Trump Offered to Sell Weapons to Red China

A development I did not see coming!

18

Comments

AP (“Trump asked China’s president if he wants to buy US arms, ambassador says“):

President Donald Trump has justified the pending U.S. arms sale to Taiwan to Chinese President Xi Jinping by downplaying it as just one of many sales Washington makes around the world — even asking Xi if he’d be in the market for U.S. arms, Trump’s ambassador to China said on Sunday.

David Perdue said Trump raised the prospect of the arms sales from the U.S. to its ascendant geopolitical rival, an unlikely offer that if consummated would upend generations of U.S. policy toward China and Taiwan and potentially expose U.S. technology to a potential foe. Perdue, speaking to Shannon Bream on “Fox News Sunday” days after Trump hosted Xi for a state visit in Washington, didn’t specify when the offer was made.

Bream had cited concerns from Republican and Democratic lawmakers over delayed aid packages and weapons orders to Taiwan, the self-ruled democracy, to defend itself from China’s threat to invade the island. Bream asked if the U.S. is denying arms to Taiwan to appease the Chinese president, who visited Trump last week.

Perdue pushed back on the suggestion, stating that Trump “is as strong on Taiwan as I’ve ever seen anybody” and has sold it plenty of weapons. Perdue also said Trump and Xi continue to talk about future U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan.

“But President Trump continues to say, ‘Hey, we sell arms to other people around the world,’” Perdue said. “He actually asked President Xi, would he like to buy some, at one point.”

So, on this surface, this may seem odd.

In his 2017 National Security Strategy, Trump declared, “China . . . want[s] to shape a world antithetical to U.S. values and interests. China seeks to displace the United States in the Indo-Pacific region, expand the reaches of its state-driven economic model, and reorder the region in its favor.”

President Joe Biden was even more explicit in his 2022 National Security Strategy: “The People’s Republic of China harbors the intention and, increasingly, the capacity to reshape the international order in favor of one that tilts the global playing field to its benefit, even as the United States remains committed to managing the competition between our countries responsibly.”

Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy downplayed this rhetoric a bit. It claimed, “President Trump single-handedly reversed more than three decades of mistaken American assumptions about China: namely, that by opening our markets to China, encouraging American business to invest in China, and outsourcing our manufacturing to China, we would facilitate China’s entry into the so-called ‘rules-based international order.’ This did not happen.” But it later declared, “Going forward, we will rebalance America’s economic relationship with China, prioritizing reciprocity and fairness to restore American economic independence.”

I suppose selling them weapons would help with that!

Now, I strongly doubt Xi will take Trump up on this offer. It turns out that the PRC has developed a rather robust domestic military manufacturing sector that is outpacing ours by quite a bit, at least in terms of throughput.

But if he did, it would put them in quite the pickle if they decided to invade Taiwan or otherwise provoke military conflict with the United States. Why, we would control the resupply! And we could potentially equip the systems such that we could disable them remotely. Which would be a genius move.

Again, though, it’s unlikely Xi would go for it.

18 responses to “Trump Offered to Sell Weapons to Red China”

  1. Sell weapons to China, we can’t supply our own military. The Times has an article this AM on how sourcing a screw is delaying the felon’s attempt to increase weapons production.

  2. I’m more cynical. I fully believe that Trump would sell out Taiwan if there was a financial advantage. Especially if that advantage went to Trump and his cronies.

    5
    1. I have never believed Trump would fight for Taiwan. All down-side risk and no financial gain. Now, if Jensen Huang slipped him a couple billion in crypto, then, that might work.

      2
  3. Charley in Cleveland Avatar
    Charley in Cleveland

    One would have to assume that Trump hasn’t even read, much less written or offered any input to, either of the aforementioned National Security Strategy documents. The extent of Trump’s foreign policy interest can be summed up with the first and only question he would pose to his advisors, “What’s in it for me?”

    5
  4. I can se China buying a lot of stuff but they could benefit from buying a few of our higher tech pieces just so they could bet a closer look at them. I am pretty sure we (our Air Force) would be happy to have a few of their Changdu-20s to play with.

    Steve

    1
    1. Yeah, that’s the logical thing for them to do. A few of each major weapons systems. Not taking on an enemy as sole supplier.

  5. It only ever gets worse as Trump’s dementia progresses.

    1
  6. What kind of kickback does Fatso get?

    2
    1. His kids are now heavily invested in things like drone companies, so IMHO this is a way to lock in the family grift so it’s ongoing.

      1
  7. Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice!!11!!

    If it takes arming the strongest communist regime on Earth to defeat communism, then so be it!!1!!!1111

  8. Two thoughts:
    The Russo-Ukrainian and the current US-Iran wars show that fancy weapons like a F35 are extremely expensive and neutralizable by much cheaper weapons; i.e. US weapons are a liability, and we harm China by offloading them to them.
    Also, I remember that during the Falkland islands war, the French sold Exocet missiles to Argentina but sold the abort codes to the UK. I’m sure the Chinese remember this.

    1
    1. We could offer them the first Trump battleships.

      2
      1. Nah. You know how much you’d have to pay them to take it?

    2. The neutralisation of “fancy weapons” is not easy.
      In the case of, for instance, the F-35 it requires quite sophisticated air defence systems.

      In the Russo-Ukrainian war both sides deploy both air defence radar, missiles, and pretty capable fighter/interceptor aircraft.
      That is why Russia, instead of carrying out direct bombing of rear areas, uses very expensive air-launched stand-off missiles, as well as ballistics and drones.

    3. Check your history on that kill-switch for Exocets, Slugger.

      I get the sense Trump has be either at someone’s feet or at their throat. He’s a shameless asshole to nations he feels inferior but cow-tows to Putin and Xi. Inferiority complex? The shrinks may correct me on that. Anyway, he so obviously wants to ingratiate himself to Xi he compulsively offers him anything that pops into his head, and a lot of silly things freely bounce around in there.

  9. If we could get control of a major adversary’s military supply chain, I think that could be a huge advantage, if we are willing to use it.

    Think about Israel — we have them on a leash. Will the leash hold if we give it a sharp tug? I don’t know, but we haven’t even tried.

    1
    1. imho the leash on Israel is real but only holds within limits.
      Israel is a major military producer in its own right, and has always been careful to avoid too much reliance on the US for multiple key systems, either by producing them itself, or by alternative sources.

      For instance, its submarines are supplied by Germany, and widely assumed to be capable of launching nuclear warhead cruise missiles.

      Israel has shown itself inclined to concede to US demands, when pressed, and if doing so does not constitute a serious danger for Israel.
      See Trump pressing Netanyahu to accept a ceasefire with Iran in 2025, or to put the “regime destruction” strikes on hold and to limit its war with Hezbollah this year.

      The problem often is, unless the very top of the US administrations is engaged, Israel is usually able to use its general influence to pursue its projects, even when those cut across US interests.
      See its recent actions in Syria.

  10. Just another sign that, in Trump’s addled mind, everything is about “deals”.
    Weapons, physical resources, land: all are just tradeable commodities which have a price, and hopefully a percentage for grift.

    Questions of strategy, of “non-dollar denominated” national interests or values, or relationships based on such, seem quite alien to his view of the the world.

    This sort of approach is also evident in the dealings of Witkoff and Kushner regarding Ukraine: that it’s basically a matter of “doing a deal” in which certain pieces of real-estate are handed over to Russia as the “price”.
    Ignoring the basic issue that neither Ukraine nor Russia really view the conflict in that way.

    1