Taiwan's Reaction to PLA Force Modernization

Status
Not open for further replies.

unknauthr

Junior Member
Self Delusions Continue

An interesting article appeared in the Taipei Times, assessing the deterrence potential of Japan versus China during a hypothetical confrontation over Taiwan:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I was quite frankly amazed by the naivete of this author. This appears to be written by a typical PhD type - too much political science theory and not enough military science know-how. According to his line of thinking, on the weight of Japan's military potential alone, "I don't believe China would dare attack Taiwan."

What utter nonesense. The professor needs to stop thinking in terms of where China's military stands today (as new classes of warships and jet fighters are just entering full scale production), and think in terms of where China will be five years from now.
 

Kilo636

Banned Idiot
Re: Self Delusions Continue

An interesting article appeared in the Taipei Times, assessing the deterrence potential of Japan versus China during a hypothetical confrontation over Taiwan:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I was quite frankly amazed by the naivete of this author. This appears to be written by a typical PhD type - too much political science theory and not enough military science know-how. According to his line of thinking, on the weight of Japan's military potential alone, "I don't believe China would dare attack Taiwan."

What utter nonesense. The professor needs to stop thinking in terms of where China's military stands today (as new classes of warships and jet fighters are just entering full scale production), and think in terms of where China will be five years from now.

That new is only fit for DPP supporter to read. They like th elude themselves :rofl:
 

Violet Oboe

Junior Member
Taipei Times is a typical DPP/Minjidang paper parroting the separatist line to excess. Although reading that piece of crap is at least informative about the separatists mindset I have to admit that some articles are causing serious revulsion for me. Describing Japan as ´benefactor´and even ´saviour´of Taiwan and eulogies about how hapless China was robbed of the island in the 1895 Shimonoseki treaty by Japan are probably intended to provoke and insult every patriotic chinese.


(e.g. a recurring argument of taiwanese separatists is the fact that China signed the valid treaty of Shimonoseki being completely oblivious to the employed blackmail of a ruthless aggressor state, ... may be this author gets someday a visit by a triad gang beating him up and putting him a big gun under his nose and force him to sign a paper giving away his bank accounts to the gang leader and some time later he reclaims his money from the bandit, but now the police would tell him: Well, you know you signed that piece of paper and your money is lost.:roll: )
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Taiwan's Free Ride on U.S. Defense
by Ted Galen Carpenter

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The Taiwan legislature's reluctance to pass a "special defense budget" to pay for U.S. weapons systems looks set to continue as the island's presidential campaign heats up. That leaves America in the unenviable position of having an implicit commitment to defend a fellow democracy that doesn't seem especially interested in defending itself.

This conundrum is the culmination of years of partisan bickering between President Chen Shui-bian's Democratic Progressive Party and the Pan Blue coalition, composed of the Kuomintang Party and People First Party. While Mr. Chen supports better defenses, the Pan Blues -- who control the legislature -- argue that the expenditure is excessive, diverts needed funds from domestic priorities, and could encourage Mr. Chen's administration to exacerbate tensions across the Taiwan Strait.

Though Mr. Chen's administration has repeatedly scaled back the deal, reducing it in stages to a mere $10.3 billion, from $18.5 billion, prospects for its passage have barely budged. So far, the Pan Blue coalition has blocked a vote on the measure more than 60 times. It took until December of last year for the majority to agree even to send the proposal for consideration in the budgetary committee. U.S. President George Bush grew so disgusted with Taipei's behavior last month that he personally overruled a Pentagon arms proposal for the island unless and until the special defense budget is approved.

A very disturbing dynamic is developing in Taiwan. On the one hand, Mr. Chen's government seems determined to consolidate Taiwan's separate political status -- even if that means taking measures Beijing regards as highly provocative. The latest incidents include, for instance, Taipei's decision to rename various state corporations to substitute "Taiwan" for "China." Yet even as Taipei adopts ever more assertive policies toward the mainland, it underinvests in defense. Its spending on essential matters like procurement, operations, training, and personnel has shrunk, in real terms, by more than 50% since 1993, and continues to contract at an alarming rate. Taiwan's regular defense budget has plunged to an anemic 2.2% of its annual GDP.

From America's standpoint, Taiwan's political leaders are creating the worst possible combination: the DPP's provocative cross-straits policy with the KMT's irresponsible policy on defense spending. That is a blueprint for trouble. China has already deployed nearly 1,000 ballistic missiles across the Taiwan Strait, and Beijing's military modernization program appears heavily oriented toward credibly threatening military action against Taiwan. A bold cross-straits policy, coupled with inadequate defense spending, virtually invites a Chinese challenge.

The U.S. would probably try to rescue Taiwan if Beijing launched a military assault. Yet, given the ongoing erosion of Taiwan's defense capabilities, within a few years it will be not at all certain that the island could even stave off an attack until U.S. forces arrived. It is dubious enough for the U.S. to risk war with an emerging great power like China to defend a small client state of comparably modest strategic and economic significance. It is even worse to incur such risks on behalf of a client state that is not willing to make a meaningful defense effort.

America is in an unrewarding and potentially dangerous position. Washington must make it clear to all political players in Taiwan, especially the Pan Blue leaders, that free riding on America's military might cannot continue.

This article appeared in the Asian Wall Street Journal on April 23, 2007.

Related link:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Violet Oboe

Junior Member
@crobato: thanks for posting Carpenter's article.

Carpenter and his disciples at the Cato institute deserve to be evaluated since they are a leading democratic thinktank and they have an intricate understanding of how opinions are shifting within important democratic circles in DC.

Obviously Cato's guys are trying to develop a valid rationale for changing the current status quo about Taiwan after the next election (leading probably to a democratic administration). Interestingly (have posted something about that last year) Taiwan is seen more and more as strategic liability in Washington and that kind of thinking has spreaded also in the Pentagon. Accordingly the option of a ´deal´in the 2009-2011 timeframe could be realistic but of course Taiwan's unpredictable and incredibly erratic political scene could wreck every engagement between Beijing and Washington. (just remember the recent irresponsible statements by Chen's administration: " We could fire missiles at China!" Some people in Washington who are in the know about Taiwan's real military capabilities were simply appalled.)

P.S.: Although Capenter's article shows encouraging signs of fresh realism in his analysis his bashing of the KMT is inappropriate since they want to create stability for Taiwan and they recognize that avoiding to severely antagonizing China is exactly that what is needed to achieve this end. (Unfourtunately for US defense corporations that means loosing an exceptionally profitable market and that is certainly what many democrats in the congress is irritating, but Beijing should find a compensating solution for this kind of problem. :D :D )
 
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
Obviously Cato's guys are trying to develop a valid rationale for changing the current status quo about Taiwan after the next election

I don't think so. I believe it's more a frustration at Taiwan's inability to get its act together over defence - political squabbling rather than purchasing at least some weapons the main parties agree are needed. If Taiwan had another four years of squabbling then maybe they would want the US to break it off. Either way I don't see anything changing in the US-Taiwan relationship for the foreseeable future.

I think the one big thing the author missed was that he hasn't looked at the US' role in all of this. It has insisted Taiwan purchase the submarines at something like 3 times the average global cost for new SSKs, whilst denying it the ability to build subsequent numbers in Taiwan - it won't even give them the designs for future use, despite the fact it wants to charge it for the R&D. Thus it was inevitable arguments would break out as the executive and legislative are controlled by different groups.

Also he rather overlooks the fact that Taiwan still buys lots of weapons for its own defence, even if the big-budget items are held up. According to the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, Taiwan spent $7.7 billion between 1997 and 2000 on US weapons and services and $4 billion from 2001 to 2004. Among worldwide customers, Taiwan ranked 2nd in 1997-2000 and 4th in 2001-2004.

Although Capenter's article shows encouraging signs of fresh realism in his analysis his bashing of the KMT is inappropriate since they want to create stability for Taiwan and they recognize that avoiding to severely antagonizing China is exactly that what is needed to achieve this end.

It's actually completely reasonable. The KMT want the Orions and the PAC-3 upgrades - they were pushing for such things when they were still in power. They've even agreed to fund them, but are holding the budget hostage to try to gain control of the Electoral Commission. That doesn't seem like a responsible way of generating stability, especially because there is other money in the central budget that is needed for industry, construction, etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Violet Oboe

Junior Member
Well, well I hear the message but I can hardly believe it: Mr. Fu is actually putting his confidence on the wily Democrats...:D
(just never mind about that certain Mr. Carter and his dealings back in '79...:confused: )

Developments in Washington are currently quite murky since the (pre-) election campaigns are already heating up but we will have to wait and see... (may be some of your interpretations about defense deals are correct, but as for your figures you have to take into consideration that these billlions are probably reflecting simply the late 90's mega deals delivery/payment schedules):coffee:
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
Well, well I hear the message but I can hardly believe it: Mr. Fu is actually putting his confidence on the wily Democrats...

Oh, I must have been confused - I guess Clinton was a Republican. :D

but as for your figures you have to take into consideration that these billlions are probably reflecting the payment schedule for the mega deals of the late 90's

As far as I know, those are the actual numbers - I don't think they would count scheduled payments in a Congressional report without flagging them as that. Part of the F-16 purchase may have been included in the 1990s figures. But it is true that Taiwan has bought loads of US weapons in recent years.

I can't remember who it was, but I once read that one reason Taiwan didn't buy the 3 big packages outright was that no one believed the US was going to offer all of them at the same time. Normally they ask for a lot of things and get a few. So in 2001 they were taken by surprise, but couldn't afford them all in one go. Normally they would have got - oh, I don't know maybe the Orions - and then PAC-3/SSKs after a few more years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Violet Oboe

Junior Member
In comparison with Japan and South Korea the financial dealings of the taiwanese government regarding her defense contracts are quite complicated and confusing. Perhaps Taipeh is reacting sometimes with stalling tactics because they do not want to pay a different (i.e. higher) price for similar equipment sold more cheaply to other US allies.

A report of the Stockholm based SIPRI institute maintained some years ago regarding Taiwan's defense deals of the 90's that only Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the VAE had been paying comparable high unit prices for their weapon systems. The case of the La Fayette type FFG's seems indeed to indicate that a high level of corruption had an additional negative impact on the bills eventually having to be paid by the average citizen.

After all this kind of intransparency about Taiwan's defense contracts led in part to the current situation since many legislators (KMT and DPP) have a certain reason for mistrust against the military bureaucracy in Taipeh. Before any new ´big deals´will go through the Yuan some kind of structural reform of the entire process of defense contracting will have to be implemented.
(Interestingly Chen Shui Bian promised initially to achieve this but apart from removing Chiang Kai Shek statues from the barracks he has achieved nothing really reforming in the ROCA...:coffee: )
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Re: Self Delusions Continue

An interesting article appeared in the Taipei Times, assessing the deterrence potential of Japan versus China during a hypothetical confrontation over Taiwan:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I was quite frankly amazed by the naivete of this author. This appears to be written by a typical PhD type - too much political science theory and not enough military science know-how. According to his line of thinking, on the weight of Japan's military potential alone, "I don't believe China would dare attack Taiwan."

What utter nonesense. The professor needs to stop thinking in terms of where China's military stands today (as new classes of warships and jet fighters are just entering full scale production), and think in terms of where China will be five years from now.


The guy's orbat is quite wrong by a major margin. There should be at least over 300 Flankers by now, on at least 12 regiments. 7 of them are Su-27/J-11 and 5 of them are Su-30. Then add at least 3 J-10 regiments, with two coming online this year. JH-7s add another 4 regiments at least. Between at least 400 J-8s, there may be at least 100 of them that are J-8F/H or J-8D upgraded to that level. Its confirmed that the 1st and 21st are using the type, with the 29th having the planes converted, with reports that the 37th, 2nd and 3rd Divisions also getting the type. These are the ones that can use the PL-12, and we can presume that maybe the remaining 6 J-8D regiments may be avionically upgraded to this standard. J-7E/G remains a threat when fielded in numbers or in support of other fighters due to their all aspect missiles; the PL-8B no doubt better than any AIM-9L.

Between 2007 and 2012 there are going to be a lot of upgrading, with J-11Bs coming in this year, along with more J-10s that will progressively be upgraded. J-8s continue their PL-12 capability conversions, and if possible, quite likely, that FC-1s will be added to the bin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top