Obama vows to defend Japan with U.S. nuclear umbrella

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • -7

    papigiulio

    The U.N. Security Council, including Pyongyang’s nominal ally China, united on Tuesday to condemn the test and accuse North Korea of a “grave violation” of U.N. resolutions.

    All talk and no action.

    yeah gObama!

  • 3

    Ichiro20

    China, all talks, poor NK being used as a bait.

    Go US! :D

  • -9

    Tiger_In_The_Hermitage

    Only countries in the UN security council should have nuclear weapons, Pakistan, India, NK and all others should not have nuclear weapons. Why are we not putting sanctions into India and Pakistan?

  • 3

    smithinjapan

    Phew! Now the Okinawans can breathe a sigh of relief over US protection while they demand at the same time the US leave. The US has simply GOT to be pleased with the way things are going with the Abe government -- they're getting more lee-way and sales in weapons, etc. than ever before, and attaching all the proper strings.

  • 10

    turningpoint

    Only countries in the UN security council should have nuclear weapons, Pakistan, India, NK and all others should not have nuclear weapons. Why are we not putting sanctions into India and Pakistan?

    Because countries like Israel has nukes too. And US cannot ask Israel to give up her nukes.

  • -1

    Disillusioned

    I see Abe's 'big brother' plan is going well. The next election should be interesting when he loses the support of Okinawa and the right wing factions. I also wonder how Hashimoto and Ishihara feel about such a strong alliance with the US.

  • -3

    Xeno23

    What is this nuclear umbrella, and does it come in designer colors? The question is whether the Norks are really afraid of the US nuclear umbrella; they may not be. It's not like MAD, or even the frightening prospects of a China-US nuclear confrontation.

    The Norks know if they're on the receiving end of a nuke barrage from the US it's game over for them, but they probably also figure the USA couldn't get away with it - the US is too chicken to use that option, and with good reason - not to mention guilt fear. The USA is the only country to have actually used nukes against another, and they're very twitchy about it - despite all their bluster and bravado.

    For a crazy regime, annihilation may not be the worst outcome; plenty have chosen that path, and relatively recently too (WW2). The DPRK doesn't have anything to lose in poking at the international community. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't even care that much what China thinks - well, obviously. In the end, the USA can't do much except stand there all puffed up; if something's to be done, it will be China who has to do it.

    And they should really consider doing something. Defanging and maybe even regime changing the DPRK might be seen as a good thing by the world, and garner some kudos. I suppose they're worried though that the Norks would go off the deep end and shoot for an Asian Gotterdammerung.

  • 1

    Kimokekahuna Hawaii

    Who let things get this far.. history will tell... you can not negotiate with crazy ... war is not good for business.. China is all about business.. only peace is good for business so peace is good for China. If you get upset.. stop buying things from China...

  • 8

    darknuts

    Only countries in the UN security council should have nuclear weapons...

    Why? So they can intimidate the world with nuclear weapons? No one should have them.

  • 0

    Elbuda Mexicano

    Why is Iran just like North Korea??

  • 3

    paulinusa

    Who says the US has to use nuclear weapons to neutralize NK? Advanced conventional bombs such as the new improved bunker buster (30,000 lb) means Dear Leader Junior and his nukes won't be safe anywhere.

  • -1

    Xeno23

    Seriously? War is great for business! So long as it's contained. Just look how well Halliburton and cronies made out in the recent unpleasantness in Babylon. nuclear war would be bad; never mind business.

    This whole mess though; I blame Truman, and I expect History will too. He didn't stand up to Uncle Joe.

  • 2

    AKBfan

    Does anyone seriously believe DPRK would try and nuke Japan?

  • 0

    globalwatcher

    AKBfanFeb. 14, 2013 - 01:26PM JST

    Does anyone seriously believe DPRK would try and nuke Japan?

    Yes. I do.

  • -4

    Takumi Saito

    NO THANKS. We can develop our own nuclear.

  • 0

    Disillusioned

    Does anyone seriously believe DPRK would try and nuke Japan?

    Um, yeah! But they would focus on US targets within Japan.

  • 0

    badmigraine

    Japan is already a de facto nuclear state. At any moment, they are "one screwdriver turn away" from having the actual bombs. And the have all the related tech and infra--missiles, rocket launch, re-entry capability, uranium enrichment facilities and enough reactor-grade plutonium for over a thousand nuclear bombs.

  • 2

    Matthew Simon

    If NK makes good on any of their crazy propaganda, yes Japan is in danger then. The are even more of a danger now than in the past I think, a young new ruler trying to prove him self to the world. That might just be unstable enough for some actual confrontation.

  • 1

    cabadaje

    Japan is already a de facto nuclear state. At any moment, they are "one screwdriver turn away" from having the actual bombs.

    For being de facto, that's a hell of a lot of steps to get even one missile ready for launch. When you say "one screwdriver turn away", just how much time are you thinking it takes to turn reactor-grade uranium into weapons-grade plutonium? Similarly, nuclear bomb mechanisms can't exactly be thrown together; there is a very high degree of precision required there. Likewise, you can't just duct tape the thing to any rocket and expect it to act like an ICBM. And even if you could, there's only so many rockets and so many places where they can be launched from to begin with. Referring to Japan as a de facto nuclear armed nation is exaggeration to the extreme. The infrastructure to create, let alone maintain, more than a handful of ICBM's (and even then, not indefinitely) just isn't there.

  • 1

    Zen student

    @darknuts

    Why? So they can intimidate the world with nuclear weapons? No one should have them.

    I totally agree with you darknuts. Nobody SHOULD have them in principle. But that's not how it will work in the real world. As long as some nation in the world has the knowledge, know-how and capability to make nukes, then that's what they will do. Nukes, unfortunately, are here to stay.

    As much as I abhor their existence, I would rather that they be in the hands of the US government and not in the hands of Al-Qaeda. Mind you, Israel these days seems crazy and belligerent enough to use them against Teheran. Heaven forbid.

  • -3

    avenger

    But Obama said he wants to get rid of nucleur weapons. Why is he using the nukes as a selling point now?

  • 0

    highball7

    Clearly these sanctions aren't working. The N. Koreans are probably thinking that once they've demonstrated they are a nuclear power with strategic projectile capability, they can use it as a more potent leverage for its own regime's stability and asking for more aid.

    We need to prove them wrong and just level those testing sites. The Chinese are not backing them so I'll bet a pretty nickle that they will let it slide. The fear I have is once NK possess a true nuclear threat, then SK will do the same swiftly. Clearly SK has the capability to quickly create nukes as well as Japan. So its only a matter of time the entire region is loaded up with nukes. How would that help anybody? So just level them and call it a day.

  • -1

    cabadaje

    But Obama said he wants to get rid of nucleur weapons. Why is he using the nukes as a selling point now?

    He isn't.

  • 0

    sleepy dog

    Why wouldn't NK try and get nuclear armament? It's been demonstrated that nuclear powers do not go to war. It's a macro version of getting a handgun in a bad neighbourhood full of people with handguns.

    On that note, I don't know why anybody would, by some mental default, believe that America should be the judge of who should and shouldn't have nukes. America is the only country to have used them, and they've been busy in the interim invading other countries who don't have them.

    Either everybody can have them, or nobody should. The Prisoner's Dilemma of M.A.D. is something we should be, as a species, ashamed of. I'm fairly sick of the implied beneficence of the current holders of nuclear weaponry, and America in particular.

    And anybody who thinks dealing with NK is simply a case of making a glass crater of them doesn't know about the immediate million+ death toll that Seoul would experience, and the untenable number of refugees in Korea and China.

    If you honestly think that some simple poster on JT has the answers that military tacticians and innumerable advisors have missed, I don't even know what to say. It's a very long, slow, and complicated game of chess that's taking place.

  • 1

    CGB Spender

    Cold War nostalgics, warm up your popcorn! Let the proliferation re-begin!

  • 0

    25psot

    Nuclear umbrella will protect Japan but will not prevent North Korea developing more sophisticated nuclear weapons. Its temporary relief for Japan but not permanent solution.

  • -1

    globalwatcher

    CGB SpenderFeb. 14, 2013 - 10:15PM JST

    Cold War nostalgics, warm up your popcorn! Let the proliferation re-begin!

    Agreed. North Korea has not agreed with International Nuke Proliferation Treaty yet.

    They can still sell these dangerous weapons to the terrorists including Al Qaeda and Talibans. We need to do everything to stop that to happen.

  • 1

    YuriOtani

    It is insane to "protect" your or any country with weapons that can not be used without committing suicide. True the USA can blow apart North Korea but even if the fallout does not reach Japan it would contaminate the fish in the oceans. Bedlam is running loose in the world.

    "I firmly believe that before many centuries more, science will be the master of man. The engines he will have invented will be beyond his strength to control. Some day science shall have the existence of mankind in its power, and the human race will commit suicide by blowing up the world." Henry Adams

  • -2

    MarkG

    Fro once I agree with Obama......then again his word is nothing to bank on.

  • -2

    RomeoRII

    his word is nothing to bank on

    True dat. Given Obama's track record of keeping his promises to Americans, (closing GITMO, cutting deficit spending, etc., etc., etc.,) if I were still living in Japan, I'd be verrrry worried.

    RR

  • 0

    superbird1

    I see some of you wish to have it both ways. By that i mean, on one hand you make snide comments about the US giving protection, Ergo you don't want Japan to have any protection at all. Secondly you piss and moan when Japan considers it's ONLY OTHER OPTION for collective self defense. Ergo you don't want Japan to have any protection at all. You would rather live in a past you were not a part of or had NOTHING to do with.

    Keeping the hatred alive because you wouldn't know what to do with yourselves otherwise. You all want hatred and annihilation? Keep this sort of nonsense circulating, and you will have your fill. Except it's not going to be the glorious victory you see so vividly in your minds eye. It will be pain and suffering for all. Take a few moments to analyse the situation with logic. Not going to hold my breath though...

  • 0

    cabadaje

    Take a few moments to analyse the situation with logic.

    Logic when discussing politics? How dare you, sir?

    Why, next you will be saying that looking at a president's track record involves taking note of both failure and success. Or that a nuclear curtain doesn't actually include using nukes to destroy enemy nukes.

  • 0

    cabadaje

    The N. Koreans are probably thinking that once they've demonstrated they are a nuclear power with strategic projectile capability, they can use it as a more potent leverage for its own regime's stability and asking for more aid.We need to prove them wrong and just level those testing sites.

    Not...necessarily. If they do start threatening nuclear attack just to gain some political advantage, at that point we can consider them as much a danger as China seems to want to be seen as. Until that point, even though I am not particularly fond of NK's humanitarian track record, they haven't actually given cause to believe that they cannot conduct themselves on the global stage.

    Granted, they haven't actually done anything significant on the global lately, but still, they have played within the rules so far, and if they have done so intentionally, then they do deserve credibility for that.

  • 0

    lucabrasi

    @cabadaje

    they have played within the rules so far,

    You're being a bit generous there. Remember the North has sunk the Cheonan (killing 104) and shelled Yeonpyeong (killing 4) in the last couple of years.

  • 0

    cabadaje

    @lucabrasi

    You're being a bit generous there.

    Unfortunately...not as generous as it sounds like it should be. When all is said and done, at the global level, these are little more than what are called "conflicts", isolated, and ultimately of little significance to anyone other than the countries involved. It's a little like how cops don't place much importance on gang members killing other gang members, even though a murder is still a murder at the end of the day.

    Now, If North Korea starts threatening South Korea (or anyone) with nuclear warfare, at that point it is no longer an isolated thing. By its very nature, no weapon of mass destruction can be considered to be isolated. A country that considers WMDs as little more than another weapon in the arsenal (as just another bomb, just, y'know, bigger), that sort of naivete is dangerous. No one wants a teenager holding a gun if the teenager has shown himself to not have respect for the weapon.

    Unfortunately, we also can't really tell the teenthat we can't trust him with a gun because he punched another kid. We can be nervous about it. We can watch him more carefully. But, when all is said and done, as long as he shows himself to be a responsible gun owner, there is little we can do to justify refusing him the right to carry.

  • 0

    lucabrasi

    @cabadaje

    You're right. It's a sad fact these days that unless a nation actively annoys Uncle Sam, she'll pretty much get away with anything : (

  • -1

    cabadaje

    Well, let's not get too carried away. Remember that it isn't just the US anymore. In the global world, the US is just one of the players, and it is unlikely that there will ever be any dominant country.

  • 1

    OssanAmerica

    DisillusionedFeb. 14, 2013 - 12:26PM JST I see Abe's 'big brother' plan is going well. The next election should be interesting when he loses the support of >Okinawa and the right wing factions. I also wonder how Hashimoto and Ishihara feel about such a strong alliance with >the US.

    Considering China's territorial and military expansion and North Korea's finger at the UN, what are they suppose to feel? Can you think of any options other than to support the US-Japan alliance?

  • 0

    OssanAmerica

    cabadajeFeb. 14, 2013 - 04:03PM JST "Japan is already a de facto nuclear state. At any moment, they are "one screwdriver turn away" from having the actual bombs." For being de facto, that's a hell of a lot of steps to get even one missile ready for launch. When you say "one >screwdriver turn away", just how much time are you thinking it takes to turn reactor-grade uranium into weapons-grade >plutonium? Similarly, nuclear bomb mechanisms can't exactly be thrown together; there is a very high degree of >precision required there. Likewise, you can't just duct tape the thing to any rocket and expect it to act like an ICBM. >And even if you could, there's only so many rockets and so many places where they can be launched from to begin >with. Referring to Japan as a de facto nuclear armed nation is exaggeration to the extreme. The infrastructure to >create, let alone maintain, more than a handful of ICBM's (and even then, not indefinitely) just isn't there.

    Maybe you're right. Then again, maybe you're not.

    http://www.dcbureau.org/201204097128/national-security-news-service/united-states-circumvented-laws-to-help-japan-accumulate-tons-of-plutonium.html

  • 0

    cabadaje

    @OssanAmerica

    I have doubts regarding their objectivity.

    A year ago a natural disaster combined with a man-made tragedy decimated Northern Japan and came close to making Tokyo, a city of 30 million people, uninhabitable. Nuclear tragedies plague Japan’s modern history. It is a national sacrifice zone. Japan would have to do what the Americans and Europeans had failed to do – make an experimental breeder program a commercial success. Their hubris convinced them that they could.

    Could it be true? Certainly. Could it be not true? Of course. DCBureau has published a lot of stories, and a handful have panned out, so... Is it possible that Japan has secretly, over the last 60 years, used electrical utility companies, their nuclear programs, their rather well-watched space initiatives, and a secret handshake across the many different political parties over the years (who, apparently, could all agree to keep this secret), and has actually "amass(ed) enough nuclear weapons materials to build a nuclear arsenal larger than China, India and Pakistan combined" (as the article claims, as well as the implied delivery systems) with all the construction, maintenance, and secrecy involved?

    Okay...but...

    Really? No one noticed?

    So, okay, let's assume Japan has more weapons-grade plutonium sitting in the locker than China, India, and Pakistan; Heck, let's go ahead and assume that Japan even managed to get workers to create a lot of nuclear bombs to put the plutonium in without anyone noticing that the electric ovens and toasters they were working on actually looked a lot like a nuclear warheads.

    Everyone watched in excitement as Japan became the third country in the world to put a satellite in space...and no one noticed a dozen other spare rockets off to the side? No one noticed sites capable of maintaining and launching nuclear missiles actually being built (Let's not get into the problems with building underground silos in a country that is inherently geologically unstable)?

    I'll go ahead and stick with my previous comment: Building a nuclear arsenal, maintaining a nuclear arsenal...this isn't something you can do last minute. You don't put together an intercontinental ballistic missile with nuclear warheads capable of launch a la MacGyver (come to think of it, he was a physics major, wasn't he?) in anything that can be referred to as "quickly".

  • 0

    cabadaje

    Incidentally, the above quotes from the article in DCBureau were meant to be posted in three separate parts that the discussion board unexpectedly merged together. They are not continuous in the article.

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in Politics

View all

View all