China is not an ASEAN member.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASEAN#Lis ... ber_states
Nato agreements do not cover this part of the world. ANZUS does. Not sure how the new treaty affects any of this, but as you say- little need to include Britain's small inventory.

As to why it matters, the arsenal along with the ability to project force from a remote location is usually the deciding factor.
In the event nuclear weapons were used, they would want to have plenty left over to deal with any nations who decide to join in later.
Looking at Russia here- the number 2 military power in the world.

When you examine the strengths and weaknesses of the 2 nations, a much clearer picture emerges that suggests China is so far unable to live up to her rhetoric where it comes to projecting force offshore.

https://www.globalfirepower.com/countri ... f-america
This analysis does not take quality into account ie; navy means total number of vessels which is heavily weighted to brown water in the case of China.
In general, China's military is currently defensive while USA is comparatively better equipped for global force projection.
An unrestrained military conflict over Taiwan is likely unwinnable by anyone.
The economic aftermath would be globally catastrophic.

SternAAlbifrons wrote: ↑Fri Oct 08, 2021 5:48 am With the exception of refugeeland Formosa/Taiwan , a new and invented nation of sore loosers with no history and no great contribution to anything, i think you will find every single nation in SEA knows that war with China would be catastrophic for this region.

Geez Stern, I think we all know your political leanings but, you sound like the CCP's mouthpiece with that statement

Disparaging Taiwanese for wanting to live in a free democratic society and not under a communist, autocratic rule? I'm sure they would not consider themselves as 'refugees' or 'losers'... Yes, they might have lost the civil war on the mainland and 'retreated' to Formosa. Does that make them losers or winners? That depends on perspective right?

Anyway, who's the 'aggressor' in the region? Threatening free maritime access in international waters and occupy/annex disputed islands in the South China Sea, threatening Taiwan with reunification by 2050, broken promises on Hong Kong autonomy, invasion of Tibet, oppression of the Uighurs, military bases in Sri Lanka and Africa etc.

And you claim certain countries are 'sabre rattling' by stepping up measures to counter the PRC's expansionist ambitions and maintain the sovereignty of associated countries in the SEA region?

I agree, thank god a few of these countries don't have nukes.

Can you imagine Cambodia with an arsenal and Vietnam accidentally builds a hut on the wrong side of the border? Khmer on Facebook (including governor's) are crying due to Cellcard randomly sending texts to customers about them entering Vietnam throughout Cambodia..

by SternAAlbifrons » Fri Oct 08, 2021 3:56 am

cool
Thanks for the heads up.

Look, obviously i am amping the language up for entertainment porpoises, but the basic sentiments are for real.
(i think the Mods know that - which is possibly why i was not banned a long long time ago. Or maybe they simply don't want CEO to be an empty single voiced echo-chamber)

You kind of hold the record for that here:
business-and-finance/cambodia-krisenerg ... 14977.html
16 pages of mostly you. No one complained about all the gloating at the fail.

And yes- you are disproportionately triggered by your own moral judgements when the conversation is largely about real world outcomes rather than academic principles of morality.

No one complains about your posts largely triggered by mention of China that are almost cut and paste in their likeness to each other. Why you need to complain about the legitimate discussion by others here I do not know.
Not like this place is a collection of fans of Uncle Sam- that's certain.

newkidontheblock wrote: ↑Fri Oct 08, 2021 10:17 pm Cambodia is backed by their best friend who happens to have plenty of nukes at their disposal.

I agree. Do you think their best friend is using them to keep the other countries from building an opposition arsenal at their back door...does Cuba ring any bells?

Talking of Cuba- remember how it was a big gambling resort and the mob controlled it?
They had to build Las Vegas when thrown out by Castro.

From the OP article, not sure what Prak Sokhonn meant by "SEA Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone". If he meant to urge "SEA countries not being bombed with nuclear missiles", it's up to the giants to control themselves when shit hits the fan. If he was urging not to develop nuclear weapons within SEA countries, he should relax because none of the SEA countries currently has the technology nor the money for development and maintenance. Maybe in 30-50 years. Singapore may be the only country that currently has money and capability, but no safe space to build reactors and plants in such a tiny country. The US DoD spends about $40 billion a year to maintain the current nuclear stock pile. The high cost of maintenance may be the reason why China keeps its inventory to only 300-ish, just to threaten or to respond to any threat for the worst case scenario.

With regards to the statement of China has 300, US has 5000. 300 is good enough to destroy half of the world.

The sad truth is, there will be a nuclear war. It may happen in the next few years, it may happen in the next few decades, or in hundred years, or it may happen much further down the road than that. But it will happen. One day. It is 100% inevitable.

The odds of it never ever happening ever are zero. It's literally just a matter of time.