If a defense strategy doesn’t include “we will use weapons to stop you from doing this” it isn’t actually a defense plan, it’s a strongly worded letter.
without touching the political One China Policy outlined in the Shanghai Communiqué
Coupling that with increasing armaments is what spurred the Kissinger reference. It kinda constrains the trajectory to escalating towards war.
Which, well, as we are seeing unfold with Iran now and have with the American boondoggles of the 21st century, may not serve Taiwan or the US in the long run.
Lip service must be given to the OCP lest Mainland China decide playing the long game isn’t worth it. Speaking against the policy is a signal that the only legitimate claim to Taiwan is through force, while also jeopardizing trade with the entire West Pacific.
If a defense strategy doesn’t include “we will use weapons to stop you from doing this” it isn’t actually a defense plan, it’s a strongly worded letter.
Sure, but:
Coupling that with increasing armaments is what spurred the Kissinger reference. It kinda constrains the trajectory to escalating towards war.
Which, well, as we are seeing unfold with Iran now and have with the American boondoggles of the 21st century, may not serve Taiwan or the US in the long run.
Lip service must be given to the OCP lest Mainland China decide playing the long game isn’t worth it. Speaking against the policy is a signal that the only legitimate claim to Taiwan is through force, while also jeopardizing trade with the entire West Pacific.