Hacker News Reader

Comment by stickfigure | Hacker News Reader

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'.

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

It doesn't matter whether you or I would support war, it matters what the population wants, and given a direct assault on US forces and the invasion of an ally, 1/2 the US population would be gunning for war and enough of the rest would be convinced.

Unfortunately 'some money to helping Taiwanese' would basically be futile, as there wouldn't likely be a way for that to be applied. (Donations are not going to help Hong Kong, now and won't help Taiwan in the event of invasion)

It also doesn't matter if we 'abhor war', force is a fundamental part of the equation even in 2021, if you're not prepared to use it in the right context, you'll lose the freedom to have the choice. And by that I don't mean 'You need to carry a gun!' because you don't, I mean we need to be prepared to use the Armed Forces (or force in generally) as is reasonably necessary.

And that would effectively be a pretty much necessary case.

These conflicts have 'knock on effects' - for example, if Saddam was able to simply roll into Kuwait willy-nilly, there's no reason to believe that Qatar or Saudi wouldn't be next. That, and 'because Oil stability' -> War.

It's unlikely the US would respond with an invasion of Taiwan because that would be essentially impossible, but probably there would be a 'war' in the South China sea and a Cold War after that.

> I, for one, would absolutely oppose going to war against Germany for the sake of Jews, instead preferring that that money go to humanitarian causes that would help Jewish suffering under a Nazi regime.

Neville Chamberlain, is that you?

>By the time it was announced, it would already be done.

There are almost no surprises on either side of the Straight. Spies from both sides have thoroughly penetrated the other.

Something that most westerners, particularly my fellow Americans, are unaware of is that the Soviets already had over 100 nuclear warheads in Cuba, many of them having fully functional delivery systems capable of striking the US. Even if we got them there, it’s not the end of the story

For some reason the following simple truth is difficult for my countrymen to accept, but you have to know on some level that all of this matters more to China than it does to us, and unless we completly overmatch them in power (as we did in the past, and do not now) in the long term they will always win in the east.

We could not even keep Afghanistan before our commitment flagged - what makes you think we could outlast the efforts of the largest economy in the world to remove weapons of mass destruction from Taipei?

'They will always win in the East'?

The didn't win in Korea, they didn't win in Japan.

They didn't even win in Vietnam, the US completely destroyed N. Vietnam military machine ... and then left.

By the time the US actually left Vietnam there was very little fighting and no casualties. The US could have stayed.

Similarly in Afghanistan ... there were very few soldiers there, with a different Foreign Policy there's no reason to believe the US could have chosen to 'stay'.

There are still major bases in Korea, Japan and Germany, no reason not to keep a base in Afghanistan if they thought they wanted to.

Nukes in Taiwan would really upset China (a lot!) and throw a big wrench into everything, but it's a very legit threat, it would make direct assault really hard.

Certainly one 'Omega Weapon' would be a short range, small yield nuke that Taiwan could use against an invading maritime force. Scary, but real power.

India, North Korea, Pakistan and Russia are all bordering nations to China with nuclear weapons. During the cold war and to this day, there are no bordering states or any one close to 3000 miles of US borders with nuclear weapons. So, your comparison to US/USSR cold war to China/Taiwan scenario is slightly misplaced I think.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think you’re really giving it a good faith effort to look at this from the eyes of China.

Imagine it in your head: the senior intelligence officer walks into the briefing room and says “The United States has placed their nuclear missiles in Taiwan, but don’t worry - that’s exactly the same as Russia having missiles, or India having done some nuclear tests and maybe having a shitty delivery system that’s 1/100 as advanced as the US. No cause for concern. Nothing has changed.”

It’s a wholly unrealistic analysis that does not even pass a cursory sniff test. The United States of America putting their nuclear warheads in Taipei, a region they consider to be stolen from them with the support of western power, would be taken as a unique and massive escalation of hostilities because it would be, they would be stupid not to consider it as such.

I agree that Taiwan wouldn't want to accept US nukes for the reason you state. However, what if they had domestically developed nukes instead?

I feel like that would be a much more tenable position that would largely address your concern, and also grant Taiwan the ability to forestall any invasion indefinitely.

Taiwan is thoroughly infiltrated by PRC intelligence, facilities for nuclear programs would be glassed before TW could develop any capabilities.

PRC fought with US / USSR while both were nuclear powers and China was not over much less important core interests than TW. Like there's currently 10s and eventually 100s of vunerable mainland coastal nuclear power plants that TW missiles can strike right now. TW has a lot of ability to fuck up PRC if they want to. Scope of TW actions/resistence will determine proportionality of destruction by PRC. Though ultimately there is nothing TW can do to deter PRC who has fought harder opponents with less means and more sacrifice.

There is zero possibility for Taiwan to domestically develop nukes and the ways to deliver them reliably without the Chinese figuring it out and shutting it down with massive prejudice.

As a counter, I could imagine this to be alarming if hypothetically US is openly interested in invading Mexico who is allied with China. China then decides to place nuclear arsenal near Mexico city to defend it. This would be far less alarming than China initiating placement of nukes in Mexico without any intention from US to invade Mexico.

The subtle difference is offense vs. defense. If China openly agrees with the world to never invade Taiwan, US placing nukes in Taiwan would be unacceptable. But that is not the reality here.

> The subtle difference is offense vs. defense.

China got antsy, and vociferously complained about plans for the US to supply South Korea with advanced radar defense system (THAAD)[1], which China contended would extend into Chinese airspace. Radar, which is on paper, purely for defense. Nukes will be 2+ orders of magnitude worse.

1. https://www.uscc.gov/research/chinas-response-us-south-korea...

I don't think anyone is interested in putting US nukes in Taiwan. Presumably US nukes are already in the area on US naval vessels. It doesn't really change the balance of power; the US isn't going to start nuclear war over Taiwan.

The more meaningful scenario is what happens when Taiwan gets its own nukes. Either developed domestically or acquired shrinkwrap ("POINT THIS SIDE AT ENEMY"). At that point it's out of US control, and you can imagine the Taiwanese would use them in an existential crisis.

Of course China (specifically, the CCP) wouldn't be happy about that. That's not the point.

Let me try reframing this.

If you were an abusive ex-husband, who felt that women are property and need to submit to you (and you regularly beat your girlfriends bloody to prove it), how would you feel about your former spouse buying a gun?

Sure, you'd do everything in your power to prevent that from happening.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

This entire thread is worth it to see “turning” get autocompleted to “Turing”. On HN, naturally.

> 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

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

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.

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.

Yes, I meant "If the US gives nukes to Taiwan" of course (previously wrote China here).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com