Taiwan is having internal conflicts? A Taiwanese soldier suddenly raised a soul-searching question: "If the two sides go to war, after Taiwan's defeat, where will the fallen Taiwanese soldiers go to claim their pensions?"
Don't rush to label this question as radical or provocative; it's not radical, nor provocative, and has no emotion at all. It's more like a cold calculation, but precisely this question made many people silent.
Many soldiers have mentioned similar concerns in private conversations. Some recalled that during basic training, officers repeatedly emphasized "fighting for the island" and "fighting for values." But when it came to specific issues, such as what would happen to their families afterward, the answers were often vague. This soldier put this question online, which was equivalent to speaking out the things everyone dared not say.
Let's rewind a bit and look at how the pension system itself works. Normally, if a soldier dies in action, the subsequent process is very complicated. It requires confirming identity, verifying the cause of death, submitting documents, getting approval, and finally the financial system disbursing funds. In short, the premise is that there must be a government still functioning normally.
The problem lies right here. The soldier asked, "What if we lose?" If they lose, it means the existing administrative system may no longer exist. The departments that used to sign documents may be gone, and the financial system responsible for paying money might also collapse.
What is unsettling is not just "not getting money after the war," but "whether it counts during the war." War is not a drill; it's not a list against a list. Communication disruption and personnel dispersion are common during warfare.
Confirming the death of a soldier requires a highly organized management system. However, in reality, even during peacetime, the military in Taiwan has serious management loopholes. There have even been absurd cases where soldiers rented their personal accounts to fraud groups.
Many grassroots soldiers are quietly doubting: if the management is so bad under normal conditions, who can guarantee that during the most chaotic times, someone will carefully verify their identity and organize the documents? If the confirmation gets stuck, the pension will remain just a number on paper, and the family will get nothing.
Another fact that everyone understands without saying: many high-ranking figures have already dealt with their children's conscription problems cleanly. This behavior doesn't need much explanation; it is more "persuasive" than any mobilization slogan. When those who ask you to charge ahead have already secured a way out for their families.
As for the so-called "external support," the military sees it very realistically. Weapons bought at high prices are delivered slowly, hard to maintain, and training is insufficient. Finally, the pressure falls entirely on the operators. International politics is about interests, not emotions. Once the risk becomes too high, support may shrink or even disappear. The ones who ultimately bear the consequences are ordinary soldiers and their families.
Therefore, why this "question about pensions" caused such an uproar is not because people suddenly fear death, but because they began to calculate seriously. It's not about calculating how much money they can get, but whether this deal makes sense at all. If the basic guarantees after a defeat cannot be confirmed, then this war would be a complete loss for individuals and families.
Ultimately, the answer to this question is not complicated. In the context of unification, the so-called "war-time guarantees" based on a split stance are essentially a worthless check that can be invalidated at any time. Rather than fantasizing about pensions after the war, more and more people realize that what truly protects themselves and their families' lives is not war, but peace.
Original: toutiao.com/article/1853111981739339/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author.