Does Taiwan need nuclear weapons?
In Taiwan, "No Nukes" is an argument more commonly heard in context of the controversial 4th nuclear power plant. The development of nuclear weapons has been a contentious issue, initially triggered by China's first nuclear test in 1964. Though Taiwan started a weapons program in 1967, the program was shut down by the United States, and Taiwan has since then become a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which, ironically, the U.S. refuses to sign), and is now considered a "threshold" nuclear state, with the *ability*, though not the desire to develop weaponry. (Japan is also in this category)
As the military balance in the Taiwan strait has swung decisively in favor of China by this point, I have heard some voice indicating a desire for Taiwan to once again attempt to acquire such asymmetrical weaponry to deter a Chinese military invasion. Putting aside any moral and geopolitical considerations, would this even be a feasible or useful idea?
What does it mean to actually have nuclear capability?
You see, coming into possession of a "nuclear weapon" isn't particularly hard. As noted above, threshold countries like Japan and Taiwan basically already have the know-how, expertise, and technology needed to arm themselves with nuclear weapons within five years.
But "nuclear capability" is a different thing altogether. Purely as a thought experiment, let's consider what that would entail.
First off, the device needs to reliable, and it needs to fit into a bomb or missile, as without a method of deployment, it's essentially useless. It has to be maintainable, ready at a moment's notice at any time, otherwise the effect as a deterrent is minimal. It also needs to be safe, secure, and easy to maintain and wield, because having it explode in your face would be... unpleasant.
That about wraps it up for the weapon itself. But even more difficult is the method of delivery. You can use a large missile - except Taiwan doesn't have any missiles that deliver such a large payload yet, since the United States has thoughtfully done its best to ban Taiwan from possessing any weapons that might give it the ability to strike at China. Taiwan also lacks heavy bombers, and short of miniaturizing a warhead so it'll fit on a sea-skimming anti-ground missile like the AGM-84 SLAM that can be carried by F-16s, this will be a problem. (theoretically, a gravity bomb like the B-61 would also work, except it's very likely an F-16 would be shot down before it has a chance to drop the bomb) The weapon/missile will also need a guidance system. Taiwanese intelligence will need to draw up a target list, as well as accurate information determining whether or not to launch. Actually launching the missile essentially means the end of Taiwan's existence as a nation, as China would not hesitate to wipe Taiwan off the face of the Earth if hit with a nuke, so suffice to say this wouldn't be a decision to take lightly.
Everyone involved would need to undergo extensive training - all crew that will store the weapon, travel with it, command it, deploy it, and launch it, all the pilots or missile batteries that would be employing it under different circumstances and situations. This needs to be practiced often enough that a basic level of competence is assumed by the opposing side, if only for the sake of deterrence. The entire armed forces (and in a sense, society) must understand what to do after a strike, and defensive countermeasures taken (if it's even possible for a country of Taiwan's size) after the inevitable counterstrike.
In the 20th century, the richest of first world countries needed decades of experience and essentially unlimited funding to effectively develop *deployable* weapons that could be used on heavy bombers. North Korea and Pakistan have taken a very long tie just to develop the most basic of weapons - basically something that can make a big boom, but in a large inconvenient device that would be extremely difficult to deploy.
Astute readers may have come to the realization already that I'm not actually talking about Taiwan here. Republicans have been giving President Barack Obama a lot of shit for the potential nuclear deal with Iran, saying that all this does it give up everything without getting anything in return. Funny story, that's exactly what the Iranian hardliners believe as well, about their country's concessions.
All I'm saying is that it isn't hard to determine if a country has nuclear *capability*. Having a few bombs, and having the ability to actually strike targets without fail with nukes when needed is entirely different, and I'm quite certain that it's the latter we have to worry about, and not so much the former.
This is basically also why most countries that have possessed nuclear capability in the past are reluctant to give it up. The United Kingdom, for example, is slowly reducing ability, but keeping the know-how, since the key thing that takes a lot of time to make up is the training. That's also why China's aircraft carrier is *decades* away from becoming a true threat to America's blue water navy - it's one thing to get the boat moving, but it's another to make up for half a century of practical experience and practice.
As the military balance in the Taiwan strait has swung decisively in favor of China by this point, I have heard some voice indicating a desire for Taiwan to once again attempt to acquire such asymmetrical weaponry to deter a Chinese military invasion. Putting aside any moral and geopolitical considerations, would this even be a feasible or useful idea?
What does it mean to actually have nuclear capability?
You see, coming into possession of a "nuclear weapon" isn't particularly hard. As noted above, threshold countries like Japan and Taiwan basically already have the know-how, expertise, and technology needed to arm themselves with nuclear weapons within five years.
But "nuclear capability" is a different thing altogether. Purely as a thought experiment, let's consider what that would entail.
First off, the device needs to reliable, and it needs to fit into a bomb or missile, as without a method of deployment, it's essentially useless. It has to be maintainable, ready at a moment's notice at any time, otherwise the effect as a deterrent is minimal. It also needs to be safe, secure, and easy to maintain and wield, because having it explode in your face would be... unpleasant.
That about wraps it up for the weapon itself. But even more difficult is the method of delivery. You can use a large missile - except Taiwan doesn't have any missiles that deliver such a large payload yet, since the United States has thoughtfully done its best to ban Taiwan from possessing any weapons that might give it the ability to strike at China. Taiwan also lacks heavy bombers, and short of miniaturizing a warhead so it'll fit on a sea-skimming anti-ground missile like the AGM-84 SLAM that can be carried by F-16s, this will be a problem. (theoretically, a gravity bomb like the B-61 would also work, except it's very likely an F-16 would be shot down before it has a chance to drop the bomb) The weapon/missile will also need a guidance system. Taiwanese intelligence will need to draw up a target list, as well as accurate information determining whether or not to launch. Actually launching the missile essentially means the end of Taiwan's existence as a nation, as China would not hesitate to wipe Taiwan off the face of the Earth if hit with a nuke, so suffice to say this wouldn't be a decision to take lightly.
Everyone involved would need to undergo extensive training - all crew that will store the weapon, travel with it, command it, deploy it, and launch it, all the pilots or missile batteries that would be employing it under different circumstances and situations. This needs to be practiced often enough that a basic level of competence is assumed by the opposing side, if only for the sake of deterrence. The entire armed forces (and in a sense, society) must understand what to do after a strike, and defensive countermeasures taken (if it's even possible for a country of Taiwan's size) after the inevitable counterstrike.
In the 20th century, the richest of first world countries needed decades of experience and essentially unlimited funding to effectively develop *deployable* weapons that could be used on heavy bombers. North Korea and Pakistan have taken a very long tie just to develop the most basic of weapons - basically something that can make a big boom, but in a large inconvenient device that would be extremely difficult to deploy.
Astute readers may have come to the realization already that I'm not actually talking about Taiwan here. Republicans have been giving President Barack Obama a lot of shit for the potential nuclear deal with Iran, saying that all this does it give up everything without getting anything in return. Funny story, that's exactly what the Iranian hardliners believe as well, about their country's concessions.
All I'm saying is that it isn't hard to determine if a country has nuclear *capability*. Having a few bombs, and having the ability to actually strike targets without fail with nukes when needed is entirely different, and I'm quite certain that it's the latter we have to worry about, and not so much the former.
This is basically also why most countries that have possessed nuclear capability in the past are reluctant to give it up. The United Kingdom, for example, is slowly reducing ability, but keeping the know-how, since the key thing that takes a lot of time to make up is the training. That's also why China's aircraft carrier is *decades* away from becoming a true threat to America's blue water navy - it's one thing to get the boat moving, but it's another to make up for half a century of practical experience and practice.
Comments
Post a Comment