Here's the backstory on Boeing and the military.

US air doctrine is that they will always buy air dominance, so Boeing will be funded for military programs. However, the US govt. historically has had the influence to tell military aircraft mfgs. what to prioritize, and what lines to drop.

An example is Northrop. They were told to drop the popular F-5 and F-20, and focus on the B-1 program. They were also told to merge with a competitor, but declined.

It's weird when you first study it, but the US Air Force wants zero risk missions into enemy skies.

So that's why they're ok with a handful of $200 million fighters and $2 billion bombers, if they're stealthy enough not to be seen.

(Stalin on the other hand is often attributed with saying, "Quantity has a quality of its own." I would argue a balance is needed between a perfect fighter, in the case of the F-22 with under 200 airframes mfg., and having 10,000 slightly less perfect ones, like the F-16.)

W: F-22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor

If the public cannot stomach allied casualties, losing too many pilots might end a war even if the material cost of the planes was low. Quantity may have a quality of it's own, but maintaining public morale seems just as important.

Oddly, at the moment there are people on American streets demanding casualties in order to get the malls open again.

(Coronavirus death toll now larger than Vietnam)

That is a reason why you move so that when the time come (which is not chosen you we are not talking about us invaded china here but china just blockage of Taiwan say), you have option. If Taiwan has a strategic assets at least you do not risk a war ...

Guess that is why Taiwan also would not want the asset out.

There have to be a political deal. If USA and Taiwan is competent.