Skip to comments.Allow Japanese Nukes
Posted on 10/19/2006 9:27:34 PM PDT by AmericanExceptionalist
The first stop on Condoleezza Rice's post-detonation, nuclear reassurance tour was Tokyo. There she dutifully unfurled the American nuclear umbrella, pledging in person that the United States would meet any North Korean attack on Japan with massive American retaliation, nuclear if necessary.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Japan will realize this on their own soon, especially if the american electorate hands the Dems power.
It is important that Japan develop consciousness that it needs its own nuclear deterent vis-a-vis not merely the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (which threw a Taepodong over Japan in 1998) but also against the Kim Family Regime's (KFR) lips-and-teeth control, the Peoples Republic of China.
I'm sorry, having Japan nuclearize has the same amount of appeal as having a nuclearized Germany.
We don't need more countries having nuclear weapons, period.
Ally today, enemy tomorrow.
Whatever newbie. Of all the nations on Earth, Japan is the one we could trust most with nuclear weapons.
Will Japan always be an ally?
Allow 'em, hell! Give 'em to them - and the Taiwanese, too.
Japan * ping * (kono risuto ni hairitai ka detai wo shirasete kudasai : let me know if you want on or off this list)
This is the worst idea ever. Other countries in Asia haven't forgotten World War II. They still fear and loath the Japanese. A nuclear Japan pushes South Korea, the Phillipines, Indonesia, even Taiwan closer to China. Do the South Koreans have any need to see a nuclear Japan as a threat? No. But they will anyway. And they'll see China as their strategic counterweight. If South Korea leaves the American orbit for China's -- as it is threatening to --, that will be very bad for US interests in the region.
What's wrong with a "nuclearized Germany"? They aren't a threat to the rest of the civilized world, and neither is Japan.
What do you suggest? More diplomacy? Clinton and Carter did that and look where that got us.
I'm not sure I understand your point. How does a nuclear Japan help things? If the interest is in deterring a Korean attack on Tokyo, the US could simply reassert its historic commitment to providing a nuclear umbrella. A nuclear Japan isn't any more likely to launch a preemptive attack on Pyongyang than a nuclear Washington is. In fact, it's probably less likely to.
Then what the hell do you call "arming Japan with nukes"?
A nuclear Japan isn't any more likely to launch a preemptive attack on Pyongyang than a nuclear Washington is. In fact, it's probably less likely to.
Of course. NK knows that too. They also know that if they attack first, they will be instantly marginalized from the rest of the world, who will rush to our side, because we're the only nation on the face of the Earth willing and able to deal with the problem.
The very reason we trust Japan as an ally is the same reason they opt out of having nukes on their own accord.
They beleive in stability, and their developing a nuke would simply add to the instability. Of course, they live in a world where not enough countries feel the same.
Ultimately, I think if Japan was nuked by Korea, we would then nuke Korea. The Japanese and probably the Koreans also think this, in my opinion. Therefore, since they would never preemptively nuke another country, they can have their cake and eat it too, without seeming agressive on the world stage.
Meanwhile, they can build any number of "Defensive weapons" and I have no doubt they will.
You can't post the entire article. WashComPost has to be excerpted.
There's all the difference in the world between having an American and a Japanese finger on the button. The US long ago said that any attack on Tokyo would merit a nuclear response from the United States. That should be restated and made explicit. But I'm still not sure how allowing Japan to develop its own nuclear weapons makes things any better, and I do see how it makes things a lot worse.
If Japan was ruled by a crazed dictator, then you might have a point. But, alas, you don't.
Having been in the Navy long enough, I know that we are always nearby in case the ugly stuff hits the fan. Needless to say, we can certainly mount a quick and deadly counter-offensive if need be.
France has a small nuclear arsenal. In a strategic nuclear exchange with any super power she would lose. However, Charles Degaule postulated, would the United States go to war and sacrifice New York for Paris if France was attacked? If I were the Japanese I would get very busy building a nuclear deterrent under their control.
"Allow 'em, hell! Give 'em to them - and the Taiwanese, too."
Sounds reasonable to me. However, we could just give them the designs. They have all the expertise and fissionable material to do the rest.
I don't get you. I'm not worried Japan will use their nukes. I'm saying Japan doesn't need nukes, and a nuclear armed Japan will scare the bejesus out of America's allies in the region. A scared S. Korea will move closer into the orbit of China, which hurts US interests.
South Korea and China already have nukes.
South Korea has nukes? That's news to me. China has nukes, but South Korea doesn't perceive China to be a threat. South Korea does, however, feel threatened by Japan. You and I may disagree with their view, but it's a fact.
Hate to break this to you, pal, but we did equip the Bundeswehr with nukes back in the day. It was a "dual-key" arrangement, in which a US officer held a virtual "veto" over whether or not the nukes would be used (based on a decision by the National Command Authority). In this case, it's a moot point, since Mr. Abe says that the Japanese don't want any nukes, just missile defense.
Which is a bunch of left winged BS anyway. China is a bigger threat to South Korea than Japan could ever hope to be.
That's not the same thing as having an autonomous Japanese nuclear program, which is basically what Krauthammer and some of the posters here want. The Germany veto setup is not too different from a nuclear umbrella, just merely localized.
Dunno. But it is safe to assume that North Korea will always be an enemy--at least, as long as "Dear Leader" reigns supreme. And the enemy of my enemy...well, you know the rest.
NK does what it does because the Chicoms let them. Don't buy this crap that they're upset about the North's behavior. They gave them the green light to go for it. A nuclear Japan will force the Chinese to reign in their attack dog because while we may promise we will retaliate for a nuclear attack on Japan, a Japan with nukes will without a doubt retaliate.
We wouldn't have to give nukes to them. The South Koreans, Japanese and Taiwanese are quite capable of making them in short order. Probably weeks rather than months.
That may well be true. But they're not the only ones who fear a nuclear Japan, and all the other regional powers will look to Beijing -- not Washington -- to ensure regional security in the face of what they will perceive to be Japanese aggression. That's, imho, a grave geopolitical mistake.
Additionally, a nuclear armed Japan will legitimize everything the DPRK is saying -- that their nukes are purely defensive, and make it impossible for the US to build the kind of international resolve necessary to enforce an effective embargo of the DPRK. The US needs Kim Jong Il to remain the bad guy -- how he's currently viewed. If Japan builds nukes, the children and grandchildren of victims of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere will start seeing Japan as the bigger threat.
Maybe, to some extent. But I don't see how a nuclear DPRK helps China.
A nuclear Japan will force the Chinese to reign in their attack dog because while we may promise we will retaliate for a nuclear attack on Japan, a Japan with nukes will without a doubt retaliate.
Maybe yes, maybe no. But is it worth losing influence over South Korea, Indonesia, the Philipines and even Taiwan? Why not just restate the US' committment to providing a nuclear umbrella for Japan?
Yet the South Koreans apparently don't consider North Korea's nuclear detonations "a declaration of war"--not to mention the gazillions of conventional arms aimed at Seoul.
Some people might think the totalitarians are just more serious about this deadly game than the West is.
Umm...If nukes weren't a deterrent, why would NK, Iran (okay, Iran might actually want to use them), and a slew of tin pot dictatorships want to procure them, even in small amounts? You're right that Red China would think of that as a declaration of war, but it definitely serves a purpose. The Chicoms are pretty fervent about taking Taiwan, but having the possibility of a radioactive Beijing, Shanghai, or any big city is certainly going to influence whether they try and take the island by force.
What you say is certainly true, but the problem is that Taiwan doesn't have the means of delivering a nuke to Shanghai or Beijing. Taiwan is in the south, it only has missile capabilities of reaching Fujian province, which is mostly rural.
That's why Japan is such a great US ally . . . because everyone else hates Japan. Japan is like Israel. Everyone else in the world hates the country.
Unfortunately, Japan, like Israel, needs nukes. The US can't be trusted as an ally and may cut-and-run as it did in Vietnam, and as the Dems are threatening to do now in Iraq.
It's far better to have nukes and not need them, then to need nukes and not have them.
Except the US can't afford for the Far East to turn into the Middle East. The US needs to have not just Japan, but also South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, Taiwan, the Philipines, etc. in its sphere of influence, not China's, if it wants to contain China. Also, I'm not sure that Japan sees its relations with the US in quite the same way that Israel does.
Put yourself in Japan's shoes. Would you trust the Americans to come to your aid? Now? Sure, but how about 5 years from now under the Clinton or Obama administration? When you've got nukes you never need to worry about whether someone else will provide your deterent for you.
Well, I might be wrong, but I thought Taiwanese industry would be capable of producing missiles with adequate range. I'm talking about technological capability to produce, not whether they can legally. IIRC South Korea was pressured not to produce ballistic missiles by us a while back. Maybe we've got something like that in place for the ROC.
I don't know why we're so reluctant to share technology with Taiwan (they're still using upgraded Kidd-class destroyers IIRC). Are we behind them or not (but that's another issue).
I understand why Japan wants nukes. But I don't see how the US would want Japan to get nukes. A nuclear Japan would increase China's power relative to the US enormously. A slight increase in Japanese peace of mind results in a tremendous decrease in American regional influence.
If we're talking about historical hegemony, Korea'd do well to remember that China dominated them for a good deal of their history. The same goes for much of Asia. The Vietnamese still remember Chinese domination, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want a return to that past.
Apart from a few pirates here and there and the brief moment of expansionism, Japan has left well enough alone for most of its history. Unless I'm forgeting something. :)
Because it could prevent both a war and a human tragedy. Our nukes probably won't always be a deterent to North Korea attacking Japan and we shouldn't have to put ourselves in the position of risking WW3 to defend a country with the means to defend itself.
Japan or German will not ask you if they see the necessity of a own nuclear force. It will happen silent and fast - just like it happened in Israel a long time ago. No offical statements but everybody will know that they have damm good working nukes since we do not have to discuss the technical skills of those countries.
It is not probable that Germany will produce its own nukes in the near future, because it is under the direct nuclear umbrella of France. In difference to the US the defense of a nuclear attack in Germany would also be a question of survival for France. Everybody in Germany knows that. The confidence into the US upon this question is not that strong anymore in the meantime.
I assume that the Japanese have the same reservations (as long as we talk about this question) against the US just as political Germany has. In difference to Germany they have no "nuclear" neighbour that is "married" (sarcasm) to them. Therefore it is not sure to me if they not already rule over a nuclear inventory. If I would be the Japanese prime minister I would.
Forget South Korea. That's just the France of the far east.
Forget Indonesia. That's 98% radical Islamics, working on ethnically cleansing the 2% Christians from their islands. The US would have about as much chance as getting Indonesia on its side as it would Iran. Remember the Tsunami? How grateful was Indonesia for US aid?
The Philippines, maybe. They kicked the US out of their bases there, but they need help fighting of the Islamofacists.
Thailand, not much of chance. They just had a military coup and installed a Muslim PM, and the Islamofacsits are advancing from the south.
Taiwan, yes. That's another country without allies. Vulnerable and nobody will stick up for them because if you do, you invite powerful enemies. It's sort of like being friends with Israel. Say something bad about both countries and hopefully China and the Islamofascists will leave you alone.