This paper examines the complex role of intellectuals in the nationalist movements in Taiwan and, by implication, their role in making war and peace across the Taiwan Strait. Ideal typical organic intellectuals, while following the ethic of responsibility, are willing to use dubious means, including extremisms like distortions, exaggerations and even war, in advancing their nationalist causes. These means can be politically effective, but they are ethically problematic. Professionals want to remain neutral and objective in their study of nationalism, and critical intellectuals want to focus on fairness andjustice to all, especially to the disadvantaged groups, in any national developments or arrangements. The professional and critical intellectual groups follow the ethic of ultimate ends, but both are marginalized in the nationalist movements in Taiwan. They largely stand on the sidelines, watching history happen. They are ethical but seldom effective, unless they become partisan and are willing to use dubious means. Such action, however, would turn them into organic intellectuals. These three roles of intellectuals also represent three aspects of intellectuality. They are ideal typically in the sense that intellectuals may transit among the roles. None-theless, how intellectuals balance these roles and handle the dilemmas between ethics and efficacy affects the direction of cross-Strait relations, especially with respect to war and peace in the region. This article is based on a historical-comparative analysis of the role of intellectuals, interviews of intellectuals in Tawain, and a textual study of the writings. It hopes to shed some light on the nationalist developments across the Tawain Strait.