Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nokinside | Hacker News Reader

>U.S. is still 100% committed to total defense of both Taiwan and South Korea.

US is not committed to defend Taiwan.

US-Taiwan relations act is carefully grafted to avoid commitment. It's not solid defense pact like US has with South Korea or Japan. US position is called strategic ambiguity. US has the freedom to determine how much it want's to assist Taiwan to defend itself.

ps. US don't even have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. China is more important to US interests than Taiwan.

View on HN

Maybe. You might be right, who knows?

Exactly. As far as I remember, I read an article that Taiwan desperately wants to buy new Submarines, but nobody wants to sell. US doesn't have the Know-how to build them, Germany doesn't want to risk relations with China. So, it's either gonna be Japan or Russia.

Taiwan is not going to get F-35's either. They are lucky to get newest F-16 blocks.

Taiwan has lost spy war with China. Their military can't be trusted with secrets. Highest ranking spies include army general (electronic communications and information bureau chief), defense attaché to the United States, vice admiral and presidential aide.

I don't know how effective Taiwanese counterintelligence is, but if we assume that they capture just small percentage of spies, Taiwan is open book for China.

>They are lucky to get newest F-16 blocks.

Would that we were also so lucky, rather than lighting trillions on fire for an aircraft that's going to turn out inferior to the 1980s era craft we're already flying.

Opinions about the F-35 vary. I believe the critics undervalue the idea that the F-35 is not supposed to be playing the same game as, say, the F-16. Though about as maneuverable, stealth and avionics make the F-35 superior to the predecessors.

Okay, to reply to the people asking about "No know how". Yes, the US still have a very capable Submarine-fleet, but those Units are from the 1980s. Look at modern diesel-electric Subs, like mainly the german 212A class. Basically a black hole in the water, capable of staying submerged without any noise at all for a month on its fuel-cells, launching a drone submerged or Shooting down ASW-Helicopters, making US-ASW tactics basically obsolete.The now 30 year old precursor of the 212As, the 209, managed to "sink" a Nimitz class carrier in a NATO-Exercise undetected. You are not going to build a ship that is capable of taking on a 212A without any institutonal and tactical knowledge newer than the 50.

The US doesn't know how to build submarines?

We don't build diesel-electrics like they would be probably most interested in. Something like the Russian Kilo class[1] is more in line with their needs than a Los Angeles attack sub or a boomer.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilo-class_submarine

I am hoping that was the intention of the statement; not wanting to build something because of interests doesn't mean the knowledge to build it doesn't exist.

"Don't know how to build" doesn't mean we don't have the theory for building it, but there is a lot of institutional knowledge that comes from having built something several times already.

I have no doubt we have the theory and knowledge to build such things, we just have little reason.

probably he means not ones USA can export (as in, non nuclear) like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbel-class_submarine

We haven't built a diesel-electric submarine in decades. Our nuclear subs are top notch, but Taiwan does not want to operate nuclear subs, it's too expensive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com