The Implications of Simultaneous Conflicts in South Korea and Taiwan

By Ki Suh Jung

On June 25, 1950, North Korean forces invaded South Korea, sparking the Korean War. The following day, President Harry Truman ordered U.S. air and naval forces to support South Korea’s defense, which the United States would soon thereafter bolster with ground forces. On the same day, President Truman directed the U.S. Seventh Fleet to the Taiwan Strait to prevent any conflict between the Republic of China (henceforth Taiwan) and People’s Republic of China (henceforth China), each of which had been vying to unify with the other under its leadership. Had China taken advantage of the U.S. focus on the Korean peninsula by launching a large-scale invasion of Taiwan (for which it had been preparing), U.S. leadership would have faced the difficult decision between leaving Taiwan to fend for itself or diverting resources from the Korean War to support Taiwan. Although the United States was able to deter China from invading Taiwan in 1950 despite its concurrent commitment of forces to defend South Korea against North Korean aggression, it may not be so successful today or in the near future given the current trend in the balance of military power. Therefore, South Korea and Taiwan must develop credible self-defense capabilities with an eye toward future North Korean and Chinese threats to better support the joint response effort with the United States, which may find itself engaging in a two-front conflict.

Today, both the Korean peninsula and Taiwan Strait remain as flashpoints. South Korea and North Korea are still in a state of war with each other, and the risk of a forcible unification with Taiwan by China has been increasing in conjunction with China’s growing assertiveness in both rhetoric and action. If South Korea is attacked again, the United States has already committed to “mutually meet the common danger,” as stated in the two countries’ mutual defense treaty. While the United States does not make a similar commitment to Taiwan – the U.S.-unilateral Taiwan Relations Act only states that the United States will “maintain the capacity…to resist any resort to force…on Taiwan” – President Joe Biden has thus far for Taiwan. Also, a recent survey showed that the majority of Americans would favor defending Taiwan with U.S. forces if China were to invade the island. Certainly, neither Biden’s statements nor the survey results equate to a shift in the U.S. policy of “strategic ambiguity,” but they do indicate that in a Taiwan Strait contingency, U.S. leadership will seriously consider the level of support for Taiwan, as it did during the mid-20th century.

If the challenges facing the United States in those flashpoint areas have largely remained unchanged, so have the opportunities for China. A future Korean peninsula conflict would consume much of the focus and resources of the U.S. military in the region, which China can exploit to attempt to solve the Taiwan question. However, a scenario in the reverse sequence is also plausible. If China’s leaders determine that a peaceful unification with Taiwan will not be possible by 2049 – the date by which the “rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” is to be achieved – they may decide to resort to force. If the United States commits forces in defense of Taiwan, North Korea may sense a weakness in the U.S.-South Korea alliance and also launch an attack on its southern neighbor. As China and North Korea are treaty allies, they may discuss, plan, and execute such a two-pronged attack specifically designed to split US forces. After all, in 1950, North Korean leader Kim Il-sung sought and received approval from China’s (and the Soviet Union’s) leaders prior to North Korea’s invasion of South Korea.

While there are presently no indications that a major conflict in the Korean peninsula is imminent or even brewing, the two Koreas have come close to war before, perhaps most recently in 2010 following the sinking of South Korean navy ship Cheonan and bombardment of Yeonpyeong Island. Even as South Korea’s president Moon Jae-in pushes for a breakthrough in inter-Korean relations in his final months in office, however, the two countries are seemingly engaged in an arms race, with North Korea recently having tested a hypersonic missile and South Korea a submarine-launched ballistic missile.

On the other hand, cross-strait relations have deteriorated in recent years and Taiwan has come to dominate the discussion surrounding the U.S.-China strategic competition. Amid revelations of U.S. forces training the Taiwanese military, Taiwan’s president Tsai Ing-wen has expressed “faith” that the United States would support the defense of the island. China has reinforced its vows for unification with Taiwan with its military aircraft’s incursions into Taiwan’s air-defense identification zone at an unprecedented frequency and numbers as well as military exercises in the vicinity of the island. And unlike in 1950, when the U.S. military was undeniably superior to China’s, China has embarked on an impressive modernization streak and has “achieved parity with – or even exceeded – the United States in several military modernization areas.” If China is determined to unify with Taiwan by force, it will most likely be undeterred by a U.S. show of force.

How can the United States best prepare for two simultaneous major conflicts in East Asia? The answers are numerous and range from posturing additional forces in the region to securing commitments from other allies and partners to deter aggression from North Korea and China. Another key mechanism that must not be overlooked is incentivizing South Korea and Taiwan to acquire the appropriate capabilities required to specifically defeat North Korean and Chinese invasion forces, respectively. For South Korea, that might include anti-missile systems, platforms to counter maritime special operations forces insertion, and advanced weaponry and equipment for its ground forces. For Taiwan, acquisition of anti-ship and -air missiles and hardening of critical infrastructure may be the wisest investments. Taiwan has previously been criticized for both lackluster defense spending and purchasing tanks and howitzers with questionable operational value in the face of the growing Chinese threat, but relevant defense investments become dire when accounting for the potential division in U.S. attention and resources towards multiple contingencies.

The purpose of this article is not to specify which equipment South Korea and Taiwan must acquire; rather, it is to emphasize that the military equipment they do acquire must be based on North Korea and China’s current and future military capabilities that are expected to be employed for an attack on South Korea and Taiwan. By acquiring appropriate capabilities, the two countries will significantly raise the risk of attack by their adversaries, perhaps to the degree that they reassess the likelihood of a successful invasion. At a minimum, by developing the ability for a self-sufficient defense, South Korea and Taiwan will be helping themselves by enabling the United States to employ its limited resources efficiently to support the defense of the two countries, especially if anticipating simultaneous conflicts.

The acquisition of “flashy” capabilities may be tempting in general and more so if they are perceived to signify an advanced military; however, all military equipment has a limited scope, and acquiring a specific capability creates an opportunity cost that prevents a country from acquiring another, more-justified capability. This is an especially important point to consider for South Korea and Taiwan, which have an aggressive neighbor whose stated policy is to unify with each country.

In both the U.S.-South Korea mutual defense treaty and Taiwan Relations Act, the United States effectively declared that peace and security in the Western Pacific is of national interest and it will strive to maintain them; but the United States cannot go alone, and it needs allies and partners. South Korea and Taiwan can support this common endeavor by investing in the appropriate capabilities vis-à-vis their adversaries’. Such deliberate choices are not for the primary benefit of the United States, but for South Korea and Taiwan themselves. History hints that in the future, the fate of the two countries might be more-closely-linked than currently realized. For the United States to support the continued security and stability of the two countries and the greater region, South Korea and Taiwan must themselves make wise decisions to bolster their security.

Ki Suh Jung is a U.S. Navy foreign area officer with experience in the Asia-Pacific. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Navy, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

Featured image: U.S.-made CM-11 tanks are fired in front of two 8-inch self-propelled artillery guns during military drills in southern Taiwan on May 30, 2019. (Photo via Sam Yeh/AFP/Getty Images)

Announcing the CIMSEC Warfighting Flotilla — Join Our New Naval Professional Society Today

By Dmitry Filipoff

Today we announce a CIMSEC initiative long in the making — a new naval professional society where warfighters and interested individuals can come together to discuss naval warfighting, force development, and the naval profession. Through this naval society — the CIMSEC Warfighting Flotilla — members will have candid, off-the-record discussions about the ever-changing nature of naval warfighting, how to better organize tactical learning, and how to refine naval professional development to meet warfighting challenges.

Through a months-long series of trial discussions we have amassed more than 60 plank-owning members, a strong and exciting start for our growing membership. These off-the-record conversations have been lively and candid, focusing on topics such as Warfare Tactics Instructor programs, air defense concepts, integrating for cross-community anti-submarine warfare, and much more. The connections made between our members has fostered professional development and expanded personal networks of tactically-minded individuals.

Today we make the Flotilla public and open for any interested individuals to join as members. Fill out the form below to join today and receive invites to our upcoming November sessions. Read on to learn more about the principles driving our growing community.

The Flotilla takes its name from the Torpedo Flotilla of the Atlantic Fleet, an early 20th century naval formation commanded by renowned naval commander and thinker William S. Sims. Sims transformed the Flotilla into an at-sea laboratory for the development of tactics and doctrine on the eve of the First World War. Sims systematically convened Flotilla sailors in equitable and candid conversations about the development of tactics and doctrine, which would inform subsequent at-sea exercises and formal publications. Many of the U.S. Navy’s senior leaders of the Second World War passed through Sims’ Flotilla as junior officers, where their professional development was no doubt enhanced by a collaborative spirit singularly focused on excelling at naval warfighting.

And those two core features are what animate the CIMSEC Warfighting Flotilla. Today the attention of warfighters is often pulled in myriad directions and across numerous burdens, often forcing the in-depth professional development of tactically-focused skills to take a backseat. The Flotilla’s discussion sessions are exclusively on topics of naval warfighting and force development to guarantee a tight focus on matters immediately relevant to warfighting excellence.

To ensure candid and equitable exchanges, Flotilla conversations are off-the-record, respectful, and collaborative. Issues are explored, solutions are offered, and individuals emerge from conversations with the potential for new relationships and fresh insights. Unless otherwise specified, all Flotilla members participate in a personal, unofficial capacity, ensuring all have an equitable opportunity to speak and be heard. In this community we recognize in earnest that helpful ideas and insights can come from any background and level of experience.

The CIMSEC Warfighting Flotilla will help advance the conversations surrounding naval warfighting and force development, while building community and enhancing professional development. Together we will build a strong community of tactically-minded members focused on advancing naval warfighting excellence. 

Join our new naval professional society today to participate and be kept apprised of future activities and member-only opportunities. There is much more to come from the Flotilla soon!

Dmitry Filipoff is CIMSEC’s Director of Online Content and Community Manager of the Warfighting Flotilla. Contact him at Content@cimsec.org.

Sea Control 289 — Naval Culture in Athens and Imperial Japan with Kunika Kakuta

By Walker Mills

Kunika Kakuta, a PhD student in the War Studies Department at King’s College, London joins us to talk about her dissertation comparing naval culture and politics in 5th century Athens and Imperial Japan. She discusses the relationship between naval institutions and politics, primary source research, and lessons for contemporary leaders.

Download Sea Control 289 – Naval Culture in Athens and Imperial Japan with Kunika Kakuta

Links

1. “The Thucydides Trap: Are the U.S. and China Headed for War?” by Graham Allison, The Atlantic, September, 24, 2015.
2. Seapower States: Maritime Culture, Continental Empires and the Conflict that Made the Modern World, by Andrew Lambert, Yale University Press, 2018.

Walker Mills is Co-Host of the Sea Control podcast. Contact the podcast team at Seacontrol@cimsec.org.

This episode was edited and produced by William McQuiston.

Sea Control 288 — Chinese Civilian Shipping and the threat to Taiwan with Tom Shugart

By Walker Mills

Thomas Shugart, a recently retired Navy captain and now defense analyst, discusses his recent piece in War on the Rocks, “Mind the Gap: How China’s Civilian Shipping Could Enable A Taiwan Invasion.” The conversation covers the balance of maritime power in the Strait of Taiwan, the People’s Maritime Militia, and how China could use civilian vessels to move its troops in a cross-strait invasion.

Download Sea Control 288 – Chinese Civilian Shipping and the threat to Taiwan with Tom Shugart

Links

1. “Mind the Gap: How China’s Civilian Shipping Could Enable A Taiwan Invasion,” by Thomas Shugart, War on the Rocks, August 16, 2021.
2. “The Better China is Prepared for War, the More it Can Crush US-DPP Collusion,” by Hu Xijin, Global Times, August 28, 2021.
3. “Davidson: China Could Try to Take Control of Taiwan In ‘Next Six Years,” Mallory Shelbourne, USNI News, March 9, 2021.
4. “China Maritime Report No. 4: Civil Transport in PLA Power Projection,” by Conor Kennedy, China Maritime Studies Institute of the U.S. Naval War College, December 6, 2019.
5. “Ramping the Strait: Quick and Dirty Solutions To Boost Amphibious Lift,” Conor Kennedy, China Brief from The Jamestown Foundation, July 16, 2021.
6. “PLA Uses Large Civilian Ferry Ship for Vehicle Transport in Cross-sea Landing Drills for 1st Time,” by Liu Xuanzun, Global Times, August 19, 2021.
7. MarineTraffic.com.

Walker Mills is Co-Host of the Sea Control podcast. Contact the podcast team at Seacontrol@cimsec.org.

This episode was edited and produced by David Suchyta.

Fostering the Discussion on Securing the Seas.