Taiwan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Some people here still don't get it I supposed it is understandable because they are not even Chinese.

If these non-Chinese still thinks that Taiwan is a non-core issue and thinks China will act the way they do. ie; treat Taiwan as some kind of pawn. They are going tobhave a rude awakening.

If and when China should decide that force is the only way to reunify Taiwan, it will go in whole heartedly, not half arse attempt as if Taiwan is a pawn in a chess board that is dispensable.

The reunification is inevitable and I believe the best course of action for Taiwan is to find a solution in order to guarantee a smoother and a less destructive process. For that, they would need a better bargaining chip on the table. Asymmetrical military build-up could create one such atmosphere, one that is more preferable for Taipei. I give 1/4 for them to pursue such a strategy. At the moment, they're pushing for all-in with the US for some reason.

Now, of that amphibious landing ship, I don't really see the point. Beijing is crystal clear about the reunification so why does Taipei need an amphibious landing ship? It's not like they should be worrying about some remote, disputed island.

On that submarine note, I agree with @siegecrossbow. In fact, Taipei could have invested some valuable time to study Swedish and Dutch next-gen submarine efforts. Unlike their German counterparts, they appeal to one with the limited budget. Advanced submarines such as those, could have presented somewhat of an advantage for the negiotiation process.

azretonov said:

The reunification is inevitable and I believe the best course of action for Taiwan is to find a solution in order to guarantee a smoother and a less destructive process. For that, they would need a better bargaining chip on the table. Asymmetrical military build-up could create one such atmosphere, one that is more preferable for Taipei. I give 1/4 for them to pursue such a strategy. At the moment, they're pushing for all-in with the US for some reason.

Click to expand...

Well said. The thing is some members here would like to live in a world they think it ought to be, rather than the world that we all live in.

They refused to face reality. They are therefore, like the present incumbent of Taiwan, the English vegetable, basing their entire lot won the HOPE that the us will come good and rescue them from big bad commies China.

So instead of crafting a policy that manages to get the best possible outcome in the REAL world, they are crafting a policy based on a WING and a PRAY.

azretonov said:

In fact, Taipei could have invested some valuable time to study Swedish and Dutch next-gen submarine efforts. Unlike their German counterparts, they appeal to one with the limited budget. Advanced submarines such as those, could have presented somewhat of an advantage for the negiotiation process.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting idea except for the fact that Sweden and the Netherlands refused to cooperate with Taiwan over submarine development. The Netherlands especially would have been the natural place to work with if the Dutch government had been willing, but they didn't want to for fear of trade retaliation from China.

Again another attempt at making China the bad his wolf. The very fact if one want to be friend with another person, or hope to profit from that relationship. One should exercise self restrained to not antagonize your trading partner. It is called courtesy.

The fact China has a choice not to continue with the trading relationship if you should seek to hurt me. Then that's very normal behaviour!

The fact that Trump been using trade to coerce every country in the world and bend it's will to that of U.S. for many years. And some members here didn't feel the need to point this out, yet when is China, a powerful spotlight is use is telling how hypocritical his post sound.

azretonov said:

The reunification is inevitable and I believe the best course of action for Taiwan is to find a solution in order to guarantee a smoother and a less destructive process. For that, they would need a better bargaining chip on the table. Asymmetrical military build-up could create one such atmosphere, one that is more preferable for Taipei. I give 1/4 for them to pursue such a strategy. At the moment, they're pushing for all-in with the US for some reason.

Now, of that amphibious landing ship, I don't really see the point. Beijing is crystal clear about the reunification so why does Taipei need an amphibious landing ship? It's not like they should be worrying about some remote, disputed island.

On that submarine note, I agree with @siegecrossbow. In fact, Taipei could have invested some valuable time to study Swedish and Dutch next-gen submarine efforts. Unlike their German counterparts, they appeal to one with the limited budget. Advanced submarines such as those, could have presented somewhat of an advantage for the negiotiation process.

Click to expand...

Not all small islands controlled by ROC are disputed. It is still the duty of the government to defend these islands should it be required.

However, the DPP (current ruling party) basically owes its reelection to the USA. The cited "crackdown" against HK was a big vote getter. As such, they have thrown into this all-in-USA strategy. Further to this, their voter base basically believes Americans are willing to die for them.

EU defense cooperation is basically a no-go as mentioned above. France unofficially embargoed spare parts for Mirages selling at high prices as both a punishment for the embarrassment with the corruption revelations as well as avoiding angering China. A supply agreement was only signed in 2018, basically 20 years after the initial purchase deal.

If the Taiwanese government were to pursue a purely pragmatic defense policy, they could really pursue such a pragmatic diplomatic policy. What would Beijing say to a radical policy such as complete disengagement from US foreign policy by Taiwan? Probably pretty unlikely.

Isn't the whole concept of "ROC" is a matter of dispute under the "One China" policy?

Anyway, to reinforce those islands -in peace time-, a couple of auxiliary ships could have proved a more affordable solution, since Taiwan doesn't have a formidable AEGIS force to protect a LPD in times of conflict with China, I don't really see the point of having one. Note that PLAAF and PLAN conduct routine drills around the island to practice a three-dimensional blockade.

Correct me if I'm incorrect, but An auxiliary ship requires some sort of shoreside handling facility.
Not all of these islands have port facilities (or are big enough).

PRC's capabilities and the political situation is irrelevant in this context. It just is what it is.

As I said, if you really want to start being super practical, then you would just abandon Kinmen/Matsu and cede them to PRC. These islands have no hope in being defended, you can see them from the mainland. Yet there are soldiers and facilities there. In fact, radicals within DPP think that's exactly what should be done, but it hasn't happened, so like I said, it is what it is.

supersnoop said:

Correct me if I'm incorrect, but An auxiliary ship requires some sort of shoreside handling facility.
Not all of these islands have port facilities (or are big enough).

PRC's capabilities and the political situation is irrelevant in this context. It just is what it is.

As I said, if you really want to start being super practical, then you would just abandon Kinmen/Matsu and cede them to PRC. These islands have no hope in being defended, you can see them from the mainland. Yet there are soldiers and facilities there. In fact, radicals within DPP think that's exactly what should be done, but it hasn't happened, so like I said, it is what it is.

Click to expand...

PRC would not want to take Kinmen/Matsu either militarily or peacefully at this point, before Taiwan is reunified entirely. Ironically, Kinmen/Matsu belong to Fujian Province of ROC administratively, and of course Fujian Province of PRC administratively.

See the link?

supersnoop said:

However, the DPP (current ruling party) basically owes its reelection to the USA. The cited "crackdown" against HK was a big vote getter. As such, they have thrown into this all-in-USA strategy.

Click to expand...

I think you mean the DPP has the CCP to thank for going in hard on the HK Opposition in the run up to the Taiwanese elections. Even if the US government had not said anything, Taiwanese would have still be worried about what they saw happening in a territory that had been "guaranteed" autonomy.

supersnoop said:

Further to this, their voter base basically believes Americans are willing to die for them.

Click to expand...

The US military operates on the assumption that its members are willing to lay down their lives to serve their country overseas. Similarly NATO and the US' other defence pacts also require US military personnel accepting they may die to protect other people. If the US President orders an intervention over an invasion of Taiwan, those sailors, pilots and marines will do their duty. They're not going to crack out legal textbooks and question whether their orders are necessary on the basis there is no formal defence treaty.

supersnoop said:

What would Beijing say to a radical policy such as complete disengagement from US foreign policy by Taiwan?

Click to expand...

Beijing: "Thank you, we have now pencilled in a date for your annexation."