First, this book is extremely dry and fairly technical. If you're not a student of strategic studies, arms control, or nuclear non-proliferation, you will not enjoy this book.
Second, the book proceeds from an assumption that, even when it was published, was increasingly tenuous: that Taiwan's development of a nuclear deterrent would have been a catastrophe. The authors seem to accept this assumption, as well as China's threats to invade Taiwan if it became a nuclear-armed (quasi) state, without any further consideration. Given the passage of time, and China's corresponding changes of posture, as well as other episodes like the 2011 Western campaign in Libya and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, a frank and honest cost/benefit analysis would have gone a long way. Instead, Colonel Gray Cheng is hailed as a hero, and his detractors are dismissed as short-sighted. In the event that Beijing forces a crossing of the Formosa Strait at some point in the next ten to twenty years, Cheng will be forever cursed as a traitor. The truth is clearly more complicated, and the reader deserved that discussion. If Albright and Stricker cared to produce a second edition with an addendum debating the issue, I'd be happy to write that rebuttal.
Many of their conclusions, which are served up as case studies in non-proliferation, are also apples-to-oranges comparisons given Taiwan's unique status. Their allusions and comparisons to North Korea are of particular note: whereas American pressure curtailed Taiwan's nuclear program because it was potentially inconvenient to American policy goals, China clearly allows North Korea to maintain a crude deterrent for the very same reason: its inconvenience to America and Western allies. The same could be said of Russia's tacit support for Iran's nuclear adventurism: Albright and Stricker criticize the Iran JCPOA, but fail to recognize that many of the JCPOA's shortcomings tie directly back to Russia's desire to split American attention.
Overall, this book is worth reading by those with specific topical interests, but it's a flawed record of the topic, and its authors draw unnecessarily specific conclusions from a very complex sequence of events.