5 ms·

Trump says Taiwan should pay the U.S. for defense

8 points by belter 2y ago

t-3 2y ago
While the calculation that our vassals and protectorates are more desperate for equipment than money is probably correct, I think he's seriously missing the point of the US weapons supply as a domestic jobs/economic support program and foreign influence operation. The government simply doesn't need to make profit, but they do need to keep these countries dependent to further their long-term geopolitical goals, and making things painful works counter to that goal.
- pestatije 2y ago
  > seriously missing the point no joke...that heading isnt about Taiwan, u know?
coldtea 2y ago
[flagged]
- ggm 2y ago
  So you don't support treaty bodies like NATO on principle? Or treaties of any kind? Or just defence treaties?
  - coldtea 2y ago
    >So you don't support treaty bodies like NATO on principle? Of course I don't support this Cold War organization (now, or during the cold war). >Or treaties of any kind? Or just defence treaties? I support treaties between countries to not go to war, work out trade deals, settle their disputes, and so on. I don't support defence treaties, especially from imperialist powers "protecting their national interests" in the other side of the world, in what is a cross between a protection racket and global control grab.
    - ggm 2y ago
      Thanks for being clear. Although politically opposed to much of the current situation, I actually think the mutuality in defence of Taiwan and the China Sea issues are there. Trump mistakes the upsides of demanding change here. The cost is tiny set against the mutual benefits. And arguing about the price is the Churchill (or is it Oscar Wilde?) quip about prostitution. We're not actually debating treaties yes or no: we're debating Trump leveraging the treaty with Taiwan, and NATO, as a weapon to win control in a domestic dispute between Democrat centerists and Republican minimal government low taxers. It's an opportunistic argument, not a principled one.
- belter 2y ago
  Who does 90% of all the critical chips production required by US Defense Industry and AI Industry. No biggie....
  - coldtea 2y ago
    Maybe they should learn to make them domestically, and/or cut down on all the "defense" (lol) spending, and stop starting wars?
jqpabc123 2y ago
Trump is just as naive about foreign relations as he was about the casino industry. And the evidence for the latter speaks for itself. I've seen estimates that 25% of US GDP is directly related to the oversized role the US plays in maintaining world order. Trump and his naive followers obviously assume that dismantling this and shaking down our allies will be a "good thing" for the USA. China and Russia would love this.
ironyman 2y ago
This is just election rhetoric. There is no scenario where the US does not defend Taiwan, this is acknowledged in both US and PRC wargames.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Given how the Republicans in Congress (IIRC, at Trump's urging) held up aid for Ukraine for months, yes, I think there maybe is a scenario where the US does not defend Taiwan.
  - belter 2y ago
    Taking account US Supreme Court Judges are openly receiving millions of dollars in bribes, and visiting Putin hometown in undisclosed visits...I would say, current real situations are well into Tom Clancy most wild scenarios. https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-accepted-free-yacht-trip-to-putins-hometown-2024-7?international=true&r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-accepted-fre...
  - talldayo 2y ago
    No, Ukraine is a different commitment than Taiwan even though the broad-stroke aggression is widely similar. The imperative to defend Taiwan is a half-century old commitment; breaking it would mean forfeiting the first island chain, repealing the Taiwan Relations Act and rethinking the entirety of our modern anti-China warfare strategy. Republicans do not want to break this; they are simply butthurt about the economics of defending Taiwan and want Taiwan to pay for it like they tried footing the bill for the Mexico wall to Mexico. Unfortunately, Taiwan already legally owns all of their American military equipment and the US quite literally cannot take it away from them except by force. Ukraine is not even remotely similar. It's strategic value is entirely symbolic to the US, and while defending them is a morally righteous cause, the importance of this battle to American homeland security is effectively nothing. If Russia launches a new front in Ukraine, the president's morning brief gets a new paragraph at the bottom. If China threatens Taiwan, America borders on national emergency. It's really that simple - I'm shocked that HN is so willingly duped into being a mouthpiece for sensationalist politics.
tjpnz 2y ago
Does Trump know what the first island chain represents (let alone is) and how bad (not to mention expensive) things would become for the United States if China were on the other side of it? Will there be any adults left in the room when he starts setting fire to geopolitical norms he lacks the cognitive capacity or curiosity to comprehend? I realize some if this is for domestic show but it sends a terrible message to US allies in the pacific.

8 points by belter 2y ago

t-3 2y ago

While the calculation that our vassals and protectorates are more desperate for equipment than money is probably correct, I think he's seriously missing the point of the US weapons supply as a domestic jobs/economic support program and foreign influence operation. The government simply doesn't need to make profit, but they do need to keep these countries dependent to further their long-term geopolitical goals, and making things painful works counter to that goal.

pestatije 2y ago
> seriously missing the point no joke...that heading isnt about Taiwan, u know?

coldtea 2y ago

[flagged]

ggm 2y ago
So you don't support treaty bodies like NATO on principle? Or treaties of any kind? Or just defence treaties?
- coldtea 2y ago
  >So you don't support treaty bodies like NATO on principle? Of course I don't support this Cold War organization (now, or during the cold war). >Or treaties of any kind? Or just defence treaties? I support treaties between countries to not go to war, work out trade deals, settle their disputes, and so on. I don't support defence treaties, especially from imperialist powers "protecting their national interests" in the other side of the world, in what is a cross between a protection racket and global control grab.
  - ggm 2y ago
    Thanks for being clear. Although politically opposed to much of the current situation, I actually think the mutuality in defence of Taiwan and the China Sea issues are there. Trump mistakes the upsides of demanding change here. The cost is tiny set against the mutual benefits. And arguing about the price is the Churchill (or is it Oscar Wilde?) quip about prostitution. We're not actually debating treaties yes or no: we're debating Trump leveraging the treaty with Taiwan, and NATO, as a weapon to win control in a domestic dispute between Democrat centerists and Republican minimal government low taxers. It's an opportunistic argument, not a principled one.
belter 2y ago
Who does 90% of all the critical chips production required by US Defense Industry and AI Industry. No biggie....
- coldtea 2y ago
  Maybe they should learn to make them domestically, and/or cut down on all the "defense" (lol) spending, and stop starting wars?

jqpabc123 2y ago

Trump is just as naive about foreign relations as he was about the casino industry. And the evidence for the latter speaks for itself. I've seen estimates that 25% of US GDP is directly related to the oversized role the US plays in maintaining world order. Trump and his naive followers obviously assume that dismantling this and shaking down our allies will be a "good thing" for the USA. China and Russia would love this.

ironyman 2y ago

This is just election rhetoric. There is no scenario where the US does not defend Taiwan, this is acknowledged in both US and PRC wargames.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Given how the Republicans in Congress (IIRC, at Trump's urging) held up aid for Ukraine for months, yes, I think there maybe is a scenario where the US does not defend Taiwan.
- belter 2y ago
  Taking account US Supreme Court Judges are openly receiving millions of dollars in bribes, and visiting Putin hometown in undisclosed visits...I would say, current real situations are well into Tom Clancy most wild scenarios. https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-accepted-free-yacht-trip-to-putins-hometown-2024-7?international=true&r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-accepted-fre...
- talldayo 2y ago
  No, Ukraine is a different commitment than Taiwan even though the broad-stroke aggression is widely similar. The imperative to defend Taiwan is a half-century old commitment; breaking it would mean forfeiting the first island chain, repealing the Taiwan Relations Act and rethinking the entirety of our modern anti-China warfare strategy. Republicans do not want to break this; they are simply butthurt about the economics of defending Taiwan and want Taiwan to pay for it like they tried footing the bill for the Mexico wall to Mexico. Unfortunately, Taiwan already legally owns all of their American military equipment and the US quite literally cannot take it away from them except by force. Ukraine is not even remotely similar. It's strategic value is entirely symbolic to the US, and while defending them is a morally righteous cause, the importance of this battle to American homeland security is effectively nothing. If Russia launches a new front in Ukraine, the president's morning brief gets a new paragraph at the bottom. If China threatens Taiwan, America borders on national emergency. It's really that simple - I'm shocked that HN is so willingly duped into being a mouthpiece for sensationalist politics.

tjpnz 2y ago

Does Trump know what the first island chain represents (let alone is) and how bad (not to mention expensive) things would become for the United States if China were on the other side of it? Will there be any adults left in the room when he starts setting fire to geopolitical norms he lacks the cognitive capacity or curiosity to comprehend? I realize some if this is for domestic show but it sends a terrible message to US allies in the pacific.