A growing number of Taiwan's political and military leaders believe that the nation should develop an offensive strike capability. In fact, every missile that China deploys opposite Taiwan increases the likelihood that the nation will consider implementing an offensive military strategy. This prospect worries decision-makers in Washington. But it makes perfect sense to many Taiwanese.
At one time, Taiwan's qualitative military superiority appeared to provide the island with adequate security -- China was deterred from launching a surprise attack or otherwise harassing the island. However, China's military modernization has diminished Taiwan's ability to adhere to a purely defensive doctrine. In addition to the 50 to 70 new missiles that Beijing deploys across the Taiwan Strait each year, China has embraced a sudden strike strategy aimed at decapitating Taiwan's defenses in a matter of only seven minutes.
It is becoming obvious to many Taiwanese military authorities and experts that no amount of PAC-3 units or PC-3 Orion submarine-killing aircraft is going to deter China. Beijing may be willing to sacrifice a substantial number of troops, aircraft, submarines and missiles to achieve its military objective -- the conquest of Taiwan. However, as one Taiwanese academic observed, China might be deterred from an attack if the island has the muscle required to destroy a significant portion of the prosperous and productive coastal regions that are vital to China's economy.
Others contend that acquiring an offensive military capability makes sense in terms of economics. Taiwan's social welfare expenditure has escalated markedly. Simply stated, this means that less money is available for defense. Whereas defense outlays constituted almost 5 percent of Taiwan's GDP in the 1990s, they have now fallen to under 3 percent. But what really complicates matters is the fact that defensive weapons cost so much more than offensive arms.
According to US military calculations, the cost-effectiveness of offensive operations against defensive ones is one to nine. That means that whenever Beijing spends US$100 million to develop offensive weapons to attack Taiwan, Taipei must spend US$900 million building defensive measures. But the actual cost is probably much higher. The costs associated with a purely defensive military strategy could prove to be astronomical.
A third consideration that prompts military planners to consider developing offensive weapons may be traced to the characteristics of the global system. In an anarchic international environment, each state is ultimately responsible for its own defense. There is no world policeman. And despite recent military actions in Iraq, the US appears unwilling to play the role of "globocop."
In the unlikely event that Washington decides to forsake Taiwan, Taipei will be better situated to deter a Chinese attack if it possesses an indigenous offensive military capability.
US officials claim to oppose Taiwan's acquisition and/or deployment of offensive arms. They reason that this development will only serve to escalate cross-strait tensions and add that the TRA only permits the sale of defensive arms. But there is much more that Washington can do.
If the US is serious about an escalating arms race across the Taiwan Strait, it should exert more pressure on China to remove the hundreds of missiles it has deployed. And Beijing should be reminded that its intimidating behavior might compel Taiwan to develop a more robust military capability. If present trends continue, decision-makers in Taiwan may come to believe that the best defense is a good offense.
Dennis Hickey is a professor of political science and Mike Welken is a graduate student in the political science department at Southwest Missouri State University.
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
Birth, aging, illness and death are inevitable parts of the human experience. Yet, living well does not necessarily mean dying well. For those who have a chronic illness or cancer, or are bedridden due to significant injuries or disabilities, the remainder of life can be a torment for themselves and a hardship for their caregivers. Even if they wish to end their life with dignity, they are not allowed to do so. Bih Liu-ing (畢柳鶯), former superintendent of Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, introduced the practice of Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking as an alternative to assisted dying, which remains
President William Lai (賴清德) has rightly identified the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a hostile force; and yet, Taiwan’s response to domestic figures amplifying CCP propaganda remains largely insufficient. The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) recently confirmed that more than 20 Taiwanese entertainers, including high-profile figures such as Ouyang Nana (歐陽娜娜), are under investigation for reposting comments and images supporting People’s Liberation Army (PLA) drills and parroting Beijing’s unification messaging. If found in contravention of the law, they may be fined between NT$100,000 and NT$500,000. That is not a deterrent. It is a symbolic tax on betrayal — perhaps even a way for
RSS