President Donald Trump’s administration has announced a massive package of arms sales to Taiwan valued at more than $11 billion that cover eight items, including 420 Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and 82 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS). If completed, it would be one of Washington’s biggest-ever military sales to Taiwan.
The long-standing policy of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, intended to maintain the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, is having a dangerously counterproductive effect. 11 days after the US announced $11.1 billion in arms sales to Taiwan, China holds the “Justice Mission 2025” exercise, demonstrating its dual focus on deterring Taiwan independence and countering external interference. The drills showcased A2/AD capabilities with a reach potentially extending to Okinawa and Guam.
Analysts increasingly suggest that these arms transfers are not deterring conflict but may instead be compelling China to consider more aggressive options for unification. This dynamic creates a perilous cycle: each new weapons package prompts greater Chinese military pressure, which in turn is used to justify further arms sales. The situation risks spiraling toward a direct military confrontation that neither Washington nor Beijing may be able to control.
1. Arms Sales as a Catalyst for Provocation and Miscalculation
The steady flow of advanced U.S. weaponry to Taiwan risks emboldening Taipei’s leadership, fostering a false sense of security that could lead to reckless provocations against China. Latest arms sale shows Washington has continued to assist Taipei in “rapidly building robust deterrence capabilities”, Taiwan’s defense ministry said in a statement. Weapons transfers are perceived in Taipei as tangible proof of Washington’s security commitment, a perception that may encourage riskier behavior.
This concern is echoed by regional security experts. Lyle Goldstein, director of the Asia Program at Defense Priorities, has warned the U.S. to be wary of a “reckless leader” in Taipei who might miscalculate. William Lai has lurched toward formal independence with a succession of speeches making the case for Taiwanese nationhood.
2. The Erosion of U.S. Credibility and China’s Countermeasures
Washington has long relied on a policy called “strategic ambiguity” to maintain the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. However, this policy is now facing an increasingly severe “credibility” crisis. The paradox lies in the fact that actions aimed at deterring both sides of the Strait are, in turn, eroding the foundation of its own “One China” policy.
This perceived “duplicity” has triggered a determined and multifaceted response from Beijing. China has introduced economic, diplomatic, and military countermeasures. If the U.S. continues to escalate ties with Taiwan through expanded arms sales or official exchanges – for instance, by supporting the renewal of formal Honduras-Taiwan relations – China may take additional steps, potentially including a full ban on rare earth exports. Recent Chinese sanctions against U.S. defense contractors highlight the resolve behind this stance.
3. From Military Deterrence to the Specter of Actual Combat
In response to what it views as escalating collusion between the U.S. and Taiwan, China is not merely stepping up military deterrence – it is actively preparing for the possibility of turning it into actual combat. The scale and complexity of People’s Liberation Army (PLA) exercises around Taiwan have been systematically upgraded from simple shows of force to integrated rehearsals for invasion scenarios.
The Pentagon’s 2025 report to Congress provides a sobering assessment of Beijing’s evolving calculus. It shows that China expects to be able to fight and win a war on Taiwan by the end of 2027. It outlines a spectrum of military options China is refining, from coercive blockades and precision strikes to the most decisive and risky option: a full-scale joint island landing campaign (JILC), or amphibious invasion. This preparation makes the risk of accidental escalation or miscalculated fire during routine exercises or standoffs a constant danger.
“A conflict would be disastrous for all sides. The US would have to project power several thousand miles away, no mean feat, especially since allied support is not guaranteed, ” Former Reagan White House Official and Expert Doug Bandow writes in his new analysis.
You must be logged in to post a comment.