The United States has maintained a policy of strategic ambiguity toward Taiwan for more than four decades. It does not formally recognize Taiwan as an independent state. It does not provide a treaty guarantee equivalent to the commitments it has made to Japan, South Korea, or NATO allies. It does sell Taiwan defensive weapons under the Taiwan Relations Act, and it maintains unofficial relations through the American Institute in Taiwan. What it has not done is say explicitly and publicly whether it would use military force to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack. This ambiguity has been the foundation of American cross-strait policy since 1979, and it has been under increasing strain as the military balance in the strait has shifted.

Taiwan’s defense establishment has been conducting an argument with itself for most of the past decade about what kind of military it needs. On one side: advocates of conventional deterrence, who want advanced fighter aircraft, large surface combatants, and the visible symbols of military capability that signal to Beijing that Taiwan can fight and to Washington that Taiwan is a serious defense partner. On the other side: advocates of asymmetric or “porcupine” defense, who argue that Taiwan cannot match PLA conventional capability in a symmetric competition and that investing in high-cost platforms that the PLA can destroy on the ground before they are ever used is strategically incoherent.