Japanese Nuclear Weapon Program; WHO is most afraid of?

Astroboy · 16 Mar 2008

Japan's small size, its geographically concentrated industry, and the close proximity of potentially hostile powers all render the country vulnerable to a nuclear strike. North Korea's attempts to develop nuclear weapons coupled with its capability to target Japan with any weapon that it developed, is a matter of great concern to Japanese military strategists. Events on the Asian mainland could also affect Japan. From the early 1970s, China possessed a nuclear force capable of striking Japan.....

Nuclear Weapons Program - Japan

Japan is one of the most advanced nuclear technology country in the world.
Plus, nuclear weapon is not difficult to make. All necessary parts shall be available at cheap cost somewhere in Akihabara of Tokyo. Probably North Korean spies purchased necessary parts in Japan.

However, Japan does not develop nuclear weapon on its own - not because of its experience the devastation of atomic attack in the war, but because of US nuclear umbrella. So, as far as US nuke umbrella is valid, Japan will not.
Then WHY USA kindly offers nuclear umbrella for Japan? or USA wants to extend their nuclear umbrella to Japan? because USA is afraid of Japanese nuke....as they dropped twice on our heads ????

There are many discussions about nuclear weapon program in Japan, but when the discussion comes on table in Japan,

China= Relatively quiet
South Korea = Noisy
USA = Secretry of State come rushing over to Japan

This means that USA is most afraid of Japanese nukes?

hideway · 17 Mar 2008

Why would USA be afraid of Japanese nukes?

And why would Japan would like nukes anyway?

Kang Seung Jae · 26 May 2008

hideway said:
Why would USA be afraid of Japanese nukes?

The US wouldn't be afraid of the nukes themselves. However, they would be worried of the possibilities of a Nuclear Domineo where if Japan arms, ROK/DPRK/Taiwan will arm.

hideway said:
And why would Japan would like nukes anyway?

The only reason I would see is if US takes off their Asian nuclear umbrella.

1/2gaijinguy · 5 Jun 2008

Contrary to popular belief, America doesn't have bases here to "protect" Japan. If Japan wanted to protect itself, it could easily do so. First, they would stop giving money to the U.S. military here in Japan and then they could go on a military spending spree. In 2007, they were already the sixth largest spender on military in the world...only the U.S., EU (total), France, UK, China and Germany spent more. If Japan were to stop spending money on the U.S. presence, they could easily buy/build their military up in no time. They already have advanced aircraft (F2, F-15J, AWACS, etc.), ships (Arleigh Burke class), and armor (Type 90, TK-X) and a highly trained military. They also have the potential to create ICBMs since they have advance rocket technology and it wouldn't take much to convert them into nuclear payload carrying platforms.

There is currently no country in the region that possesses the "blue water" navy capability to launch and sustain a successful sea invasion of Japan other than the U.S. Although Japan has no large blue water navy itself, that's by choice. No country in the region wants to see a resurgent Japanese military with the capability of projecting power. That's why there was such a stink raised when Japan bought the Russian carrier (for scrap?) and when they (and the U.S.) wanted to purchase air refuel tankers so Japanese planes could patrol further out.

Bottom line is that it's cheaper and easier for the Japanese to "accept" the U.S. military presence here rather than buy it/build it on their won. Plus, it keeps the other countries in the area happy and feeling more secure about themselves.

Astroboy · 7 Sep 2008

Kang Seung Jae said:
The US wouldn't be afraid of the nukes themselves. However, they would be worried of the possibilities of a Nuclear Domineo where if Japan arms, ROK/DPRK/Taiwan will arm.
The only reason I would see is if US takes off their Asian nuclear umbrella.

Then Let's hold nuclear weapons! Japan, South Korean, North Korea and Taiwan...all countries should hold the ultimate weapons - nuke. Then the region should become peaceful coz anybody cannot threat others.

Sadam of Iraq was killed because Iraq didn't have real nukes. IF Sadam holds a nuke, he must be alive today, USA could not invade Iraq. I believe.

USA invade only the countries, which do not hold nuclear weapons.

grapefruit · 8 Sep 2008

Astroboy said:
Then Let's hold nuclear weapons!

I guess it's too late. If the government wanted the nuclear capability, it should have pursued it a long time ago. The international society won't accept it.
It is certain that Russia and China will strongly accuse Japan.

Besides, what if the Chinese public start boycotting Japanese goods? At present, the Japanese economy hinges on exports to the Chinese market.

Astroboy · 8 Sep 2008

grapefruit said:
I guess it's too late. If the government wanted the nuclear capability, it should have pursued it a long time ago. The international society won't accept it.
It is certain that Russia and China will strongly accuse Japan.
Besides, what if the Chinese public start boycotting Japanese goods? At present, the Japanese economy hinges on exports to the Chinese market.

Problem is .... easiness to make nuclear weapon. Even Koreans being desparate for everyday foods can make it today.

grapefruit · 9 Sep 2008

I agree that physically it is easy to make. But, it seems that the majority of the Japanese people will go against that. Overcoming this hurdle is not easy, unless another turn of military dictatorship takes hold of the Japanese political scene.

Astroboy · 10 Sep 2008

grapefruit said:
I agree that physically it is easy to make. But, it seems that the majority of the Japanese people will go against that. Overcoming this hurdle is not easy, unless another turn of military dictatorship takes hold of the Japanese political scene.

You are telling hackneyed expression, which I think you want to believe.

What is another Military dictatorship? or are you afraid of something?

grapefruit · 10 Sep 2008

Astroboy said:
You are telling hackneyed expression, which I think you want to believe.
What is another Military dictatorship? or are you afraid of something?

What I meant is that in today's Japan, statesmen won't be elected in Japan if they advocate the pursue of nuclear armament. At least that is how I view the Japanese people's reaction according to the right- and left-wing media in Japan.

Astroboy · 10 Sep 2008

grapefruit said:
What I meant is that in today's Japan, statesmen won't be elected in Japan if they advocate the pursue of nuclear armament. At least that is how I view the Japanese people's reaction according to the right- and left-wing media in Japan.

History clearly indicates .... Things often change drastically in Japn. So nobody know. Preparation about nuclear weapons must be ongoing. Let's develop the "high quality" nuclear weapon when the time comes.

grapefruit · 19 Sep 2008

Astroboy said:
History clearly indicates .... Things often change drastically in Japn. So nobody know. Preparation about nuclear weapons must be ongoing. Let's develop the "high quality" nuclear weapon when the time comes.

I have no quarrel with maintaining the nuclear capability, and the rest of the world is also aware of the capacity that the country possesses. It is another thing though to cross the line and starts developing weapons.

hideway · 19 Sep 2008

Astroboy said:
Then Let's hold nuclear weapons! Japan, South Korean, North Korea and Taiwan...all countries should hold the ultimate weapons - nuke. Then the region should become peaceful coz anybody cannot threat others.

You really live in your own world hm?

Astroboy · 19 Sep 2008

grapefruit said:
I have no quarrel with maintaining the nuclear capability, and the rest of the world is also aware of the capacity that the country possesses. It is another thing though to cross the line and starts developing weapons.

Everybody is crossing the line easily, isn't it? Nuke is not novelty anymore.

Looking at Pakistan, Taliban is reaching nuke, and thus US army is desparate in border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. US army will CROSS the line soon, and things will get more complicated. Taliban will posses nuke soon.

Nuke will be more conventional weapon soon.

grapefruit · 20 Sep 2008

Astroboy said:
Everybody is crossing the line easily, isn't it? Nuke is not novelty anymore.
Looking at Pakistan, Taliban is reaching nuke, and thus US army is desparate in border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. US army will CROSS the line soon, and things will get more complicated. Taliban will posses nuke soon.
Nuke will be more conventional weapon soon.

Wouldn't the world become a more scaring place if every country possessed nuclear weapons?

Astroboy · 20 Sep 2008

grapefruit said:
Wouldn't the world become a more scaring place if every country possessed nuclear weapons?

Contorary,

World is already more than enough scary, isn't it? as nuclear possesion country is limited.

Ask your country's President why he is so desparate.

Emoni · 20 Sep 2008

I find it odd that there are those who push for peace through fear of use of weapons that could be possessed in the future, rather than putting that effort into just maintaining peaceful relations in general.

Since when did peace treaties NEED the threat of nuclear destruction to be legit?

Astroboy · 20 Sep 2008

Emoni said:
I find it odd that there are those who push for peace through fear of use of weapons that could be possessed in the future, rather than putting that effort into just maintaining peaceful relations in general.
Since when did peace treaties NEED the threat of nuclear destruction to be legit?

Above does not answer my below post.

USA invade only the countries, which do not hold nuclear weapons.

grapefruit · 20 Sep 2008

Astroboy said:
Above does not answer my below post.

Yes! The US does not have any right to enforce other countries to give up on their efforts to develop nuclear capability, unless the US first abolishes its nuclear arsenals.

JerseyBoy · 18 Nov 2008

First, Japan cannot afford more spending on its military. The current treaty with USA is a god-given to Japan as Japan can get the military protection on the cheap (as the previous poster indicated). If someone is going to nuke Japan again, Japan won't have the time to launch its counter attack because it will be blown into oblivion (given its concentrated population center in the major metro areas in Japan). If I am a US president, I will reduce or pull out the military coverage in Japan unless Japan pays for the full expense of US forces in Japan.

Astroboy · 21 Nov 2008

JerseyBoy said:
First, Japan cannot afford more spending on its military. The current treaty with USA is a god-given to Japan as Japan can get the military protection on the cheap (as the previous poster indicated). If someone is going to nuke Japan again, Japan won't have the time to launch its counter attack because it will be blown into oblivion (given its concentrated population center in the major metro areas in Japan). If I am a US president, I will reduce or pull out the military coverage in Japan unless Japan pays for the full expense of US forces in Japan.

US global dominance 'set to wane'
And the use of nuclear weapons will grow increasingly likely, says the report, as rogue states and terrorist groups gain greater access to such weapons.
BBC NEWS | Americas | US global dominance 'set to wane'

The National Intelligence Council (NIC) predicts China, India and Russia will increasingly challenge US influence.... Nevertheless, it concludes: "The US will remain the single most important actor but will be less dominant."

Then Japan may need to find alternative or other option ...

JerseyBoy · 21 Nov 2008

Astroboy said:
The National Intelligence Council (NIC) predicts China, India and Russia will increasingly challenge US influence.... Nevertheless, it concludes: "The US will remain the single most important actor but will be less dominant."

Do you really trust what the National Intelligence Council says? Their past assessments have been off the mark, to say the least. It has been apparent by looking at the emerging powers in Asia and "ever closer" EU nations that US's monopoly has been waning (but, will be still one of the powerful and influential countries in the world).

grapefruit · 30 Nov 2008

JerseyBoy said:
Do you really trust what the National Intelligence Council says? Their past assessments have been off the mark, to say the least. It has been apparent by looking at the emerging powers in Asia and "ever closer" EU nations that US's monopoly has been waning (but, will be still one of the powerful and influential countries in the world).

No doubt that the US will remain in leading position in the world. Although this is extremely unlikely (given the current relationship between the two countries), what if Japan decided to switch sides and started to corporate with China? What if Japan decided not to allow any US forces present within its borders? The US would lose footing in Asia.

JerseyBoy · 30 Nov 2008

grapefruit said:
No doubt that the US will remain in leading position in the world. Although this is extremely unlikely (given the current relationship between the two countries), what if Japan decided to switch sides and started to corporate with China? What if Japan decided not to allow any US forces present within its borders? The US would lose footing in Asia.

I just don't see the close bilateral relationship between Japan and PRC for the foreseeable future. My hunch is Japan will stay as a poodle to USA for many many years to come (Japan does not have the international diplomatic clout on the world stage), which is just fine with me as I am more American and Japanese. Japan does not have the resource to fund the full fledged military on its own and will keep counting on the US military protection. If I am a president of USA, I will push Japan to cough up more money to finance US military expenses. If US troops pull out from Japanese bases, I can see the Japanese government will be at its wits' end.

grapefruit · 30 Nov 2008

JerseyBoy said:
I just don't see the close bilateral relationship between Japan and PRC for the foreseeable future. My hunch is Japan will stay as a poodle to USA for many many years to come (Japan does not have the international diplomatic clout on the world stage), which is just fine with me as I am more American and Japanese. Japan does not have the resource to fund the full fledged military on its own and will keep counting on the US military protection. If I am a president of USA, I will push Japan to cough up more money to finance US military expenses. If US troops pull out from Japanese bases, I can see the Japanese government will be at its wits' end.

Then, it is important for the US to ensure China remains as a non-democratic hostile country toward Japan. It would be not beneficial to the US if China were to become democratic and understanding and supportive to Japan.

Japanese Nuclear Weapon Program; WHO is most afraid of?

先輩

still hiding

後輩

後輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

still hiding

先輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

先輩

Back in town

先輩

Back in town

先輩

Back in town

先輩

Similar threads