The US and France provide many of the missiles of choice for Tai-wan's military, but times are slow-ly turning in favor of Taiwan's indigenous missile program.
The military-run Chung Shan Institute of Science and Technology (
Taiwan often complains that its missile development has been encumbered by US pressure. It is true that the CIA stopped Tai-wan's nuclear weapons program and halted production of the surface-to-surface Tien Ma (
The Tien Ma had a range of 1,000km, capable of hitting Shanghai. Taiwan managed to produce an unknown number before production stopped. It is unlikely they are still operational, but rumors persist they are hid-den in the Central Mountain Range.
A brief look at Taiwan's indigenous missile program will ex-plain why China should think twice about attacking and why US interference appears to be in vain.
The first reason is the air-to-air Tien Chien (
The surface-to-air Tien Kung (
TK-3 development began in 1996 as a low-altitude anti-missile defense system expected to be in service by 2005 if development continues. Many fear the acquisition of more US Patriot anti-ballistic missiles will hamper the TK-3's development.
Considered one of Taiwan's most mysterious projects, the surface-to-surface short-range Tien Chi (
Taiwan has also developed the anti-ship Hsiung Feng (
A marked improvement over the HF-1 was the development of an air-launched version for the IDF in 1996.
The next step was the HF-3 with increased range to 200km at Mach 2.0. Improvements include a vertical launch system, which widens the attack angle, and a ramjet engine. The HF-3 is sche-duled to go into production at the end of this year.
The land attack cruise missile, designated Hsiung Feng 2E, based on the HF-2, has a range of 1,000km. Though only in its development stages, the HF-2E will be a major advance for Tai-wan. For the first time, Taiwan will be able to attack targets as far away as Shanghai.
In December 1999, officials from Taiwan hinted at plans for the development of medium-range surface-to-surface missiles. Many analysts saw this as the resurrection of the Tien Ma. Recent press accounts have described a medium-range missile with a range of 1,000 to 2,000km. This would put all of China's major political and economic hubs in range, including Beijing.
Taiwan has two options for the use of missiles. First is a
pre-emptive strike on Chinese forces as they prepare for war. This is the Israeli method and, though it is quite successful, the US is unlikely to support this strategy.
Second is the second-strike option. This would be basically revenge for a Chinese missile attack on Taiwan. China is ex-pected to saturate Taiwan with over 300 tactical ballistic missiles armed with high explosive warheads. This option is the most likely scenario and for political reasons the US would more likely aid Taiwan's defense.
Targets are in two categories: military and civilian. Taiwan could hit China's air bases, ports, troop concentrations and command and control centers or missiles could rain down on unprotected commercial hubs like Shanghai, Guangzhou and Hong Kong.
It is easy to discount the true nature of missiles by calling them surface-to-surface, anti-ship and surface-to-surface. The basic fact is these are machines that kill people. Those who doubt that Taiwan would not attack cities after sustaining a violent assault from China forget the true nature of war. War is hell and no hell is worse than fire from the sky.
Wendell Minnick is the Taiwan correspondent for Jane's Defence Weekly. (wminnick@hotmail. com)
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase