As I commented, re-post what you said and highlight how it shows I was taking your comments out of context. Saying "you take my words out of context" doesn't show anything.
No you took my words out of context when I meant that in the long run, 8 is far from enough. 8 is not even enough right now.
Did I say to build them at one time? I said:
You mean Taiwan should build and then operate 16-24 at one time?
I.e. it would have 16-24 in service at any one time.
So, how many submarines at one time should Taiwan have? Remember older ships have to be decommissioned - you can't just build 20 boats over 20 years and expect the older ones to be still suitable for combat.
My god, you don't know very much do you? You only got four subs, and two of them are WWII vintage. These should have been retired long ago. The usual life span for a sub is about 30 years, and the Zvaardis is already more than half way that point. The Barbels which the Zvaardis was based from had a life span of 30 years.
You've been pontificating about what Taiwan should/should not be doing - of course you can comment. If you say Taiwan should have X number of submarines, it's pretty important to know what sort of comparable class they should be!
What I am saying is that Taiwan should have control of its own submarine destiny so that at least it can have the option of building any subs it needs without political obstacles.
Actually, they don't because they can decide it's not worth it. It's up to them.
You fail to note that Israel gets big bucks from Uncle Sam - it has a lot more scope to spend on defence. Japan has a big economy and can afford to support a large submarine fleet, such that it can keep things ticking over with a nice drum-beat.
Aw geez that has nothing to do with the Merkavas, since all what happened to the US aid is that it is recycled to buy US weapons. There is another reason for the US to be willing to give that amount.
Economy has nothing to do with it also. Germany makes a particular sub that is not exported. The Zvaardis is only exported once and Taiwan was it. The Dolphin and the Collins were unique classes. Australia is now looking to do its own sub program. Now go check with the nuclear subs, no one exports that except for Indian leases from Russia.
In fact it is no different if you have it made in the US shipyards, because that sub is going to be unique, which no one can buy, and which the USN isn't going to buy either. It will be a very limited run if ever if you are going to make concessions with the USN's nuclear sub faction.
No, I'm criticising you for throwing lots of random stuff in the hope some of it will strike the target. Be relevant and direct - circumstantial evidence proves nothing.
In the first place you are the one doing it with your question above. Like I said there are many weapons systems in the world that are not exported.
That's your opinion. I don't believe it shows Taiwan isn't trusted with US tech.
Frankly I think it does, at least with what is considered the cutting edge.
The US has the world's largest economy - of course it can afford to design and build lots of submarines! What a stupid comparison.
You know what your problem is? You think that freedom and a cheap price tag can go hand in hand.
Let me remind you that the US went into a massive debt which remains even today after massive buildup during Reagan's years.
You said that Taiwan wasn't trusted with the technology, yet they have been offered the radar, missiles, VLS (and doubtless more) - that rather suggests they're not worried that such key parts will get into the hands of the Chinese.
They have not been offered the creme de creme, which is the AEGIS SPY-1D version and the Arleigh Burke class. Taiwan requested that and it was refused until Taiwan is deemed "ready". Remember, Taiwan was withheld actual reciept of the AMRAAMs (they were stored in Guam) until the US confirms that the mainland is operationally fielding an equivalent.
Middlemen often help get something you can't obtain directly. Also there is no data as to how much it would cost to use "middlemen" as you put it versus a Taiwanese build, so again your opinion only.
Middlemen can push your costs significantly when you already cannot afford to buy one without middlemen.
That would probably be for the whole project, not just design and construction. In any case, Australia has a defence budget of nearly $20 billion at only 2% of GDP - it can step up its spending a lot more than Taiwan can.
The fact remains you have to pay for an entire project, not just design and construction, especially when it is an entirely new class of submarine that no one has, and no one is expected to buy.
And the KMT didn't follow-through why? Maybe because they decided it wasn't viable. Or are you suggesting the KMT-led government only became aware of the possibility of building submarines in Taiwan back in 1999?
Maybe they have a point that it is not really viable because the KMT feels that China is not an immediate threat. After all, ify you maintain the status quo, China won't do anything. They did not pursue the program not because they think that Taiwan cannot do subs, but because they believe the issue with the mainland can be resolved diplomatically.
So with that in mind, there is no point of buying it from the US is there, which by the way, isn't going to be cheaper than doing it locally. At least with local construction, the money gets to pay TAIWAN companies, and TAIWAN jobs.
In fact, when you pay for local programs, you can afford to pay even more because you know the money is only being circulated within the economy. That is also how US, Japan, China, etc,. can concievably afford such programs.
I don't because you said the following:
you want this to be a symbolic test....
I have never said or suggested that at all. Symbolism is irrelevant - what Taiwan needs is reliable submarines sooner rather than later.
Which I told you again and again, isn't going to happen because you chose the politically most obstructive path and it will not be the most cost effective path either.
If there's any symbolism going it's you thinking that it's better for Taiwan to sink billions into a local industry that probably will fail to progress far enough and have funding cut off by the legislative (to avoid throwing good money after bad), just because you like the idea of self-reliance.
You know the problem with you? You think that freedom can come with a cheap price tag, and not without some sweat and pain on your own. If you think you will be facing a serious threat, you arm for it, the percentage of what it takes out of the GDP is something you only worry when you are in the position of having survived. Which is the lesser of two evils, the other being you don't have to worry about it at all since in the first place, you have lost and been taken over.
Your comparison with other countries are very daffy, because after all in their mind, they're not facing direct threats. Now I don't really think China is a serious threat to Taiwan right now, but to the minds of the DPP it is. However, the DPP's actions are inconsistent with what you may expect if one is facing immediete threats at least in the context of their beliefs.