conflict
Inspired by Ukraine, Armed by the U.S., Reinvented by Tech: Taiwan’s New Way of War

Sam Cooper
HIMARS Test Marks Taiwan’s Move to Jungle-Hardened, Tech-Backed Defense Doctrine
The HIMARS roar that echoed off the coastal mountains of southern Taiwan this week was more than a weapons test. It was a declaration of deterrence.
From their perch at Jiupeng military base—where steep green ridges descend toward the Pacific—Taiwanese forces fired the U.S.-made rocket artillery system in a live-fire display designed to show how the island is transforming itself into a fortress of modern asymmetric warfare. The Taiwanese unit conducting the test had trained with U.S. forces in Oklahoma in 2024, and this week’s exercise marked the first time they demonstrated their proficiency with HIMARS on home soil.
The HIMARS platform—demonstrated in footage provided to The Bureau from Taiwan Plus—signals a decisive shift toward a mobile, nimble defensive force designed to face overwhelming scale. Unlike fixed missile sites or air bases—prime targets expected to be destroyed within hours of a PLA first-wave assault—truck-mounted HIMARS units can slip into position, launch a strike, and quickly vanish into Taiwan’s jungle-thick terrain and cliffside roads. These launchers are meant to hide, hit, and move—relying on camouflage, speed, and the natural topography of the island to stay alive and strike again.
This transformation had been quietly underway for years. In September 2023, The Bureau met with Taiwanese military strategists and international journalists at a closed-door roundtable in Taipei. Among them was a Ukrainian defense consultant—invited to share hard-won battlefield lessons from Kyiv’s resistance. The strategist told the group that the most crucial lesson for Taiwan was psychological: to instill in citizens and soldiers alike the will to prepare for aggression that seems impossible and illogical, before it arrives. “You must believe the worst can happen,” the Ukraine vet said.
That same week in Taipei, Taiwan’s then-Foreign Minister Joseph Wu made the case directly in an interview:
“There’s a growing consensus among the key analysts in the United States and also in Taiwan that war is not inevitable and the war is not imminent,” Wu said. “And we have been making significant investment in our own defense—not just increasing our military budget, but also engaging serious military reforms, in the sense of asymmetric strategy and asymmetric capability.”
That principle now guides Taiwan’s evolving force posture. The May 12 HIMARS test—launching precision-guided rockets into a Pacific exclusion zone—was the first public demonstration of the mobile artillery system since the U.S. delivered the first batch in late 2024. With a range of 300 kilometers, HIMARS provides not only mobility but standoff power, allowing Taiwan’s forces to strike amphibious staging areas, beachheads, and ships from hardened inland positions. Lockheed Martin engineers observed the drills, which were broadcast across Taiwanese news networks as both a military signal and psychological campaign.
The live-fire exercise also marked the debut of the Land Sword II, a domestically developed surface-to-air missile system designed to counter diverse aerial threats, including cruise missiles, aircraft, and drones. Land Sword II adds a mobile, all-weather air defense layer to Taiwan’s increasingly dense multi-domain network. By deploying it alongside HIMARS, Taiwan demonstrated its commitment to building overlapping shields—striking at invading forces while protecting its launch platforms from aerial suppression.
But these new missile systems are only the tip of the spear.
Taiwan’s military has quietly abandoned the vestiges of a Cold War posture centered on fleet battles and long-range missile parity with the mainland. Defense officials now concede that attempts to match Beijing plane-for-plane or ship-for-ship are a dead end. Instead, inspired by the “porcupine” concept outlined by retired U.S. Marines and intelligence officials, Taiwan is remaking itself into a smart, lethal archipelago fortress—one where unmanned drones, dispersed missile cells, and underground fiber-linked command posts neutralize China’s numerical advantage.
Wu, who now serves as Secretary-General of Taiwan’s National Security Council, has been one of the doctrine’s most consistent advocates. In his writings and interviews, Wu points to Ukraine’s ability to hold off a vastly superior invader through mobility, deception, and smart munitions. “We are not seeking parity. We are seeking survivability,” he wrote in Foreign Affairs. “And if we survive, we win.”
A New Arsenal of Ideas: From Silicon Valley to the Taiwan Strait
If Ukraine showed the value of agile, off-the-shelf technologies on the battlefield, Taiwan seems poised to go a step further—by integrating cutting-edge systems developed not by defense contractors, but by Silicon Valley insurgents.
Among the most closely watched innovators is Palmer Luckey, the former Oculus founder whose defense firm, Anduril Industries, is quietly revolutionizing battlefield autonomy. Through its Dive Technologies division and flagship Ghost and Bolt drone platforms, Anduril builds AI-guided aerial and underwater drones capable of swarming enemy ships, submarines, and even mines—exactly the kinds of systems Taiwan could deploy along its maritime approaches and chokepoints.
Luckey, who visited Japan and South Korea in early 2025 to brief U.S. allies on asymmetric AI warfare, has warned that in a Taiwan invasion scenario, the side with better autonomous targeting and tracking could determine victory before a single human-fired missile is launched.
“The PLA is betting big on AI,” he told Business Insider. “If Taiwan and the U.S. don’t match that, we’re done.”
Much of this strategy finds intellectual backing in The Boiling Moat, a 2024 strategy volume edited by former U.S. National Security Advisor Matt Pottinger. The book proposes a multi-layered defense of Taiwan that includes hardened ground troops, swarming drones, portable anti-ship missiles, and AI battlefield networking.
Pottinger argues that Taiwan must become “the toughest target on earth”—a phrase now common among Taiwanese officers briefing American delegations. Speaking to NPR last year, Pottinger noted that Taiwan’s survival doesn’t rest on matching China’s power, but on “convincing Beijing that the price of conquest will be far too high to bear.”
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Invite your friends and earn rewards
conflict
Trump dismisses US intelligence that Iran wasn’t pursuing nuclear bomb before Israeli attack

From LifeSiteNews
By Dave DeCamp
When asked about Tulsi Gabbard’s assessment, President Trump said, ‘I don’t care what she said. I think they’re very close to having [a nuclear weapon].’
Ahead of Israel’s attacks on Iran, U.S. intelligence assessed that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons and that even if it chose to do so, it would take up to three years for Tehran to be able to produce and deliver a nuclear bomb against a target of its choosing, CNN reported on Tuesday, citing people familiar with the intelligence.
The U.S. assessment goes against the claims from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who launched the war under the pretext of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But President Trump appears to be taking Israel’s word over his own intelligence agencies, as he told reporters that he didn’t care about his director of national intelligence’s assessment on the issue.
In March, DNI Tulsi Gabbard said that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Her assessment was reflected in the Intelligence Community’s annual threat assessment.
When asked about this assessment, President Trump said, “I don’t care what she said. I think they’re very close to having [a nuclear weapon].”
Netanyahu claimed in an interview on Sunday that he shared intelligence with the U.S. that Iran could have developed a nuclear weapon within months or a year, although that was not the conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies, based on the CNN report. But even based on Netanyahu’s own timeline, the U.S. would have had time to continue negotiations with Iran.
Israel attacked Iran two days before another round of negotiations between the U.S. and Iran was set to be held. Trump had been demanding that Iran eliminate its nuclear enrichment program, which was a non-starter for Tehran. Despite the apparent impasse, Iran was set to present a counter-proposal to the U.S., but the talks were canceled after Israel launched its war.
Reprinted with permission from Antiwar.com.
Business
Trump makes impact on G7 before he makes his exit

Trump Rips Into Obama and Trudeau at G7 for a “Very Big Mistake” on Russia
At the G7 in Canada, President Trump didn’t just speak—he delivered a headline-making indictment.
Standing alongside Canada’s Prime Minister, he directly blasted Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau, accusing them of committing a “very big mistake” by booting Russia out of the G8. He warned that this move didn’t deter conflict—it unleashed it, and he insists it paved the way for the war in Ukraine.
Before the working sessions began, the two leaders fielded questions. The first topic: the ongoing trade negotiations between the U.S. and Canada. Trump didn’t hesitate to point out that the issue wasn’t personal—it was philosophical.
“It’s not so much holding up. I think we have different concepts,” Trump said. “I have a tariff concept, Mark [Carney] has a different concept, which is something that some people like.”
He made it clear that he prefers a more straightforward approach. “I’ve always been a tariff person. It’s simple, it’s easy, it’s precise and it just goes very quickly.”
Carney, he added, favors a more intricate framework—“also very good,” Trump said. The goal now, according to Trump, is to examine both strategies and find a path forward. “We’re going to look at both and we’re going to come out with something hopefully.”
When asked whether a deal could be finalized in a matter of days or weeks, Trump didn’t overpromise, but he left the door open. “It’s achievable but both parties have to agree.”
Then the conversation took an unexpected turn.
Standing next to Canada’s Prime Minister, whose predecessor helped lead that push, Trump argued that isolating Moscow may have backfired. “The G7 used to be the G8,” he said, pointing to the moment Russia was kicked out.
He didn’t hold back. “Barack Obama and a person named Trudeau didn’t want to have Russia in, and I would say that was a mistake because I think you wouldn’t have a war right now if you had Russia in.”
This wasn’t just a jab at past leaders. Trump was drawing a direct line from that decision to the war in Ukraine. According to him, expelling Russia took away any real chance at diplomacy before things spiraled.
“They threw Russia out, which I claimed was a very big mistake even though I wasn’t in politics then, I was loud about it.” For Trump, diplomacy doesn’t mean agreement—it means keeping adversaries close enough to negotiate.
“It was a mistake in that you spent so much time talking about Russia, but he’s no longer at the table. It makes life more complicated. You wouldn’t have had the war.”
Then he made it personal. Trump compared two timelines—one with him in office, and one without. “You wouldn’t have a war right now if Trump were president four years ago,” he said. “But it didn’t work out that way.”
Before reporters could even process Trump’s comments on Russia, he shifted gears again—this time turning to Iran.
Asked whether there had been any signs that Tehran wanted to step back from confrontation, Trump didn’t hesitate. “Yeah,” he said. “They’d like to talk.”
The admission was short but revealing. For the first time publicly, Trump confirmed that Iran had signaled interest in easing tensions. But he made it clear they may have waited too long.
“They should have done that before,” he said, referencing a missed 60-day negotiation window. “On the 61st day I said we don’t have a deal.”
Even so, he acknowledged that both sides remain under pressure. “They have to make a deal and it’s painful for both parties but I would say Iran is not winning this war.”
Then came the warning, delivered with unmistakable urgency. “They should talk and they should talk IMMEDIATELY before it’s too late.”
Eventually, the conversation turned back to domestic issues: specifically, immigration and crime.
He confirmed he’s directing ICE to focus its efforts on sanctuary cities, which he accused of protecting violent criminals for political purposes.
He pointed directly at major Democrat-led cities, saying the worst problems are concentrated in deep blue urban centers. “I look at New York, I look at Chicago. I mean you got a really bad governor in Chicago and a bad mayor, but the governor is probably the worst in the country, Pritzker.”
And he didn’t stop there. “I look at how that city has been overrun by criminals and New York and L.A., look at L.A. Those people weren’t from L.A. They weren’t from California most of those people. Many of those people.”
According to Trump, the crime surge isn’t just a local failure—it’s a direct consequence of what he called a border catastrophe under President Biden. “Biden allowed 21 million people to come into our country. Of that, vast numbers of those people were murderers, killers, people from gangs, people from jails. They emptied their jails into the U.S. Most of those people are in the cities.”
“All blue cities. All Democrat-run cities.”
He closed with a vow—one aimed squarely at the ballot box. Trump said he’ll do everything in his power to stop Democrats from using illegal immigration to influence elections.
“They think they’re going to use them to vote. It’s not going to happen.”
Just as the press corps seemed ready for more, Prime Minister Carney stepped in.
The momentum had clearly shifted toward Trump, and Carney recognized it. With a calm smile and hands slightly raised, he moved to wrap things up.
“If you don’t mind, I’m going to exercise my role, if you will, as the G7 Chair,” he said. “Since we have a few more minutes with the president and his team. And then we actually have to start the meeting to address these big issues, so…”
Trump didn’t object. He didn’t have to.
By then, the damage (or the impact) had already been done. He had steered the conversation, dropped one headline after another, and reshaped the narrative before the summit even began.
By the time Carney tried to regain control, it was already too late.
Wherever Trump goes, he doesn’t just attend the event—he becomes the event.
Thanks for reading! This post took time and care to put together, and we did our best to give this story the coverage it deserved.
If you like my work and want to support me and my team and help keep this page going strong, the most powerful thing you can do is sign up for the email list and become a paid subscriber.
Your monthly subscription goes further than you think. Thank you so much for your support.
This story was made possible with the help of Overton —I couldn’t have done it without him.
If you’d like to support his growing network, consider subscribing for the month or the year. Your support helps him expand his team and cover more stories like this one.
We both truly appreciate your support!
-
Business2 days ago
The CBC is a government-funded giant no one watches
-
conflict2 days ago
Middle East clash sends oil prices soaring
-
Business2 days ago
Trump makes impact on G7 before he makes his exit
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta is investing up to $50 million into new technologies to help reduce oil sands mine water
-
Also Interesting2 days ago
How to Use Bonuses at Magius Casino and Similar Websites
-
conflict2 days ago
Trump Threatens Strike on Khamenei as Israel Pounds Iranian Military Command
-
conflict2 days ago
Trump: ‘We’ have control over Iranian airspace; know where Khomeini is hiding
-
Alberta1 day ago
Central Alberta MP resigns to give Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre a chance to regain a seat in Parliament