‘No’ to nuclear deterrents
Chen Shih-min’s (陳世民) Taipei Times story is irresponsible and dangerous (“Likelihood of nuclear deterrent in Taiwan,” Sept. 16, page 8).
There is no need for Taiwan to have nuclear weapons.
One obvious reason is that one nuclear weapon is enough to destroy the planet. So, the solution is not to increase the number of nations with nuclear weapons — which would increase the number of nuclear weapons in the world, which would increase the risk of a launch, which would, in turn, increase the risk that all 7.5 billion of us will die.
The solution is to use diplomacy to rid the world of nuclear weapons: This can be done.
North Korea can be negotiated with. In the 1990s, then-US president Bill Clinton sent former US president Jimmy Carter to North Korea. He negotiated a halt to North Korea’s weapons program in exchange for fuel.
However, former US president George W. Bush did away with the deal, and North Korea resumed its program.
Bush later said that he would defend Taiwan against China, but Taiwan and the world would have been safer if he had just kept the Clinton deal in place.
Chen writes: “North Korea’s nuclear weapons development program appears to have progressed rapidly in a short time and there is a real possibility that it will soon be able to strike the US.”
This statement is untrue.
Yes, there was a recent earthquake in North Korea that Pyongyang claims was the result of an underground test detonation of a thermonuclear or hydrogen bomb. A second quake followed, which it claims was caused by the collapse of the cavern where the weapons test was conducted.
However, according to Robert Kelley, the former director of nuclear inspections of the International Atomic Energy Agency, it is highly unlikely that North Korea’s claims are true.
Kelley, who has 35 years of experience in nuclear weapons, stated several reasons why North Korea’s claims are unreliable:
First, any time North Korea claims anything, it is unreliable.
Second, the earthquake could have been caused by an explosion that was not from a nuclear weapon.
Third, if its claims were true, then small amounts of radiation might have been released from the collapsed cavern. None has been detected.
Fourth, Pyongyang released a photo of Kim Jong-un looking at a device that it claims is their weapon of mass destruction.
According to Kelley, who saw that photo and others, there are flaws in the device, which casts doubts on its authenticity.
Fifth, according to Kelley, North Korea does not have a single missile that can reach America with any accuracy. They only have the ability to reach or fly over Japan.
Even then, they do not have the ability to track or guide their missiles. In other words, the US is in no danger of a North Korean attack.
Finally, Chen plays the China card. China and Taiwan have not had a battle for more than 35 years. No evidence suggests they will go to war any time soon.
Neither war nor nuclear weapons are the way for Taiwan to protect itself or stand on the world stage. Taiwan needs to project its soft power, like the recent Taipei Summer Universiade as just one example.
Andres Chang
Taipei
The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment. NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which
In a recent interview with the Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper Sin Chew Daily, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called President William Lai (賴清德) “naive.” As always with Ma, one must first deconstruct what he is saying to fully understand the parallel universe he insists on defending. Who is being “naive,” Lai or Ma? The quickest way is to confront Ma with a series of pointed questions that force him to take clear stands on the complex issues involved and prevent him from his usual ramblings. Regarding China and Taiwan, the media should first begin with questions like these: “Did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)