Trump says Taiwan should pay the U.S. for defense | Hacker News Reader

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

cnbc.com

8 pointsbelter16 comments

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.

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.

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.

> seriously missing the point

no joke...that heading isnt about Taiwan, u know?

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.

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.

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-fre...

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.

It's not the treaties that protect Taiwan.

If China takes TSMC, the USA may loose their dominance in IT.

The NASDAQ would collapse overnight.

If China takes TSMC, then make no mistake; the United States will carpet bomb every facility and ASML's policy towards China will not budge. There are no contingency situations in which China steals TSMC's tech; it's something that Taiwan and the United States simply refuse to let happen. The running "joke" in the industry is that TSMC's foundries are rigged with explosives wired to a red button on the US president's desk. The real-world situation isn't that far off.

America would fall behind in this scenario, but ASML will still exist and advanced lithography can continue independent of Taiwan. TSMC is a big part of the puzzle, but the importance of the first island chain is 10x more important than anything TSMC owns.

The imperative to defend Taiwan is a half-century old commitment; breaking it would mean repealing the Taiwan Relations Act

How so? The TRA does not compel the U.S. to "defend" Taiwan in the event of an invasion. In fact it was specifically worded to avoid providing security guarantees as such. Only to provide "arms of a defensive character" and the like. So what you're saying about repealing the TRA in such a scenario is plainly incorrect.

You're also clearly hyperbolizing in regard to Ukraine, but we'll leave that aside for now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com