In order to fully reconcile with each other, we should hold peace talks on both sides (of the Taiwan Strait), Ma said. In that case, prior to the talks, I would demand the withdrawal of the missiles or some other way to remove the threat.
The missiles are crucial for China to quickly hitting Taiwanese air defenses, ships in port, air fields, and command and control facilities to allow China's aircraft and ships to close with the Taiwanese to cripple their defenses that might stop a Chinese airborne and amphibious invasion.
It will be interesting to see if the Chinese will actually pull back their missiles to maintain their charm offensive. It will be interesting to see if Ma accepts anything less before he starts negotiating. What on earth does an "other way to remove the threat" count? Pointing them west?
I suspect that Ma will begin talks by accepting some farcical notion of "other ways" that leave the Chinese missiles in place, ready to fire. After all, it would be rude for Ma to imply that his peace partner has less than peaceful intentions toward Taiwan, eh?
Update: Strategypage writes that the Chinese want to move the missiles closer to cities so that isolated technicians don't quit the PLA in high numbers due to the lack of entertainment options in their off-duty hours:
China's recent announcement that it would withdraw most of the 1,300 ballistic missiles stationed near the coast opposite Taiwan, was largely touted as an effort to improve relations between the two nations (despite the fact that China considers Taiwan a wayward, and heavily armed, province, not a nation). But the real reason, or a bonus reason, is that the troops stationed down there are not happy, and many are not staying in the military. This is a major problem.
Two things should be kept in mind. One, China probably doesn't need to move all their missiles close to cities to bolster reenlistment. Just allowing a rotation of units from city bases to operational bases near the coast would do the trick. So the question is how many missiles of the 1,300+ that China deploys near Taiwan are needed to launch the first strike on Taiwan to pave the way for the main naval and aerial assault?
Second, the Taiwanese need to be careful not to give up too much defense-wise for something that the Chinese will do regardless, at least to some extent. Just agreeing to nothing will lead China to reduce the missile count. And if the Chinese, in response to a Taiwanese refusal to offer concessions, then refuse to move the PLA missile units back to the cities, more of those needed PLA missile troops will not reenlist.
So if China reduces their missile force deployed along the strait by half in a peace deal, yet China only needs 600 missiles (to pick a number out of the hat) to successfully disrupt Taiwanese defenses, China has not actually reduced the real threat to Taiwan. And those redeployed missiles might be mobile enough to reach the coast to continue the barrage on Taiwan before the existing missiles are exhausted. And China will be able to retain the missile crews more easily. So if Taiwan agrees to some "reciprocal" move that actually harms their defenses, China emerges stronger at the end of the day.
A nice lesson about the dangers of "peace" talks.
