You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Southeast Asia
Burma seeks nuclear weapons alliance with N Korea
2006-07-05
BURMA'S military junta has attempted to buy nuclear weapons technology from North Korea's rogue regime in an alliance that presents a frightening new threat to regional security. The US issued a heavy-handed warning to Burmese military dictator Than Shwe to cease and desist all such activities after discovering Rangoon's bid late last year.

The prospect of the two pariah states of Asia joining together has alarmed Western intelligence agencies, with the US privately circulating a draft resolution condemning Burma's actions for the UN Security Council. The terms of the resolution would say that Burma constituted a "threat to peace and security". This would be a Chapter Six resolution, which does not imply that the Security Council would authorise the use of force against Burma or move directly to sanctions. But it would be the first time Burma has been formally censured by the Security Council. It is understood that no nuclear material has been transferred.
I'm starting to come around to the idea that we should give up our nuclear weapons, if only because having them will put us in the company of the most dirtbag nations on the face of the earth: NKor, Burma, Iran...
Posted by:Fred

#12  "But it would be the first time Burma has been formally censured by the Security Council."

Says a lot.
Posted by: Elmash Phaitch4207   2006-07-05 23:48  

#11  You mean, like actually exterminating people? What sort of annihilation are you talking about?
Posted by: Rafael   2006-07-05 23:39  

#10  
"I'm afraid the only answer I see at this pass is annihilation..."

Same here, and it works for me. Actually, I'm fairly certain that's the choice they would make as well. So, I guess it works for them too!

Win/Win all around. Let's get started.
Posted by: Fur Trapper   2006-07-05 23:35  

#9  forcible conversion of a strongly-held religion doesn't work, it just creates martyrs.

Martyrs and subversives. And cynical hypocrites of those who weren't strong believers in their former religion, but absolutely don't believe in their new one. All in all a poisonous snake taken to the bosom. The Catholic Church in Spain discovered this to their sorrow post-1492, when the Jews and the Moors were given the choice to convert or be expelled. The decendents of those are stilled called Marranos, and in some places still not wholly trusted, as I've been told. Families that to this day still take a pair of ancient silver candlesticks out of hiding before Friday night dinners, and for some reason don't eat bread during Easter week...
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-07-05 17:07  

#8  Problem is, forcible conversion of a strongly-held religion doesn't work, it just creates martyrs. I'm afraid the only answer I see at this pass is annihilation; them or us. Hate it, but my kids don't deserve the world it looks like we're leaving them...
Posted by: jay-dubya   2006-07-05 11:14  

#7  
"Diplomacy won't work against the proliferation/Islamization circus that is dominating world affairs."

Worldwide, Islam IS the problem. Until a decision is made to destroy Islam and force its surviving adherents to convert or die, it will continue to be the slowly growing cancer it has always been.

Posted by: Fur Trapper   2006-07-05 10:12  

#6  Some one listened.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-07-05 08:11  

#5  Once the ABM system is operational I agree ICBM nukes become rather old news. That just means more money for robotic warefare toys. :)
Posted by: djohn66   2006-07-05 07:59  

#4  We really don't need nukes anymore. I agree Fred, cold war weapon, not really needed. We had Nukes because they could scare the hell out of the Russians and keep them in check. The weapon worked on a mass scale to insure hitting the target. Now we can remove a government with conventional missles in a mass strike.

Posted by: 49 Pan   2006-07-05 06:20  

#3  Diplomacy won't work against the proliferation/Islamization circus that is dominating world affairs. Do we not owe our children a future where their security is assured? If so then why the hell don't we take the military means to neutralize these threats? We couldn't do it under the NATO/Warsaw Pact alignment system. We can now. What the hell are we waiting for?
Posted by: Anginens Threreng8133   2006-07-05 04:56  

#2  BURMA = like Osama > was "Our Man", or one of them, during the Cold War against the USSR. Still say America is paying the price for focusing on larger regional nations like India and Thailand, etc. - my recommendation to Dubya would be less UNO, more Western direct investment-development. Its Burma's turn.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-07-05 01:26  

#1  Khan and Kimmy need visible horrible deaths to deter future repeats. Perhaps kimmy could be eaten by his slaves/workers.
Posted by: 3dc   2006-07-05 00:15  

00:00