• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senator: F-16 deal with Taiwan might bypass Obama

Taiwan is not worth fighting over. I'm sorry, but in the grand scheme, it's not. If they want to buy military tech from us, we could consider selling it to them for economic reasons. I would not consider it a sale to re-assert our treaty obligation though. Its value to us is not worth a major war.
 
The F 18 we have are now around 30 years old or older having been bought in the 80s. They are getting somewhat close to the due date for replacement, We could go with new F18, or F15s.

Ah, I see. Your F-18s are in the fatigue phase. I remember stories about Strike Eagles falling apart from the same problems. Actually you guys should look into the Silent Eagle. It's like a 4.75 gen fighter!

As for Taiwan, any airforce it is going to have is going to be outclassed by that of China.

I don't know about that. Japan could probably take China on. Its fighters are fairly new, and its pilots are good. And its numbers are higher then Taiwan. Plus it has additional time to scramble fighters. Flying heavily modified souped up F-16s and F-15s would give them in many ways slight tech superiority. Japan has more F-15s than Taiwan has planes.

No difference then any airforce Canada could have would be outclassed by that of the US. Or any airforce of Sweden being outclasse by that of the USSR, at least Sweden would have the benifit of other European airforces to assist. Taiwan would only have the US military and China is working on making US intervention a costly affair, hoping to deter such an act

Oh yeah. There only way Taiwan could win a war with China is on the back of the US military. And I think Lud is underestimating the price China is willing to pay. If Taiwan goes, it's huge incentive for the North Eastern Semi Autonomous regions to break away and Tibet. In that regard, China is willing to pay quite a bit to hold on to Taiwan.
 
Ah, I see. Your F-18s are in the fatigue phase. I remember stories about Strike Eagles falling apart from the same problems. Actually you guys should look into the Silent Eagle. It's like a 4.75 gen fighter!



I don't know about that. Japan could probably take China on. Its fighters are fairly new, and its pilots are good. And its numbers are higher then Taiwan. Plus it has additional time to scramble fighters. Flying heavily modified souped up F-16s and F-15s would give them in many ways slight tech superiority. Japan has more F-15s than Taiwan has planes.



Oh yeah. There only way Taiwan could win a war with China is on the back of the US military. And I think Lud is underestimating the price China is willing to pay. If Taiwan goes, it's huge incentive for the North Eastern Semi Autonomous regions to break away and Tibet. In that regard, China is willing to pay quite a bit to hold on to Taiwan.

The F15 Silent Eagle is the one sold to SK recently is it not? It would meet Canada's needs I expect


I meant that China would outclass any airforce Taiwan could afford to keep. A population of 24 million or so, can not afford a military that could defeat the military of the second largest economy in the world
 
The F15 Silent Eagle is the one sold to SK recently is it not? It would meet Canada's needs I expect

I know Boeing (?) was trying to sell it to Saudi Arabia as a replacement for their current inventory. I'm not sure just how stealthy it actually is though.

I meant that China would outclass any airforce Taiwan could afford to keep. A population of 24 million or so, can not afford a military that could defeat the military of the second largest economy in the world

Oh absolutely. It's honestly a good question to wonder if Taiwan is secretly funding a nuclear weapons program considering the massive inferiority they have against the PRC. Considering how easy it for a state to run a gun type manufacturing nuclear weapons program, I really do wonder if they aren't secretly arming SAMs with tactical nukes. That would put a real crimper in any PRC air assault.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059756209 said:
China got US stealth secrets from Pakistan without regard to the US. So what's the big deal about selling the F-16's to Taiwan? It just creates more issues for China to deal with militarily in their own back yard.

Its always a good idea to piss off your banker, right?
 
Ludahai, DoL probably ain't worth it. Seems to support Ron Paul but supports peace at any cost in the Taiwan/China case, big government consequences be damned.

Supporting a non-interventionist and supporting peace. Damn, those positions are just so inconsistent.

He also seems to baselessly call people racists when it comes to China, even though he bemoans racial sensitivity in America.

There is inherent racism in America's policies towards the Third World. As many Americans have been indoctrinated to blindly support said policies they naturally adopt those racist ideas themselves. When people accuse China of theft, cheating, war-mongering, and deceit and these criticisms extend to athletes, private corporations, and the masses without any relation to the government I tend to see that there is very little reason to believe such views are about the government at all.

It a necessary element of any war footing that a country must not only demonize the leaders of the opposing country, but also the general population. The State must foster fear and suspicion of all individuals in the "enemy" country because otherwise people might question the morality of any policies pursued against that country.

When that State is populated mainly by non-whites such demonization takes on a racial dynamic.

Fair enough, but considering the point of view from a civilian, 1,500 ballistic missiles raining death down on their city within 10 minutes is somewhat analogous to the kind of imminent death aka cold war.

It is not really analogous, though that is the intended message. Naturally, the leaders of Taiwan and the United States are not going to be completely honest and note the general non-threat of conventional ballistic missiles to Taiwan's general population. They also are not going to mention China's "no first-strike" policy to assuage concerns about nuclear war. For both the United States and Taiwan to maintain their current policies requires that people not question whether the ballistic missiles are an existential threat.

AS for using ground based missile platforms to launch attacks on Taiwanese defenses, doesn't it make more sense to use mobile platforms? The Taiwanese basically know where the Fujian based missiles are. Any any attack will involve massing of troops, so the Taiwanese will basically have a heads up on when the attack is coming. IMO it makes more sense to use non-Fujian based assets to attack Taiwanese defenses. Or at least in conjunction with them.

China's short-range ballistic missiles can be moved along the road and would take at most half an hour to be fired. An attack with ballistic missiles could be launched within a sufficient timespan to keep people from noticing. Also, as I noted before, knowing there will be an attack is not going to help Taiwan because China can launch devastating strikes rapidly with little warning. No preparations Taiwan can make would be sufficient to prevent their defeat and if Taiwan were to launch the first strike they would practically be wrapping Taiwan up with a nice, little bow for China. However, I also challenge the idea that China would need to undergo considerable mobilization in order to attack Taiwan. They have within their present capabilities the deployment of 10,000 airborne troops anywhere within China in two days, which means they would have no trouble deploying the same amount of troops to Taiwan in such a time span. China has enough airpower within range of Taiwan to destroy its defenses right now. Its fleet of submarines can easily be positioned within range of Taiwan with minimal warning. China need not give Taiwan any advance warning before striking.

Taiwan relying upon hardened highways is rather idiotic as those will be targeted. Sure you have this asset, but when it's on the hit list and you cannot defend it, it's not really a usable asset.

Agreed.

Without nukes, there's no way. Considering the assets that China has bought from Russia, mainly guided missile cruisers, the naval forces Taiwan has are outclassed. Furthermore, the increase in quiet subs and the sheer number will overpower Taiwanese submarine assets.

Taiwanese "submarines assets" are useless hunks of junk. At best they would make for good target practice. As it stands Taiwan has no new submarines on order either.
 
Last edited:
Since you seem to consistently ignore what I actually say I should note here that I never said the Japanese Instrument of Surrender transferred territory. However, as a legally-binding agreement it does designate Taiwan as sovereign Chinese territory that is to be returned to China. When Japan recognized the PRC as the legitimate successor government to the ROC it reiterated in yet another legally-binding agreement its commitment to that end. Your argument that Taiwan is not Chinese territory is thus invalid and "effective control" works against you as it was the legally-recognized government of China that assumed effective control of Taiwan after Japan formally renounced its title.

But Japan never signed an actual instrument to transfer that sovereignty. In the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan renounced sovereignty over Taiwan, but provided no mechanism for transfer, a requirement under international law.

The PRC has NEVER for one day had any control over Taiwan. The ROC government exercised occupation over Taiwan on behalf of the Allies following WWII, NOT sovereignty. There is an important difference. And now, in Taiwan, sovereignty is held by the people, not by a one-party state that once claimed to be the legitimate government of all of China.

Are you talking about the Treaty of Peace and Friendshup between Japan and the People's Republic of China of 1978? If so, there is no mention whatsoever of Taiwan in the treaty.


Also, the reason the U.S. does not recognize all legally-binding international agreements as treaties is because there is a specific approval process required for passing treaties. Were the U.S. to adopt the Law of Treaties it would be the law of the land, meaning international agreements like NAFTA would unavoidably have to be regarded as treaties under the Constitution and thus would have to be passed by a two-thirds majority in Congress.

I have point this out to you before, something you didn't accept at the time. The U.S. does NOT regard the Instrument of Surrender as a treaty and guessed who signed it on behalf of the allies... umm.. I think you know the answer to that question...
 
But Japan never signed an actual instrument to transfer that sovereignty. In the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan renounced sovereignty over Taiwan, but provided no mechanism for transfer, a requirement under international law.

The PRC has NEVER for one day had any control over Taiwan. The ROC government exercised occupation over Taiwan on behalf of the Allies following WWII, NOT sovereignty. There is an important difference. And now, in Taiwan, sovereignty is held by the people, not by a one-party state that once claimed to be the legitimate government of all of China.

You are ignoring a number of key points:

1. Japan need not negotiate a transfer if it simply renounces its title to the territory. In this respect Japan's action can be understood to effectuate the terms of its surrender as China was left free to claim Taiwan and exercise sovereignty over it.
2. The Republic of China did exercise sovereignty over Taiwan by formally declaring it to have been returned to China and administering it as a province of China. It is "effective control" that establishes China having reclaimed sovereignty over the territory.
3. No matter who rules Taiwan, the government there still legally considers itself to be the government of all China, including Taiwan.

Are you talking about the Treaty of Peace and Friendshup between Japan and the People's Republic of China of 1978? If so, there is no mention whatsoever of Taiwan in the treaty.

I am talking about the Joint Communique.

I have point this out to you before, something you didn't accept at the time. The U.S. does NOT regard the Instrument of Surrender as a treaty and guessed who signed it on behalf of the allies... umm.. I think you know the answer to that question...

The U.S. certainly recognized that it was a legally-binding agreement.
 
You are ignoring a number of key points:

1. Japan need not negotiate a transfer if it simply renounces its title to the territory. In this respect Japan's action can be understood to effectuate the terms of its surrender as China was left free to claim Taiwan and exercise sovereignty over it.

Japan's surrender of Taiwan and its renunciation of sovereign claims over the island in 1952 does NOT equate to a transfer of sovereignty to China (either ROC or PRC). As I have made clear to you, it takes a RATIFIED and EXECUTED treaty to transfer territory from one state to another. You can't get past this basic fact of international law, nor can you come up with such a treaty no such valid treaty exists.

2. The Republic of China did exercise sovereignty over Taiwan by formally declaring it to have been returned to China and administering it as a province of China. It is "effective control" that establishes China having reclaimed sovereignty over the territory.

They exercised administration of the territory, not sovereignty. De jure sovereignty could only be transferred via treaty, which was never done...

3. No matter who rules Taiwan, the government there still legally considers itself to be the government of all China, including Taiwan.

Somethign that the vast majority of people give little more than lip service to.


I am talking about the Joint Communique.



The U.S. certainly recognized that it was a legally-binding agreement.[/QUOTE]
 
So let me see if I got this right? We are canceling our order to build Joint Strike fights for our selves, but we are making new F-16's? Hmmm.... So our government's own Bonds are worthless, lets get back into the arms race!
 
So let me see if I got this right? We are canceling our order to build Joint Strike fights for our selves, but we are making new F-16's? Hmmm.... So our government's own Bonds are worthless, lets get back into the arms race!

The US is not making the F16 for itself, but is allowing the manufacture and sale of them to another country. The US will overall make money from it
 
The US is not making the F16 for itself, but is allowing the manufacture and sale of them to another country. The US will overall make money from it

Except that there will NOT be new F-16s for Taiwan because Obama blocked the sale.

And the Senate did not pass an amendment to push through the sale, the opposition seeming led (in part, at least) by John Kerry (D) of Massachusetts.

There is still a small chance an amendment could be added to a defense appropriations bill, but I wouldn't bet on it.
 
Except that there will NOT be new F-16s for Taiwan because Obama blocked the sale.

And the Senate did not pass an amendment to push through the sale, the opposition seeming led (in part, at least) by John Kerry (D) of Massachusetts.

There is still a small chance an amendment could be added to a defense appropriations bill, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Depending on the US political situation I could see the F16s being released for sale in mid 2012
 
So let me see if I got this right? We are canceling our order to build Joint Strike fights for our selves, but we are making new F-16's? Hmmm.... So our government's own Bonds are worthless, lets get back into the arms race!

The F35 order is not being cancelled but reduced by a certain level. The costs of the F35 program have jumped drastically and with the numbers the US wants to buy the overall costs is extreme
 
And just what IS the cost to the United States taxpayer?
BBC article said:
China has reacted angrily to a US deal to upgrade Taiwan's ageing fleet of US-built F-16 fighter planes.

Vice-Foreign Minister Zhang Zhijun said the $5.85bn (£3.77bn) deal would "inevitably undermine bilateral relations", including military and security co-operation.

He also summoned US Ambassador Gary Locke to protest against the deal.

Except that there will NOT be new F-16s for Taiwan because Obama blocked the sale.

And the Senate did not pass an amendment to push through the sale, the opposition seeming led (in part, at least) by John Kerry (D) of Massachusetts.

There is still a small chance an amendment could be added to a defense appropriations bill, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Thank you for bringing this new info into the discussion, Ludahai. The article you cite says the defeat was due to concerns about this being tacked onto a trade agreement bill and it will likely be brought up in a bill of its own.
 
Thank you for bringing this new info into the discussion, Ludahai. The article you cite says the defeat was due to concerns about this being tacked onto a trade agreement bill and it will likely be brought up in a bill of its own.

Obama would veto a bill that only focused on the arms package. It could still, more logically, be attached to an arms appropriation bill...
 
What do you base that on? Hopefully, by then Taiwan will have a new president...

I base that one the US economy getting worse, and trade protectionism rising in the US being focused on China. Which would see providing F16 to Taiwan being a vote getter for politicians seeking to benifit from anti Chinese sentiments
 
I base that one the US economy getting worse, and trade protectionism rising in the US being focused on China. Which would see providing F16 to Taiwan being a vote getter for politicians seeking to benifit from anti Chinese sentiments

I hope you are right, but I am not holding my breath on that. 2013 seems more likely to me from the U.S. side...
 
Why? Taiwan should take care of itself. Do we really want to get in it with China over Taiwan?

No we don't want to get into a fight with China, and that is why Taiwan needs to at the very least be able to be a speed bump.

One thing Obama doesn't get, is that our allies are important to our future security, that includes Israel.
 
Back
Top Bottom