On Tuesday last week, I was invited by my alma mater, Claremont Graduate School, to give a one-hour talk on US-China relations. Many students from master’s and doctoral programs attended. My graduate schoolmates, my dissertation advisers and my colleagues at California State University were also there.
In the follow-up discussion, most people in the audience said that Taiwan is not prepared for a potential military attack by China. They were also uncertain about Taiwan’s readiness to cope with attacks by the Chinese Communist Party. The option of “keeping the status quo” no longer exists and has not for some time, they said.
All things considered, the US should acknowledge this reality and Taiwan should reach a compromise with China before it is too late, they said.
Regrettably, I was not able to refute them on the spot.
They also found my deterrence theory problematic. Strategic deterrence is not easy to carry out, because the enemy would see every act as a provocation, they said.
If Taiwan lacks firm resolve, the strategy would bring it to a more perilous circumstance. Moreover, should Taiwan’s mandatory military service remain the same — that is, without being extended to two years — the situation would become even worse.
As the saying goes, “sending common people to war untrained is to throw them away.”
Later that night, I talked with a friend from Taiwan about what the audience said. My friend believed that those academics, most of whom are based in California, thought that way because economically, California depends on the China market.
While I find their attitude unhealthy, I do not think those US academics are biased. Their opinions are based entirely on their academic viewpoints. They might be wrong, but they are already tenured professors. Why would they care about who gets what and how?
Earlier this month, former chief of the general staff admiral Lee Hsi-ming (李喜明) was interviewed by CBS’ 60 Minutes. Not only did he call out for Taiwan to focus on arming itself to deter China, he was also concerned about whether Taiwanese would be prepared for war if one were to happen earlier than anticipated.
My colleagues said that if Taiwan is not — and will not — be ready, Taiwan and the US must think seriously about other solutions.
In the worst-case scenario, Taiwan would be not well prepared and China would not be deterred. The result is China, the US and Taiwan would have to bear the consequences.
Out of love for my motherland, Taiwan, I am extremely concerned.
I have said in previous essays that the future of Taiwan should be determined by the people of Taiwan, and my colleagues understand that they do not have a right to speak for Taiwan.
However, it is important to understand what those on the sidelines think.
They think that once China attacks, it does not matter how long Taiwan can hold out. What is important is demonstrating a powerful will to fight and prevent a war from happening. That is the spirit of deterrence: “It is deterrence, stupid.”
If we wait until war breaks out, it would be too late.
The strategy of deterrence has been greatly misunderstood in Taiwan. In colloquial terms, deterrence is not about self-assurance. It is more than believing in ourselves, more than claiming that we would fight the enemy at any cost. Deterrence is to realize that there is no going back, to display our strength, so that the intruders are deterred.
If our allies are unsure about our determination, how can we talk about deterring the enemy?
I do not have a right to speak on behalf of the people of Taiwan. Instead, I offer my observation from the perspective of a third party, as an honest and sincere friend.
Simon Tang is an adjunct professor at California State University, Fullerton.
Translated by Liu Yi-hung
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
RSS