Politics Koizumi urges national debate on nuclear weapons

[thomas]

With France extending its nuclear umbrella, Finland allowing the deployment of nuclear weapons on its territory, and now Japan considering its own nuclear options, I feel humanity is heading in the wrong direction. I can't help wondering where we took a wrong turn.


Defence Minister Shinjiro Koizumi said Japan needs to have a debate on nuclear weapons, arguing that a number of European countries are placing greater emphasis on nuclear deterrence. Speaking in an online programme released on Friday, Koizumi said Japan could not avoid discussing the issue. His remarks appeared to be made with the government's planned year-end revision of three key national security documents in mind. He pointed to France and Finland as examples of countries pursuing policies aimed at strengthening nuclear deterrence.

Although Japan relies on the U.S. nuclear umbrella, it is the only country to have suffered a nuclear attack and maintains its three principles of not producing, possessing, or allowing nuclear weapons on its territory. Koizumi said Japan's security environment has grown harsher and argued Japan needs to change a situation in which some topics are deemed unacceptable to debate. In December last year, a source, who is involved in devising security policy under Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi's government, said Japan should possess nuclear weapons, sparking backlash from opposition parties and some countries.

Defense Minister Koizumi says Japan needs debate on nuclear weapons - The Mainichi

TOKYO (Kyodo) -- Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi said that Japan needs a debate on nuclear weapons, as some European countries are seeking greater n

mainichi.jp

 

[Grandpa Frank]

I'm guessing a lot of US military ships , subs and planes have nukes on board and they visit and are stationed in Japan. Wonder how that would be handled?

 

[thomas]

Yes, the US forces have or had nukes stationed on their bases. Koizumi was raising the topic of Japanese nukes.

Wow, and we had this discussion 23 years ago:

J

Thread 'Should JAPAN go nuclear given the reality of NORTHEAST ASIA?'

6 Nov 2003

Should Japan develop nuclear weapons given the reality of Northeast Asia?


The mass media at the moment is focused on events in Iraq, yet events on the Korean peninsula are once more causing probles.

If you look at the geopolitical reality of Northeast Asia, then it is clear that this region is very dangerous. The Russian Federation, China and North Korea respectively have nuclear weapons; and of course the USA can deploy their enormous stockpile at short notice. Yet what about Japan?

For Japan, despite major economic problems since 1990, still remains to be the second largest...

• jihadjay
• Replies: 9
• Forum: Japanese News & Hot Topics

 

[Lothor]

With France extending its nuclear umbrella, Finland allowing the deployment of nuclear weapons on its territory, and now Japan considering its own nuclear options, I feel humanity is heading in the wrong direction. I can't help wondering where we took a wrong turn.


Defence Minister Shinjiro Koizumi said Japan needs to have a debate on nuclear weapons, arguing that a number of European countries are placing greater emphasis on nuclear deterrence. Speaking in an online programme released on Friday, Koizumi said Japan could not avoid discussing the issue. His remarks appeared to be made with the government's planned year-end revision of three key national security documents in mind. He pointed to France and Finland as examples of countries pursuing policies aimed at strengthening nuclear deterrence.

Defense Minister Koizumi says Japan needs debate on nuclear weapons - The Mainichi

TOKYO (Kyodo) -- Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi said that Japan needs a debate on nuclear weapons, as some European countries are seeking greater n

mainichi.jp

A debate! Like the debate the public was permitted to have about the future of the imperial line? I feel a little chill when I hear the word 'debate', because it generally means that the government has a line it wants to push.

 

[Ukigumo]

With France extending its nuclear umbrella, Finland allowing the deployment of nuclear weapons on its territory, and now Japan considering its own nuclear options, I feel humanity is heading in the wrong direction. I can't help wondering where we took a wrong turn.

With nutters like Putin and Trump behaving increasingly erratically I can understand countries wanting to show they can 'fight back' but strategic nuclear weapons are useless because of their devastation effect on civilians (tactical nuclear weapons are a different story).

Defence Minister Shinjiro Koizumi said Japan needs to have a debate on nuclear weapons, arguing that a number of European countries are placing greater emphasis on nuclear deterrence.

There's a certain 'yuck factor' about Japan having nuclear weapons. Looking at what's happening in Ukraine it seems things like Patriot interceptor missile surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems (defensive) and drone technology (spatially very specific) are the way to go.

Speaking in an online programme released on Friday, Koizumi said Japan could not avoid discussing the issue. His remarks appeared to be made with the government's planned year-end revision of three key national security documents in mind. He pointed to France and Finland as examples of countries pursuing policies aimed at strengthening nuclear deterrence.

I think you have too high an opinion of humanity, as a whole, thomas. If you lower those expectations, life becomes much less of a disappointment…

 

[Ukigumo]

A debate! Like the debate the public was permitted to have about the future of the imperial line? I feel a little chill when I hear the word 'debate', because it generally means that the government has a line it wants to push.

Yes, the Japanese government seem to have an inability to follow the democratic process. I've witnessed in many times in the various Japanese organisation of which I'm a member!

 

[Lothor]

Yes, the Japanese government seem to have an inability to follow the democratic process. I've witnessed in many times in the various Japanese organisation of which I'm a member!

It makes it all the more annoying when they throw around democratic-sounding words like 'debate'.

 

[Ukigumo]

It makes it all the more annoying when they throw around democratic-sounding words like 'debate'.

Oh I thought it was a misspelling of 'debacle'.

 

[thomas]

I think you have too high an opinion of humanity, as a whole, thomas. If you lower those expectations, life becomes much less of a disappointment…

It is just sad to see so much talent and opportunity wasted, while the worst of humankind keeps rising to the top and standing in everyone else's way. Perhaps I am naive, but I still believe that one day we shall overcome.

 

[Ukigumo]

It is just sad to see so much talent and opportunity wasted, while the worst of humankind keeps rising to the top and standing in everyone else's way. Perhaps I am naive, but I still believe that one day we shall overcome.

It's a good attitude to have. Unfortunately, I took the 'red pill' a long time ago…

 

[johnnyG]

If Libya had had a few nukes, would what happened to it have happened?

Despite the war of words in the orange clown's first term, if DPRK had not had nukes (and even more now), what would have happened to them? Same as Libya?

And so Iran. If Iran had had nukes before dickhead trump started bombing them, would he have ever even tried? (No.)

And given the US's behavior--moving defensive assets needed here to the middle east, besides that still not being able to defend its allies there--I fall on the side that Japan does need nukes. Or rather, it needs nukes kind of in the way, perhaps less so, that israel is known to have nukes. Assumed to be there, never tested/proven to exist, but assumed to be there.

Japan has the funds for it, has the technical knowledge for it, and has huge amounts of spent reactor fuel that could be reprocessed for it.

But one downside/effect of that would be that South Korea, which also has sworn off nukes due to the similar supposed "guarantee" of a now-suspect US security umbrella, might do the same.

 

[Ukigumo]

Perhaps Japan could just say they have tactical nuclear weapons…

Whoever: Do you have nuclear weapons Takaichi san?
Takaichi: ….eeer…yes…
Whoever: Can we take a look?
Takaichi: Eeeer…not right now….they're resting, you see…in a secret location. But they're ready and poised for deployment.
Whoever: <suspicios look> Okay…

 

[Petaris]

Perhaps Japan could just say they have tactical nuclear weapons…

Whoever: Do you have nuclear weapons Takaichi san?
Takaichi: ….eeer…yes…
Whoever: Can we take a look?
Takaichi: Eeeer…not right now….they're resting, you see…in a secret location. But they're ready and poised for deployment.
Whoever: <suspicios look> Okay…

You jest, but for some governments just the potential that they exist and are deploy-able would be enough to give them pause. They could even say that they got the warheads from someone and built their own delivery system. Japan does produce missiles and rockets, so adding a different payload would not be difficult.

 

[Lothor]

If Libya had had a few nukes, would what happened to it have happened?

Despite the war of words in the orange clown's first term, if DPRK had not had nukes (and even more now), what would have happened to them? Same as Libya?

And so Iran. If Iran had had nukes before dickhead trump started bombing them, would he have ever even tried? (No.)

And given the US's behavior--moving defensive assets needed here to the middle east, besides that still not being able to defend its allies there--I fall on the side that Japan does need nukes. Or rather, it needs nukes kind of in the way, perhaps less so, that israel is known to have nukes. Assumed to be there, never tested/proven to exist, but assumed to be there.

Japan has the funds for it, has the technical knowledge for it, and has huge amounts of spent reactor fuel that could be reprocessed for it.

But one downside/effect of that would be that South Korea, which also has sworn off nukes due to the similar supposed "guarantee" of a now-suspect US security umbrella, might do the same.

Although you're probably right about the deterrent effect of nukes, my concern is that the more countries have them, the greater the opportunity for some nutty leader to decide to use them sometime in the future.

 

[johnnyG]

some nutty leader

Heh, I know a good example...

 

[Ukigumo]

You jest, but for some governments just the potential that they exist and are deploy-able would be enough to give them pause. They could even say that they got the warheads from someone and built their own delivery system. Japan does produce missiles and rockets, so adding a different payload would not be difficult.

During WW2, the British army used inflatable tanks that looked real to German reconnaissance to divert attacks and over egg their resources. Inflatable nuclear warheads and rockets?

 

[Petaris]

Heh, I know a good example...

I can name at least three just off the top of my head and all of them have them.

I think the bigger worry is that with more around the chances of a terrorist getting a hold of one increases. And yes, I realize that for some people one or more of those three could be considered terrorists.