comment: >
  
  How did this cost less than domestic civil projects in NYC?
context: Weapon deliveries always take YEARS. The weapons that the United States sold to Taiwan under George W. Bush took 4 years to deliver. And that’s not taking into account the pandemic or the war in Ukraine.
  It's the same as when Australia ordered submarines from France and then canceled. >
  
  I don't think there is anyway AUS would have cancelled if it wasn't for the tech transfer the UK was offering though. >
  
  That wasn’t the point — the point was that its normal for the delivery of weapons to take some time. >
  
  Yep; Japan announced it was buying Global Hawks in 2013; the first one was delivered in early 2022. >
  
  Waiting for the obligatory “China warns…” >
  
  And rockets fired at under water monsters by North Korea. >
  
  Are tanks really a threat to Taiwan? I would think chinese air and naval units pose more of a threat. Or can these systems be used as anti-air? >
  
  Well, you can't take a country by air and water only. Planes can't hold territory and boats only go where water is.
  It would be useful for the eventual tanks China would put on Taiwanese land. >
  
  Depends on what kind of war China is going to be fighting and what their propaganda will let the CPC get away with. If it's an ideological war, the goal will be to end the civil war. The PLA can do this by wiping out all life on the island. Luckily, the CPC and most of the population considers the Taiwanese to be fellow Han, so that type of propaganda would only work for the most extreme nationalistic types. >
  
  China wants, and kinda needs, their manufacturing though. Taiwan is the world leader in semiconductors. Which China struggles with. >
  
  I fear at some point the strategic benefit to China in denying the production to everyone else will outweigh the desire to capture it. I imagine the Taiwanese would destroy or sabotage the factories before they're captured anyway. >
  
  
  I fear at some point the strategic benefit to China in denying the production to everyone else will outweigh the desire to capture it.
  
  Nah. China is just as dependent on Taiwanese chips as the rest of the world… but the technology for those chips is made by the Dutch. 
  If China wipes out global chip production, it will be rebuilt somewhere in the U.S. or Europe… and those countries will not be selling those chips to China. >
  
  
  it will be rebuilt somewhere in the U.S. or Europe…
  
  That's already happening. Arizona and Columbus Ohio are both opening huge factories in the next year or 2 >
  
  Production starts next year. Source: was offered a EHS job by them (TSMC subsidiary) and asked about the timeline.  They're moving really quickly with it. >
  
  We hired a shit ton of people for when it opens.  I'm not sure if installs are already going on, but that place is growing damn fast and we'll have sustaining ready to go soon it feels. >
  
  I had to turn the offer I got down, but yea within 3 days after the first interview I got an offer and would have wanted me to start 1 week after the offer. It was an interesting process, but the cost of living in Phoenix is just too damn hgh. >
  
  If China tries to invade Taiwan, all they're going to do is chum the water. >
  
  Why tf do some world leaders have such a boner for invading sovereign nations, I don't fucking get it.
  Wouldn't it be less trouble for literally everyone to just mind their own fucking business. >
  
  The world has always been full of nations claiming other nations resources and lands. The modern post world war 2 era is only different because the US established the Bretton Woods system (the carrot) and nuclear weapons (the stick).  
  Basically the US made it so that invasions are less profitable than doing business. 
  I think now we are seeing that era break down slightly. It will depend on how the works looks after the war in Ukraine is over and the direction of increasingly volatile US politics and monetary policy as to whether this will continue. >
  
  Whats bretton woods? >
  
  Thanks! >
  
  Implying China could even get a tank across the water. Taiwan needs antiair and antiship missles. >
  
  China doesn't have a capability to invade Taiwan outright via an amphibious invasion, so US should focus more on funding Taiwan's anti-air and anti-missile defenses against China. >
  
  Exactly, make every inch they take as painful as it can be, they will take thousands in casualties before they will even get a foothold >
  
  It's a shame US and Taiwanese officials don't have you guys on their security councils. >
  
  I know right? I could be a awesome pick with my many years of experience in playing civilization, I managed to beat ghandi even with his constant threats of nuclear war >
  
  Sounds easily transferrable to the Ukraine war >
  
  They really need anti air, missile defense, and anti ship weapons. If a tank touches ground I would think it's already too late >
  
  Meh, this purchase makes sense. China is very likely to be able to overwhelm Taiwanese missile defenses, air force, and navy due to their sheer size. Taiwan cannot realistically compete in these areas. However, it would still need to engage in an invasion with a force, including armored vehicles, which is exactly where Taiwan has numerical, logistical, and geographical superiority. 
  If that initial invading force cannot set up a sufficiently large beachhead and is driven back, the invasion is likely to fail. And for that, you need to defeat Chinese armored vehicles, which requires ATGMs and tanks. >
  
  This article isn't about ATGMs, it's about anti tank mine laying systems. >
  
  Eh, okay. I never said it was about ATGMs. I implied you need means to destroy armored vehicles, including ATGMs.
  Taiwan cannot compete when it comes to the air force and navy. China is just way too large for that and has an immense number of ballistic missiles to flatten harbours and airstrips. >
  
  I'm willing to bet china can't even land tanks on Taiwan. >
  
  Can't wait for China to try to drive tanks across the East China Sea. >
  
  They need all things anti-ship imo >
  
  I hope everyone knows that these deliveries take years, right? 
  I hope everyone knows that these deliveries take years, right? ) ordered the Abrams tanks. Everyone was like "YEAH!!! THEY WILL NOW KICK CHINA'S ASS!!!" But everyone forgot that the first tank will arrive in 3 years' time and the rest will follow year after that and year after that. 
  So please people don't act like Taiwan has these things on their island next week. >
  
  Yeah the bad thing for Taiwan is that some analysts expect China to be ready to invade by like 2025/2026. Meanwhile, deliveries to Taiwan are put on the back burner for Ukraine, face a massive backlog, and are much less likely to be supplied during an active war (unlike Ukraine). It’s quite probable that if/when China invades, Taiwan simply has not taken delivery of many military systems to defend themselves >
  
  Also I don't think China will go all out war of destroying everything. Because China sees Taiwan as part of China and people there are still Chinese. 
  So I would expect the invasion to be more precise anf strategic. Not to mention there are many (not that many but still) who support the unification. >
  
  Also I don't think China will go all out war of destroying everything.
  China will be hard pressed to invade a well fortified mountain island with numerous deadly chokepoints. Taiwan will also likely scuttle valuable chip fabrication facilities to prevent PRC forces from seizing them. 
  Because China sees Taiwan as part of China and people there are still Chinese.
  The people are Taiwanese and have a Taiwanese identity. Because of this, China will likely attempt to brutally suppress their cultural and national identity with camps and killings, like they have done for other groups. China has already shown an alarming disregard for the lives of civilians, be it those killed in the cultural revolution, student protestors, or even the Chinese Uighurs. 
  So I would expect the invasion to be more precise anf strategic.
  If the largely green and untested PRC military forces can pull it off against defenders trained by the experienced United States military, which has already allowed Ukraine to devastate the vastly more powerful Russian military China is based on. US trainers have already been directly working with Taiwan for years.
  Not to mention there are many (not that many but still) who support the unification.
  But like the pro-Russian Ukrainians, such support may fizzle and fade out with a surge of national anger. 
  China will also have to weigh the consequences of the US's ability to shut down shipping to China and the fact that Chinese actions may force the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia, India, and even the European Union to unite and interfere.
  Taiwan's role in the global electronic trades makes it a valuable lynchpin, and an attack on Taiwan would be a foolish attack on the global economy. Taiwan also has been inspired by Ukrainian resistance, which has shown that simply having a large military and missiles doesn't translate to success. >
  
  PRC tanks have little chance of reaching Taiwan since the ships transporting them will be sunk long before they reach the coast. Taiwan has been rehearsing and war gaming this for decades. Unless Taiwan voluntarily capitulates or sufficient numbers of Taiwanese side with the PRC, there is no military solution to this dispute. >
  
  If I were Taiwan I would spend all my defense money on anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles and maybe shore batteries. To win, they need to stop them before they are on the land. >
  
  I suppose this is just one small part of an integrated defense strategy. If Taiwan is currently lacking in tank defense (such as mine laying equipment in the event of an invasion), then I'm sure they would probably want to fill that gap in. >
  
  This is explosive news >
  
  For when the Panzer crosses the ocean ah yes. I'd be prepared too. >
  
  The US is the world’s arms dealer now. Should just rename it to The United States of Raytheon. >
  
  Now??? >
  
  Russia did a fair bit of arms dealing for a lot of the world until their wares were proven completely outmatched since 2/2022. >
  
  So like 10 missiles? >
  
  The very reason this upsets Beijing is because they already plan to invade. >
  
  China would invade if they could get away with it. Also, China doesn't recognize Taiwan as a country. >
  
  But it is a sovereign country so…. >
  
  Sounds like you care very little for the beliefs of the people in Taiwan, in order to justify an invasion of them, while simultaneously criticizing the US for invasions. >
  
  If the Taiwanese people are asking for help, then it's a legitimate reason to help, and if China invades, it would be them instigating a world war. Trying to deflect blame from the party that would actually start it is an odd choice. >
  
  Being an international arms dealer is only OK when the US does it. >
  
  Nobody really criticizes any major arms manufacturing nation either though? I’ve never heard somebody say Russia can’t sell Kalashnikovs or France can’t sell airbus helicopters. What are you even talking about? >
  
  "It's impossible for us to wipe away student loan debt in this country!" -The US
  "Here's millions to billions of dollars for weapons and defense." -Also The US >
  
  These are paid for by Taiwanese tax payers. >
  
  Honestly tanks would come really late in the game in a hypothetical invasion. IFVs, sure, probably a lot of those, but landing tanks on enemy beaches is no easy task. >
  
  To an extent I understand this but shouldn’t they focus on anti air and anti ship? Not that that would put China off. >
  
  Finally, we're selling weaponry instead of donating it. >
  
  How many simultaneous proxy wars can the US hold? >
  
  Yes. The answer to that question is yes...
  The avowed policy of the US department of defense is to be able to fight two near-peer wars a world apart from each other and win them both comfortably. Proxy wars are basically what they do to stay in shape, and also because giving away old munitions is cheaper than dismantling them.
  Ukraine is kind of in a weird bandgap because we expected Russia to be a much harder fight than they turned out to be, so they aren't in "serious near-peer fight that requires industrial reinvestment" bucket but they are a little to big for the the "can be defeated with the military hardware we shook out of our couch" bucket. This is part of why you see so much hemming and hawing about equipment transfers and stuff... they don't fit neatly into any of the plans we had, so we have to keep taking toys out of the bigkid sandbox, which is annoying and create much paperwork. Which is why you see weird crap like one "combatant command for Ukraine and one for the whole rest of Europe". We had to create a whole new bucket for this stupidity.
  The Taiwan thing on the other hand has had plans for decades, Americans will almost certainly be involved, and that will not be a proxy war in the way Ukraine is, that will be serious business... >
  
  It’s kind of insane that US is supposed to be able to fight two major conflicts on opposite sides of the planet and Russia can’t even invade its neighbor. Without the use of nuclear weapons I can’t imagine a scenario in which China or Russia could ever beat the U.S. in a traditional conflict, much less if other NATO countries got involved >
  
  Thats a whole lot of 🐴💩 you are trying to sell. >
  
  Gotta keep up the tensions to sell weapons. >
  
  So sell the shit to Taiwan but give Ukraine billions? Ok >
  
  It should be very obvious to anyone that the situation with Ukraine vs Russia is very different to Taiwan vs China. >
  
  I paid for that, fuck skunkwork