NationStates Jolt Archive

Since NK pretty much has nukes, and short range missiles that could easily reach Japan, should Japan be able to arm themselves with Nukes? I actually would have to say yes to this. This is why, let's look at the Pakistan and India situation. Two countries that hate each other more than a Klansman hate a black homosexual jew! They both have nukes, sure they're pointed at one another. However they both realize that if they try to nuke the other side, they can kiss their asses goodbye. Beside, if the Bush administration is just going to pussy foot around this, might as well allow Japan to start their armed forces back up and get some nukes in there.

They can have them, but it doesn't matter. I don't think any leader is stupid enough to not realise that the simple truth regarding nuclear weapons is "if one flies, they all fly."

They can have them, but it doesn't matter. I don't think any leader is stupid enough to not realise that the simple truth regarding nuclear weapons is "if one flies, they all fly."
Which means it's Whipping Boy time for Springfield!

Which means it's Whipping Boy time for Springfield!
Even Canada's gona take part in this event!

They can have them, but it doesn't matter. I don't think any leader is stupid enough to not realise that the simple truth regarding nuclear weapons is "if one flies, they all fly."
Um, Kim-Jong-Il isn't exactly famed for his intelligence, and as much as I love my country, Bush was a C average student. World leaders don't generally seem to be very bright, but they are extremely arrogant in many cases, and arrogance is even more dangerous than stupidity.

First: We have no right to allow or disallow Japan from creating Nuclear Weapons. They are a sovereign state. Another sovereign state (implied in original post) has no right to say on the matter, nor does the International Community.

As for why DPRK shouldn't have nukes... that's not international law, that's other sovereign nations acting to preserve their peoples from immolation by preempting DPRK with sanctions and trying to convince them that their choice is a bad one. There's no "allowing" going on, merely "If you do this, we'll consider it a threat to us and be forced to act in accordance with OUR sovereign rights."

-This disclaimer added because someone WILL try to yank my above statement out of context and spin it into "DPRK has right to n00kz!" No one has a "right" to nukes, and no one has a right to forbid nukes. All have rights to defend sovereignty/security, and act accordingly. The international community is NOT a superstate. It does not have laws. It has treaties and agreements which can be, and are, broken at the convenience of the member states, who are then checked by OTHER member states. Whew...

Second: Japan has had the civilian capability to construct nuclear weapons for decades. They are a technological and economic powerhouse (check your garage/living room/kitchen) fully capable of nuclear technology. They choose not to pursue it because of a rather scarred history, as they are the only country to be on the short end of a nuclear stick. They WILL not construct nuclear weapons unless all hell breaks loose in their worldview. What they may do, and what would still be a stretch, would be to go in with the US on a joint Missile Shield, or expand their own ABM capacity with PAC III and AEGIS systems. If everything goes crazy, they might even decide to launch a preemption strike, but even this would be out of character.

Finally: The MAD scenario applies between Nationstates and rational governments. It does not apply when only one side is willing to walk over the line, and does not possess immolation capacity (read: nonstate actors or rogue states). Said violators will suck glass, but there will not by strategic nuclear exchange. No one wants to cross the line.

K-stan

Since NK pretty much has nukes, and short range missiles that could easily reach Japan, should Japan be able to arm themselves with Nukes? I actually would have to say yes to this. This is why, let's look at the Pakistan and India situation. Two countries that hate each other more than a Klansman hate a black homosexual jew! They both have nukes, sure they're pointed at one another. However they both realize that if they try to nuke the other side, they can kiss their asses goodbye. Beside, if the Bush administration is just going to pussy foot around this, might as well allow Japan to start their armed forces back up and get some nukes in there.

1) As for Japan being "allowed" to "start their armed forces back up", Japan has a fairly large military now, created at the beheist of SCAP in 1950.

(This is the subject of a current thread - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=491249. Might I suggest knowing at least the tiniest little bit about something before posting. It would be less embarassing for you...)

2) As for the nuclear issue, there's nothing stopping Japan except:

The Basic Atomic Energy Law of 1956
The "three non-nuclear principles" (set forth by Prime Minister Eisaku Sato in 1968 and formalized by the Japanese Diet in 1971)
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (ratified by Japan in 1976)
This doesn't include international and domestic opposition.

There has been discussion of abandoning the "three non-nuclear principles" and the Non-Proliferation treaty's Article X states that:
Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

Furthermore, Japan has the capacity to go nuclear quite quickly.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/japan/missile/FBIS-EAS-96-227.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/japan/nuke.htm

Which means it's Whipping Boy time for Springfield!

:::stomp, stomp, stomp::: :D

First: We have no right to allow or disallow Japan from creating Nuclear Weapons. They are a sovereign state. Another sovereign state (implied in original post) has no right to say on the matter, nor does the International Community.

As for why DPRK shouldn't have nukes... that's not international law, that's other sovereign nations acting to preserve their peoples from immolation by preempting DPRK with sanctions and trying to convince them that their choice is a bad one. There's no "allowing" going on, merely "If you do this, we'll consider it a threat to us and be forced to act in accordance with OUR sovereign rights."

-This disclaimer added because someone WILL try to yank my above statement out of context and spin it into "DPRK has right to n00kz!" No one has a "right" to nukes, and no one has a right to forbid nukes. All have rights to defend sovereignty/security, and act accordingly. The international community is NOT a superstate. It does not have laws. It has treaties and agreements which can be, and are, broken at the convenience of the member states, who are then checked by OTHER member states. Whew...

Second: Japan has had the civilian capability to construct nuclear weapons for decades. They are a technological and economic powerhouse (check your garage/living room/kitchen) fully capable of nuclear technology. They choose not to pursue it because of a rather scarred history, as they are the only country to be on the short end of a nuclear stick. They WILL not construct nuclear weapons unless all hell breaks loose in their worldview. What they may do, and what would still be a stretch, would be to go in with the US on a joint Missile Shield, or expand their own ABM capacity with PAC III and AEGIS systems. If everything goes crazy, they might even decide to launch a preemption strike, but even this would be out of character.

Finally: The MAD scenario applies between Nationstates and rational governments. It does not apply when only one side is willing to walk over the line, and does not possess immolation capacity (read: nonstate actors or rogue states). Said violators will suck glass, but there will not by strategic nuclear exchange. No one wants to cross the line.

K-stan
Japan gains tremendous benefits from being an extremely close ally of the United States. While the Japanese people despise nuclear weapons, they are protected under the most capable nuclear arsenal in existence. They are not only guarded by the deterrence ensured by the US arsenal, but they also benefit directly from the current ABM program, in which the Japanese Government is taking part. They know for certain, that regardless of other factors, they have the support of the United States come a crisis situation.

First: We have no right to allow or disallow Japan from creating Nuclear Weapons. They are a sovereign state. Another sovereign state (implied in original post) has no right to say on the matter, nor does the International Community.

Well, the non-proliferation treaty allows for it, and Japan is still a signatory.

Um, Kim-Jong-Il isn't exactly famed for his intelligence, and as much as I love my country, Bush was a C average student. World leaders don't generally seem to be very bright, but they are extremely arrogant in many cases, and arrogance is even more dangerous than stupidity.

Look, it doesn't exactly take an above average IQ to realise that firing a nuke would be a baaaad plan. And even if the leaders didn't realise it, somewhere close to them, there has to be a person qwho does, and will take pains to tell the leader of whatever nation, to avoid having their country (and probably most of the world) bombed out of existence.

Well, the non-proliferation treaty allows for it, and Japan is still a signatory.
Treaties are only worth the paper they are signed on. At any point, they could simply say, "We're out, homies!" (well, more formal than that). But, I agree, they have not shown the will to arm up with nukes, so they remain signed.

Treaties serve the states, not vice versa.

Japan gains tremendous benefits from being an extremely close ally of the United States. While the Japanese people despise nuclear weapons, they are protected under the most capable nuclear arsenal in existence. They are not only guarded by the deterrence ensured by the US arsenal, but they also benefit directly from the current ABM program, in which the Japanese Government is taking part. They know for certain, that regardless of other factors, they have the support of the United States come a crisis situation.
I agree.

Treaties are only worth the paper they are signed on. At any point, they could simply say, "We're out, homies!" (well, more formal than that). But, I agree, they have not shown the will to arm up with nukes, so they remain signed.

Treaties serve the states, not vice versa.

The point was that the treaty does give the internmational community a voice.

The point was that the treaty does give the internmational community a voice.
Okay, I was just pointing out to the audience that while they have a voice, but it is always secondary to sovereign right.

What they may do, and what would still be a stretch, would be to go in with the US on a joint Missile Shield, or expand their own ABM capacity with PAC III and AEGIS systems.
Strech it out, Japan has become art of the US missile shield and has had AEGIS equiped ships for a while (matter of fact, there was a movie out last year about a Japanese AEGIS cruiser).

Yea, but how quickly can USA react to hostile action against Japan? I mean heck we were slow to react to Katrina, and that was in our own back yard.

Yea, but how quickly can USA react to hostile action against Japan? I mean heck we were slow to react to Katrina, and that was in our own back yard.
Considering the 7th Fleet lives in Yokosuka, all the Marines in Okinawa, the wings in Yamaguchi, and the incoming Army Command HQ...

I'd say pretty fast. :D

Considering the 7th Fleet lives in Yokosuka, all the Marines in Okinawa, the wings in Yamaguchi, and the incoming Army Command HQ...

I'd say pretty fast. :D

Not to mention Yokata Air Base (outside Tokyo), Sasebo Naval Base and several other bases, plus KFOR and Guam.

Since NK pretty much has nukes, and short range missiles that could easily reach Japan, should Japan be able to arm themselves with Nukes? I actually would have to say yes to this. This is why, let's look at the Pakistan and India situation. Two countries that hate each other more than a Klansman hate a black homosexual jew! They both have nukes, sure they're pointed at one another. However they both realize that if they try to nuke the other side, they can kiss their asses goodbye. Beside, if the Bush administration is just going to pussy foot around this, might as well allow Japan to start their armed forces back up and get some nukes in there.


As a Japanese person I have to say no. It's against Japanese law and after the 2 nuclear attacks on Japan by america we have no desire for any. Rearm yes, get nukes no.

As a Japanese person I have to say no. It's against Japanese law and after the 2 nuclear attacks on Japan by america we have no desire for any. Rearm yes, get nukes no.

The domestic concerns may be changing, re comments from Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda, parliamentary vice defense minister Shingo Nishimura, Liberal Party president Ichiro Ozawa, and a number of other pols.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/japan/nuke.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/japan/2004/041000-csdc-report.pdf

The domestic concerns may be changing, re comments from Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda, parliamentary vice defense minister Shingo Nishimura, Liberal Party president Ichiro Ozawa, and a number of other pols.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/japan/nuke.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/japan/2004/041000-csdc-report.pdf



I don't see why nukes would solve anything. I would be ashamed if Japan ever did get them, It was one of things I thought was so cool about Japan.

Um, Kim-Jong-Il isn't exactly famed for his intelligence, and as much as I love my country, Bush was a C average student. World leaders don't generally seem to be very bright, but they are extremely arrogant in many cases, and arrogance is even more dangerous than stupidity.

Never judge a person's intelligence by their school grades. Einstein's grades were atrocious.

I can't think of a country that SHOULD have nukes. Anyhow, when you can build giant attack robots, you don't need nukes.

Um, Kim-Jong-Il isn't exactly famed for his intelligence, and as much as I love my country, Bush was a C average student. World leaders don't generally seem to be very bright, but they are extremely arrogant in many cases, and arrogance is even more dangerous than stupidity.



Ever heard the phrase arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand? Hard to tell the apart sometimes. :D

Since NK pretty much has nukes, and short range missiles that could easily reach Japan, should Japan be able to arm themselves with Nukes? I actually would have to say yes to this. This is why, let's look at the Pakistan and India situation. Two countries that hate each other more than a Klansman hate a black homosexual jew! They both have nukes, sure they're pointed at one another. However they both realize that if they try to nuke the other side, they can kiss their asses goodbye. Beside, if the Bush administration is just going to pussy foot around this, might as well allow Japan to start their armed forces back up and get some nukes in there.

It's not as much that Japan isn't allowed to build a nuclear weapons arsenal. It certainly has the capital and the technology to initiate such a program. However, in the Japanese constitution of 1947 - which was written by American, British, French and German diplomats - the Japanese people forever renounce war:

ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

And so, as such, it is not that other nations disallow Japan to develop a nuclear weapons program, it is that for the government to embark on such a project would be unconstitutional.

Also, I think it is wrong for any nations to have nuclear weapons, even my own. We all know the destruction they caused in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and we all know that know there are even more powerful weapons that can kill stupidly large numbers of unsuspecting people. Allowing countries to possess nuclear weapons - and only allowing a certain few to do so - causes the formation of a world dominated in war and peace by one small group of countries, or one country alone, namely the USA.
For the countries that "legally" possess nuclear weapons (USA, UK, Russia, France, China, and to some extent Israel) to go after the countries that may or may not possess them or the have the technology to produce them (Iran, Pakistan, North Korea) is pure hypocrisy. Why should some nations be allowed a nuclear arsenal and others not? Nuclear weapons should be banned outright. No nation should possess them. They are too much of a danger to humanity and the environment.

I don't see why nukes would solve anything. I would be ashamed if Japan ever did get them, It was one of things I thought was so cool about Japan.

You know, as a long term resident, it would bother me a great deal as well. I'd like to see Japan either stay true to it's constitution or modify it to allow the SDF, but the no nukes policy has always been an issue I've admired... I like to see a country stand up for something. (I always liked that about New Zealand as well.)

It's not as much that Japan isn't allowed to build a nuclear weapons arsenal. It certainly has the capital and the technology to initiate such a program. However, in the Japanese constitution of 1947 - which was written by American, British, French and German diplomats - the Japanese people forever renounce war

Article 9 was the suggestion of Prime Minister Kijuro Shidehara, who truely wanted a non-military Japan. The British and French had very little, if anything, to do with it. And the Germans had absolutely nothing to do with it!