Experts estimate that Taiwan might have its own nuclear weapons within a decade, Foreign Affairs reported last month, but the nation must develop its strategy based on whether its goal of a “resolute defense” is enough to deter a Chinese invasion and whether the US would come to its defense. If Taiwan is unsure about either of these, or wants to lock in the right to decide its own fate, it must develop an “effective and independent deterrent.”
The US is maintaining its long-time stance of “strategic ambiguity,” rather than “strategic clarity,” and the possibility that Taiwan might have to go to war without US support still looms.
During the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1996, then-Chinese People’s Liberation Army deputy chief of general staff Xiong Guangkai (熊光楷) said that the US would not defend Taiwan because “Americans care more about Los Angeles than they do about Taiwan.”
While the statement was an indirect threat to use nuclear weapons against the US, China still has fewer than 100 nuclear missiles capable of reaching the US, but the number is expected to increase. In light of China’s hypersonic missile test in July, is the US truly prepared to sacrifice Los Angeles for Taiwan?
China’s defense budget is 15 times bigger than Taiwan’s, and the military imbalance across the Taiwan Strait is working against Taipei.
Taiwan’s strategies over the decades have all followed the logic of “deterrence by denial” and “counterforce strategy.” Taiwan’s adoption of “inter-war deterrence,” which means deterring attacks while engaging in warfare, signifies that it is prepared to engage in a drawn-out battle with China. The official goal is to “disrupt the enemy’s agenda; obstruct, undermine or paralyze the attacks of the enemy.”
However, if China made an offensive move, it would not stop until it had conquered Taiwan. Otherwise, Taiwan might use the opportunity to create a new constitution, change its official name and seek recognition from the international community.
Any Chinese leader, including President Xi Jinping (習近平), would face a blow to their authority and credibility, and might even lose in a subsequent political power struggle.
Would an authoritarian like Xi be willing to give up power — or would he sacrifice people’s lives by a relentless advance that threatened 23 million Taiwanese?
Even if Taiwan managed to defeat an attacker, it would be left in ruins. The population and industry are concentrated in the west, which would be devastated in a military onslaught.
With doubts about Taiwan’s defensive capabilities and the US’ willingness to join in a fight, voices in support of Taiwan becoming a nuclear power come as no surprise.
If Taiwan hopes to retain the right to determine its own future, then it should adjust its strategic thinking and shift from “defense and deterrence in the wake of an outbreak” to “deterrence prior to an outbreak.”
The strategy of “effective deference” should also become “deterrence by punishment,” with the aim of inflicting “intolerable damage” on the enemy.
In the face of China’s growing threat to Taiwan in 2004, then-premier You Si-kun (游錫堃) said: “Deterrence is the easiest thing. To achieve absolute peace across the Taiwan Strait, all we need is the balance of terror like the past. China has the power to destroy Taiwan, and vice versa. This brings the balance of power, in which there would be no war. If China strikes against Taipei and Kaohsiung, Taiwan can hit back at Shanghai. If we have such a means of countermeasure, then Taiwan will be safe.”
I will leave the topic of impact and predicament for another day.
Chen Shih-min is an associate professor in National Taiwan University’s political science department.
Translated by Rita Wang
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)