US Arms Sales to Taiwan

Politics International Politics
1

Not really. I didn’t really take an interest until I started travelling around the world and seeing things from other countries perspectives. While in the US, you don’t really notice whats going on because you tend to believe what the papers say. You can’t really trust the media (in any country, not just the US) but you can understand why people start to get racked off because you can get a “feel” for things when you are in another country.

It’s like Taiwan. The US is only “standing up” for Taiwan because of lucrative arms deals. The US protects (or pretends to protect) Taiwan in return for the purchase of arms from the US. It’s an obligatory requirement. Taiwan has come off badly here though. A few years ago, the US “force” sold Taiwan a batch of F16’s that were at or very close to the total useful airframe life. After the total useful hours of airframe life the airframe will start to crack. This makes them very dangerous to use and very costly to maintain. It’s the same with the helicopters. Quite a few helicopters force-sold to Taiwan have crashed due to the useful life of the airframe having exceeded the maximum amount of safe hours so that the structure of the airframe has suffered a critical failiure.
When I learned about this, it really pissed me off.

America is your friend. Yeah right. Just wait until you refuse to buy arms.

Whilst I recognise America does do some good things, most of the things that America does for other countries are for it’s own ends.
I’m not necessarily pro Britain or pro Europe (infact I think Europe is a bad idea - intergration and a move towards a superstate) but seeing as we are on the subject of Britain I’ll give you some examples of what it has done to help the world which America could have easily done but wont.

1). Cancel all it’s world debt to third world countries. This is absolutely brilliant. Hat’s off to you, guys.

2). Fight a war with little or no media coverage and SORT THE PROBLEM OUT instead of making a bigger mess out of it.

Examples: Sierra Leonne (not a massive war, l but a war nevertheless. More of a civil uprising).
Oman. Probably stopped what could have turned into a really, really big problem in the nick of time by themselves with no international aid. This, in it’s time was a really, really big deal.

-All without media coverage and milking for publicity and propaganda.

Why can’t we cancel our world debt? we are supposedly the richest nation on earth. Untill recently, Britain was still financially in debt to us because we helped them in world war two. That’s after we were gleefully selling arms to both sides in ww2 before we got involved with Japan. WW2 was the best thing that happened to America. The amount of technology we gained from Britain, Europe and Japan after ww2 was phenominal. Add to that the amount of foriegn expertise from (of all places) Japan and Germany, as well as Britain and the fact that we did not have to rebuild anything after the war because it was fought miles away gave us the biggest head start we could ask for. Look what’s happened to Britains economy. They have only fully recovered during the past decade or so.

America. Better off out of it. And I really want to punch Bush.

2

since you mention taiwan, please tell me how present-day european policy towards taiwan is better than american policy.

[quote=“Jasper”]Not really. I didn’t really take an interest until I started travelling around the world and seeing things from other countries perspectives. While in the US, you don’t really notice whats going on because you tend to believe what the papers say. You can’t really trust the media (in any country, not just the US) but you can understand why people start to get racked off because you can get a “feel” for things when you are in another country.

It’s like Taiwan. The US is only “standing up” for Taiwan because of lucrative arms deals. The US protects (or pretends to protect) Taiwan in return for the purchase of arms from the US. It’s an obligatory requirement. Taiwan has come off badly here though. A few years ago, the US “force” sold Taiwan a batch of F16’s that were at or very close to the total useful airframe life. After the total useful hours of airframe life the airframe will start to crack. This makes them very dangerous to use and very costly to maintain. It’s the same with the helicopters. Quite a few helicopters force-sold to Taiwan have crashed due to the useful life of the airframe having exceeded the maximum amount of safe hours so that the structure of the airframe has suffered a critical failiure.
When I learned about this, it really pissed me off.

America is your friend. Yeah right. Just wait until you refuse to buy arms.

Whilst I recognise America does do some good things, most of the things that America does for other countries are for it’s own ends.
I’m not necessarily pro Britain or pro Europe (infact I think Europe is a bad idea - intergration and a move towards a superstate) but seeing as we are on the subject of Britain I’ll give you some examples of what it has done to help the world which America could have easily done but wont.

1). Cancel all it’s world debt to third world countries. This is absolutely brilliant. Hat’s off to you, guys.

2). Fight a war with little or no media coverage and SORT THE PROBLEM OUT instead of making a bigger mess out of it.

Examples: Sierra Leonne (not a massive war, l but a war nevertheless. More of a civil uprising).
Oman. Probably stopped what could have turned into a really, really big problem in the nick of time by themselves with no international aid. This, in it’s time was a really, really big deal.

-All without media coverage and milking for publicity and propaganda.

Why can’t we cancel our world debt? we are supposedly the richest nation on earth. Untill recently, Britain was still financially in debt to us because we helped them in world war two. That’s after we were gleefully selling arms to both sides in ww2 before we got involved with Japan. WW2 was the best thing that happened to America. The amount of technology we gained from Britain, Europe and Japan after ww2 was phenominal. Add to that the amount of foreign expertise from (of all places) Japan and Germany, as well as Britain and the fact that we did not have to rebuild anything after the war because it was fought miles away gave us the biggest head start we could ask for. Look what’s happened to Britains economy. They have only fully recovered during the past decade or so.

America. Better off out of it. And I really want to punch Bush.[/quote]

3

I did not say US policy was better than European policy. However, at least Europe stays out of Taiwans business instead of giving it false hopes of security in return for arms deals.

Better to stay out than to lie your face off.

4

[quote=“Jasper”]I did not say US policy was better than European policy. However, at least Europe stays out of Taiwans business instead of giving it false hopes of security in return for arms deals.

Better to stay out than to lie your face off.[/quote]

so you ARE saying european policy towards taiwan is better? at this point it’s clear you hate the us so much that nothing will ever convince you that anything they do can ever be good or helpful.

5

Jasper, your remarks about the airframes is absolute bullshit. For your information, Taiwan has one of the world’s premier facilities for airframe repair with some of the best repairmen in the world working there. It saw extensive use during the Vietnam war. Also, I live near a USAF base that uses 1950’s and 1960’s as drones for pilot training. They are dual guidance (pilot or remote pilot) and they have had very few accidents flying those old airframes. You should be more discerning if the information is actually correct or not. Most military aircraft crashes in Taiwan are caused by pilot error, not airframes falling apart.

6

Besides, where would you expect Taiwan to procure their military equipment? Sometimes you must buy what is available and nobody is forcing Taiwan to buy.

7

[quote]Jasper, your remarks about the airframes is absolute bullshit. For your information, Taiwan has one of the world’s premier facilities for airframe repair with some of the best repairmen in the world working there. It saw extensive use during the Vietnam war. Also, I live near a USAF base that uses 1950’s and 1960’s as drones for pilot training. They are dual guidance (pilot or remote pilot) and they have had very few accidents flying those old airframes. You should be more discerning if the information is actually correct or not. Most military aircraft crashes in Taiwan are caused by pilot error, not airframes falling apart.
[/quote]

Bollocks

8

[quote]Besides, where would you expect Taiwan to procure their military equipment? Sometimes you must buy what is available and nobody is forcing Taiwan to buy.
[/quote]

Also Bollocks.

The US will only agree to back Taiwan if it buy’s arms. It’s just a beefed-up protection racket. You know it. I know it. Everybody else knows it but I seem to be the only one facing up to the truth.

And for what it’s worth. I don’t hate America. It’s my homeland. But I do think we are very, very wrong.
I wish to be proud of my country, but I think I’ve been let down somewhat.

Also, my information is not mis-informed. I said a batch of F16’s were force sold to Taiwan. Not all of them. But this in itself is bad enough.
Sure, pilot error has been responsible for some accidents but many unecessary accidents have been due to AIRFRAME STRUCTURAL FAILIURE because the aircraft have too many flying hours on the airframe. I know what Im talking about. 3 years ago, there was even an article in the Taipei Times. (Not that this proves anything).

9

Hmmmm structural failure and it’s America’s fault?

I seem to recall that a number of China Airlines planes have crashed.

The reason seems to be corruption and irresponsibility in Taiwan.

Also, when will Europe come to Taiwan’s defense?

The French after all were holding war games with China during the last
election. Some help.

Everyone recognizes that the US guarantees and underpins world
security. You can be outraged all you want but this is a reality.

Pretending that it is not only makes you look foolish and uninformed.

So what color of tie dye is in this year?

10

Remember when the SQ flight crashed into the construction equipment in the middle of a lighted runway? Remember Taiwan categorically denying any responsbility? Remember how it was ALL the fault of the SQ pilot?

11

That’s pure nonsense. If the US was merely interested in profit, it would have ditched Taiwan long ago thereby improving immediately and immeasurably its ties with China. The US position re Taiwan has helped to keep the peace in the Taiwan Strait for 50 years and the TRA has worked for the past 20 plus years. Of course we want Taiwan to purchase arms for itself. Doing so helps to maintain the balance of power and makes it that much more difficult for the Chinese side to consider using force to settle the Taiwan issue.

[quote=“Jasper”]Also, my information is not mis-informed. I said a batch of F16’s were force sold to Taiwan. Not all of them. But this in itself is bad enough.
Sure, pilot error has been responsible for some accidents but many unecessary accidents have been due to AIRFRAME STRUCTURAL FAILIURE because the aircraft have too many flying hours on the airframe. I know what I’m talking about. 3 years ago, there was even an article in the Taipei Times. (Not that this proves anything).[/quote]

The F-16 is a wonderful airplane. It was used extensively and successfully in the first Gulf War. If there is a problem with its structure, it most likely results from Taiwanese maintenance problems. The ROC military has trouble even keeping the Humvees in operation.

12

You mean like France, Russia, and Germany cancelling Iraq’s foreign debt, which they loaned to the brutal dictator who murdered and mutilated several million people?

13

[quote]Hmmmm structural failure and it’s America’s fault?
[/quote]

I used to be a contractor here in Taiwan. (for the record, I am no longer).

If you read the threads properly, then perhaps you would notice that I said that Taiwan was made to buy sub-standard F16’s. When they were bought, they were too old.

When an airframe exceeds a certain number of hours, it will fail. The airframes sold to Taiwan were already close to or had already exceeded the maximum safe amount of hours. No amount of maintenance will stop this from happening. What do you want Taiwan to do? Tape up the cracks that appear?

Also. a vast majority of service engineers on F16’s and other military hardware are from the states.
Perhaps you really should find out about what you are talking about before you place a thread and accuse me of being ill informed.

France sold Taiwan some Mirages which are also a great aircraft and can live up to the older F16, no problem. However, due to Americas “protection racket” regime Taiwan has to spend it’s money on US hardware which is, unfortunately, sub standard.

I’m not a Bush basherby the way, or a liberal. My political persuasion is not of your concern and is irrelavant in this thread.

Broon Ale, I think you have a valid point. Apologies for changing the course of this thread but I think that the ignorant among us need to realise the bare facts.

Sorry guys.

14

Did you work on or with the F-16s?

Per my limited understanding, the F-16 is capable of handling 8,000 hours of flight safely. Had the planes sold to Taiwan already exceeded that amount of hours?

Again, per my very limited understanding, the US has or will place a number of the older F-16s in inactive storage for potential reactivation in order to provide a basis for constituting two combat wings more quickly than would be possible through new production. This force could offset aircraft withdrawn for unanticipated structural repairs or compensate for delays in the JSF program. I understand that reactivating older F-16s is not a preferred course of action, but that it represents a relatively low-cost hedge against such occurrences. Would I be wrong to assume that this means that the older F-16s could in fact be maintained for service beyond the 8000 hour maximum?

Perhaps.

OK, Would you please address my previous statement?

If the US was merely interested in profit, it would have ditched Taiwan long ago thereby improving immediately and immeasurably its ties with China. The US position re Taiwan has helped to keep the peace in the Taiwan Strait for 50 years and the TRA has worked for the past 20 plus years. Of course we want Taiwan to purchase arms for itself. Doing so helps to maintain the balance of power and makes it that much more difficult for the Chinese side to consider using force to settle the Taiwan issue.

15

[quote]Again, per my very limited understanding, the US has or will place a number of the older F-16s in inactive storage for potential reactivation in order to provide a basis for constituting two combat wings more quickly than would be possible through new production. This force could offset aircraft withdrawn for unanticipated structural repairs or compensate for delays in the JSF program. I understand that reactivating older F-16s is not a preferred course of action, but that it represents a relatively low-cost hedge against such occurrences. Would I be wrong to assume that this means that the older F-16s could in fact be maintained for service beyond the 8000 hour maximum?
[/quote]

Any aircraft, as a rule, if it has exceeded it’s useful airframe life is a danger and a liability. The batch of F16’s sold to Taiwan were very near or at the airframe hours limit. At the limit or near the limit is within 200 hours airframe life left. 200 hours of airframe life at the price these F16’s were sold to Taiwan was an unproductive purchase.
As a rule, the older the aircraft, the shorter the TBO (time before overhaul) which is a check of all the aircraft structure, engine and aviionics. This means higher operating costs, inefficient or unreliable rediness and causes an overall pain for those involved. In Taichung where I was based for a while, the reliability of the aircraft systems was poor and had to be replaced often through over usage.
Some of the aircraft sold to Taiwan, in equivelant car terms, would be comparable to a 1981 Ford saloon which has been left in someones back yard for 5 years to rot.

Whilst we are on the point of Taiwan-US weapon relations, the US wants Taiwan to buy so many billions worth of defence equipment. You are right, Taiwan must have the means to defend itself.
However, may I put to you that it is a free market out there. Why is Taiwan only allowed to buy weapons from the US? Because the US say’s so, that’s why.

The US won’t sell certain weapons to Taiwan. The US will sell what it thinks Taiwan should have and that only. So the US has ensured that there is a slight inbalance of power between the two sides of the straight. China will always have the upper hand. Taiwan will always be running scared and want a more or less continuous supply of arms from the US.
The US, therefore has formed it’s own little “niche” market in this little part of Asia, where business and commerce rule over fairness and honesty.

For 50 years the US has had a gripe over Japan. Korea and vietnam have also been subjects worthy of note (look where that got us).We have been in the Pacific to prevent any problems that may arise in Asia. We have also had the auterior motive of trying to control and dominate the countries on the pacific rim.

We messed up badly in Korea and Vietnam. Peace and stability?

which brings me back to the subject of Broon Ales original post about the Brits. Anyone remember the Malaysian conflict? Wasn’t that sorted out nicely? Not much media coverage, not much propaganda. Could have turned into another Vietnam. However, the Brits were lacking the Gung Ho attitude that we often posses in times of conflict. The attitude that makes things alot worse than things need to be.

And Europe. the EU doesn’t really have a united policy on Taiwan. As much as the EU cronies would like there to be a uniform and common understanding with regards to any policy, there is alot of friction between the countries involved.

Take Iraq, for example. Britain had a completely different stance from France to Italy to Germany. They try to represent themselves as the same, but they are different countries at heart. You cannot define EU policy generally. If China were to attack Taiwan, then Britain would probably be in support of the US if it ever did get involved in a conflict. France would probably send a canoe. Spain would run in the other direction. Russia would disagree with the US and start to argue. theres no simple policy.

All I am saying is that the US does really go about things the wrong way. Some of the things we do are good, but we seldom do something if we don’t get some kind of financial reward form it. The situation between the US and Taiwan is mostly a financial one. Just think about the billions of $ the US would lose if Taiwan were to be taken by China. Industry, especially chips and electronics would take a severe downturn. we’ve got the best of both worlds. Hang about in the Pacific as a deterrent. Sell loads of weapons to Taiwan. Cash in on trade in the meantime.

Win Win. Mega Bucks. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I wonder what the US stance would be if Taiwan was as developed as indonesia?

16

But the deal involved a technology transfer in the form of Taiwan’s first ever offset from sellers in connection with the fighter sales. Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan threatened to withhold payments on the aircraft unless the sellers provided Taiwan with technology and production contracts related to the aircraft. The US aircraft makers committed to provide 10%to 30% of sales value for the offsets.

This, despite the fact that Lockheed Martin (LM) was then in danger of making too many offset commitments to its various customers. Taiwan’s purchase of its F-16s came at a time when LM was selling F-16s to at least eleven countries in varying levels of production (or subcontracting) of parts, components, and subsystems. With its limited workshares, it had been difficult for LM’s Tactical Aircraft Systems (LMTAS) to satisfy all those nations and fulfil its obligations.

So, it really wasn’t a simple cash deal for which Taiwan received only goods and no production know-how.

[quote=“Jasper”]Whilst we are on the point of Taiwan-US weapon relations, the US wants Taiwan to buy so many billions worth of defence equipment. You are right, Taiwan must have the means to defend itself.
However, may I put to you that it is a free market out there. Why is Taiwan only allowed to buy weapons from the US? Because the US say’s so, that’s why.[/quote]

Huh? What are you talking about. Taiwan is not restricted as such. Where did the Mirage fighters come from? How about the Lafayette ships? Doesn’t Taiwan have a Danish or German made submarine?

That’s right. Under the TRA, the US is obligated to make periodic assessments regarding Taiwan’s weapons and defense needs. The US has also promised China that US arms sales to Taiwan will end when China no longer threatens Taiwan with a forceful settlement of the issue. To maintain a balance of power, Taiwan does not need certain offensive weapons. This is a thin line the US must tread and it does so reasonably well.

China hasn’t invaded yet, has it?

There is no reason that Taiwan should expect the US to provide completely for Taiwan’s security. Taiwan should maintain its defense capabilities as a credible deterrent so that it isn’t only the US shouldering the burdon. Taiwan is hardly running scared… getting the Legislative Yuan to authorize expenditures for weapons is like pulling teeth.

I sure don’t see it. This side of the planet has benefitted tremendously from US security. Benefitted immeasurably, in fact. I fail to see this unfairness and dishonesty to which you refer.

Control and dominate? How so? Like, when the Philippines asked us to leave and we… left?

Its not the fault of the US that Korea is divided and unstable. I guess China and the old USSR had no part in that at all, eh?

I think the US has done a very good job keeping the peace in the Taiwan Strait. Anyway, who else had a plan or a hand to lend in this regard?

That’s plain wrong. If, as you assert, the US was merely interested in profit, the US would long ago have ditched Taiwan thereby improving immediately and immeasurably its ties with China. That’s where the profit is and will be.

Just think of the deals US industry could close if the US and China were not butting heads over Taiwan!

No need to wonder. Taiwan was poorer than Indonesia is now when the US committed itself to Taiwan’s defense.

17

Well, you have just gone back on yourself.
earlier in this thread you said it was bullshit that the US sold Taiwan airframes in variuos states of repair. Now you are admitting that LM did infact sell dodgy F16’s. Getting to the truth now? Obviously you have been doing some background reading.
The fact is even if LM did give Taiwan a rebate on the aircraft, (which they did) it still isn’t enough. And they still “tried it on.”

Sure, if Taiwan went to war with China (or vice versa) the US would lose billions. Which is erm…why we are here and…why we are trying to control the balance of power and…erm…making wonga out of arms sales. Hang on, didn’t you just repeat what I have just said, but in a different way?

Buying French ships and French aircraft and Dutch subs…I’m sure our government wasn’t very pleased. Remember that it was frowned upon?

Oh…and news just in. The US may buy four deisel powered subs from America…which we will buy from Russia…? Well, talk about mark-ups?
Whats going on here then? Why can’t Taiwan just buy the damn things from Russia? ahhh…I forgot. Taiwan is obliged to buy arms from the US. And the excuse? It is too far to transfer subs all the way from the US. What?? They are submarines for god sake.

I suppose we are heading now to the ultimate question. If the US is really interested in Taiwans future as a nation and democracy, then why doesn’t it transfer recognition to Taipei from Beijing?
It wont start world war three.

Ahh…but then I forgot. No Chinese investment. Oh well, at least we get our continued arms sales to taiwan.

Korea? Vietnam? just like Iraq we left them in a bigger mess than when we went in. Yeah, China had a hand in it but so what. Peace and stability?

Malaysia/Borneo/Indonesia. whats going on at the moment? the good old US is trying to muscle in on their teritory now by insisting that thier waters are patrolled by US ships to “prevent” terrorism.
In Malaysia, the US navy has also insisted and is currently putting into action a little bribe:
“We need to put US navy personell in all of your major ports to make sure it conforms to US standards of safety and operation. Failiure to agree to this will mean that US ships of commercial nature will be banned from entering your ports and harbors”

Qoute: “The Star”

Seems like the US is trying to have a little slice of Asia after all. Demanding that Navy personell be put into ports around Asia or imports/exports may suffer.

Don’t tell me the US isn’t up to it’s same old tricks again. The above information endorses what I have said all along. Remamber what I said at the beginning of this thread? I didn’t realise the US was so wrong until I left and started to travel around the world…

18

lol. taiwan can only buy weapons from the us because NOBODY ELSE WILL SELL THEM TO TAIWAN. as i stated before, the us had asked germany to sell taiwan the non-nuclear subs in this arms package because the us no longer builds non-nuclear subs. the germans refused because they didn’t want to anger china. the us has to buy them from other countries to sell to taiwan because the us does not make them anymore and noone else will sell them to taiwan directly.

this one remark shows how incredibly skewed your whole anti-us perspective is. that you would fabricate complete lies to back up your anti-us rant is quite sad.

19

now you’re blaming the us for avoiding a war in the taiwan straits by controlling the balance of power. man, all that hate you have really screws up your reasoning capacities, doesn’t it?

20

This one statement says it all. It is a window into your soul. It is the basis for all other arguments you make. It reveals the deep resentment you have.

Why woudn’t a sovern nation do things in its own interest? Why aren’t the Germans and French and Saudis and Singaporeans and Chinese being blamed for doing things in their own interest? Why is it that the US is singled out for “doing things in its own interest”? I sure hope the US is doing things in its own interest.

Apply this kind of thinking to a business you might own or your own personal life.