Then how would the US prevent VN from becoming a nuclear weapons state ? Diplomacy ? Force ? If VN is determined enough, only force will work. But as long as the US is restrained by the theatrics of diplomacy, if VN is determined enough, VN can be a nuclear weapons state.
How would you be so sure that the US would be restrained to just diplomacy if Vietnam was trying to acquire nuclear weapons? If nothing else, most of the world would know and if the US wasn't prepared to act, China would certainly act without the usual economic and political repercussions that accompany military action. If you don't believe me, ask yourself this: Would the US be better or worse off with 1) a nuclear Vietnam or 2) military action by China to prevent the first option.
VN is not China's Cuba, as in the Cuban Missile Crisis, if VN becomes a nuclear weapons state on her own, whereas with Cuba, it was the Soviets who wanted an ICBM base off America's coast and under Kremlin control. That does not mean China cannot respond in the same manner the US did against Cuba, but it will be much more difficult, diplomatically and practically, because the current VN is much more capable militarily than the Cuba of the 1960s. VN today is much more diplomatically independent than Cuba yesterday.
The two situations aren't that comparable. The Cuban Missile Crisis was ultimately a showdown between the US and the USSR, where Cuba was merely a pawn. As you say, Cuba wasn't an independent actor whereas Vietnam is diplomatically independent. But in this situation, Vietnam and China would take place of the two cold war superpowers with the main discrepancy being one trying to prevent the other from acquiring said weapons and not two nuclear superpowers re-positioning large arsenals already in their possession.
When Cuba was blockaded, and a blockade is an act of war, no one came to Cuba's aid. All of the Americas wanted the Soviet Union out of the Western Hemisphere. For Asia, China cannot leave and China is already regarded as a bully in Asia. That mean all of Asia will have two unpalatable choices: Either be subservient to China, or be in alliance to resist China, militarily and economically.
That's really a stretch there chief. When Cuba was blockaded, the Soviet Union nearly ran the blockade, triggering WW3. Cuba wasn't isolated because Cuba was a Soviet Pawn. The Cuba Missile Crisis didn't occur in a power vacuum and although averted at the last second, the Soviet Union still came out of it with Nato concessions promising to remove missiles from Turkey.
On your second point, China is regarded as a bully by some in Asia. Most of the people who regard China as a bully (with the exception of Japan) are completely irrelevant, Vietnam included. You try to frame Vietnam's acquisition of nukes in a bully vs bullied scenario but that's a very zero-sum approach to a complex situation. There are more choices than be subservient to China or ally against China. Already many nations such as Malaysia, Brunei, etc are opting for the 3rd choice of neutrality. Furthermore, who's to say that Asian nations won't form an alliance against a Communist Vietnam, historical and wannabe present-day hegemon of the Sub-Mekong region? I personally think an SE Asian alliance against a Vietnam trying to acquire nukes (and thereby upsetting the regional balance) is more likely than an SE Asian alliance of cheerleader nations who sing a nuclear Vietnam's praises.
For China, which ever path the rest of Asia go, it will be uncomfortable for China, diplomatically and economically.
How in the world would Vietnam acquiring nuclear weapons in defiance of the rest of the world result in China's economic and diplomatic discomfiture? How did you come to this conclusion? Do Vietnamese people not believe and logic?
*Vietnam* would be the one diplomatically isolated and sanctioned by everyone. Including other members of ASEAN.
VN is already a nuclear state. If Pakistan and India can become nuclear weapons states -- clandestinely -- so can VN.
How clandestine *were* Pakistan and India's programs? As clandestine as Israel, Iran, or North Korea's? Seems like most of the world hears about intent before capabilities catch up. There's no such thing as developing nuclear weapons in total secrecy. That's how the Israelis knew to bomb Osirak. And that's also one of the triggers for an immediate Chinese assault on Taiwan, a nation much more advanced than Vietnam. If China were to catch wind of a serious ROC nuclear weapons program, China would attack. Same can and most likely will be applied to Vietnam.
If VN decides on a path to being a nuclear weapons state, VN will not be silent about it. VN will explain her justifications and will present arguments as to why other Asian countries are under the same threat from China.
You kinda just contradicted your previous points about secrecy and being clandestine didn't you? How certain are you that other Asian nations would buy into Vietnam's arguments? You seem very sure of yourself. To touch on a previous point, only the Philippines and Japan would be potentially receptive to Vietnam's arguments. You think Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Australia, the US, Indonesia, etc would be as on board? If you do, you're deluding yourself.
Back in the Cuban Missile Crisis, Castro did not bothered to consult with other Latin American states, privately or publicly, as to why Soviet missiles are NEEDED in the Western Hemisphere. Need for what (?) would have been the question.
Castro didn't consult with anyone else because Cuba had the USSR, the world's other superpower, backing them. Who backs Vietnam? All I see today is a nation eager for handouts and prostrating herself all over Asia in a vain search for "allies." I see a nation that no longer has backing from a large benefactor and that is scared because of it.
But for today, it would not be difficult for VN to present her arguments and justifications as to why not just VN but other Asian countries, should and perhaps even need to become their own nuclear weapons states. All these countries have to do is convene a meeting among themselves -- exclude China -- to discuss the possibility of a nuclear alliance and China will be on the alert. What could China do at that time ? Militarily strike at every single country at that conference to teach each a lesson ? For the juvenile Chinese members here, they would answer that -- yes.
It would not be difficult for Vietnam to present her arguments but it would also not be difficult for Vietnam to be laughed out of the conference room by her target audience. You've already agreed that nuclear weapons are an expensive proposition and that Vietnamese people are willing to eat poop, apparently, to acquire said weapons. Can the same be said for other SE Asian nations? You've gone from Vietnam easily acquire nuclear weapons to all of South East Asia acquiring nuclear weapons in the same post. And you make it sound so easy and in all of their interests. All it takes is a good speech from the Vietnamese foreign minister and it's a go right? Speaking of juvenile....
I lived through the Cold War and it nuclear politics, in America, Europe, and Asia. I was actually around nuclear weapons, as in being in the same hangar with a Victor Alert F-111E at RAF Upper Heyford in England. I know what is it like to pull a 6g climb in a bomb dive-toss maneuver. I watched the spectacular and ignoble collapse of the Soviet Union. How about you ?
I wasn't alive through most of the Cold War. For someone who's supposedly been around nuclear weapons, I'd hope you'd at least appreciate how serious they are in terms of financial, political, and technical commitment and not speak flippantly of half a dozen nations in a conference room all agreeing to acquire them because Vietnam thinks it they'd be a good idea to use in defense of some uninhabited SCS islands. Do you realize how ridiculous your arguments sound?
No need to smuggle. India and US are ready to help.
And China would help Bangladesh get some. What's your point? And India speaks for the US now (the country most against the proliferation of nuclear weapons)? Or is India so pathetic that it can't initiate any unilateral actions without name-dropping the US? Even when you try to sound tough, you end up sounding scared.
"
.
