them. how you answer them to yourself will tell you a lot about what you think we should sell to taiwan, what might be helpful. question number one. does taiwan a war need arms sales for the most? scenario, aion blockade scenario, or maybe something less black and white. question number two, when does taiwan need to be the most ready to fight? in other words, wendy you think china is the most likely -- when do you think china is the most likely to attack taiwan? soon, like any day now? maybe, maybe one year to five years into the future? much later on, like 5-15, or 20 years into the future, or perhaps, never at all?
is going to come to taiwan's rescue if it is attacked? if so, at what stage in the fight would it be? would it be before, or after zero day? how long would it take to get sizable, sufficient u.s. forces into the theater? bearing in mind that the u.s. southern fleet in tokyo bay is 1300 miles away. they're in mind that the pacific command is 5050 miles away. it's a long way to go. question number six. do you think taiwan's military budget is too big, too small, or just right? the follow-on to that question is, do you imagine that you actually know what taiwan spends on defense? has never been studied. nobody actually knows what taiwan spends on defense. question number seven.
related to taiwan arms sale. there are so many things to consider. i should have prepared a slide, i apologize. but it looks like this, it you have it. sheet, you at the in recent years we have .old a lot of arms to taiwan the obama administration has done a good job of providing taiwan with a lot of defensive capabilities. we are talking about very large arms sales packages. i think folks in the obama administration are proud to have sold taiwan more in terms of dollar amounts than previous administrations.
but what they have also done is embrace a policy whereby we freeze arms sales to taiwan for extended periods of time, let all the platforms that we want accumulate, and then announce massive packages , at times when it is calculated to be the least offensive to beijing. and the most favorable, therefore, to u.s. prc relations. this approach to arms sales in my opinion has three negative effects. is that itroblem signals to china that we care more about our relationship with them then we care about meeting our commitments to taiwan in a regular reliable fashion. consolidate the zero-sum approach. this can only encourage bad behavior.
the second problem is by allowing arms to accumulate and then announcing these massive intibillion dollar packages, taiwan it has the effect of giving taiwan's parliament, media and public sticker shock. the u.s. argument said, we care about you guys, we really do, look at how many billions of dollars we are willing to sell you. the people of taiwan, when you say that, it seems that we are doing it for profit, and not as a matter of principle. if the white house is a puppet of the military-industrial complex. becauseot selling arms we're set -- caring about taiwan's democracy. we are not doing it because we care about taiwan's continued freedom and security. the third problem with this approach to arms sales is that it disrupts taiwan's ability to manage its own defense budget.
and military leadership, policy makers. this is the level where words are decided. this is the level where wars are presented and deterred. beyou believe that war can prevented and should be prevented, and we ought to be thinking about how we can do that, then this matters. president sheet and being in beijing, this is an example of a decision-making. these are the two people -- and of course the president in taipei. these are the two people you want arms sales to speak to, albeit in different voices. these are the people who at the end of the day will be making the most important decisions for years and years to come. their decisions are going to be every bit as political as he ought to be -- they ought to be. at the operational level, you have a much bigger audience come up but it is still very much a vip only show.
everybody else on panel. he is president of global strategies and transformations, a professional services firm that provides national security strategic analysis, concept development, military expertise, defense industry strategic history asnd applied a planning tool. a novel idea. after paul is finished with his remarks, we will have a chance for an exchange here and questions, and then possibly answers. paul: thank you. i'm glad to be here. i think we have a lot in common. like you, i came to listen, so here we are.
i don't blame taipei, but taiwan is very ambivalent about its relationship with the united states. first, because of the recognition of course, and other things that happened earlier in the cold war, but also because american behavior has made it quite clear that the united states is going to do as little as possible. time as a factor. the hardening of china has come over time, and eventually this adds up to something. taiwan's isolation has become more drastic overtime. time, the sense of military problem has been foreshortened. we are now in an era of the battle of the first.
that means attention these kinds of conflicts could be over very quickly, if we are not very very well prepared. it is what some analysts in the pacific theater call short, sharp campaigns. the reality of geography as a determinant of strategy. i will have to step to the screen now for a minute. this is the map i grew up with. created by the dean of the us-japan alliance management. a geostrategic reality for the soviet union and the cold war in asia. this is literally cut and pasted, we used to put them on video graphs. in any case, jim came up with this. you can see how japan is the cork in the soviet union's bottle in terms of getting out into the pacific.
this is an updated view. if i can do this on google maps, anybody can. it points the same to illustrate the compelling geography of japan in this issue. but the third version, which amounts to the same geostrategic view, since the perspective to include the drc's broad ocean approaches, and taiwan, the philippines, vietnam and so on. put -- the fourth its most taiwan and appropriate military operational perspective as a key geostrategic aston. -- bastian. taiwan know this is incredibly important from a military perspective. any amount -- american military strategy in the asia-pacific must take into account the salience of taiwan.
by clearly illustrating that -- taiwan's natural allies, and the next puts it into perspective with the prc's maritime salience. in broad military terms, what is happening now, and what is happening for some time, is that china is coming out to sea. this is what is going on. this is why it is such a kerfuffle in the asia-pacific. you can see, taiwan is in the middle of it. whoever holds taiwan will hold the rest of that salient, coming out into the pacific, that operational and strategic wedge. here's another view. the operational centrality of taiwan, right smack there. here is a view of taiwan's political geography, right in the middle of the entire asia political complex.
benefit equation imposed by china on us. it's much more difficult to defend against missiles than it is to use missiles as an offensive capability but new defensive capabilities are coming out of organizations like the strategic capability office with high-velocity project eyes, rail guns and so on -- projectiles, rail guns and so on that will reverse that cost curve. and pine -- finally, like the roman senator who always ended his remarks by saying carthage hub -- must be destroyed. i would recommend a u.s. assessment. thanks. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, paul. you need to find a latin expression for your last short and pithy remark there. >> history.
however, that they are not diplomacy much on for anywhere security. they're investing in their own deterrent and the capabilities that they're acquiring are quite impressive and do put the chinese on notice. >> first row? >> my name is -- i'm a member of the reagan foundation. we used to talk about one china olicy years and years ago. i have a pretty good idea of that but i want to hear your comments on that. it's kind of putting our hand in the back, so to speak. so thank you. >> i think this would be the key issue for the next administration.
that right now our china policy is outdated. we made it in 1978, 1979. a lot as changed in aisa since that time. taiwan is now a democracy, for example. at that time, the people's republic of china was a useful partner in our broader global cold warrington with the former soviet union that. threat no longer exists. it's now transformed into something different. so it may be advisable and i would certainly advise, whoever comes into the white house next year within their first weeks to have a national securities memorandum focusing on how we can bring the u.s.-china policy into line with objective reality into what has transpired in aisa because aisa looks in our relationship with china and taiwan, looks nothing like it did in 1977.
so i think we need to we look at that. i agree entirely with paul that need a real, legitimate net assessment at the military level but at the political level -- again, it's at the political level where wars are made and wars are prevented and detered. i think we need to do this. >> i think we have time for one more question. here on the first row. >> hi, nadia sps chow with the liberty times. i have a question for ian and richard. there's only a few months left. i think some people are still expecting the obama administration might have another round of arms sells to taiwan. do you think that's possible? if possible, what type of capability should the other administration should consider? not in a dollar amount.
packages. >> ladies and gentlemen, first of all, thank you, panel. richard, ian, paul. excellent presentations, as usual. thank you everybody who came out for this event and i just want to make a point here that in the approach to the presidential election and then the time immediately following it, we're going to be holding monthly conferences on the u.s.-taiwan relationship so watch your email spaces and other forms of communication and we hope to see you again soon in the near future and thereafter as well. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> here's a look at our prime-time schedule on the c-span networks.
in any real danger. polls have shown rein with an enormous lead over his opponent. host: when are we expecting to know about that rein race as returns come in tonight? guest: it sort of depend on how long it takes votes to be counted but i wouldn't be surprised if the a.p. called it shortly after returns start coming in as you mentioned, people has paid a lot of attention to this primary in part because of house majority leader eric kantor's loss two years ago in virginia. if anything, i think the press has sort of overcompensated here, treating really someone who's a long-shot candidate as maybe a bigger challenge than he has been. host: are you expecting any reaction from the donald umsfeld -- trump campaign?
hours, at 9:00 eastern. we expect comments from house speaker paul rein and from his opponent in that primary. business executive paul nehlen. live coverage here on c-span and your comments as well. it will be tuesday, november 8 for the presidential election. we'll be talking about presidential results. donald trump on the campaign trail in north carolina, speaking this evening in fayetteville, but it's his comments in wilmington, north carolina earlier today that are drawing criticism. his comments about hillary clinton being able to appoint supreme court justices if she wins the presidential election. here's his comment earlier today. donald trump: hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the second amendment.
believe me, i'll make you very proud of those justices. they'll be good. ok? so we had an incident a few days cash.th the 400 million anybody know what that looks like? that's a lot of cash. and honestly, it's so sad. think of it. ing to iran, a terrorist statement i happen to think they have plenty of money. we've given them there are 150 million -- billion. so the $400 million -- i happen to think it goes into their demts switzerland, personally. people say no, they use it for terror. but i also think that when you ave 400 million in cash, different denominations.
did you see the size of this? they did, i guess, release the pictures after all. they released pictures and interesting -- i sort of think it goes into bank accounts, right? i sort of think they take it, they probably use some for this, some for that, can do a lot of things and obama said that he did it because we don't have a working account with iran. do you believe it? how long does it take to set up an account, right? you don't have a working account, you set up an account, right, laura? you set up an account. it takes about -- well, look. what's going on in this country -- folks, folks, what's going on in this country is insane. and we have people running our country that don't know what they're doing. they're grossly incompetent and it's time. we have to make change, real change. not obama change. we have to make change.
your plan? over and over again. it was a lie and in fact, if he didn't make the lie he would have never gotten it approved because most democrats -- many of the democrats didn't want to do it. it was only that that got them to sign it, to approve it. and it was a lie. and the $400 million and from what the rumor is and from what the reports are, the hostages couldn't leave the airport until this other plane arrived. they don't know why but i think we all have a pretty good reason why. it's all a big lie. it's all a big lie and it's so sad to say -- see. and let me tell you, hillary clinton is going to be four more years of obama but maybe worse. audience: boo! maybe worse. going to be four more years. four more years of isis, four more years of high taxes.
doesn't tell the truth, which has been proven very loudly. i don't think we've ever had greater proof of that of anybody. and she's disregarded the lives of americans. you see what's happening -- with what she's done with her server and you know why she did that. so i just look at this and i said that if she gets elected, destruction the of this country from within. remember that. remember that. she will allow people into our country that will do damage -- that will do damage, folks. you look at what's going on in the world. look at france. take a good look at france. i have pretends that go to france. they used to love france. they say no, thank you. they don't expect to be going back for a long time.
but you know what can happen? when we don't know where they are, where they're coming, from you get them all over the place. and folks, it'ssome. you don't need many. one person in orlando. two people. look at in france, 130. now, they have the strictist gun laws -- strictest gun laws anywhere in the world. france, paris. 130 people killed and i've said 100 times this man or that woman or that woman or man had a gun in paris or san bernardino and the bullets were flying in the other direction, would have been a whole different story, folks. [cheers] >> for those foolish people that say second amendment, would have been a whole different -- i go a step further. if these people. bad people.
only because we allow it to happen. mexico, and i respect the leaders of mexico because they are much smarter, but much smarter and more cunning than our leaders. but you have to see what is going on. indianahe reasons i won was bobby knight, because he is the best, greatest, but one of the reasons is that carrier air-conditioning but 1400 people go and they are building a plant in mexico. we are not going to let it happen. if you think you have great jobs, companies are negotiating from north carolina to move to mexico, and other places. make possible by our federal government, made possible by the --ple that connected this enacted a suicidal pack for this countryn.
employed. those people are not employed. these people are great people. there are plenty of them in here. people, the most loyal people, the smartest people. so many of my people, they are so smart. i do noty, trump -- know if he has a right --we have the smartest people and the best and the hardest working. we have the smartest people. we will put iq's among some of us, you can say all of us can against any of the iq's that we have to do with. i would love to do that. 14the last seven years, million people, one in five american households do not have a single member in the workforce. pretty bad. homeownership -- this is one that is amazing to me. today home ownership is at its lowest rate in 51 years.
you own homes, and used to be the dream to own a home, right? the american home. lowest that it has been in so many years. 51 years. million people and more americans are dependent on food steps, and 2 million more latino americans live in clinton,nder obama and under obama because clinton is going to carry on -- i do not know if you saw, i gave a and decrease yesterday, but clinton will double up your taxes, and she is trying to say that she will double up your taxes. massivegoing to have ma tax increases if clinton gets in. enjoy it, folks, if you get that. african have it american youth are not employed. how sad is that?
american households are earning $4000 less -- listen to this 1 were 16 yearsthey ago. many workers are earning less than 1970 in real dollars. 1970 -- that is a long time ago. they are earning in real dollars less money. , we are goingan to create millions of new and really good paying jobs. it is interesting, because the pro-obama people say about the are bad jobs.y i have heard it from many people, they are trying to defend him, but they are bad jobs. the good jobs have left. but we will create millions of new good-paying jobs, but good jobs, it is so important. it is so important. everyone's taxes will go down. hillary clinton has supported tax increases on the middle class for her entire career.
one or the other. it is amazing, that surprised me. it surprised to them, too. everybody -- businesses cannot form anymore. is sotory burden incredible that you cannot form businesses -- very hard -- and businesses in existence are being put out of existence for regulations that do not do anything. we want safety regulations, environmental regulations. we are not people that do not want these things. we have to have that. we want clean air, clean water. we want clean water. that -- and there are certain things that you want to do, but to do that you do not have to destroy our country and our businesses. so i just wrote this down today.
a second amendment, you are not going to have much of it left, and you will not be able to protect yourselves, what you need. burst intod guys your house, they are not looking about second amendment and do i have a right to do this, ok? that that guides are not going to be giving up their weapons, but the good people will say, oh, well, that's the law. no, not going to happen. we can't let it happen. we can't let that happen. hillary clinton wants to have totally open borders where people flow into our country and they take your jobs and they do lots of things. and i want people to come into our country, but they have to do it direct process, they have to do it legally, right? so you have drugs pouring in, you have everything coming in.
and the enemy is taking it. humveesover 2300 pum that are currently armor plated. i thought that meant like 230 was too much. 2300 humvees and they got stolen, taken by the enemies. outlays have these great allies we always become who end up being worse than the guys we're trying to get out -- so terrible. hillary and president obama "radical use the term islamic terrorism. -- terrorism."
the same smaller number, but the same thing was happening, where police are being killed. cherishto respect and our police. school choice we want, common core we do not want. we got to get rid of common core. bring education [indiscernible] mr. trump: and, folks, we have to renegotiate with nafta. going back to the wall, mexico is going to pay for the wall. that i can tell you. politicians, you do not know me, they do not understand me, and i am. 50et a group of fift people who have been running our country forever and they said we cannot support donald trump.
the reason -- because i am not going to hire these people, i do not want to these people. take a look. take a look at these people, these are sort of like the people that have been involved with washington, eking decisions, militarily, on defense, take a look at what has happened to our country. our military is depleted. our vets are not being taken care of. cannot be isis. can you imagine general george patton, spinning in his grave, douglas mcarthur, and we have so many people in this section of the military state, and i love it -- i love it. and you imagine them seeing that we cannot beat these 25,000 or 30,000 people?
we are fighting a politically correct war. politically correct war? you know what is going on. you know what is going on. these are the people that chop off heads. these are the people that in steel cages drop steel cages largehe waters and drown lovers of people. these are the people that bury people in the fans. we got to knock them out. i was against the war in iraq. it should not have been in the war in iraq. a destabilize the middle east, but we should not have gotten out the way he got out. the way we got out was insane. and obama gave a date and that folks?isis happened, hence, the birth of isis, congratulations, hillary clinton. she should get, if i am isis, i call her up and i give her the most valuable player award, ok?
with libya,tee you, which was her baby, and all the other mistake she has made, obama talks now, because obviously for him that is the builder alternative, all right? but he has been an incompetent president. he has done a harmful job. and i guarantee you that if he had it to do again and he would only say this to his wife, but he if he had to do it again, he would not have chosen hillary ofnton to be his secretary state, because she made so many horrible mistakes and caused so many lives -- cost so many ones, and i mean lives both sides. she is a net. she is a net. inepts.s .