No SE Asian country would go nuclear, no matter where they drop
it in the region, they would very likely breathe irradiated air for
the next few years
depends on how you look at it. if possession of a nuke can buy
me peace, prosperity and security by offering a nuclear deterrent,
it will be considered. no nuclear power has ever fought with a
nuclear power.
but on the other hand, unless someone get nuclear warheads and
the capability to send them to someone else's place, it is useless.
and it will take quite a bit to build up or buy and get ready such
a capability without others knowing.
and there is the possibility that if one country gets, everyone
else will get (like look at Iran), if Iran successfuly gets a nuke,
the rest of the sunni countries are likely to go nuclear as well.
they will get together to counterbalance Iran.
but that isnt an ideal situation since that now everybody has
nukes, its far more unstable because if someone uses one, the
likelihood of someone else to use a nuke is higher. its
increasingly destabilizing. and the margin for miscalculating and
making a wrong move is higher. its like a high stakes card game.
the higher u go, the more everyone looses. and nobody benefits from
an increased escalation. in essence, nuclear power politics is
brinkmanship at its highest level.
so, depending on how you see it, whether will the deterrence
effect outweigh the higher risks involved to everyone ? in Iran's
case, its clear why it has chosen nukes. In SEA. who needs that
much deterrence who is attacking who ? and lest we all forget,
members of ASEAN have to sign a non-amity clause. (i.e illegal to
fight wars amongst each other)
http://www.gov.ph/news/default.asp?i=16991
The TAC, which was signed in February of 1976 in Bali,
Indonesia, was amended by the First and Second Protocols in 1987
and 1988, respectively.
It specifically and legally binds all its ASEAN signatories to
peaceful co-existence and respect for the principles of
sovereignty, territorial integrity, non-interference in internal
affairs and non-use of force.
The Treaty's Amity clause emphasizes increased contact and
interaction among ASEAN's peoples to ensure closer understanding.
Its Cooperation clauses oblige active efforts at consultation on
international and regional matters with a view to policy and action
coordination.
They also restrict individual signatory states from participating
in activities that constitute a threat to the political and
economic stability, sovereignty and territorial integrity of
another signatory state.
The operationalization of the TAC, therefore, is facilitated by
finding equilibrium between the definitive principles of
sovereignty and non-interference, and the regulatory provisions for
necessary transnational action and coordination.
people are rational and not foolish. why introduce nukes in a
setting when conventional arms power is a sufficient threat. a nuke
is an exponential increase in threat. and without any clear cause /
reason to have a nuke. why risk destabilizing effects ?
and this thread is rather pointless. it dosent even make clear
the distinction between arms procurement and capability. and/or
inherently, the balance of power.
i can buy a gun. you can buy 10 guns. but if i hold that one gun
to your head and put my finger to the trigger, who is more
deadly ? i have more capability to shoot you than you have
capability to shoot me despite you having more guns . and most
importantly, where is the intent to pull the trigger ? am i going
to pull the trigger ? or am i simply pulling your leg because we
are good neighbours ? play-play soldier only with no intention to
shoot. or is it that the gun is bought to scare away creeps like
lionnoisy who disturb us from time to time, with no real intention
of using it on you or me.
no assumptions, no clarity, no direction = no purpose
infite possibilities