Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Here's a weapons-purchase article

that seems to undermine the thesis of my post immediately below. It reports that senior US military officials are encouraging Taiwan to forgo purchases of all "offensive" weapons and concentrate instead on strengthening the country's defenses. I'm not sure how any weapon in Taiwan's arsenal can really be considered offensive, but whatever.

In any case, the article linked above is organized purely around blind quotes, and it's from the Washington Times, so goodness knows what it actually means. I stand by my uninformed opinion!

2 comments:

Michael Turton said...

Yeah, that's what the new head of the US pacific command wants, was quoted in WaPo article I put on my site. He wants to see the subs go.

Michael

Sun Bin said...

Fallon has made some sensible suggestion on focusing the resources on defending the island itself.

The US is a 'sourcing agent' for the diesel subs, as the manufacturing would be outsourced to Spain. So there is less "meat" in that deal for the US defense industry now.

The main problem is that the taiwan strait is too shallow and narrow for sub activities. So the subs and anti-subs are used only in the east of Taiwan. i.e. as you have describe, for anti-blockade purpose. Now the question is: do you believe PLA has the ability to encircle Taiwan from the east? or Taiwan alone can defend the wide opem sea on its east?
It makes more sense for PLA to block the 3 harbors (keelong, hualien, kaohisun) than a sea blockade, and it makes more sense for Taiwan to rely on Fallon's 7th fleet to protect the open sea.

As for the PAC-3, we all know that the quantities does not serve the purpose, nor does the economic is sustainable. (TW need to spend $12M for every $1M PLA spends and the PAC-3 missiles is outnumberd by a fact of 3+