Should Japan have its own nuclear weapons as a deterrent against security threats or should it rely on the U.S. nuclear umbrella?

Login to vote

  • 0

    888naff

    not a question aimed at japanese or people that understand them i think.

    I think there would be a third option that most of the japanese public would prefer.

    maybe a poll for americans i guess.

  • 0

    gogogo

    Japan doesn't need nukes, if they were to get them it would just make them a much larger target.

  • 0

    benhur

    nobody should. not even the US.

  • 0

    rajakumar

    God's and nature's umbrella would be better idea than this immoral nuclear umbrella.

    God's and nature's umbrella is much stronger and is final umbrella.

    Above all nuclear umbrella countries ,there is god's and nature's umbrella.

  • 0

    karuchan

    i agree, nobody should.

  • 0

    EurajReturns

    While you guys are just rehashing old lines, that I don't necessarily disagree with, you should take into consideration that it's too late for "nobody should have them," as several countries already do. Try answering from the standpoint of a nation dealing with potentially hostile neighbors that already have their own nuclear weapons before you answer the question.

  • 0

    UnagiDon

    Japan doesn't need them under today's security environment and as long as there is a US nuclear umbrella. If either of those take a turn for the worse, then it would be time to think about them.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    No kidding, 888naff; there should definitely be a third if not fourth option on here.

  • 0

    Sebarashii

    Japan already has the means to build nuclear weapons, yet it refrains from doing so, because it would be highly counter- productive.

    A nuclear Japan would undoubtedly trigger a further proliferation of nuclear WMD in the region. China would further increase its military modernisation, North Korea would completely deny any future cooperation regarding nuclear disarmament, and South Korea would probably have to try to build the bomb, as well, so it wouldn't become the object of negotiations by "Great Powers" again. Thus Japan would find itself less secure, rather than more.

    Also, I highly doubt that any Japanese government could completely change a centre stone of the country's foreign policy without massive public dissent. For any Japanese politician, except maybe nutjobs like Ishihara Shintaro, suggesting a nuclear arsenal would mean political suicide.

  • 0

    noborito

    two answers, sad. NEITHER. No and No, how to answer that?

  • 0

    USNinJapan2

    What are the third and fourth choices that some of you wish were offered? Just curious...

  • 0

    888naff

    "No kidding, 888naff; there should definitely be a third if not fourth option on here."

    well this is JT poll! so not so in tune with japan of today.

    maybe in tune with "shock and awe" (lol) type of american or something i guess.

  • 0

    JoeBigs

    rajakumar at 07:44 PM JST - 19th July God's and nature's umbrella would be better idea than this immoral nuclear umbrella. God's and nature's umbrella is much stronger and is final umbrella. Above all nuclear umbrella countries ,there is god's and nature's umbrella.

    But when the bombs start dropping there is no god, there is only death.

    If the world understands that Japan will reply force for force then the armed nation would think about ever using them.

    M.A.D., do a google search using those letters and add bomb.

    USNinJapan2 at 07:56 AM JST - 20th July What are the third and fourth choices that some of you wish were offered? Just curious...

    I too have to ask, what are the other options you folks are talking about?

    Okay how about these two;

    Japan joins North Korea or maybe begs China to also help?

    Please gents wake up and see the world for what it is. Full of madmen with nukes who use the weight of those weapons to extort Japan for whatever they want.

    Time for Japan to rid itself of or revise article 9.

    The United States would sell out Japan if it had to protect itself. So Japan better arm itself and do it quickly.

  • 0

    mareo2

    What are the third and fourth choices that some of you wish were offered? Just curious...

    We have some ideas that dont imply nuclear deterrence (AKA threatening with massive killing of civilians):

    1 - A real diplomacy of making friendly ties.

    2 - Deeper economic ties.

    3 - Native developed Ballistic Defense System.

    4 - EMP weapons.

    Aside of that. Invest a lot of money in weapons in the midle of a ressecion is not what people want. People worrie more about jobs than about a dying man that want to avoid a coup d etat in empoverished NK. In fact, I think that NK is a strong reminder of how militarism can endager the economy.

  • 0

    Asara

    Pretty much all of japanese ocean bordering neighbours own nuke weapons why japan cannot? The old wwll agression thing is meaningless nowadays. Japan must develop nuke weapons and ballistic missles that can reach any spot on earth to restore geopolitcal balance in asia and on global scale.

  • 0

    Asara

    Yes or else either china, india, russia and usa have to disarm its nuclear forces.

  • 0

    rondh69

    Japan likely has the components already that could quickly be integrated into a weapon...

  • 0

    lordomni

    This question is flawed. Its implying Japan depends on a nuclear deterrent for its safety, there is no choice for should Japan have nothing to do with nukes.

  • 0

    USNinJapan2

    The question is not flawed at all. By virtue of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security Japan currently is protected by a 'nuclear umbrella' provided by the US. That is an indisputable fact. The question doesn't ask if we think a national defense strategy based on nuclear deterrence is right or wrong for Japan (or any other country) because that is not the issue at hand. It asks whether or not a home-grown nuclear deterrence is preferrable to one provided by the US, nothing more. Perhaps the topic of alternate non-nuclear defense strategies will come up in a future question, who knows. But the question above is clearly not meant to address all aspects of Japan's national security, so if your opinions/views regarding the subject aren't represented by one of the two choices above or the question to begin with, just don't vote for either choice and stop complaining that this week's poll wasn't about something YOU wanted to dicuss or argue...

  • 0

    OssanAmerica

    Japan doesn't need nukes, if they were to get them it would just make >them a much larger target.

    Disagree. Having nukes hasn't made Britain or France and larger targets than they already were.

    A nuclear Japan would undoubtedly trigger a further proliferation of >nuclear WMD in the region. China would further increase its military >modernisation, North Korea would completely deny any future cooperation >regarding nuclear disarmament, and South Korea would probably have to >try to build the bomb, as well, so it wouldn't become the object of >negotiations by "Great Powers" again.

    Totally disagree. China already has a massive nuclear arsenal, because it was created to defend itself from the United States, not some small country with a couple nukes. NKorea is ALREADY not cooperating with anyone regarding nuclear disarmament. South Korea, in light of N.Korea's recent advancements should go nuclear or get the US Nuclear Umbrella. As you can see, Japan going nuclear or not has little effect on the region.

  • 0

    TheDonald

    Japan doesn't need them under today's security environment and as long as there is a US nuclear umbrella. If either of those take a turn for the worse, then it would be time to think about them.

    ...That would be too late to think about anything. In fact you just stated exactly why they should consider it now, rather than not worrying about it until the fit hits the shan among their allies.

    For the sake of non-proliferation, though, maybe they should consider buying or lend-leasing some of the US stockpile, since we're supposedly decommissioning of some of our nukes anyway, per the most recent arms reduction agreement.

    That'd be a way of producing a more reliable deterrent system for Japan, profiting us a little, enabling us to decrease their military reliance on the states (it's about time they be given some leeway to stand on their own two feet, IMO) and also rendering them able to ease off the idea of amending their constitution in the name of increasing their conventional armed forces as well as the controversy therein, while being more conservative in respect to the global efforts at nuclear nonproliferation than building new nukes would be.

    I would, personally, like to see what kind of Japan-original delivery systems they concept, though.

  • 0

    TheDonald

    Japan doesn't need them under today's security environment and as long as there is a US nuclear umbrella. If either of those take a turn for the worse, then it would be time to think about them.

    You're also not thinking of their security environment.. which, to be brief, is such that they are surrounded by several nations with military forces not only bigger than theirs but none of which restricted like theirs, one of which nuclear armed granted not hostile at the government level.. another approaching nuclear capability and potentially very hostile.

    And this is just in Asia.

    Since nukes are a deterrent, this inherently means they can reduce or halt growth of their conventional military.. because.. well who's gonna attack a country that can retaliate or preempt any imminent attack with nukes..? And if you have THAT kind of security, you don't really need as much conventional force, as that'd be redundant and expensive.

    Considering Japan's economic situation, which is tight like everywhere else, and the growing internal controversy seated around modifying their military-phobic constitution... I think leased nukes would do more to stabilize and secure things than make anything worse.

    It's not as though they'd make plans to use them right after getting them, as they've got no particular vendettas worth nuking and risking being nuked (again) over.

  • 0

    JoeBigs

    mareo2 at 10:11 AM JST - 20th July What are the third and fourth choices that some of you wish were offered? Just curious... We have some ideas that dont imply nuclear deterrence (AKA threatening with massive killing of civilians):

    1 - A real diplomacy of making friendly ties.

    Diplomacy with Korea has not worked and ole Kim just keeps on threatening. Now what, give in to any and all his demands because of the fear he may use his nukes?

    2 - Deeper economic ties.

    Economic ties implies you receive something for your goods. What if the country only wants to sell weapons. Do you buy them from that country because you fear getting nuked if you don't?

    3 - Native developed Ballistic Defense System.

    So spend billions of yen to develop a system that "may work"? What happens when just one (1) nuke gets through? Say,"oh well" and try to build a better one the next time you are nuked?

    4 - EMP weapons.

    Spend more billions on a EMP weapon....LOL This is not the matrix this is real life. So as their nuked hit Japan you launch small emp devices to do just what. Turn off their toasters?LOL

    Come on time to get with the program and build what needs to be built..

    Aside of that. Invest a lot of money in weapons in the midle of a ressecion is not what people want.

    Do not need to invest much, North Korea built theirs with very little effort. Japan can build better, bigger, and most like more effective nukes at a low price. U-237 is just what the doctor ordered....

    People worrie more about jobs than about a dying man that want to avoid a coup d etat in empoverished NK.

    Actually a so called dying man with nukes is a whole lot more of a problem than job loss. Do not know about you, but ole Kimmie may or may not be dying.

    The only thing certain about him is that he is nutz and will launch a nuke is he wakes up on the wrong side of the bed.

    Nuke me once shame on you, nuke me twice, opps I am dead....

    We have seen how much he cares about sanctions from every country. What happen if he nukes a city or two in Japan? More sanctions? Who will speak for the dead?

    Time to arm and arm and arm.

    In fact, I think that NK is a strong reminder of how militarism can endager the economy.

  • 0

    Beelzebub

    Nukes serve solely as a deterrent. Since Japan has a deterrent, ergo it doesn't need nukes.

  • 0

    JenniferKim

    This is a very good question ... !

  • 0

    sabiwabi

    I am not all that much for Japan having nukes, but I am very much against depending on the US for protection. The US sacrificed 3000 of its citizens on 911 to give them an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, they would have no problems to sacrifice many more Japanese citizens for whichever other war they want to start.

    Japan should build its own military defenses and get rid of the US bases in Japan.

  • 0

    mareo2

    Diplomacy with Korea has not worked and ole Kim just keeps on threatening. Now what, give in to any and all his demands because of the fear he may use his nukes?

    Friendly ties with wise people like the USA, Russia, China and SK. Wise people ignore the provocations of someone that need to fire rockets in to the sea for secure the succession of the next leader.

    Economic ties implies you receive something for your goods. What if the country only wants to sell weapons. Do you buy them from that country because you fear getting nuked if you don't?

    Economic ties means investment in building factories like in China. NK have millions of workers that are cheaper than the chinese. The next king of NK can be wise like the chinese or stupid like hes father. Is up to him.

    So spend billions of yen to develop a system that "may work"? What happens when just one (1) nuke gets through? Say,"oh well" and try to build a better one the next time you are nuked?

    USA, Russia, Israel and India developed them. Is not like we cant buy from any of them or develop our own system.

    Spend more billions on a EMP weapon....LOL This is not the matrix this is real life. So as their nuked hit Japan you launch small emp devices to do just what. Turn off their toasters?LOL Come on time to get with the program and build what needs to be built..

    You focuse only in NK. EMP is deterrence against advanced countries. Is cheaper build a bomb for computers than for people and one is enough for burn the electronics of an entire country destroying their economy.

    Actually a so called dying man with nukes is a whole lot more of a problem than job loss. Do not know about you, but ole Kimmie may or may not be dying.

    He give up modern medicine and rely on old medicines because he hope for a miracle that allow him to live more than one year. I think that he can be happy is that just allow a less painful death.

    The only thing certain about him is that he is nutz and will launch a nuke is he wakes up on the wrong side of the bed.

    If he is a nutz. Why he made so much efforts for secure the succession?

    Nuke me once shame on you, nuke me twice, opps I am dead....

    We have a different moral view about what Hiroshima and Nagasaki means. For japanese it means that do preemptive strikes is bad and understand that WMDs are inmoral.

    We have seen how much he cares about sanctions from every country. What happen if he nukes a city or two in Japan? More sanctions? Who will speak for the dead?

    Sorry, but the theory that Kim is going to nuke J because "wakes up on the wrong side of the bed" is not very credible. We waith one year until Kim die. Then we see how to deal with the next leader.

    Time to arm and arm and arm.

    That sound like the regime of NK say to their people.

  • 0

    HonestDictator

    EMPs are not to be trifled with. If someone launches a nuclear weapon at another and someone is able to pass off an EMP weapon that nuclear weapon has a very big chance of not going off because its circuits are fried if the detonator is attached to it. Drop an EMP on a nuclear launch site and their weapons are useless. Sci-Fi of the past catches up fairly quickly in this decade.

  • 0

    Seiharinokaze

    Nixon and Kissinger had an secret agreement with Chou En-lai when they met in 1972 that they would never let Japan go nuclear. It is still valid as their mutual basic policy on Japan. Besides it's not North Korea but Japan that is most strictly watched for its nuclear movements by IAEA. We are expected only to dance with the umbrella to the orchestration stated for the Far East. NPT and NK are no less than what complements the scenario. So the above question is rather meaningless.

  • 0

    TokyoHustla

    Surprise, surprise! Japan already has them.

  • 0

    kinniku

    Seiharinokaze,

    Nixon and Kissinger had an secret agreement with Chou En-lai when they met in 1972 that they would never let Japan go nuclear.

    I was under the impression that the 'secret' agreement between Zhou En-lai and Nixon was about Nixon assurances to Zhou En-lai that Japan would not be allowed to become militarily aggressive against Asia again. I have not heard of discussions specifically of Japan going nuclear or not. May I ask where you have found the information you have suggested in your post?

  • 0

    Seiharinokaze

    kinniku,

    I read it in a book titled "Dorehodo America Wa Hidoi Kunika (How awful a country America is)" by Kusaka Kiminndo and Takayama Masayuki (PHP, 2009). Mr. Kusaka seems to assume the secret agreement is about Japan going nuclear more than anything else. The former U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry was also quoted in the same book, as saying to Jian Zemin that if North Korea goes on its nuclearization, Japan might also go nuclear in the future to counter the threat, so that the U.S. and China should not allow Japan to have an autonomous defense capability. Isn't "not allowed to have autonomous defense capability" tantamount to "not allowed to go nuclear" rather than not allowed to become militarily aggressive?

  • 0

    kinniku

    Seiharinokaze,

    So, in other words, it seems that, so far, you actually have no specific proof that, as you put it, 'Nixon and Kissinger had an secret agreement with Chou En-lai when they met in 1972 that they would never let Japan go nuclear.' Thank you for coming clean with that.

    Next, you are going by 'assumptions' on the part of Mr. Kusaka mentioned in a book with an unbelievably obvious bias title '"Dorehodo America Wa Hidoi Kunika' written by people who have made their names bashing foreign countries to support your supposition? Who quoted William Perry?

    You mean you don't have anything else? I seriously thought you had proof of witnesses to this meeting you seemed to be referring to. It seems this is not the case.

  • 0

    kinniku

    One more point, your suppositions are based on assumptions about meetings that happened in 1972. However, you seemed to be claiming that these policies regarding Japan, which you can't seem to confirm yet in the first place, are still in place now. What do you base this on? Is it the same 'evidence' as above?

  • 0

    Seiharinokaze

    kinniku,

    Well, though I am not sure if Kissinger really said that it's absurd for the U.S. to fight with China for Japan, I and many other Japanese understand that America's basic policy with Japan is not to let Japan have autonomous defense capability. The U.S.-Japan Security Treaty is therefore to keep Japan under America's nuclear umbrella. As I understand it, this is even then and now what "Japan would not be allowed to become militarily aggressive again" means in the talks between the U.S. and China, isn't it? Japan is only expected to dance to the orchestration staged by the two puppeteers for the Far East.

    And it's Mr. Ito Kan a world politics analyst who was quoted in the book as saying about William Perry's advice to Jiang Zemin.

  • 0

    kinniku

    Seiharinokaze,

    I see now by your post above you have made a series of (what seem to be at this point incorrect) assumptions about Japan and its future nuclear capabilities that are not based in facts at all. I additional see that you also have no proof whatsoever of either your now seemingly incorrect initial comment about Nixon and Zhou En-lai nor about what you seemingly incorrectly claimed is a policy that continues today.

    The problem, quite frankly, seems to be a complete lack of any concrete facts on your part whatsoever. Rather disappointing...

    Mr. Ito Kan a world politics analyst who was quoted in the book as saying about William Perry's advice to Jiang Zemin

    I see. Was Ito Kan there in the room? Was this advice actually witnessed, or it is another case (as the cases of your posts above) of mere assumptions?

  • 0

    Seiharinokaze

    kinniku,

    How about referring to Mr. Kusaka or Mr. Ito for yourself? I just answered to your question where I found the information. They mentioned Nixon's handwritten memorandum about the secret agreements with Chou En-lai. I'm curious to read it too. Also Mr. Ito wrote in his book "Chugoku no Kakuga Sekai wo Seisu (China's nuclear suppresses the world)" that the former National Security Advisor Brezezinski had stated in 2006 after North Korea's nuclear experiment that there is a collusion between the U.S, and China that they won't allow Japan to go nuclear. Do you think what they are saying are mere assumptions?

  • 0

    sabiwabi

    Nixon and Kissinger had an secret agreement with Chou En-lai when they met in 1972 that they would never let Japan go nuclear.

    I wouldn't worry about agreements made by the American government, especially secret ones. The US has a habit of not respecting agreements, or even treaties.

  • 0

    kinniku

    Seiharinokaze,

    How about referring to Mr. Kusaka or Mr. Ito for yourself?

    I have and as I have stated, I am as yet completely unimpressed. By the way, I remind you, you have brought these people up and it is you that suggested (without specific proof it still seems) that 'Nixon and Kissinger had an secret agreement with Chou En-lai when they met in 1972 that they would never let Japan go nuclear.' Further, you have given absolutely no proof so far that such an agreement (if it ever existed, which seems doubtful based on your 'evidence' so far) still exists now.

    They mentioned Nixon's handwritten memorandum about the secret agreements with Chou En-lai.

    Again, do the mention a source for this? Did they see it themselves? By what I have read of them and what you have written so far, I am led to believe the answer is a resounding 'no'.

    that the former National Security Advisor Brezezinski had stated in 2006 after North Korea's nuclear experiment that there is a collusion between the U.S, and China that they won't allow Japan to go nuclear.

    I am no longer interested in your book references as they appear to merely be examples of extreme bias written by extremely bias people. Hardly the appropriate realm of factual information. Please attempt to provide an appropriate source for your claim that he stated this. BTW, although Brezezinski certainly has his right to his opinions (as you know he was always leaning toward pro-China attitudes because of his extreme hate for the Soviet Union and this clouded his judgements at times), I am unconvinced that his opinion necessarily reflects present US policy and you certainly have not as yet shown this to be the case.

    Do you think what they are saying are mere assumptions?

    As of yet, that is exactly what I think. You have not shown any clear evidence or specific provable reasons why anyone should think otherwise.

  • 0

    kinniku

    The US has a habit of not respecting agreements, or even treaties.

    Blah, blah, blah...for example? What agreements or treaties has the US not respected regarding Japan?

  • 0

    kwatt

    Japan can't have any nuclear weapons in the first place under the law before saying Japan should develop it. The important thing is the existence of the US Bases, not nukes in Japan. As long as there are US bases all over in Japan, no one will attack Japan. This is one deterrent power for this country. When enemy attacks Japan with maybe nukes someday, it would attack big US Bases first, not Tokyo, Osaka, Odaiba, etc. After all the US would have to revenge it before SDF strike back. So Japan is better under the US nuclear umbrella. Japan does not need to develop nukes.

  • 0

    sabiwabi

    Japan can't have any nuclear weapons in the first place under the law before saying Japan should develop it.

    The law? Imposed by whom? As long as Japan choses to act like an occupied state, I guess it should obey THE LAW. If Japan finally decides to grow up, it should write its own laws.

    As long as there are US bases all over in Japan, no one will attack Japan.

    All the US bases in the US did not prevent 9-11.

    When enemy attacks Japan with maybe nukes someday, it would attack big US Bases first, not Tokyo, Osaka, Odaiba, etc.

    But if a country (e.g. China or Russia) one day decides to attack the US, it will have to attack the US bases in Japan. If Japan gets rid of all the US bases, there will be no reason to attack Japan.

    After all the US would have to revenge it before SDF strike back.

    Yes, just like their revenge for the attack on the USS Liberty.

  • 0

    kwatt

    sabi - Your thinkings are mixed up all things such as potential war and 911. First Japan is not against Islamic countries, rather good friends with them, so they will not attack Japan. China, Russia will never attack the US. China thinks American economy is very important for china. If China attacks the US, then China's economy will be collapsed, so China is depending on the US economy and also the US is depending on China. The World is over if Russia attack the US with nukes, No one thinks Russia, China,etc attack Japan, For what they attack? Remember Japan has almost nothing, no oil, no gas, no metals, etc. You must be watching TV too much. Japan is much better under the US umbrella, because so far no war for 64 years.

  • 0

    sabiwabi

    First Japan is not against Islamic countries, rather good friends with them, so they will not attack Japan.

    And they did not attack the US on 911.

    If China attacks the US, then China's economy will be collapsed, so China is depending on the US economy and also the US is depending on China.

    I suspect China is getting tired of lending money to the US to buy Chinese goods. The US is crumbling fast.

    China, Russia will never attack the US.

    Now they wouldn't such a thing, I agree. But down the road, it might just happen. At that time, I do hope Japan will have the ability to defend itself, with the broken US umbrella.

    You must be watching TV too much.

    I used to, but it when I stopped doing so that I snapped out of the trance.

  • 0

    Seiharinokaze

    It has been pointed out by a number of military experts and world political scientists that the nuclear umbrella doesn't function actually. A nuclear power doesn't attack another nuclear power and doesn't secure its allies by the nuclear umbrella if it means to risk its own existence. That's why France, Britain and China developed their own force de frappe not believing in the nuclear umbrellas either by the U.S. or the USSR. North Korea is just emulating them. They all know that the nuclear umbrella is no more than a hegemonical trick for a nuclear super power state to subject a non-nuclear country to its will. If China believes so and dares attack Japan, will America send a missile to China as retaliation? If the U.S. counts it against its national interests to guard Japan against huge powerful China, wouldn't America take action in some way or other to nullify the security treaty? That is, Mr. Ito argues, what Japan should wake to and take into earnest consideration, though my bottom line is not necessarily the same as Mr. Ito's.

    Anyway, it is common, though tacit, knowledge that the U.S. does not allow Japan to have its own autonomous defense capability. And China welcomes it. Didn't Kissinger say to Zhou in his first visit to China in 1971 that the presence of U.S. troops on Japan helped to restrain the Japanese rather than the reverse? It's in the interests of both the U.S. and China to keep Japan under control.

    The next year when Nixon visited China, he also argued that Beijing should accept the US-Japan security treaty because it gave U.S. influence over Tokyo on such matters as Taiwan policy. The U.S. would restrain the Japanese from going to military expansion. It seems as if, in the context of the Far East, the US-Japan security treaty with its nuclear umbrella exists for containing Japan rather than defending it and serves also as a kind of America's diplomatic tool with China.

  • 0

    kinniku

    Seiharinokaze,

    Anyway, it is common, though tacit, knowledge that the U.S. does not allow Japan to have its own autonomous defense capability.

    Umm...that is not common knowledge in as much as it is certainly not established fact. Certainly not now in 2009. If the Japanese Government were to ask the US to leave, they would. The reality is that it certainly seems that the majority of the Japanese people do not wish this to happen if it means that their own sons and daughters would take the place of US troops. Bottom line, if Japan asks the US to leave, they will. They haven't asked so the US hasn't left.

    Lastly, what you keep insisting you assume happened (based on one book written by people who seem to have an unrealistic hate on for the US) has not as yet, been shown to have happened and you certainly have not shown that any of it is US policy now in 2009.

  • 0

    kinniku

    And they did not attack the US on 911.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah. We know...you think the Jews did it or is it the US did now? Maybe you now think it was aliens from outer space? I don't know which conspiracy bandwagon you are bumping around on today... Anyway, the poster was not asking for your continued fantasies...they were attempting to talk about reality with you.

    The US is crumbling fast.

    Yeah...sure it is. You are more convincing when you attempt to talk about the moon landing being faked and that is not saying very much...

    Now they wouldn't such a thing, I agree. But down the road, it might just happen.

    Yes, and the sun might explode tomorrow and turn everyone into vapor...Of course you are not even aware of Japan's high level of self-defence capabilities. Even without the US's help Japan's military technological might is absolutely nothing to sneeze at. You seem to be under the very mistaken impression that Japan is completely reliant on the US for its own protection. Hopefully China and Russia never make such a silly mistake. They would be sorry...

    so that I snapped out of the trance.

    ...and snapped right into another one apparently...

  • 0

    sdf_crew_member

    In modern world to be a sovereign nation means to have a nuclear weapon and not have foreign bases on its soil. I think Japan should have one or at least have an ability to quickly make it if needed.

  • 0

    hworta269

    Japan has a pretty good self defense force, they have the second largest defense budget in the world I think also and that is capped at three percent of their GDP. Japan has the technology to go nuclear literally overnight and the IT industry to churn out all kinds of high tech weaponry, they buy from America to save money on R&D, not because they cant do it themselves.

  • 0

    hworta269

    I think if America is going to let Iran, North Korea and anyone else then why not Japan also.

  • 0

    apecNetworks

    From my perspective, the ability of the SDF to secure the surrounding water territory of Japan is the first priority - Japan still have a lot of work in this area. Nukes would be disruptive, so extreme analysis of repercussions would have to be calibrated. If the UN Hdqtrs. was relocated to Japan, nukes would be a non issue - radical view.

  • 0

    Kuroyama

    I think that in the best Bush Doctrine way Japan repeatedly demonstrates that it will do what it wants, when it wants, and doesn't care about world opinion. Knowing this, would YOU trust Japan with nuclear warheads? I would sooner trust TEHRAN with warheads than I would TOKYO. (Read: not at all). It's not about maintaining hegemony, its about the safety of the human race. To those who think Japan can be entrusted with it... simply haven't lived here long enough. Or are Japanese and haven't lived abroad long enough. Perhaps in another 100 years the issue should be reopened for discussion. But, for now count my vote with a resounding: "No".

  • 0

    Sarge

    "U.S. nuclear umbrella"

    This means if Japan is attacked with nuclear weapons, the U.S. will retaliate against the country where the nuclear attack on Japan originated, killing, maiming and sickening who knows how many.

  • 0

    apecNetworks

    To Seiharinokaze:

    Concerning your thesis on a particular deal cut between the US and the PRC during the Nixon Administration, I have info that would fill in a couple blanks to your argument, but you will find very few fans in East Asia academic departments in the US. The present climate reminds me of "Plato's Cave". For Japan's OVERALL security, nukes would be a problematic, dangerous path to pursue at this moment. However, R&D should be well funded_

    ciao

  • 0

    TokyoHustla

    Japan already has nuclear weapons.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "Japan already has nuclear weapons"

    And you know this because...?

  • 0

    TokyoHustla

    And you know this because...?

    Don't worry about it.

  • 0

    Asara

    Why today usa and russia are disarming or decreasing nuclear arsenals because there is inevitable trend of multipolar global political trend is dominating everywhere whatever whichever you want. So as growing global disbalacning threat of chinese economic and nuclear uncontrolled growth needs another asian balance power with sufficient nuclear forces. Japan must develop its nuclear arsenal at least to the not exceeding level of those of other to "nuke empires".

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in Poll

View all

View all