Rumors that Taiwan has nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, all secretly hidden away, have plagued journalists for a decade. Wild gossip includes Taiwan's acquisition of two nuclear weapons from either Russia or South Africa, depending on the story. Other stories include the storage of sarin nerve gas at two sites in Taiwan. Biological-weapons rumors include everything from Anthrax to Ebola.
It takes about 300kg of sarin to kill 60 to 100 people, but only 30kg of anthrax spores to kill 30,000 to 100,000 people.
The advantages of the latter are obvious. Biological weapons leave cities untouched but wipe out the population. Chemical weapons require massive clean-up operations and pollute the environment for decades. Nuclear weapons simply achieve both -- the utter destruction of both population and cities. The price tag for biological weapons production is much lower than nuclear and, given its lethality compared to chemicals, much more attractive.
A 1993 US Congressional Office of Technology Assessment listed Taiwan as "possibly" having an "undeclared offensive BW [biological-weapons] program." An equally unnerving report was issued in July 1998 by the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency which noted that Taiwan had upgraded its biotechnology capabilities by purchasing sophisticated biotechnology equipment from the US and Switzerland, but concluded that evidence was not sufficient to determine if Taiwan is engaged in biological-weapons activities.
A 1997 Russian Federation Foreign Intelligence Service report stated that Taiwan did not have biological weapons, but has "shown signs of conducting biological research of an applied military nature." A recent Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) report, Perspectives on Biological Weapons Proliferation, stated Taiwan was suspected of "mounting an offensive biological weapons program."
Local media picked up the CSIS report and further alleged that Taiwan had developed 36 types of bacteria for biological weapons. But the CSIS report never mentioned this allegation.
The development of biological weapons, according to specialists, would require only US$100,000, five trained biologists and a few weeks to produce enough weapons to wipe out a large city. For example, 35 grams of botulinal toxin could kill 60 million people.
According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Taiwan is listed as having a "possible research program" in biological weapons, and is a "probable" possessor of chemical agents.
At the end of World War II Taiwan's military took possession of a Japanese chemical weapons facility in northern Taiwan, and is believed to have expanded the facility in light of the threat from China. Taiwan is rumored to house sarin at two locations: Tsishan, Kaohsiung County and Kuanhsi, Hsinchu County.
Though Taiwan has researched and developed anti-chemical and anti-biological warfare equipment in response to threats from China, the government maintains that it will not pursue nuclear, biological and chemical warfare capabilities.
Taiwan signed and ratified both the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. However, it has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, and this is often excused due to Taiwan's quasi-diplomatic position, which does not allow it to sign as a nation-state.
Despite denials and accusations, the nuclear, biological and chemical-weapons question will continue to haunt Taiwan. Though weapons of mass destruction are more often depicted in movies than in real life, they nonetheless exist in today's world. Who has them answers the question of who might use them.
Wendell Minnick is a correspondent with Jane's Defence Weekly in Taiwan.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
After 37 US lawmakers wrote to express concern over legislators’ stalling of critical budgets, Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) pledged to make the Executive Yuan’s proposed NT$1.25 trillion (US$39.7 billion) special defense budget a top priority for legislative review. On Tuesday, it was finally listed on the legislator’s plenary agenda for Friday next week. The special defense budget was proposed by President William Lai’s (賴清德) administration in November last year to enhance the nation’s defense capabilities against external threats from China. However, the legislature, dominated by the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), repeatedly blocked its review. The
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
RSS