Those New Mandala readers who follow debates about Burma’s nuclear ambitions (or lack thereof) will want to read this new exchange of letters relevant to the international analysis of the issue.
I hardly pretend to have the technical credentials to judge the evidence or to fully appreciate the subtleties of dealing with defector testimony. But, for what it’s worth, I still think that my earlier argument about “presentationalism” in Burma’s prospective (but apparently lackluster) nuclear program makes some sense.
As I asked back in August, “[a]re we…consuming parts of a nuclear story that have already been maximised, exaggerated and pre-packaged for the consumption of Burma’s senior military leadership?”
In any twisted xenophobic paranoid mind of any military government the conclusion to go Nuclear “Thus solve or mitigate all the wrongs by the West and garner respect through ultimate military strength/weapon ” is inevitable.
Debating or discussing the reality/possibility of Myanmar going “Nuclear” is akin to again validating Seligman & Maier’s well proven “learned Helplessness”
SPDC being subjected to treatments reserved for/worst than towards A Kim.
SPDC wanting to be like A Kim is assured as Seligman & Maier’s.
Nobody who has a faint idea of Myanmar history will be proud of the treatment the west has been meting out to Myanmar.
As history is the witness with Myanmar having more than the means of DPRK & Pakistan combined
Myanmar will succeed in going Nuclear as Pakistan and China did if this present punitive, and vindictive oriented West regards of the Citizenry proceed unabated.
Quality comment or not?
2 
4