Our new nuclear enemy: Myanmar?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Dowly

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.