Taipei’s reported plan to deploy United Sates-supplied HIMARS rocket systems in the Penghu and Dongyin islands, combined with some secessionists’ call for so-called “pre-emptive strikes”, has injected a fresh dose of volatility into the already tense cross-Strait situation.

Beijing’s response was swift and blunt. On Tuesday, Jiang Bin, spokesman for the Ministry of National Defense, said that the thinking of “Taiwan independence” elements was becoming “increasingly absurd and overconfident”, and that any forces on the island daring to provoke conflict would inevitably face annihilation.

The phrasing was severe, but not theatrical. Strip away the rhetoric and the military balance is unambiguous. Taiwan has bought dozens of HIMARS launchers from the United States as part of an arms package worth roughly $11.1 billion. But even if all purchased systems are delivered, this remains marginal against the People Liberation Army’s might of the Chinese mainland.

This is why even US analysts describe HIMARS as a tactical irritant rather than a strategic game-changer. Penghu’s geography is unforgiving: 126 square kilometers of flat land, where the launchers will be highly visible to satellite, drone and radar surveillance and thus rapidly targeted by long-range rocket artillery, ballistic missiles and air power. A “porcupine” is less intimidating when trapped in a glass box.

More destabilizing than the hardware is the mindset implied by talk of “pre-emptive strikes”. History offers little comfort to weaker actors who persuade themselves that limited “offensive” action can offset a deeply unfavorable balance of power. The PLA’s doctrine, force posture and repeated exercises all suggest that any strike on the mainland will be met with an immediate and overwhelming response to safeguard national integrity, a process in which geography, scale and industrial capacity would enable the mainland to prosecute decisively.

There is also a political-economic dimension that is often glossed over in Taipei’s security debate. Taiwan’s growing reliance on US arms has been matched by deepening economic exploitation by the US. Recent reporting by Reuters and the Associated Press on so-called US-Taiwan trade negotiations points to an uncomfortable pattern: under the banner of “resilience” and “de-risking”, Taiwan is being pressed to open sensitive sectors and reengineer supply chains in ways that weaken its own competitive advantages, particularly in high-end manufacturing. These are deals that benefit the US’ reindustrialization bid but hollow out Taiwan’s industry and economy.

The asymmetry is hard to ignore. The US authorizes arms sales, its arms contractors reap the profits, and its politicians offer rhetorical assurances. But Taiwan will bear the costs. The island’s GDP, population density and trade dependence mean that even a short conflict would impose devastating economic and social losses. According to World Bank data, Taiwan’s economy is highly dependent on trade — exports?account?for?about?70 percent?of?the island’s gross?domestic?product?— a reminder that stability, not “theatrical deterrence”, underpins its prosperity.

For the island’s secessionist-minded Lai Ching-te authorities, the reality is forward-deploying a small number of HIMARS rocket systems, or indulging in rhetoric about “pre-emption”, only serves to increase the risk of miscalculation without raising the odds in favor of “independence”.

The Ministry of Defense spokesperson’s warning was harsh, but its subtext was straightforward: power disparities do not disappear because one side chooses to ignore them because they are not to its advantage. For Taipei, the more difficult — yet realistic — perception it needs to accept is that no amount of imported weaponry can ever help deliver its secessionist ambition.

In a cross-Strait conflict, illusions would be sunk without trace. The only viable future for Taiwan is its reunification with the motherland.