Impact of arm sales to Taiwan

[supersean]

If the proposed sale from the US to Taiwan for Patriot & Harpoon missiles and Blackhawk helicopters goes through it is expected that China will be a bit more forceful in its response. It has already suspended military exchange activities and there are reports that sanctions against company's supplying the arms are to follow. Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/asian ... aught.html

This would clearly impact Boeing and GE more than Sikorsky but how does this play out. Does China apply a import duty/tariff at first followed by all out sanctions? How would the US then respond? This could get real hairy... real quick!

[Princess Leia]

Better do what the chicoms say, they own us anyway.

[David Hilditch]

This could get real hairy... real quick!

I doubt the Taiwan issue (in and of itself) is important these days. It's true that China is pushing the US around a lot on several issues, so the US necessarily will want to push back. You can legitimately argue whether the US should act as world policeman these days, given the various fundamental power shifts under way around the globe. However, do we want to allow the Chinese to extend their tyranny everywhere ? I think the real risk and/or threat is the cyberwar between China and the US (and maybe the West as a whole) that is currently gathering pace. The Taiwan weapons are largely defensive : and we should not under-estimate the extent to which China and Taiwan have drawn closer together in recent years, especially in business and economic relationships.

[flyboy2548m]

This would clearly impact Boeing and GE more than Sikorsky but how does this play out. Does China apply a import duty/tariff at first followed by all out sanctions? How would the US then respond? This could get real hairy... real quick!

What will China do? Not place an order for 500 CH-53s that they were otherwise itching to buy? Place a huge tariff on hundreds of thousands of Chevy pickups they buy?

This won't be either hairy or quick.

[rattler]

China will stop supporting the vs. Iran sanctions (that they 3 month ago after good Obama striking a deal agreed to support), promise.

Rattler

[flyboy2548m]

China will stop supporting the vs. Iran sanctions (that they 3 month ago after good Obama striking a deal agreed to support), promise.

Rattler

Oh my.

[rattler]

How right I was

Actually, this is a disaster for Obama, as he now cannot "negotiate" Iran out of preparing to go nuclear because of lack of aa resolution, and it will probably make a war (at least a - n Israeli? - strike vs the installations) almost inevitable.

Now, Mr. flyBoy, tell me this is in the planets interest (or how else I should have interpreted your "Oh, my." comment) ?

Onwards, I suggest learning to read between the lines for future comments.

Rattler

China will stop supporting the vs. Iran sanctions (that they 3 month ago after good Obama striking a deal agreed to support), promise.

Rattler

Oh my.

[flyboy2548m]

How right I was

Actually, this is a disaster for Obama, as he now cannot "negotiate" Iran out of preparing to go nuclear because of lack of aa resolution, and it will probably make a war (at least a - n Israeli? - strike vs the installations) almost inevitable.

Now, Mr. flyBoy, tell me this is in the planets interest (or how else I should have interpreted your "Oh, my." comment) ?

Onwards, I suggest learning to read between the lines for future comments.

I don't know about the planet, but it might be in your interest to stop banging on about things you don't have the first clue about, whether it be military aviation or geopolitics.

Onwards, I suggest getting a grip.

[Verbal]

Onwards, I suggest getting a grip.

Concur.

[David Hilditch]

How right I was

Actually, this is a disaster for Obama, as he now cannot "negotiate" Iran out of preparing to go nuclear because of lack of aa resolution, and it will probably make a war (at least a - n Israeli? - strike vs the installations) almost inevitable.

I had difficulty understanding this comment and (especially) the one you made above on February 10. Can you explain in greater depth the link between US arms sales to Taiwan and the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran ? What is the "disaster" for Obama ?

[flyboy2548m]

How right I was

Actually, this is a disaster for Obama, as he now cannot "negotiate" Iran out of preparing to go nuclear because of lack of aa resolution, and it will probably make a war (at least a - n Israeli? - strike vs the installations) almost inevitable.

I had difficulty understanding this comment and (especially) the one you made above on February 10. Can you explain in greater depth the link between US arms sales to Taiwan and the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran ? What is the "disaster" for Obama ?

In other words, Mr. Hilditch, you're echoing my sentiments, albeit somewhat more diplomatically.

[rattler]

How right I was

Actually, this is a disaster for Obama, as he now cannot "negotiate" Iran out of preparing to go nuclear because of lack of aa resolution, and it will probably make a war (at least a - n Israeli? - strike vs the installations) almost inevitable.

I had difficulty understanding this comment and (especially) the one you made above on February 10. Can you explain in greater depth the link between US arms sales to Taiwan and the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran ? What is the "disaster" for Obama ?

In other words, Mr. Hilditch, you're echoing my sentiments, albeit somewhat more diplomatically.

Hence, I am going to answer to Mr Hilditch and not to Mr. Flyboy, as good as my poor English allows...

The connection I see is about (obviously) the Iranian Nukes development program, which basiclly has two stances and three solutions for both of them:

- Stance 1: Iran is not trying to build Nukes through its enrichment programme, this is totally devoted to it´s electricity energy crisis with the goal to get enogh civil reactors running to solve it.

- Stance 2: Iran is running its enrichment program with the goal to - in the end - produce a nuke that could threaten Israel, Europe, or even the US, depending on the outcome of the missiles programme that they have been running for 8 yrs+.

Where the Bush Aministration clearly went for #2 stance and threatened with strikes/war (as they had no chance to get a mjority in the SC contra Rusia -pissed of with the sationing of their missile interceptors in close astern Europe - and China - pissed off by the support to India, the onvasion of territorial air space by US spy planes on aregular basis, etc...), Obama administration took a broader view and looked for a (recommended by European nations since 8 yrs) negotiation solution, giving the benefit of doubt and claiming to lean towards stance #1 (officially).

There are two basic solutions to stop Iran completing its enrichment programme to an extent where they can produce nukes (on stance #2, one more for #1):

- Solution #1: Negotiations: Take their two main supporters (Russia/China) out and open a way to threaten with sanctions through SC (i.e. get Russia and China on your side), while at the same time offer selling/giving-away-for-free enriched Uranium for civil use (15%?) and allow either Russia or CHina to make the profitable deal.

- Solution #2: Ignore supporters, go for them Iranians, either with a direct strike on the facilities (NATO, US, or via Israel so you can claim you were not behind) or enter a whole scale war and physically take the sites to control them (incl. removing the Iranian government in an Iraq like scenario).

While AFAIK the Bush adinistrations had opted of solution #2, Obama Administration tried the way for #1 solution, trying to buy the russian support for the price of renouncing the missile defense system deployed to Poland and Check Republic, and trying to get the CHinese to withdraw their sopport to Iran by paying the price of not supporting Taiwan nor encirceling them with missiles, also getting way peaceful about the Chinexe perceived industtrial/military spy program and their cyber attacks.

Well, Russia played along (rewarding the US effort with pulling out of the S-300 sales to Iran), China first also, but later became more agressive (for whatever reason only they know probably). Taiwan arms sale is seen by them as "agrgressive encirclement", and now, after it went along, they have decided to block any resolution about sanctions against Iran in the SC (google the changing stances), so a war/strikes seem inevitable again, maiking world peace a less possibl future.

Does this make it clear what I want to describe?

Rattler

[flyboy2548m]

Not even close, rattler.

[Ancient Mariner]

Does this make it clear what I want to describe?

Rattler

Clear, in a roundabout way and I agree with you on the position in puts Obama in.
Per

[David Hilditch]

Hence, I am going to answer to Mr Hilditch and not to Mr. Flyboy, as good as my poor English allows...

The connection I see is about (obviously) the Iranian Nukes development program, which basiclly has two stances and three solutions for both of them:

- Stance 1: Iran is not trying to build Nukes through its enrichment programme, this is totally devoted to it´s electricity energy crisis with the goal to get enogh civil reactors running to solve it.

- Stance 2: Iran is running its enrichment program with the goal to - in the end - produce a nuke that could threaten Israel, Europe, or even the US, depending on the outcome of the missiles programme that they have been running for 8 yrs+.

Where the Bush Aministration clearly went for #2 stance and threatened with strikes/war (as they had no chance to get a mjority in the SC contra Rusia -pissed of with the sationing of their missile interceptors in close astern Europe - and China - pissed off by the support to India, the onvasion of territorial air space by US spy planes on aregular basis, etc...), Obama administration took a broader view and looked for a (recommended by European nations since 8 yrs) negotiation solution, giving the benefit of doubt and claiming to lean towards stance #1 (officially).

There are two basic solutions to stop Iran completing its enrichment programme to an extent where they can produce nukes (on stance #2, one more for #1):

- Solution #1: Negotiations: Take their two main supporters (Russia/China) out and open a way to threaten with sanctions through SC (i.e. get Russia and China on your side), while at the same time offer selling/giving-away-for-free enriched Uranium for civil use (15%?) and allow either Russia or CHina to make the profitable deal.

- Solution #2: Ignore supporters, go for them Iranians, either with a direct strike on the facilities (NATO, US, or via Israel so you can claim you were not behind) or enter a whole scale war and physically take the sites to control them (incl. removing the Iranian government in an Iraq like scenario).

While AFAIK the Bush adinistrations had opted of solution #2, Obama Administration tried the way for #1 solution, trying to buy the russian support for the price of renouncing the missile defense system deployed to Poland and Check Republic, and trying to get the CHinese to withdraw their sopport to Iran by paying the price of not supporting Taiwan nor encirceling them with missiles, also getting way peaceful about the Chinexe perceived industtrial/military spy program and their cyber attacks.

Well, Russia played along (rewarding the US effort with pulling out of the S-300 sales to Iran), China first also, but later became more agressive (for whatever reason only they know probably). Taiwan arms sale is seen by them as "agrgressive encirclement", and now, after it went along, they have decided to block any resolution about sanctions against Iran in the SC (google the changing stances), so a war/strikes seem inevitable again, maiking world peace a less possibl future.

Does this make it clear what I want to describe?

Rattler

OK, I don’t follow everything you say, but I think I get your point, and I thank you for that. I think you may be losing sight of the sheer complexity of some of these issues, and how policy is decided. There is no real direct line in any decision tree between Taiwan policy and Iran policy. Sure, China may be a common factor, but there are so many other factors which determine overall policy-making towards China and towards Iran. Taiwan is relatively small beer. I think the Taiwan issue is mere sabre rattling on China’s part. Previous episodes of Chinese belligerence over Taiwan have got them precisely nowhere. The Chinese are in a mode now where they are looking for ways to irritate the US, and this will do nicely enough for a week or two. (As I already said in the thread, not much in the arms sale is going to worry the Chinese.)

I accept that right now mutual US/Chinese relations are poor, but the two countries are going to have to learn to co-exist since they are so economically interdependent (more so than in US/Soviet cold war days).

I think you draw a false distinction between the Bush and Obama approaches when in reality, despite vested interests, there is little between them on many foreign policy issues. This program to sell arms to Taiwan was being prepared under Bush anyway.

On Iran, you talk about three solutions and then list two. I again think you exaggerate both the differences between the two positions outlined and, as with Taiwan, the approaches taken by the previous and the current administrations. Bush, for example, spent most of his second term trying to negotiate with the Iranians and even came up with the infamous National Intelligence Estimate in 2007 saying that the Iranians had not been pursuing a nuclear weapon since 2003.