5 ms·

Honest question: Why not just give Taiwan nukes? MAD seems to be a very effective peace strategy. China already has nukes. Seems the essential missing ingredie

Honest question: Why not just give Taiwan nukes? MAD seems to be a very effective peace strategy. China already has nukes. Seems the essential missing ingredient is the 'M'.

_AzMoo 5y ago
You couldn't possibly give them enough to make it Assured Destruction.
eloisius 5y ago
ROC had its own nuclear program in the past and almost made it to the point of being able to produce their own. The US, of all parties, intervened to have it stopped. Probably because Chiang was an unhinged madman intent on retaking the mainland. ROC is now an imminently nuclear nation. Something like six months away from having nukes at any time.
- retrac 5y ago
  This is true of most medium-sized industrial countries, actually, if they have power reactors. If Japan, Germany, Canada or even Finland or Argentina, really wanted nukes and wrote a blank cheque for domestic spending to that end, they could have one within a year, probably much less. Only lack of desire (mostly for the diplomatic and possible military consequences, I figure) really keeps them from doing so.
nl 5y ago
Nuclear proliferation is a bigger concern than a Chinese takeover of Taiwan. If the US gives nukes to Taiwan, what would stop China giving nukes to eg Venezuela (or whatever South or Central American nation the US doesn't like that month). Edit: previously I wrote "If the US gives nukes to China". I meant Taiwan here of course.
- dkislyuk 5y ago
  What? China is already a nuclear power with nuclear weapons, and has been for decades. The question posed by the parent is arming Taiwan to defend itself.
  - nl 5y ago
    Yes, I meant "If the US gives nukes to Taiwan" of course (previously wrote China here).
xnyan 5y ago
Step back and just think about it in realpolitik terms. If you were the leader of china, what would you think about the idea of nuclear weapons being brought to your borders? In a similar situation (the US had nukes in turkey and other areas close to the USSR) the Soviet Union used the same rational (in part) to justify putting nukes in Cuba. Just leveling the playing field. The result was the closest we’ve ever gotten to a nuclear conflict. From one point of you could argue this was “fair”, because the US already had missiles close to the USSR and this was leveling the playing field, but fair is a meaningless concept in geopolitical relations. Leaving bad and good aside, who would ever want their rival to place nuclear weapons close by? The government of China would have to be either traitorous or insane to not do everything in their power to prevent this from happening.
- jollybean 5y ago
  They would not be able to stop it though. By the time it was announced, it would already be done. The only real option China would have would be 'force' and a frontal war with China is a really big deal. That said, US-provided nukes for Taiwan would be a major escelation and fingers would be pointed in the direction of the US for 'blame' etc.. A lot of people would throw a fit over that. It might be better to just put a US base there because it means the same thing, and more: if you mess with Taiwan, even if you overrun the local US forces, you have 'awoken the actual Dragon' and no amount of 'internal division' in the US would hamper them from becoming united against China and of course all sorts of other huge material fallouts. Ironically, I think it's the American regime who would not be able to pull it off. It would require cooperation among to many agencies and serious leadership. There'd have to be a pretty good President, with a lot of leverage, he'd have to be popular in the polls, have the backing of the Pentagon etc. etc.. I just can't see that working out so directly. It'd have to be done in a roundabout way.
  - thenewwazoo 5y ago
    Your presumption of unity is doing a lot of work here. I, for one, would absolutely oppose going to war against China for the sake of Taiwan, instead preferring that that money go to humanitarian causes that would help Taiwanese suffering under a CCP regime. War, especially nuclear war, is abhorrent and I would not stand for it.
yyyk 5y ago
Even putting the proliferation issue aside, a Taiwan nuke program just won't deter China, will merely justify an invasion. This may have worked - in the sense of deterring PRC - 30 or more likely 40 years ago, when their army was much weaker. It's far too late to think about that now.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  I agree. The biggest issue for Taiwan would be war head delivery. They can nuke a few cities in fujian, but the communist party has never fully trusted Fujian anyways and wouldn’t see it as a great loss, let alone a deter it from turning the island into a waste land rock.
  - james_marks 5y ago
    This entire thread is worth it to see “turning” get autocompleted to “Turing”. On HN, naturally.
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
Both Taiwan and Japan are known to be capable of fielding nukes but do not because it would inflame tensions in the region and the USA has implicitly guaranteed to back them with an existing MAD solution. If the USA withdrew from east Asia, both Taiwan and Japan would probably start producing nuclear weapons within a few months (or before the USA had left if given a head’s up).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
throwaway210222 5y ago
> Honest question: Why not just give Taiwan nukes? Fair question, here's at least one answer: 1. that's a violation of the non-profileration treaty and the USA and the West basing its entire legitimacy on the rule of law. Values and all that. See how far student-union whataboutism gets you once you do that. 2. because nukes are counter-productive: you cannot fire one nuke - you have to fire them all. The second Russia sees the nuclear flashes from US assets, ALL of their nukes start flying. Unless you think Putin is going to wait to see exactly where in Asia hundred of thermonuclear ICBMs are aimed at. And the first to land will be in Berlin, Tokyo, Paris, London, Amsterdam, Rome, Jerusalem, Sydney, Toronto [1]. (Before you press the down-vote, take the time to investigate the Sampson Option in orthodox MAD nuclear deterrence). And that is not counting the Chinese nuclear response. Childhood fanstasies. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

Honest question: Why not just give Taiwan nukes? MAD seems to be a very effective peace strategy. China already has nukes. Seems the essential missing ingredient is the 'M'.

_AzMoo 5y ago

You couldn't possibly give them enough to make it Assured Destruction.

eloisius 5y ago

ROC had its own nuclear program in the past and almost made it to the point of being able to produce their own. The US, of all parties, intervened to have it stopped. Probably because Chiang was an unhinged madman intent on retaking the mainland. ROC is now an imminently nuclear nation. Something like six months away from having nukes at any time.

retrac 5y ago
This is true of most medium-sized industrial countries, actually, if they have power reactors. If Japan, Germany, Canada or even Finland or Argentina, really wanted nukes and wrote a blank cheque for domestic spending to that end, they could have one within a year, probably much less. Only lack of desire (mostly for the diplomatic and possible military consequences, I figure) really keeps them from doing so.

nl 5y ago

Nuclear proliferation is a bigger concern than a Chinese takeover of Taiwan. If the US gives nukes to Taiwan, what would stop China giving nukes to eg Venezuela (or whatever South or Central American nation the US doesn't like that month). Edit: previously I wrote "If the US gives nukes to China". I meant Taiwan here of course.

dkislyuk 5y ago
What? China is already a nuclear power with nuclear weapons, and has been for decades. The question posed by the parent is arming Taiwan to defend itself.
- nl 5y ago
  Yes, I meant "If the US gives nukes to Taiwan" of course (previously wrote China here).

xnyan 5y ago

Step back and just think about it in realpolitik terms. If you were the leader of china, what would you think about the idea of nuclear weapons being brought to your borders? In a similar situation (the US had nukes in turkey and other areas close to the USSR) the Soviet Union used the same rational (in part) to justify putting nukes in Cuba. Just leveling the playing field. The result was the closest we’ve ever gotten to a nuclear conflict. From one point of you could argue this was “fair”, because the US already had missiles close to the USSR and this was leveling the playing field, but fair is a meaningless concept in geopolitical relations. Leaving bad and good aside, who would ever want their rival to place nuclear weapons close by? The government of China would have to be either traitorous or insane to not do everything in their power to prevent this from happening.

jollybean 5y ago
They would not be able to stop it though. By the time it was announced, it would already be done. The only real option China would have would be 'force' and a frontal war with China is a really big deal. That said, US-provided nukes for Taiwan would be a major escelation and fingers would be pointed in the direction of the US for 'blame' etc.. A lot of people would throw a fit over that. It might be better to just put a US base there because it means the same thing, and more: if you mess with Taiwan, even if you overrun the local US forces, you have 'awoken the actual Dragon' and no amount of 'internal division' in the US would hamper them from becoming united against China and of course all sorts of other huge material fallouts. Ironically, I think it's the American regime who would not be able to pull it off. It would require cooperation among to many agencies and serious leadership. There'd have to be a pretty good President, with a lot of leverage, he'd have to be popular in the polls, have the backing of the Pentagon etc. etc.. I just can't see that working out so directly. It'd have to be done in a roundabout way.
- thenewwazoo 5y ago
  Your presumption of unity is doing a lot of work here. I, for one, would absolutely oppose going to war against China for the sake of Taiwan, instead preferring that that money go to humanitarian causes that would help Taiwanese suffering under a CCP regime. War, especially nuclear war, is abhorrent and I would not stand for it.

yyyk 5y ago

Even putting the proliferation issue aside, a Taiwan nuke program just won't deter China, will merely justify an invasion. This may have worked - in the sense of deterring PRC - 30 or more likely 40 years ago, when their army was much weaker. It's far too late to think about that now.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
I agree. The biggest issue for Taiwan would be war head delivery. They can nuke a few cities in fujian, but the communist party has never fully trusted Fujian anyways and wouldn’t see it as a great loss, let alone a deter it from turning the island into a waste land rock.
- james_marks 5y ago
  This entire thread is worth it to see “turning” get autocompleted to “Turing”. On HN, naturally.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

Both Taiwan and Japan are known to be capable of fielding nukes but do not because it would inflame tensions in the region and the USA has implicitly guaranteed to back them with an existing MAD solution. If the USA withdrew from east Asia, both Taiwan and Japan would probably start producing nuclear weapons within a few months (or before the USA had left if given a head’s up).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

throwaway210222 5y ago

> Honest question: Why not just give Taiwan nukes? Fair question, here's at least one answer: 1. that's a violation of the non-profileration treaty and the USA and the West basing its entire legitimacy on the rule of law. Values and all that. See how far student-union whataboutism gets you once you do that. 2. because nukes are counter-productive: you cannot fire one nuke - you have to fire them all. The second Russia sees the nuclear flashes from US assets, ALL of their nukes start flying. Unless you think Putin is going to wait to see exactly where in Asia hundred of thermonuclear ICBMs are aimed at. And the first to land will be in Berlin, Tokyo, Paris, London, Amsterdam, Rome, Jerusalem, Sydney, Toronto [1]. (Before you press the down-vote, take the time to investigate the Sampson Option in orthodox MAD nuclear deterrence). And that is not counting the Chinese nuclear response. Childhood fanstasies. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option