fingolfin361
Active member
ASTRALdragon said:Because here in the US we value the time and effort of our workers? As for the price, you pay for what you get.
Yea, like i said, Capitalism, Demand and Supply.
ASTRALdragon said:Because here in the US we value the time and effort of our workers? As for the price, you pay for what you get.
but,it is not really precise to describe the taiwan's issue. the demind without any options will bring the supply with high price,fingolfin361 said:Yea, like i said, Capitalism, Demand and Supply.
Seriously though, taiwan is the size of a small US state, there's nothing realistically it can do for a long period of time against a large chinese attack.
solution is simple. cut the price and give them a discount.WarMachine said:I hate to say it, but taiwan is militarily screwed in the future. China is going to get better and better weapons and taiwan can't keep buying expensive US goods.
That's what i've been saying, you guys have to face reality, taiwan cannot fight very long at all against china and the maximum amount of destruction taiwan can cause to china isn't even that great. If it did come down to a fight, which i don't think is going to happen, taiwan would probably always lose regardless of weapons and tactics. They would jsut be overwhelmed.
here's another comparison to a prc vs taiwan fight, soviet union versus hungary. Would you even consider hungary winning even if it had the latest western weapons at the time? Even if it were an island?
filmmaker said:do you think there in taiwan people did't value the time and effort of their taxpayers, and what taiwanese got is what really they paid for? what a vague answer you give to me!
you didn't clearly answer my question about the high price, because you are still talking about Capitalism, Demand and Supply. the term of giving allies to defend themselves are just kind of beautiful words to use.
speaking of the price, of course, I know business is business. what i try to say is that there is no free bread at all , but the price has to be reasonable and fair.
in the case of taiwan's weapon purchase, the cost of NT$25 billion for getting 4 obsolete Kidd class destroyers from 1970's, plus the cost of maintenance, initiation of weaponry systems and related equipment, port reconstruction, logistics and personnel doesn't really suit this concept that you pay for what you get. this is not a weapon of selling,this is rip-off!
US tried twice in 1998 and 1999 to sell these four old kidd destroyers to Greece and Australia, but both of them turned down the offer due to this freaking high price. so, let me ask this do you think without CCP's threat taiwan will buy these four old military toys by paying freaking NT $ 25 billion? I just wonder where the concept that we are giving or selling our allies to defend themselves from their enemy is? no matter how unhappy and dissatisfied taiwanese feel about the age and prices of these weapons, they still have to restrain their feeling because US is the only country insisting to sell weapon to taiwain for purpose of self- denfence under china's extremely heavy protest. what taiwan really need is that they can pay fair and reasonable price to buy new and anvanced weapons for better self-defence.
so, I feel I have to point out that instead of wasting plenty of time to talk about how US should defend democacy in taiwain, US had better sell some good military stuffs to taiwain with good price.
ASTRALdragon said:So, what you're saying is that the US is selling overpriced weapons to Taiwan? I have no idea how much Kidd-class destroyers or AEGIS-equipped destroyers are worth so bear with me. If the US is overcharging their own allies, then that's not cool at all. If it is the true value of those ships, then good. If Taiwan wanted to buy cheaper equipment, then I guess they could buy Russian stuff through third party seeing as how Russia is allied with China and China wouldn't be too thrilled about Russia selling Taiwan weapons. Would they want to risk American-made products for Russian-made ones? I don't know, but the news says obviously not.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.