BANGKOK, THAILAND – A prime ministerial candidate’s pledge to equip Thailand with nuclear weapons sparked fierce online backlash and alarm among experts just weeks before the parliamentary election.
Facebook pledge to buy nuclear arsenal
Leading New Alternative candidate Mongkolkit Suksintharanon posted his proposal on Facebook on 5 January. He wrote that one nuclear weapon would cost about 640 million baht and said Thailand could obtain up to ten if he became prime minister. The post drew more than 27,000 reactions and 6,200 comments, largely expressing scorn and disbelief.
Online users mock costs and priorities
Thai social media users sharply rejected the idea.
“I don’t know what to say. I am lost for words.”
said one commenter. Another asked sarcastically:
“So generous, are you investing your private wealth for the country?”
said another user. Many pointed to more urgent needs, with one reminder that
“Older people still receive only 600 to 800 baht in support per month.”
said a commenter.
Candidate defends plan as security investment
Speaking to journalists, Mongkolkit defended his proposal and detailed his calculations. He said small nuclear warheads cost around 20 million US dollars, while larger ones could reach 270 million. Ten weapons would total about 6.4 billion baht, which he argued was low compared with submarines costing tens of billions, and he claimed such arms would strengthen Thailand’s military and economic security by forcing trade partners to act more respectfully.
Experts call nuclear proposal impossible
The specialist portal ThaiArmedForce responded quickly and dismissed the plan. It described the idea as completely impossible and suitable only for bar-room talk. The outlet stressed that nuclear weapons could not simply be bought, but had to be developed domestically, requiring access to tightly controlled uranium, and warned that Thailand would face massive international resistance and unresolved questions over where such weapons could even be tested.
Pattern of provocative proposals
Mongkolkit was already known for past scandals. In July of the previous year, he had called for a ban on sex for Thais under 22 in order to stop HIV transmission, a suggestion that had also triggered a storm of criticism. Observers saw his latest remarks as confirming a pattern of provocation at any price, while his New Alternative party continued to play no decisive role in opinion polls, raising doubts over whether the nuclear proposal was mere campaign rhetoric.
Regional sensitivities and voter concerns
Commentators noted that nuclear weapons touched an extremely sensitive nerve in Southeast Asia, which remained a nuclear-weapon-free region. Even if unrealistic, such a move could unsettle neighbouring countries and cause diplomatic friction. For many voters, the controversy underscored their view that Thailand needed solutions to everyday problems such as inflation, education and infrastructure rather than multibillion-baht nuclear fantasies, and that the election campaign had entered a new and bizarre phase.