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.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at