Disgusting cowardice. Where are defense industry lobbyists when you need them. <_<
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/15/us-taiwan-usa-china-idUSTRE77E0PP20110815
Quote
U.S. refuses Taiwan request for new jets: report
By Faith Hung
TAIPEI | Mon Aug 15, 2011 10:11am EDT
TAIPEI (Reuters) - The United States has refused Taiwan's request for 66 new Lockheed Martin F-16C/D fighter jets which China had warned Washington would risk inflaming tensions between the two big powers, Defense News reported, citing a Taiwan defense official.
Taiwan has repeatedly asked Washington to agree to sell the advanced F-16 fighter jets, citing the need to counter the growing military strength of China, which deems the island a breakaway province that must eventually accept reunification, by force if necessary.
Laura Siebert, Lockheed Martin's spokeswoman for the F-16 program, had no immediate comment on the Defense News report.
Neither Washington nor Taipei has made any formal announcement about the latest call for the fighters, but Defense News (www.defensenews.com) said on Sunday that Taiwan had been told there would be no sale, citing Taiwan's Ministry of National Defense.
"We are so disappointed in the United States," the report quoted an unnamed Taiwan defense official as saying.
"A U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) delegation arrived here last week to deliver the news and offer instead a retrofit package for (Taiwan's) older F-16A/Bs," the journal reported from Taipei.
The proposed $4.2 billion upgrade package would make the 146 Taiwanese F-16A/Bs among the most capable variants of the aircraft, the report said.
The new gear would include an AESA radar, likely either Northrop Grumman's Scalable Agile Beam Radar or the Raytheon Advanced Combat Radar, it said.
Any fresh U.S. arms support to Taiwan is likely to raise hackles in Beijing, but the advanced fighter jets have been an especially touchy point for China, which this week will host U.S. Vice President Joe Biden.
The bitter debate in the U.S. Congress over spending and the downgrade of the U.S. sovereign credit rating by Standard & Poor's drew blunt criticism from China's state media, including a commentary that said the U.S. debt woes reflected its military overreach abroad.
Taiwan's Defense Ministry said it could not comment on the report, as it had not heard from the United States.
"However, we want to point out that the Republic of China (Taiwan) does hope the sale of new F-16C/D fighter aircraft will go through. We are in urgent need of the aircraft," Spokesman Luo shou-he told Reuters.
The United States switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China in 1979 and recognizes Beijing's "one China" policy. But it is also Taiwan's biggest ally and arms supplier and is duty-bound by legislation to help the island in the event of attack.
Washington had been set to make a decision by October on Taiwan's oft-repeated request for the fighter jets, balancing its legal obligations to Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act against the need to avoid upsets with a major creditor and trading partner, China.
"Frankly, it is not a real surprise. The real surprise is that they sold them the F-16s in the first place," said Richard Bitzinger, a senior fellow and regional defense expert at Singapore's S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.
But Bitzinger said it was not a total victory for Beijing because a potential upgrade to existing fighters would go a long way in covering Taiwan's loss of a new batch of F-16s.
"The types of upgrades they are talking about would make them the most advanced F-16s in the world. This is a significant upgrade, and I am sure a lot of that work will go to Taiwanese companies. In that regard, it may be a better deal," he said.
The Obama administration's decision to move forward with a set of arms sales to Taiwan last year triggered an angry response from Beijing, which curtailed many military contacts and threatened to sanction companies involved in the sales.
Since then, Beijing and Washington have patched up ties, but the potential sale of more U.S. weapons to Taiwan remains a sensitive issue.
In May, a visiting Chinese military commander warned against any future U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. And recently, a popular tabloid linked to China's Communist Party's mouthpiece argued that China should use its "financial weapon to slap Washington" over any arms sales to Taiwan.
(Additional reporting by Chris Buckley and Michael Martina in Beijing and Jim Wolf in Washington; Editing by Nick Macfie, Dave Zimmerman)
Honestly, I'm not seeing this whole "Taiwan" thing having a favourable outcome. If Chūka Minkoku's integration had not been disrupted by a bunch of KMT riffraff, it could have been part of the Home Isles by now.
The US is strengthening defence business links with China for financial as much as strategic reasons at the moment.
Taiwan also unveiled a new mobile version of its "aircraft carrier killer" missile the same week as China began sea trials of the crappy old carrier it bought off the Ukraine. Coincidence?
Quote"We are so disappointed in the United States,"
You got that right.
Remind me again why the US should support a corruption-ridden regime against its biggest trade partner? :P
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2011, 04:33:55 AM
its biggest trade partner? :P
You almost make it sound equitable.
Quote from: Brazen on August 16, 2011, 04:09:12 AM
The US is strengthening defence business links with China for financial as much as strategic reasons at the moment.
Taiwan also unveiled a new mobile version of its "aircraft carrier killer" missile the same week as China began sea trials of the crappy old carrier it bought off the Ukraine. Coincidence?
Taiwan has "aircraft killer missiles"?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 16, 2011, 04:44:29 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2011, 04:33:55 AM
its biggest trade partner? :P
You almost make it sound equitable.
When you are a junkie, your deal is your best friend. :P
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2011, 04:33:55 AM
Remind me again why the US should support a corruption-ridden regime against its biggest trade partner? :P
Our biggest trading partner is Canada.
Quote from: Lettow77 on August 16, 2011, 03:10:53 AM
Honestly, I'm not seeing this whole "Taiwan" thing having a favourable outcome. If Chūka Minkoku's integration had not been disrupted by a bunch of KMT riffraff, it could have been part of the Home Isles by now.
Wow, the one time that secession is actually justified and you totally miss out.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2011, 05:13:38 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on August 16, 2011, 03:10:53 AM
Honestly, I'm not seeing this whole "Taiwan" thing having a favourable outcome. If Chūka Minkoku's integration had not been disrupted by a bunch of KMT riffraff, it could have been part of the Home Isles by now.
Wow, the one time that secession is actually justified and you totally miss out.
Gotta remember his Vision Quest; came back in a Mao jacket with a Little Red Book.
Sometimes even a broken clock isn't right twice a day.
If only Chiang called himself Nathan Bedford Kai-Shek, Lettuce would be whistling a different Dixie.
There could be an element of wanting to pacify China over the credit rating debacle. Putting up the interest rates would be rather more disastrous than losing a single deal.
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2011, 04:33:55 AM
Remind me again why the US should support a corruption-ridden regime against its biggest trade partner? :P
What does Canada have to do with this?
Very sad. Forget aircraft, we should be giving the free Chinese the nukes we'd refuse to deploy.
Incidentally, I hate seeing "Taiwan" in an article. It's the Republic of China, the legitimate sovereign of 1.3 billion people. It's not difficult to remember.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 08:41:12 AM
Very sad. Forget aircraft, we should be giving the free Chinese the nukes we'd refuse to deploy.
Incidentally, I hate seeing "Taiwan" in an article. It's the Republic of China, the legitimate sovereign of 1.3 billion people. It's not difficult to remember.
I had no idea the rest of China wanted to be ruled by the guys in Taipei.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 16, 2011, 09:38:42 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 08:41:12 AM
Very sad. Forget aircraft, we should be giving the free Chinese the nukes we'd refuse to deploy.
Incidentally, I hate seeing "Taiwan" in an article. It's the Republic of China, the legitimate sovereign of 1.3 billion people. It's not difficult to remember.
I had no idea the rest of China wanted to be ruled by the guys in Taipei.
The ROC still has cores on the rest of China. Mongolia as well for that matter.
Quote from: Faeelin on August 16, 2011, 09:38:42 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 08:41:12 AM
Very sad. Forget aircraft, we should be giving the free Chinese the nukes we'd refuse to deploy.
Incidentally, I hate seeing "Taiwan" in an article. It's the Republic of China, the legitimate sovereign of 1.3 billion people. It's not difficult to remember.
I had no idea the rest of China wanted to be ruled by the guys in Taipei.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fusera.imagecave.com%2Frdmyers%2Fqod.png&hash=a3c91086d0ce8e0b4fb740dd8712e8d134a55d20)
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2011, 09:52:41 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 16, 2011, 09:38:42 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 08:41:12 AM
Very sad. Forget aircraft, we should be giving the free Chinese the nukes we'd refuse to deploy.
Incidentally, I hate seeing "Taiwan" in an article. It's the Republic of China, the legitimate sovereign of 1.3 billion people. It's not difficult to remember.
I had no idea the rest of China wanted to be ruled by the guys in Taipei.
The ROC still has cores on the rest of China. Mongolia as well for that matter.
I thought cores expire after 50 years.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2011, 05:13:38 AMWow, the one time that secession is actually justified and you totally miss out.
aren't you the one who always goes off about how you know nothing about china? maybe it woul-- wait, i'm arguing with raz.. NM
@thread: fuck the taiwanese. they'll be reunited within a century anyway, no need to pointlessly harm relations with a major power over such petty issues
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2011, 10:37:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2011, 09:52:41 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on August 16, 2011, 09:38:42 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 08:41:12 AM
Very sad. Forget aircraft, we should be giving the free Chinese the nukes we'd refuse to deploy.
Incidentally, I hate seeing "Taiwan" in an article. It's the Republic of China, the legitimate sovereign of 1.3 billion people. It's not difficult to remember.
I had no idea the rest of China wanted to be ruled by the guys in Taipei.
The ROC still has cores on the rest of China. Mongolia as well for that matter.
I thought cores expire after 50 years.
Not cores in accepted culture provinces.
Quote from: Brazen on August 16, 2011, 06:13:31 AM
There could be an element of wanting to pacify China over the credit rating debacle. Putting up the interest rates would be rather more disastrous than losing a single deal.
:yes:
And the planes will be sold later at a more politically opportune time.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 08:41:12 AM
Incidentally, I hate seeing "Taiwan" in an article. It's the Republic of China, the legitimate sovereign of 1.3 billion people. It's not difficult to remember.
Not according to your own government.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2011, 05:47:27 AM
Sometimes even a broken clock isn't right twice a day.
A clock that's never right is actually a clock that's in perfect working condition, that just hasn't been set properly. :hmm:
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 08:41:12 AM
Very sad. Forget aircraft, we should be giving the free Chinese the nukes we'd refuse to deploy.
Incidentally, I hate seeing "Taiwan" in an article. It's the Republic of China, the legitimate sovereign of 1.3 billion people. It's not difficult to remember.
I try to consistently refer to the PRC as the PRC, just like I refer to the DPRK as well as the ROK and ROC.
I'm considering starting to refer to the PRC as West China and the ROC as East China just to fuck with peoples minds.
Quote from: DGuller on August 16, 2011, 12:52:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2011, 05:47:27 AM
Sometimes even a broken clock isn't right twice a day.
A clock that's never right is actually a clock that's in perfect working condition, that just hasn't been set properly. :hmm:
It could be going backwards.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2011, 01:23:36 PM
It could be going backwards.
Then it would be right at least twice a day.
I'd just like to point out that my reply to Faelinn was gold, and you people must be cinematically ignorant to have missed it. :weep:
Quote from: BarristerNot according to your own government.
The only reason for that is because we made a pact with the devil to fuel consumption through communist slave labor. It's weird to act smugly about that.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 03:07:01 PM
I'd just like to point out that my reply to Faelinn was gold, and you people must be cinematically ignorant to have missed it. :weep:
I don't get it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 16, 2011, 03:15:28 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 03:07:01 PM
I'd just like to point out that my reply to Faelinn was gold, and you people must be cinematically ignorant to have missed it. :weep:
I don't get it.
The reason he hasn't posted since then is because I made him go kill a presidential candidate.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 03:07:01 PM
I'd just like to point out that my reply to Faelinn was gold, and you people must be cinematically ignorant to have missed it. :weep:
Oh man, I missed it completely. Well done.
If Taiwan wants some new Jets, they should just buy an existing sports team, move them to Taipei and rename them... :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 16, 2011, 03:27:49 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 03:07:01 PM
I'd just like to point out that my reply to Faelinn was gold, and you people must be cinematically ignorant to have missed it. :weep:
Oh man, I missed it completely. Well done.
:hug:
Which ones? The KMT president, the KMT legislature, or the people that voted for them?
Of course, should Taiwan decide to give up on reunification entirely, I see no reason not to support that.
Edit: WELL, this post doesn't make a lot of sense now. :P
Mongers drive by?
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 08:41:12 AM
Incidentally, I hate seeing "Taiwan" in an article.
I don't. They're their own nation, carving out their own democracy and their own political heritage the hard way: by existence.
They deserve a different name to reflect their new culture, their new nation. GOD BLESS TAIWAN WHITE HOT NUCLEAR DEATH TO RED CHINA
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 16, 2011, 01:27:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2011, 01:23:36 PM
It could be going backwards.
Then it would be right at least twice a day.
Not necessarily. But how about this, the arms fell off. Now it can never be right. Fuck you.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2011, 07:21:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 16, 2011, 01:27:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2011, 01:23:36 PM
It could be going backwards.
Then it would be right at least twice a day.
Not necessarily. But how about this, the arms fell off. Now it can never be right. Fuck you.
:lol: You tell 'em, Raz.
That was good. :lol:
What if it was digital?
History of mental illness? Tortured by peers? A banal object of love or hatred? This is how Batman villains get started.
:D
Quote from: sbr on August 16, 2011, 10:20:07 PM
What if it was digital?
Shorted 555 timer. Never right. :D
It is easy for a stopped analog clock to always be wrong. For example, the short hand points directly at the 12 and the long hand at the 6. In fact, the probability that a random hand configuration is valid approaches zero at high levels of precision.
Hmm, good point. I guess the assumption is that a hypothetical "broken clock" has gears still properly aligned, it's just that those gears aren't moving.
Also, while your point about high levels of precision is technically correct, the same point would apply to analog clocks in perfectly good condition. Most analog clocks that I know move in discrete steps, with the second hand starting and stopping constantly, rather than gliding all the way around. That means that it's almost always wrong as well once you get precise enough.
In any case, the saying talks about how often the broken clock is right, not what percentage of the time it is right (although that may be viewed as an important ommission in its own right). The classic broken clock is always right twice per day, regardless of level of precision, even if the percentage of times it is right per day varies based on precision used.
Quote from: Maximus on August 17, 2011, 12:01:28 PM
It is easy for a stopped analog clock to always be wrong. For example, the short hand points directly at the 12 and the long hand at the 6. In fact, the probability that a random hand configuration is valid approaches zero at high levels of precision.
I've never seen a clock that is merely stopped with hands in that configuration. How did your clock stop with the short hand at 12 and the long one at 6? What time was that?
The relationship between the hands on a clock isn't random.
Edit: like DG said.
Two hands is not enough for my cock.
Quote from: The Brain on August 17, 2011, 04:30:38 PM
Two hands is not enough for my cock.
Two paws on the other hand...
Quote from: grumbler on August 17, 2011, 04:28:40 PM
The relationship between the hands on a clock isn't random.
On a broken clock it is.
It depends on what's broken on it.
Yes, and absent that information we might as well assume that's random as well.
Quote from: Maximus on August 17, 2011, 05:13:24 PM
Yes, and absent that information we might as well that's random as well.
It's broken cause I lit it on fire. There, happy?
So yes, random. :smarty:
Random doesn't mean that every event is equally likely. While we don't know for certain why the clock is broken, we can make an educated guess based on probabilities.
Usually analog clocks are broken because for whatever reason they lose power. That means that they simply halt, without any dramatic disintegration. Therefore, when someone is talking about a hypothetical broken clock, it should be assumed that the clock is broken due to loss of power.
I don't think we can assume that. We could probably assign a high marginal probability to it but there are plenty of other ways it could be broken, like being set on fire. So it's still random, just not uniformly distributed.
If you had to make a guess, though, would you say that a randomly chosen broken clock is right twice a day, or right some other number of times per day?
I think it's either twice or never.
Those are not the only possibilities. A broken clock can be right any number of times per day, from zero all the way to infinity.
True, but it would have to be moving.
Jesus Christ.
Quote from: Maximus on August 17, 2011, 08:14:37 PM
True, but it would have to be moving.
Yes, but a clock that loses 30 minutes each hour is not the kind of clock I would consider not broken. The parts may be rotating inside, but it's still broken.
We're also assuming that the clock is not moving. If that broken clock is inside a spacecraft that moving close to the speed of light, then the whole math changes, if you consider time on earth to be the "correct time".
Quote from: DGuller on August 17, 2011, 08:18:16 PM
Yes, but a clock that loses 30 minutes each hour is not the kind of clock I would consider not broken. The parts may be rotating inside, but it's still broken.
:hmm: good point.
Quote
We're also assuming that the clock is not moving. If that broken clock is inside a spacecraft that moving close to the speed of light, then the whole math changes, if you consider time on earth to be the "correct time".
Why would you use the time from a different place than the clock is in?
Quote from: Ideologue on August 17, 2011, 08:16:26 PM
Jesus Christ.
This has got to be the dullest hijack ever. What the fuck is wrong with these people?
How often is a Dali clock right?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 09:51:16 PMThis has got to be the dullest hijack ever. What the fuck is wrong with these people?
They better watch themselves before somebody clocks them.
Quote from: Jacob on August 18, 2011, 12:34:22 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 09:51:16 PMThis has got to be the dullest hijack ever. What the fuck is wrong with these people?
They better watch themselves before somebody clocks them.
I'd just like to put my hand in here and say that on the face of it, this is alarming.
Quote from: Maximus on August 17, 2011, 05:06:12 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 17, 2011, 04:28:40 PM
The relationship between the hands on a clock isn't random.
On a broken clock it is.
We have moved from "stopped" (your word) to "broken," now?
Then I agree. A broken clock may have no hands at all, or no face, or anything else one might fancy.
The expression doesn't refer to an
actual clock, you know.
Quote from: Neil on August 18, 2011, 07:55:53 AM
Quote from: Jacob on August 18, 2011, 12:34:22 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 09:51:16 PMThis has got to be the dullest hijack ever. What the fuck is wrong with these people?
They better watch themselves before somebody clocks them.
I'd just like to put my hand in here and say that on the face of it, this is alarming.
:lol: