12 Comments, 12 Threads

1. 1. Adam

   Yes.

   April 18, 2006 - 8:07 am   Link to this Comment

   

   
2. 2. holdfast

   Frankly they are too cheap and wouldn’t want to pay for it. Taiwan’s defense policy is a mess, and their acquisition policy is a joke considering their cash reserves and the threat they face. It is rational, at least in the short term, for nations like Canada, Belgium, Sweden and New Zealand to cheap-out on defence. It is bug-ass nuts for Taiwan, staring down the barrel of hundreds of nuke-tipped missiles, to do it. Uncle Sam needs to make it crystal clear that god and the US Navy help those who help themselves.

   April 18, 2006 - 8:25 am   Link to this Comment

   

   
3. 3. Doug Stewart

   I do believe we’ve been trying to sell Taiwan Aegis cruisers for a while, but China has been rather insistent in its opposition to such a deal. Frankly, when it comes down to it, unless we had two or more CBGs at the ready to intervene, a few Aegis ships aren’t going to make a whole lot of difference against the PROC’s armed forces.

   April 18, 2006 - 8:33 am   Link to this Comment

   

   
4. 4. Sigivald

   Holdfast: The thing to remember is that the last thing the PRC wants is to nuke Taiwan.

   The PRC claims Taiwan is-and-has-always-been part of their territory – and a nuclear attack would make that awkward. Plus they want all that nice high-tech manufacturing capacity. Nukes are, simply, out of the question.

   A massive conventional attack and invasion is the only likely scenario that threatens Taiwan, as far as I understand the situation, and all I’ve understood about the details of that leaves me pretty sanguine about their chances, at least in the near term.

   April 18, 2006 - 11:28 am   Link to this Comment

   

   
5. 5. Piper

   Actually, Taiwan doesn’t need Burke’s or Ticonderoga’s.

   Adapting the Aegis system to a ground based installation does make sense. Add enough VLS canisters so you have at least 3 SM2 missiles for every PRC aircraft, plus about a 100 SM3′s for theater ballistic missile defense, and you have a credible air defense.

   The best defesne against a large amphibous force is several good diesel subs. Maybe backed up with 200 or so Harpoons in shore based batteries.

   April 18, 2006 - 11:57 am   Link to this Comment

   

   
6. 6. beautifulatrocities

   There’s been rumors for a long time that Taiwan actually has nukes…

   April 18, 2006 - 12:08 pm   Link to this Comment

   

   
7. 7. Slartibartfast

   Add enough VLS canisters so you have at least 3 SM2 missiles for every PRC aircraft

   Nah, just put in an autoloader.

   Adapting the Aegis system to a ground based installation does make sense.

   Yes, that’d be a great idea. And we could call it something like THAAD, I bet.

   For Taiwan, I’m starting to lean more toward the Blazing Saddles approach, myself: mine the bejesus out of the entire industrial complex, and then hold it hostage.

   April 18, 2006 - 12:58 pm   Link to this Comment

   

   
8. 8. Robert

   Let’s just slip them a few batteries of tactical nuclear weapons on the QT. “Oh, these? We found these in the attic. What was that you were saying about an ultimatum, Mr. Ambassador?”

   April 18, 2006 - 1:31 pm   Link to this Comment

   

   
9. 9. Don

   Add enough VLS canisters so you have at least 3 SM2 missiles for every PRC aircraft, plus about a 100 SM3′s for theater ballistic missile defense, and you have a credible air defense.

   I have a vision of an Aegis installation. Surrounded by several football fields worth of VLS cannisters.

   April 18, 2006 - 6:56 pm   Link to this Comment

   

   
10. 10. richard mcenroe

    Don

    April 19, 2006 - 8:48 am   Link to this Comment

    

    
11. 11. Steve Skubinna

    The PRC claim to always and forever holding Taiwan is risible in light of the fact that for only four years of the 20th Century was Taiwan administered by Peking. And, of course, the KMT was established in Taiwan at the same time the PRC took mainland China, so the Communists NEVER had it anyway.

    April 19, 2006 - 9:14 pm   Link to this Comment

    

    
12. 12. Don

    Richard – Yeah . . .

    Good point about the dispersion. Anyone have an idea of the control range of an Aegis system? IOW, could our hypothetical land installation control SM2′s launched, oh, two miles from the installation? Three? Just wondering about the constraints.

    Now I have visions of trucks carrying erectable VLS pods trundling around Taiwan, waiting for the day.

    April 20, 2006 - 6:50 am   Link to this Comment