The staff fails to perceive the difference between needless provocation of China (such as Bush’s use of the word “competitor”) and prudent, principled disagreement. By its logic, Taiwan needs no military whatsoever, since the United States is pledged to defend it. Why let the Taiwanese defend themselves if we can send American soldiers no older than the staff to die in their place?

Military planning must always be for the worst-case scenario, not for a world where every country acts as expected. We may expect that China would never invade Taiwan, but our expectations are unlikely to give the Taiwanese nearly so much comfort as Aegis radar the next time China conducts missile exercises off the Taiwan coast. The submarines are similarly a defensive weapon against invasion—Taiwan is not in a position to attack the mainland. It would be irresponsible to leave Taiwan defenseless when it faces such a powerful and aggressive threat.

The U.S. may publicly maintain the farce of One China for diplomatic reasons, but that does not mean that the democratically elected government of Taiwan is any less legitimate, nor does it have any less right to defend itself. The U.S. should not give China veto power over the quality of Taiwan’s defenses.

— David M. DeBartolo ’03, Stephen E. Sachs ’02