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.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS