm sure he's clarified this point many times himself, that while he does get painted as a secessionist by Chinese authorities (and by Western "Free Tibet" campaigners who really should be paying more attention to him), what he wants is for Tibet to remain a part of China, but to have more self governance and autonomy. Think more along the lines of what Québec is to Canada.

Which is essentially de facto independence. Seriously, what is the benefit of autonomy for Tibet? To turn it back into a theocratic and a ethnic state?

[The Grim Squeaker]

Since when did the Dalai Lama ever want independence? Not since his initial efforts In fact, I'm sure he's clarified this point many times himself, that while he does get painted as a secessionist by Chinese authorities (and by Western "Free Tibet" campaigners who really should be paying more attention to him), what he wants is for Tibet to remain a part of China, but to have more self governance and autonomy. Think more along the lines of what Québec is to Canada.

Which is essentially de facto independence. Seriously, what is the benefit of autonomy for Tibet? To turn it back into a theocratic and a ethnic state?

Well, there is the fact that China's been pursuing ethnic (Han Chinese) economic social domination there, same as with the Ughurs, via transferring more Han there with more favourable conditions.

[mr friendly guy]

Since when did the Dalai Lama ever want independence? Not since his initial efforts In fact, I'm sure he's clarified this point many times himself, that while he does get painted as a secessionist by Chinese authorities (and by Western "Free Tibet" campaigners who really should be paying more attention to him), what he wants is for Tibet to remain a part of China, but to have more self governance and autonomy. Think more along the lines of what Québec is to Canada.

Its all very well to publicly change your mind after your army has been defeated. However far would you trust someone in that position? More to the point, how far would a somewhat paranoid leadership in Beijing trust him?

[K. A. Pital]

Being fair to the (current) Lama, he recanted the "Tibet independence" and "hey, let's go back to theocracy!" slogans so many times. He even professed himself a Marxist, and offered the Chinese negotiations to help with the Tibet issues.

I wouldn't say he's a saint (he maintains some questionable stances personally, even among Buddhists), but he's not the very loony fringe of the "Tibet indepence!" movement.

[ray245]

Since when did the Dalai Lama ever want independence? Not since his initial efforts In fact, I'm sure he's clarified this point many times himself, that while he does get painted as a secessionist by Chinese authorities (and by Western "Free Tibet" campaigners who really should be paying more attention to him), what he wants is for Tibet to remain a part of China, but to have more self governance and autonomy. Think more along the lines of what Québec is to Canada.

Which is essentially de facto independence. Seriously, what is the benefit of autonomy for Tibet? To turn it back into a theocratic and a ethnic state?

Well, there is the fact that China's been pursuing ethnic (Han Chinese) economic social domination there, same as with the Ughurs, via transferring more Han there with more favourable conditions.

However, that's due to the Han being able to speak decent mandarin for instance, and also bearing in mind that the CCP did grant the Tibetans several advantage over the Han. Additionally, the CCP is pouring huge amount of money into Tibet to boost its economy for instance.

In my opinion, I would agree with the Chinese government attempting to assimilate the native Tibetans.

I wouldn't say he's a saint (he maintains some questionable stances personally, even among Buddhists), but he's not the very loony fringe of the "Tibet indepence!" movement.

Yeah, but I highly doubt that he's a person who will disown the loony fringe group.

[Sea Skimmer]

As far as I gather, tactical SAM systems have a poorer reaction time (due to lack of early warning against BM launches), and the distance between China and Taiwan is very small. I think the prospect of a decently functionin ABM there is just absent, reaction times are very small. Does Taiwan even have ABM EW radars with ranges of a few thousand km to provide warning?

And why exactly would Taiwan even need radar with a range of several thousand kilometers to defend against tactical missiles which overwhelmingly have a range of less 700km or less? The Chinese don’t have any great number very long range missiles stockpiled for conventional roles. If they fire nukes then they’ve gone totally insane, Taiwan is not concerned about this happening.

The reaction time of mobile of mobile SAM systems in the ABM role is perfectly in line with the kind of mobile tactical ballistic missile threats they are designed to counter and the range of the interceptor missiles they control. Russian expected the S-300V to counter the Pershing II missile which had 740km range in the early 1980s in case you forgot.

The only reason Patriot didn’t have a major ABM capability earlier like S-300V was simply because the US deliberately designed it not have such a capability as at the time the ABM treaty did not specifically allow tactical systems. Russia interpreted differently. The US thus changed its mind in the late 1980s and started work in earnest. Now besides a whole new version of the Patriot radar PAC-3 missiles are available which can hit ballistic missiles and air targets, and which use active radar guidance so a single firing unit is very hard to saturate and doesn’t have to nurse each missile to a target.

Taiwan has also begun production of its domestic Hsiung Feng IIE land attack cruise missile to provide a major retaliatory capability. China is not going to lightly risk a situation in which it must commit most of its military forces and high end ammunition items like MRBMs to attack Taiwan, and risks taking major damage and industrial disruption in the process.

[K. A. Pital]

Taiwan has also begun production of its domestic Hsiung Feng IIE land attack cruise missile to provide a major retaliatory capability

China also indulged in LACM production since neither nation is under any obligation not to make them, right?

The reaction time of mobile of mobile SAM systems in the ABM role is perfectly in line with the kind of mobile tactical ballistic missile threats they are designed to counter and the range of the interceptor missiles they control. Russian expected the S-300V to counter the Pershing II missile which had 740km range in the early 1980s in case you forgot.

I know it was designed to, and I know it can down BMs. I wonder just how realistic is a tactical BM defence against a reasonably massive deployment of short-range BMs - who has the greater chance of victory, the tactical BM or the SAM system? This is not a vain question; the Patriot use in 1991 suggested that despite expending 4 missiles per each Scud or whatever launched, the success rate was not 100%.

[Ypoknons]

In my opinion, I would agree with the Chinese government attempting to assimilate the native Tibetans.

There's options to incorporate Tibet into China without complete cultural assimilation, rav. China was nice enough to give Macau and Hong Kong SARs, for example, and despite substantial interference we continue to enjoy language rights, some rights to political expression and representation and a good degree of freedom of information. It is not necessary to revive the old theocracy, but to give more leeway for the Tibetans to determine policy whilst still being accountable to the Central Government.

If we were to discuss the Tibetan topic, we should start a new thread or split this. But somewhat cowardly, I'm busy enough with law school right now, so I can't give all the attention that such a debate would entitle.

[mr friendly guy]

In my opinion, I would agree with the Chinese government attempting to assimilate the native Tibetans.

There's options to incorporate Tibet into China without complete cultural assimilation, rav. China was nice enough to give Macau and Hong Kong SARs, for example, and despite substantial interference we continue to enjoy language rights, some rights to political expression and representation and a good degree of freedom of information.

If we were to discuss the Tibetan topic, we should start a new thread or split this. But somewhat cowardly, I'm busy enough with law school right now, so I can't give all the attention that such a debate would entitle.

How many other countries use a "one country two system" model? I don't know enough about Indian reservations in the US, but from what I heard it sounds similar to that system. Otherwise I am drawing a blank. In which case, why should China adopt this model for all its provinces if it doesn't want to given other countries can get on well without needing to use this model.

[Ypoknons]

How many other countries use a "one country two system" model? I don't know enough about Indian reservations in the US, but from what I heard it sounds similar to that system. Otherwise I am drawing a blank. In which case, why should China adopt this model for all its provinces if it doesn't want to given other countries can get on well without needing to use this model.

It's an unique system. China has used it for specific purposes. In the case of Hong Kong, it was used to allow Britain to return Hong Kong with a clear conscience (so that they would actually return it peacefully), be prevent political instability prior to the handover, since many Hong Kong residents were refugees from the communist revolution and could flee again (many did), to avoid international attention about human rights abuses* and to preserve Hong Kong's economic system, for example its financial service abilities and its rich base of capital. As for adopting this model for all its provinces, that was not my suggestion. Most provinces would be quite happy to stay within the current PRC system, and if they did ask, they'd get turned down. And obviously the Chinese state will continue regardless whether it made SARs. But as scary as it would be to Beijing, granting Tibet more autonomy would help with the specific goal of ethnic reconciliation, if Beijing is ever interested.

* In the colonial era human rights in Hong Kong were limited by law but the draconian laws were rarely exercised. The promulgation of the Bill of Rights Ordinance prior to 1991 to incorporate the ICCPR did much to cement the situation. Under the Basic Law of Hong Kong as promulgated by the NPC, most ICCPR rights are available to Hong Kong permanent residents in practice are for the most part respected, save for the political process rights.

[Tiriol]

In my opinion, I would agree with the Chinese government attempting to assimilate the native Tibetans.

There's options to incorporate Tibet into China without complete cultural assimilation, rav. China was nice enough to give Macau and Hong Kong SARs, for example, and despite substantial interference we continue to enjoy language rights, some rights to political expression and representation and a good degree of freedom of information.

If we were to discuss the Tibetan topic, we should start a new thread or split this. But somewhat cowardly, I'm busy enough with law school right now, so I can't give all the attention that such a debate would entitle.

How many other countries use a "one country two system" model? I don't know enough about Indian reservations in the US, but from what I heard it sounds similar to that system. Otherwise I am drawing a blank. In which case, why should China adopt this model for all its provinces if it doesn't want to given other countries can get on well without needing to use this model.

Finland employs a sort of "one country, two systems" rule: there is mainland Finland (Finland proper, if you will) and then there is the autonomous isles of Åland (Ahvenanmaa in Finnish). Åland has quite a bit leeway in many areas (including language rights).

[Sea Skimmer]

China also indulged in LACM production since neither nation is under any obligation not to make them, right?

Both nations have been involved with the Missile Technology Control Regime, but neither is actually considered a member. China for its part pledged not to export its long range missiles, Taiwan abandon its plans for long range ballistic missiles, which I doubt they really wanted to pay for anyway. But cruise missiles to shoot at each other are 100% fair game. Neither side had a decent land attack cruise missile until the mid 2000s, so production so far is small scale but this will change.

I know it was designed to, and I know it can down BMs. I wonder just how realistic is a tactical BM defence against a reasonably massive deployment of short-range BMs - who has the greater chance of victory, the tactical BM or the SAM system? This is not a vain question; the Patriot use in 1991 suggested that despite expending 4 missiles per each Scud or whatever launched, the success rate was not 100%.

Patriot in 1991 had no real adoption to the BMD role at all. All that had really been done is to modify the radar to ‘look up’ so that it could track ballistic missiles at all. The missiles had no optimization for the role, not even a special fusing mode, which is why they proved so ineffective. A lot has changed since then. But still, they did hit most of the SCUDs. They just didn’t blow up the warheads, but many warheads were pushed off course. That was worthless to defend a city, but for defending military targets its quite useful.

You don’t have a lot of warning time no, but against a mach 10 missile (I’m assuming mach 10 at 65,000 feet so about 6,600mph) a radar can that see about 175 miles like Patriot can would still have about 1.5 minutes between first detection, and impact. That isn’t a long time, but for a fully computerized system its good enough. Patriot doesn’t try to defend a very large radius on the ground so its interceptors won’t be flying long paths to make a kill.

Patriot can also be told to only shoot at ballistic missiles which will land in specific areas on the ground. That way you can ignore ones which are going to miss, or which are going to land on apartment buildings but not precious military airfields. I wouldn’t expect one shot, one kill, but four missile salvos to even have a chance of a kill are no longer necessary.

[Pelranius]

The problem with the HF-IIE is that what can Taiwan shoot it at? I doubt they're going to aim for civilian targets and considering how redundant the PLA logistics network is around Taiwan, they would need to built a lot of HF-IIEs to have any sort of meaningful effect.

As for the Patroits and Sky Bow series of ABMs, the PLA and Second Artillery could saturate them first with far cheaper WS series long range rockets (which are for all intents and purposes very cheap SRBMs).

[hongi]

In my opinion, I would agree with the Chinese government attempting to assimilate the native Tibetans.

Why? Because their native culture is inferior to the Chinese?

[mr friendly guy]

It's an unique system. China has used it for specific purposes. In the case of Hong Kong, it was used to allow Britain to return Hong Kong with a clear conscience (so that they would actually return it peacefully), be prevent political instability prior to the handover, since many Hong Kong residents were refugees from the communist revolution and could flee again (many did), to avoid international attention about human rights abuses* and to preserve Hong Kong's economic system, for example its financial service abilities and its rich base of capital. As for adopting this model for all its provinces, that was not my suggestion. Most provinces would be quite happy to stay within the current PRC system, and if they did ask, they'd get turned down. And obviously the Chinese state will continue regardless whether it made SARs. But as scary as it would be to Beijing, granting Tibet more autonomy would help with the specific goal of ethnic reconciliation, if Beijing is ever interested.

* In the colonial era human rights in Hong Kong were limited by law but the draconian laws were rarely exercised. The promulgation of the Bill of Rights Ordinance prior to 1991 to incorporate the ICCPR did much to cement the situation. Under the Basic Law of Hong Kong as promulgated by the NPC, most ICCPR rights are available to Hong Kong permanent residents in practice are for the most part respected, save for the political process rights.

So we agree that a one country 2 systems only needs to be used in certain situations. Now Tibet already is an autonomous region under China's policy along with inner mongolia, xinjiang and Guangxi. As I understand it such provinces work by having an ethnic minority head with a communist party member to make sure policy doesn't deviate from the CCP's main goal. IIRC the PRC allowed Tibet high degrees of autonomy in the early days. They made recommendations which they asked the Tibet adopt (usually in the line of communist party economic policy) and when Tibet dragged its feet it responded with more nagging. Finally Tibet decided to rebel. Given that line of history why would they want to give that high degree of autonomy again (and I am not even refering to the rebelling part), yet alone autonomy over "Greater Tibet" as per the Dalai Lama's dream.

[Blayne]

Why? Because their native culture is inferior to the Chinese?

In a word? Yes. In a paragraph? Serfdom, slavery, lack of infrastructure and a feudal caste society are always inferior to anything else.

However the above word is modernization not assimilation which aside from certain economic incentives ie seeming more Chinese is more economically preferable then seeming for lack of a better word "provincially ethnic" you'll have a case of where some will but its not the same thing.

Having their own language, calender and societal customs however is not the stuff that the TAR is interested in "suppressing" since the end of the Cultural Revolution.

Right now not even in Lhasa do Hans have a majority and only make up about ~8% of the population in the TAR and the migrant workers that work in Tibet actually leave and enter in a fairly constant flow and not a gradual program of colonization, so Chinese assimilation of Tibet isn't likely nor occurring but there is however significant evidence of economic progress and development.

[Lusankya]

There's options to incorporate Tibet into China without complete cultural assimilation, rav. China was nice enough to give Macau and Hong Kong SARs, for example, and despite substantial interference we continue to enjoy language rights, some rights to political expression and representation and a good degree of freedom of information. It is not necessary to revive the old theocracy, but to give more leeway for the Tibetans to determine policy whilst still being accountable to the Central Government.

The difference that Hong Kong and Macau have with Tibet, though is that they were already prosperous and don't need any significant investment from the central government to maintain a decent quality of life. Tibet and the other autonomous regions, on the other hand, receive a significant amount of investment from the CCP, and I can't really think of any reasons that would make the CCP agree to have less control over how that money gets used than they currently do.

[Sea Skimmer]

The problem with the HF-IIE is that what can Taiwan shoot it at? I doubt they're going to aim for civilian targets and considering how redundant the PLA logistics network is around Taiwan, they would need to built a lot of HF-IIEs to have any sort of meaningful effect.

They plan on at least 500 of them and useful targets are endless. I wouldn't say they wont target civilian infrastructure either. Two missiles strikes will cripple most power plants on earth, and Taiwan could knock out power to a big chunk of the Chinese economy. This would be nothing the US and NATO hasn't gotten away with doing to Iraq and Serbia.

As for the Patroits and Sky Bow series of ABMs, the PLA and Second Artillery could saturate them first with far cheaper WS series long range rockets (which are for all intents and purposes very cheap SRBMs).

Dispersion on huge unguided rockets like that is so high that it would amount to indiscriminate area bombing of Taiwan’s cities, with cluster bombs too. You are talking about missing by 1-2km or more. Doing that and massacring so many civilians, all of which will be live streaming onto the internet, would be only a path to utter ruin. It’d make that small chunk of Beirut Israel flattened in 2006 look like a fucking joke.

[Korgeta]

The problem with the U.S doing something like this is that they will (if not already) have made Taiwan into a 'Taiwan fortress policy' by buying further Arms deals. I know the u.S want to make money but I have some reservations about poetionally dragging Taiwan into a fortress policy, Obama has enough issues to deal with domestically alone.

[Ypoknons]

The difference that Hong Kong and Macau have with Tibet, though is that they were already prosperous and don't need any significant investment from the central government to maintain a decent quality of life. Tibet and the other autonomous regions, on the other hand, receive a significant amount of investment from the CCP, and I can't really think of any reasons that would make the CCP agree to have less control over how that money gets used than they currently do.

It's not just the money - the colonial Hong Kong administrative systems worked quite well and required few changes, Macau less so (it's more heavily tycoon and mafia run, plus their anti-corruption systems don't work as well as ICAC). The SAR task for these regions is therefore relatively simple. A theoretical Tibet SAR would be difficult to design and balance interests. Again, from Beijing's pov there's zero reason to permit a SAR, given that they can probably continue with their autocratic policies indefinably, tolerating some bloodshed and minor criticism from the international community but I do believe greater legislative participation will be a more humanitarian option.