Our new nuclear enemy: Myanmar?

[TLAM Strike]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/04/report-myanmar-beginning-nuclear-weapons-program/

According to the AP via fox news Myanmar (or Burma) is trying to develop the bomb.

If you don't know about Myanmar (like the Mailman who stops by my work for lunch and my coworkers) its a country in South East Asia near Thailand and India. Its dirt poor, just think North Korea only worse.

What do they plan to use the bomb on? Anti-government protesters?

Just what the US needs, another war in the jungle. Does this mean the domino theory was right after all? :rotfl2:

[Dowly]

Why you must immediately assume that it is an hostile intend they going to use to bomb to? US has ****loads of nukes too but they are not used. SO does Russian and [insert nuke countries here]. Why is it so bad that some new country gets a nuke, I have never understood it. Having a nuke gives you quite a bit of protection, prolly why so many western countries have nukes.

And then, I dont get what right a country with nukes is to say that country X cant have them, that's hypocrisy isnt it?

Just dont get it.

EDIT: Ow and no, I'm not trying to attakc you or anything. Just something I've been pondering.

[Platapus]

Excellent points.

I don't think I will be digging my Myanmar bomb shelter anytime soon.

[TLAM Strike]

Where to start...
Oh they have been a military dictatorship for 30 years.
They have a opium funded army.
Only Ethnic Burmese are allowed be citizens.

Oh but that just effects their own citizens what about the rest of the world?

They are ranked 12th in number of active troops in the armed forces while being 40th in size.

Also they acceded (agreed to follow but did not sign) to the Nonproliferation Treaty. This report indicated they have violated that.

Those both are indications of a potential threat.

BTW most "western" countries don't have nuclear weapons. Only the US, UK and France do.

[Dowly]

Where to start...
Oh they have been a military dictatorship for 30 years.
They have a opium funded army.
Only Ethnic Burmese are allowed be citizens.

Oh but that just effects their own citizens what about the rest of the world?

They are ranked 12th in number of active troops in the armed forces while being 40th in size.

Also they acceded (agreed to follow but did not sign) to the Nonproliferation Treaty. This report indicated they have violated that.

Those both are indications of a potential threat.

BTW most "western" countries don't have nuclear weapons. Only the US, UK and France do.

None of that still says that they'd actually use the nukes. Like I said, having one gives one quite a bit of protection.

Let's put it upside down. If Myanmar would be the first one to have a nuke, others would soon follow with their nukes, just to protect themselves and have something to strike back with if necessarely.

I must ask again, what country with nukes have to say at country X if they want to have a nuke too? :hmmm:

As for the potential threat, didn't US attack Iraq under false reasons, that could be taken as a sign of threat too, right?

[TLAM Strike]

Let's put it upside down. If Myanmar would be the first one to have a nuke, others would soon follow with their nukes, just to protect themselves and have something to strike back with if necessarely. They shouldn't we prevent Myanmar from having nuclear weapons so the who region doesn't become a nuclear standoff like India and Pakistan?

[CaptainHaplo]

Dowly - to coin an old phrase - do you want to be at the mercy of the country whose leader is the LEAST stable?

Not to mention - those nations who are "dirt poor" will use any means available to acquire wealth. If that happens to be selling enriched uranium - or even less radioactive substances - to some knucklehead that wants to set off a bomb in downtown New York, London, Paris or Helsinki, they won't think twice if the person has the necessary funding. Given that alot of the current terrorist funding comes from the middle east, there is not a question that some groups could come up with substantial offers for such substances. You ok with making the stuff more available?

Thus - non-proliferation - is critical. Its also not just countries that currently have nukes not selling them - its also about keeping other countries from having them - simply so they don't become a threat to the rest of the world - whether directly or indirectly.

After all - if Myanmar sells some isotope, and a crazy sets if off in Beijing, the Chinese are not going to nuke Myanmar. So basically there is no security in doing nothing - but there is security in keeping these weapons - and their components - from spreading. For those that have them - nations that is - MAD keeps them from being used. But MAD doesn't work when your talking asymmetric threats.

[August]

Just something I've been pondering.

For that deterrence to work i'd think that one must also have the ability to deliver the device to it's intended target. Mere possession of a nuclear devices achieves nothing.

[Aramike]

Why you must immediately assume that it is an hostile intend they going to use to bomb to? US has ****loads of nukes too but they are not used. SO does Russian and [insert nuke countries here]. Why is it so bad that some new country gets a nuke, I have never understood it. Having a nuke gives you quite a bit of protection, prolly why so many western countries have nukes.

And then, I dont get what right a country with nukes is to say that country X cant have them, that's hypocrisy isnt it?

Just dont get it.

EDIT: Ow and no, I'm not trying to attakc you or anything. Just something I've been pondering.This is a fantastic question, but I believe it has a simple answer: hypocrisy or not, its in everyone's best interest to keep the list of nuclear-armed nations as small as possible.

Just think: get a room of ten people together and issue them all loaded guns. Will anyone shoot anyone purposefully/accidently? Probably not. Now make it 100 people. Anyone shooting now? Well, ... PROBABLY not but more likely. Now make it 1000 people. Will someone shoot now?

Now imagine that regarding nuclear arms, except with the consequences increased by several orders of magnitude. A human holocaust has been resting on a hairpin trigger for years now ... do we really want to issue more triggers?

[TLAM Strike]

For that deterrence to work i'd think that one must also have the ability to deliver the device to it's intended target. Mere possession of a nuclear devices achieves nothing.
In the article its reported that the DPRK is also providing aid in development of ballistic missiles.

However:
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/6683/abombdelivery.jpg

[XabbaRus]

Now why does that not surprise me.

BTW what does NK do for money, apart from consultancy work on missiles etc.

Does NK produce and sell drugs?

[Castout]

Now why does that not surprise me.

BTW what does NK do for money, apart from consultancy work on missiles etc.

Does NK produce and sell drugs?

As far as I know no. Arms sales is about 25% of North Korea economy as far as I know. No drugs coming from North Korea unlike Afghanistan with the Taliban.

The thing is Myanmar is a military junta ruled country. When responsible international law abiding countries possess nuclear arms the risk is minimal that these weapons would get into the wrong hands as as terrorists.

Proliferation of nuclear arms must be stopped otherwise what would deter any other countries from possessing them and hence changing the global order and risking greater global nuclear catastrophe than even what the cold war brought. I mean it was dangerous enough for the Soviet Union and US to proliferate them and that risk would be multiplied exponentially if every third world country wants to proliferate them too.

Nuclear arms are strategic weapons and thus have strategic consequences and not merely tactical. Its effect is thus long lasting and could potentially destabilize the world order and starts a new arms race between multi polar multi countries faction. This is INSANE.:nope:

In simple words when everybody has got nuclear arms everybody resorts to conventional war without fear of nuclear retaliation. And in order to minimize their fear of nuclear retaliation they would proliferate nuclear arms contributing even more risk to global nuclear war. Fear is never rational thing so once a country possesses nuclear arms they will proliferate them just to feel safe or guarantee their nuclear deterrence to remain effective and the other faction would do likewise in response.

even kids can see through this logic


The thing that dumbfounded me is when Pakistan went as nuclear power so did India. So any advances by superpower to arm any other country with nuclear arms would result in the nuclearalization of that country's natural enemy to maintain global balance and world order. But when somebody transferred nuclear arms know how to North Korea, South Korea and or Japan didn't go nuclear as well.

[Tribesman]

So this is a report put out by an opposition group in exile relating to information they got from a defector.
Deja vu?
But didn't Myanmars agreement with Russia and the IAEA on building its own nuclear program already include facilities for enrichment and isotope separation, so why are such things put down in that report as surprising revelations of secrets that can only mean the bomb.

Where to start...
Oh they have been a military dictatorship for 30 years.

Much longer than that.

They have a opium funded army.

As well as being gas and mineral funded, one main trading partner is India who have shifted their support for the people who won the election to support for their own business interests in Burma. What is interesting given the N.korean links in the news report is S.Korean companies being the majority stakeholder in Burmas gas industry.

Only Ethnic Burmese are allowed be citizens.

What is ethnic Burmese?

Oh but that just effects their own citizens what about the rest of the world?

Their internal wars for the past 60 years have had a regular habit of spilling into other countries which happen to be part of the rest of the world.

[Happy Times]

Myanmar is practically tied and allied to China so im waiting for their response.

And about the nuclear weapons, i feel that Finland needs at least to develop the capability to shorten the assembly time from months to weeks.

I dont trust NATO, EU or US nuclear umbrella.

[OneToughHerring]

"We know where they are, they are to the east, west, south, north of Rangoon." :DL

[Catfish]

Myanmar,
it was called Burma or Birma not so long ago ?
Well the Burma dictatorship is indeed a very bad one, maybe as bad as North Corea but not quite so badly brainwashing and indoctrinating its inhabitants.

Burma was not paid and equipped weapon-wise by the US before, i wonder if this makes a difference to other states like Afghanistan, Iran/Persia, Iraq. But it would provide some ports vital for China, or the US likewise. If it also has any resources like oil there can be no doubt where the next enemy is ... "to an imperial [nation] nothing is inconsistent which is expedient" :D

Greetings,
Catfish

[Oberon]

Hmm, could be the beginnings of a domino effect here. If I were the Bangladeshi government I'd be looking for some reassurances from India or Pakistan that they would protect Bangladesh with their nuclear umbrella because tensions between Bangladesh and Burma aren't exactly low.

Dowly raises good points, and being in a western country that has nuclear weapons at the ready, I automatically believe that no other nations can be trusted with them, however the world seems powerless to prevent this, and indeed it is, after all one can dismantle the hardware side of the program but you cannot put the genie back in the bottle now that it is out.

Ironic, perhaps soon we will be at a point where we are more likely to face nuclear attack than at any point during the Cold War (with the possible exception of the Cuban missile crisis).

What can one do? Bombing them would only strengthen their resolve to get on a level playing field, and embargoing them would just make the people suffer and do nothing to prevent the nuclear program.

What a bloody headache.

Oh...and TLAM Strike...MY TRUCK IS LOADED!

[OneToughHerring]

"The toughest Burmese bandit, could never understand it..." :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXxL2K3_-4c&feature=related

[TLAM Strike]

Now why does that not surprise me.

BTW what does NK do for money, apart from consultancy work on missiles etc.

Does NK produce and sell drugs?

Yes they do (apparently) a DPRK freighter was caught with drugs in international waters. The RAAF used it as target practice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQeWD6hm6Ak

What is ethnic Burmese? Not sure what its called but the ethnic group of the goverment leadership. Anyone who is for example Han Chinese or Indian in ethniciy is not allow to be a citizen of Myanmar.

[Tribesman]

Not sure what its called but the ethnic group of the goverment leadership. Anyone who is for example Han Chinese or Indian in ethniciy is not allow to be a citizen of Myanmar.
Oh dear.
Would you like to check again on all the chinese or all the han that are or are not considered official ethnicities in Burma, then could you do it with all the Indian ethnicities though I don't know if you want the indian and other modern breakdowns or the "indian" pre independance ethnicities.
You do have a point about the dictatorships oppresion of minorities, but you vastly overstate and oversimplify it .....plus of course ignore that these issues existed before the military juntas took power and that the dictatorship does in fact oppress everyone regardless of ethnicity if it fels like doing so.