Whether it was Taiwan or Japan who first detected a Chinese Han-class nuclear submarine in Japanese territorial waters remains something of a mystery. But what this incident does indicate is that China is seeking to break through the First Island Chain that the US has established to contain it, and that its ambitions to approach the Second Island Chain are growing daily. If the US, Japan and Taiwan cannot establish an effective "security alliance," then this unstable chain around China will become a source of concern for the future security of East Asia.
The First Island Chain refers to a curved line hemming in China that runs from Japan through Taiwan, the Philippines and on to Indonesia. During the Cold War it was regarded as the US's first line of defense. The Second Island Chain refers to a line from the island of Midway through Guam, the Marianas, the South Pacific Islands and the Palau Islands. This was the US' second line of defense, which also defended its own territory.
ILLUSTRATION MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
In 1993, Liu Huaqing (
Because of this shift in strategy, China has also been actively expanding the scope of its ocean-going activities. According to the Japanese government, there have been numerous sightings of Chinese naval surveillance craft in waters near Japan.
In 1999 there were 12 incidents, in 2000 there were 18, in 2001 this fell to seven, then in 2002 rose to 17, down to eight last year, with the number spiking this year with 17 incidents in the year to May -- including 14 incidents in which vessels broke through the First Island Chain and gradually pushed toward the Second Island Chain.
Many military analysts believe that the reason for China broadening the operational scope of their surveillance vessels is to collect information about the distribution of currents and water temperatures for use during combat and also the sonar mapping of undersea terrain. They believe that these missions are purely to increase military preparedness with the aim of locking out US aircraft carrier groups based in the Pacific if they attempt to enter the Taiwan Strait in the event of a crisis.
Even if the US has a large number of carrier battle groups based in the Pacific, it is still not clear how they will be deployed in the event of a crisis in the Taiwan Strait.
In an interview with Voice of America, Admiral Joseph Prueher, former commander-in-chief of US Pacific Command, said that when he ordered the USS Independence carrier group into the Taiwan Strait in 1996 he was not immediately clear as to the purpose of the maneuver and only later realized that this was in fulfillment of the US' commitments to Taiwan. He said that if China had persisted in its missile tests, he had no idea how the carrier group could have responded militarily.
China perceives the weakness of the US carrier-based strategy and in its latest round of military improvements, it has adopted submarine wolfpack techniques. In addition to the general principle of "where you find one submarine, there will be 20," the PLA has coordinated this with other arms of the military to create a mixed force to converge on carrier groups.
Peng Guangqian (
Responding to the tactical demands of making war in the Taiwan Strait, the PLA has developed an ocean-based and an air-based model that can operate together. The ocean-based model includes not only the surface fleet, but also a continually improving submarine fleet; the strengthening of this element being the reason for the recent naval reconnaissance.
The air-based model is centered on a strategy of decapitation, with the Kuantu Plain and Sungshan Airport serving as initial targets for landing crack troops to penetrate civil and military command centers, coordinated with strikes by ballistic and cruise missiles to create a state of paralysis.
From above we can see that changes in China's military strategy are a direct source of growing tensions in the Taiwan Strait, and naval reconnaissance of the type taking place near Japan is one example of this. In future, we should not concern ourselves so much with who discovers such incursions, but must focus on the threat to US carrier groups that such incursions represent.
Wang Kun-yi is an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of International Affairs and Strategic Studies of Tamkang University.
TRANSLATED BY Ian Bartholomew
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS