tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13378665.post112650459383596533..comments2024-03-01T16:32:41.076+08:00Comments on Sun Bin: Taiwan's defense optionsSun Binhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08093210384069958083noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13378665.post-1146462543986053952006-05-01T15:49:00.000+10:002006-05-01T15:49:00.000+10:00"Ma Ying-jeou proved he is capable of making a goo..."Ma Ying-jeou proved he is capable of making a good decision. He vowed to make a decision that will makes the best sense for the people of Taiwan, by not endorsing the unnecessary arms procurement at an inflated price. Instead, he proposed for a rational debate on the procurement issue, to ensure the more appropriate decision is made."<BR/><BR/>Ma Ying-jeou does not served the interest of Taiwanese people. He served only the interest of Greater China (CCP+KMT) to reclaim what his parents have lost at the expense of Taiwan.<BR/><BR/>Hua Ren (KMT) were kicked out because of their corruption and their oppressive rule to the Chinese and non-Chinese people in China. In fact, they are still getting in way of our reforms that'll make Taiwan a better place even as we speak.<BR/><BR/>ROC is a dead. No one in Taiwan support it except those Hua Ren and those Taiwan Ren afraid of China's threat. If not, let these cowards (only 10% of our population) fight and die for their dead ROC. I would rather kill every goddamn backstabbing Hua Ren then let these motherfuckers run my country to the ground.<BR/><BR/>Anyhow, let's see if China would attack a country with nuclear weapons and enough firepowers to turn China's new economic back to stone age.<BR/><BR/>Iron_Jackal_TWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13378665.post-1127759955956803212005-09-27T03:39:00.000+09:002005-09-27T03:39:00.000+09:00The PAC-3 really makes no economic sense, see this...The PAC-3 really makes no economic sense, see this old report from <A HTTP://WWW.TAIPEITIMES.COM/NEWS/TAIWAN/ARCHIVES/2005/03/21/2003247172 HREF="" REL="nofollow">Taipei Time</A> and <A HREF="http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1270" REL="nofollow">carnegie endowment </A>:<BR/><BR/>PLA has 700 missiles, costing about $1M each. it takes 4 PAC-3 missiles to intercept one. so a total of 2800 is needed. (each cost $3M)<BR/>so this is a $12M vs $1M arms race. for every 12M Taiwan invests, PLA needs to put in $1M to counter.<BR/><BR/>now taiwan already has 200 pac-2, and is going to get 12x128 pac-3 (each set has 128 missiles) in 10 years, total=1536+200=1736, capable to intercepting 434<BR/>so PLA will still have 266 more missiles after all the PAC-3 and PAC-2 are fired (assuming 100% interception!, reality is 70-95%), assuming PLA does not add any in the next 10 years!<BR/><BR/>so what is the point?Sun Binhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08093210384069958083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13378665.post-1126931108304681512005-09-17T14:25:00.000+10:002005-09-17T14:25:00.000+10:00right click to download this report from Nixon Ce...<A HREF="http://www.nixoncenter.org/Monographs/China%20Studies%202005/Taiwan'sElections,DirectFlightandChina'sLineintheSand.pdf" REL="nofollow"> right click to download this report </A> from Nixon Center (via Michael Thurton). Its recommendation for TW/Mainland/US worth serious consideration, esp the mainland, if it does not want to push the middle to DPP's side.Sun Binhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08093210384069958083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13378665.post-1126752888222790312005-09-15T12:54:00.000+10:002005-09-15T12:54:00.000+10:00Thanks for the mention Sun Bin, you're on my blogr...Thanks for the mention Sun Bin, you're on my blogroll. <BR/><BR/>Michael...play nice now... :) How about something to back that up?Taiwan's Other Sidehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09502176430536810488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13378665.post-1126720656037810532005-09-15T03:57:00.000+10:002005-09-15T03:57:00.000+10:00I think we do not disagree on what Lee TH said.But...I think we do not disagree on what Lee TH said.<BR/><BR/>But I do disagree with you about DPP and KMT's agenda. In public they both claim to promote 'group' harmony. But the "independence" issue itself is aligned with groups and divisive enough. What I tried to say is, even if DPP is neutral on the 'independence issue', it can gather enough support (or even better support) politically. To be fair to DDP and Chen SB, it did gravitate to the middle a little, leaving Lee TH's party to take care of ther extreme end.<BR/><BR/>the new migrant group (wai-shen) only represents less than 15% of the votes, and is decreasing due to cross-marriage. KMT would be idiotic to initiate the divisive issues. While I think they are not smart and even stupid, I do not think they are idiotic yet. <BR/><BR/>Any party who could (intuitively) benefit from divisive issue is the one that can appeal to the larger group. But DPP has to realize that much of its 40% vote comes from viewing it as a reform force, not as an independence force.Sun Binhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08093210384069958083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13378665.post-1126707189727144432005-09-15T00:13:00.000+10:002005-09-15T00:13:00.000+10:00Lee Teng-hui put it another way -- gotta pay the f...Lee Teng-hui put it another way -- gotta pay the fare if you want to ride the bus. The billions for defense is for more than just hardware; it helps create positive support for Taiwan among US policymakers. <BR/><BR/><I>He also pointed out that "DPP needs these divisive issues and cannot give them up". While this was true a few years ago, today, already into Chen SB's second term, it is time for DPP to graduate from feeding on divisive and extremist issue.</I><BR/><BR/>This is a popular piece of horseshit from the KMT side of things. The party that has grown powerful feeding on ethnic divisiveness is the KMT. The "mainlander" identity is entirely a political identity created by the KMT to split locals who otherwise had common interests, and divide and rule them. It presides over a coalition of Hakkas and aborigines, which it whips up with the fear of Taiwanese supremacy. The Other Side's analysis stands history on its head.<BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13378665.post-1126633362354727622005-09-14T03:42:00.000+10:002005-09-14T03:42:00.000+10:00Stefan and Dave,Thanks for your comments. I think ...Stefan and Dave,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comments. I think you have brought up a great point. Laying out the main options is an attempt to simply a complex situation, one can think of sub-options, and as you pointed out, one needs to consider the muddled combination. However, I should also note that the combination, i.e. without formal declaration of independence, is very unlikely to trigger a war from mainland. Therefore, they are, in my definition, sort of a "status quo". So a better definition for the two options are: trigger vs non-trigger.<BR/><BR/>Removing the intricacies, one could probably look at the Singapore situation in the 1970s, when it was threatened by Indonesia (and also Malaysia). Singapore chose to strengthen its defense and ask for protection from UK and US. However, this is a very different situation than what Taiwan faces, in that Indonesia's threat was a generic threat, whereas when CCP promised no arms if no independence, CCP's promise is also to its own people in mainland and they have put themselves into such a situation (to use LKY's word) of "if and only if". In addition, Singapore does not have a "Singapore Relations Act" with the US.<BR/><BR/>Then the debate is whether the $15bn could be spent more wisely, (vs the outright outsourcing option, or other ways to strengthen the more conventional defense). <BR/><BR/>But before that, it is useful to decide on their defense goal: a general deterrance vs an inevitable invasion; i.e. spending 2%- vs 3%+ GDP on defense. Once that goal is set, there is a more logical process to decide on which piece within that $15bn list is needed and which is not.Sun Binhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08093210384069958083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13378665.post-1126599254876625132005-09-13T18:14:00.000+10:002005-09-13T18:14:00.000+10:00Sun Bin, first let me say I enjoy your blog, as we...Sun Bin, first let me say I enjoy your blog, as well as your comments on my guest blogging on Simonworld. Also, I quite agree that Ma Ying-Jeou and Soong are doing the right thing and are vetoing an expensive arms bill for materiel they do not really need. I also agree with your other arguments up to a point - the only bit I don't quite agree with is that the country faces two options (independence or status quo) when in a multi-party system, there is likely going to be a muddle created by a combination of these two approaches.<BR/><BR/>Removing the intricacies and complexities of the situation across the Strait for a moment, let us put the situation in abstract terms: If a smaller country recognizes that it will have to come to terms with a rising superpower in the next decade or two, will they do so by giving up on defense spending, or will they continue to build on their military assets to be able to continue to negotiate from a stronger position to secure a better lasting agreement from that superpower?<BR/><BR/>Please note I am not saying that you are wrong, only that even if Taiwan ultimately will come to some accommodation and resolution with China, there may be some logic to continued spending on defence to make their bargaining position a more tenable one, if and when some accord is hashed out.Dave and Stefanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03374243021807086912noreply@blogger.com