Our new nuclear enemy: Myanmar?

TLAM Strike · 06-05-10, 08:43 PM

Quote:

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 · 06-05-10, 09:01 PM

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.

06-05-10, 09:01 PM	#2
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo