> As soon as China catches a whiff of the program, it’s an instant invasion
This is correct and why any such project would need to be intensely covert and/or externally facilitated.
> doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) rests on both parties being left in guaranteed ruins
You don’t need MAD. Tehran isn’t aiming for MAD with America, and neither is Pyongyang. The threat of even a tactical retaliation has, to date, been sufficient to keep great powers at bay.
Oung is speaking the language of deterrence and non-proliferation; we are past that, unfortunately [1].
The risks don’t outweigh the potential benefits. Building a functional nuke isn’t an operation with a couple of laptops and internet connection. Also, Taiwanese economy is extremely tied to China. Things aren’t really black and white here. It’s not like all Taiwanese hate all mainlanders, nobody flies between countries and etc. Supermajority of people actually support status quo, rather than aiming for complete independence. It’s not an easy thing to balance.
Good neighbours, strong fences. You don’t need to hate your neighbour to appreciate sovereignty. If anything, returning to mutual respect between Taipei and Beijing, a stance which was being moved towards until Xi, should further cross-strait ties.
There's a huge reason for Taiwan to announce that: their primary opponent already has nuclear weapons!
The reason Israel is heavily encouraged to maintain nuclear strategic ambiguity is an attempt to dissuade the entire Middle East from developing nuclear weapons in response.
This essay explains very lucidly why it's not as straightforward as you think: https://taipology.substack.com/p/no-nukes-are-not-going-to-s...