NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/nkoreanuclearweaponsjapanmilitarypolitics

TOKYO (AFP) - Japan says it has the legal right to develop nuclear weapons despite its pacifist constitution but has no intention even to consider the long-taboo idea.

Prominent lawmakers have called on Japan, the only nation to suffer nuclear attack, to debate the nuclear option after communist neighbor
North Korea on October 9 said it had tested its first atom bomb.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki argued that the US-imposed pacifist constitution allows Japan "the right to possess minimum capability" for self-defense.

"Theoretically and technically, nuclear weapons might be included in this, but this is different from the government's policy," said Shiozaki, the top government spokesman.

"The government has no intention of changing its three-point non-nuclear principles, nor the intention of discussing the issue," he told a news conference.

He was responding to the latest remarks by Shoichi Nakagawa, the policy chief of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, who wants Japan to discuss going nuclear in light of the North Korean threat.

"The government sticks to its policy of not having nuclear weapons, but the government also says that it is allowed to have nuclear weapons under the constitution," Nakagawa said Monday.

Nakagawa is a close aide to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who strongly supports revising the constitution to give Japan a more active military role.

But Abe has repeatedly ruled out discussing the nuclear option.

The Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were obliterated by US nuclear bombs at the end of World War II that killed more than 210,000 people.

The United States has ensured Japan's security since then and forced it to renounce its right to a military.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't hide my glee that this idea is being floated around.
Nuclear weapons for Japan :)

"But don't try us, North Korea."

Any country with some technology and a Physics department is able to build a nuclear bomb.
It takes some uranium (easily available) plus some german tech of about 40 years ago.

No wonder Japan could build nukes if it wanted to do so.

added: some other countries who could easily build a nuke.

Germany
Italy
Switzerland
Czech Republic
Sweden
Serbia
Spain
Brazil
Chile
...

I don't think any of these countries will build a nuke, altough they're perfectly able to do it.

Well, Japan is probably the least likely to *actually* use them. (Yes, I was thinking of New Zealand before I said that.) And since anyone with nukes would know that Japan would likely never use any nukes it had, they'd not be of much strategic deterrence value.

Japan. Will. Not. Get. Nuclear. Weapons.

Japan. Will. Not. Get. Nuclear. Weapons.

Thankfully.

Now let's just hope Shinzo Abe doesn't manage to take away Japan's self-defence clause. Especially when a big SDF works as a deterrent.

Now let's just hope Shinzo Abe doesn't manage to take away Japan's self-defence clause.
Even if he did, doing anything with it would be political suicide.

Yay for Japan.

I can't hide my glee that this idea is being floated around.
Nuclear weapons for Japan :)
The Japanese people would revolt, and I mean REVOLT! lol.

The Japanese are sitting on literally tons of pure plutonium, They could churn out strategic nuclear weapons so fast it would boggle the mind. But they don't, because of history, and their desire to remain good global citizens.

The Japanese are sitting on literally tons of pure plutonium, They could churn out strategic nuclear weapons so fast it would boggle the mind. But they don't, because of history, and their desire to remain good global citizens.

Well, that, and the U.S. would not allow it. It may be over sixty years ago, but there are enough old people in the U.S. who remember a militaristic Japan. That 'forced pacifist constitution' is in place for a reason. The U.S. didn't assume the role of protecting Japan because we felt like being nice. It was because we didn't want them having anything more than a token military.

I can't imagine Japan going nuclear. They wouldn't take nukes if the U.S. gave them nukes. I can't say I blame them; they've discovered that war and murder are not admirable goals. If you want to do something big, do it for financial gain.

Now, the big question is this - would South Korea go nuclear? Frankly, if North Korea wants to get involved in a dick-waving contest with nukes, they can come out of thir little hole and say, "Hey world...guess what? We have nukes! Fear us! Give us oil and stuff or we'll...what the hell is that?" And then they see the state-of-the-art 100-megaton H-bomb ICBMs that South Korea developed. And then Kim Jong Il shits himself on global TV. And then the rest of the world points at Kim and laughs. And soon enough, we distribute the tape of Kim shitting himself in North Korea. Then we drop copious amounts of S'mores schnapps on North Korea.

OK, I'm getting ahead of myself. Japan won't go nuclear. South Korea should consider it.

Well, that, and the U.S. would not allow it. It may be over sixty years ago, but there are enough old people in the U.S. who remember a militaristic Japan. That 'forced pacifist constitution' is in place for a reason. The U.S. didn't assume the role of protecting Japan because we felt like being nice. It was because we didn't want them having anything more than a token military.

The 9th Ammendment was proposed by the Japanese.

The Japanese are sitting on literally tons of pure plutonium, They could churn out strategic nuclear weapons so fast it would boggle the mind. But they don't, because of history, and their desire to remain good global citizens.

Indded they could.

Well, that, and the U.S. would not allow it. It may be over sixty years ago, but there are enough old people in the U.S. who remember a militaristic Japan. That 'forced pacifist constitution' is in place for a reason. The U.S. didn't assume the role of protecting Japan because we felt like being nice. It was because we didn't want them having anything more than a token military.

As Heikoku tried to say, Article 9 was a Japanese proposition. It's notable that it was breached at US urging less than five years after its adoption.

Well, that, and the U.S. would not allow it. It may be over sixty years ago, but there are enough old people in the U.S. who remember a militaristic Japan. That 'forced pacifist constitution' is in place for a reason. The U.S. didn't assume the role of protecting Japan because we felt like being nice. It was because we didn't want them having anything more than a token military.Interesting..
so.. Germany is allowed to have a real army and Japan isnt?

if North Korea wants to get involved in a dick-waving contest with nukes, they can come out of thir little hole and say, "Hey world...guess what? We have nukes! Fear us! Give us oil and stuff or we'll...what the hell is that?" And then they see the state-of-the-art 100-megaton H-bomb ICBMs that South Korea developed. And then Kim Jong Il shits himself on global TV. And then the rest of the world points at Kim and laughs. And soon enough, we distribute the tape of Kim shitting himself in North Korea. Then we drop copious amounts of S'mores schnapps on North Korea.

OK, I'm (masturbating) getting ahead of myself. :D me bad.

Indded they could.



As Heikoku tried to say, Article 9 was a Japanese proposition. It's notable that it was breached at US urging less than five years after its adoption.

Okay, Article 9, my bad. :p

But "tried" to say? You're a cruel person. :D

Interesting..
so.. Germany is allowed to have a real army and Japan isnt?
You do have a interesting point there..I think Japan's "self defense force" (let's face it. it is a army, and a good one, in all but name) name is more of a political, and perhaps national, choice than something the US forces on them..

Pretty much the same as with the decision they made with this, a decision that I applaud..We should be getting rid of the damned things, not making more.

:D me bad.

If this were an RP, I would n00k j00 for that. But it's not, so I guess I'll just have to...argfa, we need a thwacking emoticon...and if we have one, I never use emoticons, so I don't know if we do...

If this were an RP, I would n00k j00 for that. But it's not, so I guess I'll just have to...argfa, we need a thwacking emoticon...and if we have one, I never use emoticons, so I don't know if we do...no sweat..

I give that king of feeling to all kind of peoples here.. happens all the time. :D

I can't imagine Japan going nuclear. They wouldn't take nukes if the U.S. gave them nukes. I can't say I blame them; they've discovered that war and murder are not admirable goals. If you want to do something big, do it for financial gain.

There's also another reason. Goind nuclear doesn't mean just building nukes, and not even just to be ready to launch them. Going nuclear also means being ready to get it back. And this is what Japan clearly doesn't want. First of all, it's a small country, which will be devastated even by a dozen warheads; its neighbors have and can deliver much more. Second, it would imply heavier militarization, to also ensure capability to back up the nuclear first strike with conventional attack. Clearly that isn't something to go unnoticed for the economy and generally life there.
Getting nuclear weapons will put Japan in much more danger than now. As long as they have nuclear-capable allies, I doubt they'll take the power and responsibility of reserving place in a nuclear war.

...and perhaps national, choice than something the US forces on themAllCoolNamesAreTaken seems to say it is Forced on them.

You do have a interesting point there..I think Japan's "self defense force" (let's face it. it is a army, and a good one, in all but name) name is more of a political, and perhaps national, choice than something the US forces on them..


Of course. Same with the US and how we don't have a Military, but a Department of Defense. It's always 'defense.' Even when we're invading and occupying.

added: some other countries who could easily build a nuke.

Germany
Italy
Switzerland
Czech Republic
Sweden
Serbia
Spain
Brazil
Chile
...

I don't think any of these countries will build a nuke, altough they're perfectly able to do it.
And Canada. Hell, we sold India and Pakistan their nuclear technology. Plus, we have huge uranium deposits.

There's also another reason. Goind nuclear doesn't mean just building nukes, and not even just to be ready to launch them. Going nuclear also means being ready to get it back. And this is what Japan clearly doesn't want. First of all, it's a small country, which will be devastated even by a dozen warheads; its neighbors have and can deliver much more. Second, it would imply heavier militarization, to also ensure capability to back up the nuclear first strike with conventional attack. Clearly that isn't something to go unnoticed for the economy and generally life there.
Getting nuclear weapons will put Japan in much more danger than now. As long as they have nuclear-capable allies, I doubt they'll take the power and responsibility of reserving place in a nuclear war.

Countries that go nuclear anticipate a nuclear threat. The U.S. went nuclear as a response to the Germans and Japanese. The Russians went nuclear as a response to the U.S. China went nuclear as a response to everyone, particularly the U.S. and the Russians. Britain and France were also going nuclear as a response to the Russians. That covers the original five.

India and Pakistan have since gone nuclear as a response to each other. Israel went nuclear as a response to Iraq, Iran, and all the scary folks in the Middle East. Iran's trying to go nuclear as a response to Israel and, to a lesser extent, the U.S. (and to an even lesser extent, Britain.) North Korea is looking to go nuclear as a response to the ongoing feud between the two Koreas. South Korea would go nuclear for the same reason.

For Japan to go nuclear, someone would have to threaten them. Right now, the only two conceivable threats are China and North Korea. China's annoyed at Japan, but you don't launch nukes at a country because you're annoyed at them. If we did that, there would be about six countries left on Earth, and the Cook Islands would be a major world power. China won't launch its nukes; it's rational. If North Korea seriously looks to threaten Japan, it's at that point that the Japanese might be better off going nuclear. Yes, it would be a really difficult step. Yes, a number of politicians would lose their jobs. Yes, it would bring back the memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And Japan may be one of the few that would build a missile defense system to go with it. The U.S. and the Russians didn't do that because of MAD, though the Russians probably did something. The Japanese wouldn't fuck around with that MAD business. If North Korea launches nukes at Tokyo, they're not concerned about what happens after they land. They're concerned about keeping Tokyo from turning into another Hiroshima, and I can't say I blame them.

Why shouldn't Japan arm itself with nuclear weapons? It's an economic superpower, and it's surrounded by nutcases. If anything, Japan should be bolstering its defences, and renouncing any garbage treaties the US has locked it in, if any.

Why shouldn't Japan arm itself with nuclear weapons? It's an economic superpower, and it's surrounded by nutcases. If anything, Japan should be bolstering its defences, and renouncing any garbage treaties the US has locked it in, if any.

QFT, I don't understand why Japan isn't more independant of the U.S.

Well, that, and the U.S. would not allow it. It may be over sixty years ago, but there are enough old people in the U.S. who remember a militaristic Japan. That 'forced pacifist constitution' is in place for a reason. The U.S. didn't assume the role of protecting Japan because we felt like being nice. It was because we didn't want them having anything more than a token military.
The US can rot for all I care. It causes enough problems around the world, perhaps it should have its military reduced to nothing too. It's time more global powers arose to counter US-supremacy, and actually end this rubbish monolithic world-system we have.

Japan's army exists, it's the SDF, and it's got the biggest navy in the region. Removal of Article 9 would confirm NK's "fears" and prompt an attack, or make it easier to happen.

Why shouldn't Japan arm itself with nuclear weapons? It's an economic superpower, and it's surrounded by nutcases. If anything, Japan should be bolstering its defences, and renouncing any garbage treaties the US has locked it in, if any.

Gee, maybe because they have first-hand experience of how horrible nuclear weaponry is?

Gee, maybe because they have first-hand experience of how horrible nuclear weaponry is?
I meant out of principle, not based on their past experiences. My point is that I see no reason for Japan to remain enfeebled, and reliant on powers other than itself for its protection.

Gee, maybe because they have first-hand experience of how horrible nuclear weaponry is?

That's why they would be more willing to set up missile defense. Missile defense seems to be taboo among nuclear powers; frankly, having offensive nuclear weapons is merely one phase of nuclear prowess. If Japan were to go nuclear, defense would be its priority, I would imagine. I doubt Japan has any desire to get involved in a dick-waving contest with nuclear weapons; it merely wants to keep from getting blown to bits by those who choose to engage in dick-waving.

I meant out of principle, not based on their past experiences. My point is that I see no reason for Japan to remain enfeebled, and reliant on powers other than itself for its protection.

It isn't. It has a military, a rather good one, in fact. And principle is a reason why they do not have nuclear weaponry.

It isn't. It has a military, a rather good one, in fact. And principle is a reason why they do not have nuclear weaponry.
Good enough though to protect Japan from the surrounding threats?

AllCoolNamesAreTaken seems to say it is Forced on them.

Ah, OceanDrive. I can't say that I've missed you.

If you had read the article, you would know that I was specifically refering to:

"Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki argued that the US-imposed pacifist constitution allows Japan "the right to possess minimum capability" for self-defense...The United States has ensured Japan's security since then and forced it to renounce its right to a military."

So, if you are saying the article is inaccurate, say that. But if you want to return to your previous flamebait tendencies...go ahead. I'm not the one who has been deleted, what is it, three times now?

(a token military) a national choice (or) rather something the US forces on them..
I better use the Quote function this time.

Well, that, and the U.S. would not allow it. It may be over sixty years ago, but there are enough old people in the U.S. who remember a militaristic Japan. That 'forced pacifist constitution' is in place for a reason. The U.S. didn't assume the role of protecting Japan because we felt like being nice. It was because we didn't want them having anything more than a token military.

That's why they would be more willing to set up missile defense. Missile defense seems to be taboo among nuclear powers; frankly, having offensive nuclear weapons is merely one phase of nuclear prowess. If Japan were to go nuclear, defense would be its priority, I would imagine. I doubt Japan has any desire to get involved in a dick-waving contest with nuclear weapons; it merely wants to keep from getting blown to bits by those who choose to engage in dick-waving.

It's also that strategic missile defense, for nuclear powers, isn't worth the trouble. Even if an extensive nuclear and laser measures are applied, it is still at best Russian Roulette, and such defense would make the rivals more wary. For instance, some heavy missiles carry up to 50 reentry vehicles - 10 real, 40 decoys. It totals to tens of thousands of warheads to intercept, not just thousands, costing way more than the offensive, while even a small fraction would be disastrous

Japan is probably not the country to do what even US don't dare. However, if they don't go nuclear, they possibly could attempt just missile defense instead. Of course, it isn't completely reliable, but, then, attacking a non-nuclear Japan would have almost the same consequences for NK as for nuclear Japan, so it all will be about screaming and threatening - and it's not that hard to describe defense as impenetrable, which wouldn't be too far off, given that NK has not the best missiles.

Good enough though to protect Japan from the surrounding threats?

Yes, or at least good enough to make it impractical (which is good enough to prevent attacks).

Well, that, and the U.S. would not allow it. It may be over sixty years ago, but there are enough old people in the U.S. who remember a militaristic Japan. That 'forced pacifist constitution' is in place for a reason. The U.S. didn't assume the role of protecting Japan because we felt like being nice. It was because we didn't want them having anything more than a token military.As if the US could do anything to keep Japan from doing whatever they wish. US foreign politics are already at the limit.
.

As if the US could do anything to keep Japan from doing whatever they wish. US foreign politics are already at the limit.
.Japan wanted badly to close one US base.. US sayd No.

Japan had to pay a big ransom -to get the US Military- to leave that town.

Why shouldn't Japan arm itself with nuclear weapons? It's an economic superpower, and it's surrounded by nutcases. If anything, Japan should be bolstering its defences, and renouncing any garbage treaties the US has locked it in, if any.
*sighs* Article 9, plus it wouldn't be a few politicans losing jobs, we're talking about most of the Diet being forced out.

You guys fail to understand, Japan's current view of itself is built on the fact that it is the only country to suffer a nuclar attack. It's entire victim-of-WWII, which has allowed the general population to escape war guilt, is based upon this fact. Its children are educated in every single subject at school about this fact (seriously, my bloody ENGLISH textbook covers the bombing of Hiroshima). Most Japanese students, by the time they graduate high school, will have been taken to Hiroshima or Nagasaki on a school trip just to drive this point home.

The cloest analogy I could give you would be President Bush saying that he was suspending the Bill of Rights (no jokes please) and the public being ok with that.

It's not a matter of Japan being forced into this by the US, it's a matter of a very deeply held point of view of the Japanese population itself. The idiot government ministers who dared to bring up the possibility of having a discussion about the idea of Japan maybe developing nuclear weapons have since been dogpiled.

QFT, I don't understand why Japan isn't more independant of the U.S.
It sees no reason to be so. There's also a very large backlash against anything that might lead to militarism again. It's slowly going down, but Japan still has a very large population that does not want anything to do with war, and that means reliance upon the US for the time being.

huzzah for nuclear non-proliferation! my respect for the japanese people just went up a notch. of course, they do have pretty good reason to be iffy about nuclear bombs...

I better use the Quote function this time.
Sorry, but I disagree with your quotation of me..You make it sound as if I was supporting the claim that the Japanese "self defense force" was nothing more than a token army, when this was actually not the case.

What I was, actually, saying is that the JSDF is a army in all but name, and probably one of the best ones in the world, behind the US, and British, ones. Certainly better equipped than many European ones.

It's also that strategic missile defense, for nuclear powers, isn't worth the trouble. Even if an extensive nuclear and laser measures are applied, it is still at best Russian Roulette, and such defense would make the rivals more wary. For instance, some heavy missiles carry up to 50 reentry vehicles - 10 real, 40 decoys. It totals to tens of thousands of warheads to intercept, not just thousands, costing way more than the offensive, while even a small fraction would be disastrous

Japan is probably not the country to do what even US don't dare. However, if they don't go nuclear, they possibly could attempt just missile defense instead. Of course, it isn't completely reliable, but, then, attacking a non-nuclear Japan would have almost the same consequences for NK as for nuclear Japan, so it all will be about screaming and threatening - and it's not that hard to describe defense as impenetrable, which wouldn't be too far off, given that NK has not the best missiles.

That's the idea. Japan doesn't want nuclear weapons. It doesn't want to prepare for war. However, if it had to, missile defense would be preferable to a nucelar weapons program. It isn't perfect, but if Japan can be easily nuked, it can be just as eaily defended...well, with whatever means are available at the time. Missile defense isn't perfect, but if the choice is having a bomb fall in Kobe and kill 75,000 people or having bombs fall in Kobe, Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and Sapporo and kill 3 million people, Japanese people will grudgingly defend themselves.

Granted, that's IF there's a serious North Korean threat. That's a huge, colossal IF. Right now, at this very juncture, assuming all North Korea can do is a piddling sub-one-kiloton explosion, no one will be looking at missile defense. However, if NK gets a serious nuclear weapons program, and it starts threatening people, then the Japanese will get a little nervous, and a missile defense program may be in order. The Diet would have to make it very clear that the sole purpose is for defense of the Japanese homeland, and since the Japanese have a self-defense force, it might be understood. However, Japan knows what happened the last time they tried to go on an offensive war, and I assure you, none of them want that again.

Right now, at this very juncture, assuming all North Korea can do is a piddling sub-one-kiloton explosion, no one will be looking at missile defense.
I seriously doubt that from the available evidence. Russian estimates, Chinese estimates, and Jane's weekly all estimated more than a kiloton yield (5-15, ~10, and 2-12 respectively), which correlate well with the USGS figure of a 4.2 magnitude event. You can do the numbers yourself.

A 4.2 magnitude event represents ~125 tons of seismic wave energy alone (see here (http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/magnitude.html) to repeat the math) and the seismic energy of an explosive is likely to represent less than 10% of the total energy of an explosive. Typically speaking, a 4.0 magnitude seismic event corresponds to a 1 kt yield.

...which means that, since the USGS is reporting a magnitude of 4.2 based on all the data they have available from all the stations, I'm inclined to trust the conclusions of the Russians, Chinese, and defense experts at Jane's over the official statement made by Negroponte, especially in consideration of what the spin engine is spinning. (I.e., Fox et al have emphasized SK's initial geological estimates of magnitude 3.58.)

In other words, NK has up to a half dozen or so functional nuclear devices, which could cause massive damage if one wound up in Tokyo; they also have missiles capable of delivering a payload to somewhere in Tokyo.

Granted, that's IF there's a serious North Korean threat. That's a huge, colossal IF. Right now, at this very juncture, assuming all North Korea can do is a piddling sub-one-kiloton explosion, no one will be looking at missile defense.
Possibly now, but the path between a few weak nukes and more powerful ones is not extremely long - it's a 60-year-old invention, and all the science is well known now. In 10 years, if they are serious, they'll have more.

But missile defense would still be a better choice for Japan. Even if not completely reliable, it at least doesn't provoke anything, and it defends.
The other thing sometimes forgotten is conventional weapons: a thermobaric bomb hitting Kim's palace would be similarly inconvenient for him. Japan has the capability to attack Korea with conventional precision munitions without the political problems of nukes.

Possibly now, but the path between a few weak nukes and more powerful ones is not extremely long - it's a 60-year-old invention, and all the science is well known now. In 10 years, if they are serious, they'll have more.

But missile defense would still be a better choice for Japan. Even if not completely reliable, it at least doesn't provoke anything, and it defends.
The other thing sometimes forgotten is conventional weapons: a thermobaric bomb hitting Kim's palace would be similarly inconvenient for him. Japan has the capability to attack Korea with conventional precision munitions without the political problems of nukes.

And if Japan develops a missile defense system, especially quietly, if Kim tries anything, he'll be sorely disappointed when his nukes are intercepted in mid-air.

Kim: "Hahahahahahaha, I'll teach the world to mess with me. I'll drop nukes on Tokyo and they can't do anything...hahaha...sit back and let the city blow up..." **taps foot**

Two hours later

Kim: "WHAT IN ALL CRAZY FUCKING HELL HAPPENED? I launched nuclear bombs at Tokyo and the city's still intact! Why is this happening? This is madness! Did I send them duds? This cannot happen! I will kill my scientists for...wait, who the hell are those people at my front gate?"
Official-sounding guy into megaphone: "President Kim, we have your palace surrounded. Come out with your hands up. We are occupying your country and we have disarmed your military. You are being deposed as the leader of North Korea."
Kim: "Ah shit."

Surely this is a much brighter future than one where Tokyo becomes a smoldering crater.

Hey peoples, I know it seems the U.S. is overbearing, and forceful to the japanese, in making them keep their military down, and calling it the SDF, but the Japanese are brainwashing their children as to the truth. My Australian countrymen were literally SLAUGHTERED, trying to defend places such as myanmar, thailand, Singapore, papua new guinea, even Darwin. When even the Aussies, renowned as the toughest soldiers of WW2, had to surrender, the Japanese either executed them, bayoneted them, buried them in ants nests, skinned them alive, used them as target practice, or took them as slaves. (Burma railway anyone? Built with the blood of slave POWs.) Barely two-thirds of the prisoners at Changi prison camp survived til the end of the war. What they suffered was horrendous. A ship full of Aussie nurses and women and children was torpedoed escaping from Singapore... the survivors, all female, made it to a beach... the japanese landed and raped and bayoneted every survivor. The Japanese aggression, speed of attack, brutality to all (especially the Chinese in manchuria) and complete disregard of any international treaty (esp. Geneva Convention) shocked the world, even after the german blitzkrieg. As an Aussie, I completely agree with the U.S. policy towards japan, (although their use of atomic weapons was regrettable, and is never justifiable), and think Japan is right in saying No to WMDs.
BTW, you left one country off your list of nuke nations to be: Australia... We sit on 70% of the world's uranium resources (which is why the US loooooves us) and have had a reactor, all be it for experimental purposes, for over 20 years. It would not be hard for the Woomera space scientists, australian aerospace engineers and the sydney physicists to produce working nuclear ICBMs within a year. Not that we would of course...

Hey peoples, I know it seems the U.S. is overbearing, and forceful to the japanese, in making them keep their military down, and calling it the SDF, but the Japanese are brainwashing their children as to the truth. My Australian countrymen were literally SLAUGHTERED...
60 years ago. I don't think there is any risk that the JSDF will do anything like that again, regardless of its name or mission.

As an Aussie, I completely agree with the U.S. policy towards japan...
You mean asking them to rearm, violate their own constitution and supply them with weaponry? ;)

It would not be hard for the Woomera space scientists, australian aerospace engineers and the sydney physicists to produce working nuclear ICBMs within a year. Not that we would of course...
No dude, it would be hard.

1. It's only 30% of the world's uranium.
2. The reactor is HIFAR in Lucas Heights. Woomera is the location of a concentration camp for people who dare not fit into Johnny's idea of what an Australian looks like. The reactor has been modified to use low-enrichment level fuels - and even if it hadn't, Australia only has the few centrifuges it needs to power this one reactor. OPAL is the new one, sceduled to replace HIFAR next year, and that runs only on low-enrichment fuel.
3. It is true that Australia could ask for help in the design and engineering from its allies, and probably has a fair few smart people on its own universities as well. Nonetheless, without an actual nuclear industry it would take a long time to gather the necessary enriched uranium or plutonium to make a bomb.
4. An ICBM is one of the most complicated missiles to build. Even in countries like the US or Russia, with whole military departments devoted to building them, designing, testing and constructing one takes many years. Australia could feasibly ask for some to be sent over from the States, but that's it.

However, if NK gets a serious nuclear weapons program, and it starts threatening people, then the Japanese will get a little nervous, and a missile defense program may be in order. The Diet would have to make it very clear that the sole purpose is for defense of the Japanese homeland, and since the Japanese have a self-defense force, it might be understood. However, Japan knows what happened the last time they tried to go on an offensive war, and I assure you, none of them want that again.
Japan is already doing missile defence. It is one of the few countries that is willing to station the US system within its borders and the MSDF already has the same technology that the US Navy has (Because it bought it from the US Navy) in terms of shooting down missiles.

Woomera is the location of a concentration camp for people who dare not fit into Johnny's idea of what an Australian looks like.

Umm, do you know of the australian scientific research centers out at woomera that have launched orbital objects? They have some very advanced rocket scientists working there. Its out in the desert for secrecy and security reasons.

They stuck the detention camps there for the same reasons.

Sorry about the uranium figure, I must have misread. But still, its a lot of uranium:D

I still think that we should never forget what japan did. They may not do it again, but their forget and move on policies are dishonouring to those who gave thir lives in defence of their countries, and those who were innocently slaughtered and mutilated.

sorry, link didn't work.
www.asri.org.au
Aussie space research.

I still think that we should never forget what japan did. They may not do it again, but their forget and move on policies are dishonouring to those who gave thir lives in defence of their countries, and those who were innocently slaughtered and mutilated.
They have not forgotten, but it was 60 years ago. Do you always visit the sins of the fathers upon their sons?

Umm, do you know of the australian scientific research centers out at woomera that have launched orbital objects? They have some very advanced rocket scientists working there. Its out in the desert for secrecy and security reasons.
True, I hadn't heard about that. Misunderstanding.

But those aren't anything like ICBMs. They fire micro-satellites - the final version they're planning is Ausroc IV - with a payload of 35kg.

A proper nuclear warhead could weigh around a ton. Modern ICBMs also need re-entry vehicles that can change course to reduce the chance of the warhead being intercepted.

I'm not saying that Australia couldn't eventually develop something like this indiginously - they have all the bright heads here. I'm just saying that it would take a lot longer than a year.

I still think that we should never forget what japan did. They may not do it again, but their forget and move on policies are dishonouring to those who gave thir lives in defence of their countries, and those who were innocently slaughtered and mutilated.
You have to eventually choose between the honour of people who have been dead for 60 years, and the lives and livelihoods of people who live today and bear no responsibility whatsoever for what happened in WWII.

Gee, maybe because they have first-hand experience of how horrible nuclear weaponry is?
Yeah considering they were the only people to have one actually LAND on them? And kill their people? If any nation knows of the danger of Nukes, it would be Japan. They were THERE they had their "Ground Zeros" each year they mourn those lost to such a weapon, do you really think a nuke is something to take likely? After all we are all guessing on what a Nuke can do to a nation. Japan knows what it does. And those nukes are babies compared to the modern ones.

Good enough though to protect Japan from the surrounding threats?
Visit the JSDF website they have lists on how they would defeat enemies from invading. It's some good plans.

Sorry, but I disagree with your quotation of me..You make it sound as if I was supporting the claim that..the relevant part in your post was your question
-imposed by US or not-

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11882847&postcount=36

My post is an aswer to AllCoolNamesAreTaken saying "i didnt say so"..

you are just an "accesory" ;)

*sighs* Article 9, plus it wouldn't be a few politicans losing jobs, we're talking about most of the Diet being forced out.

You guys fail to understand, Japan's current view of itself is built on the fact that it is the only country to suffer a nuclar attack. It's entire victim-of-WWII, which has allowed the general population to escape war guilt, is based upon this fact. Its children are educated in every single subject at school about this fact (seriously, my bloody ENGLISH textbook covers the bombing of Hiroshima). Most Japanese students, by the time they graduate high school, will have been taken to Hiroshima or Nagasaki on a school trip just to drive this point home.

The cloest analogy I could give you would be President Bush saying that he was suspending the Bill of Rights (no jokes please) and the public being ok with that.

It's not a matter of Japan being forced into this by the US, it's a matter of a very deeply held point of view of the Japanese population itself. The idiot government ministers who dared to bring up the possibility of having a discussion about the idea of Japan maybe developing nuclear weapons have since been dogpiled.

And I don't like that one bit. By dealing with the events of the war in such a manner, it lets them get away with the crimes they committed in WW2. Do they teach students in class about the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Rape of Nanking, and the brutal Japanese conquest of south east Asia.

What they do teach them is how Japan is the victim in all this. I love the Japanese, don't get me wrong, but Japan the pain upon itself. You just don't f**k with the U.S of A and expect to be let of the hook. I mean look, everyone the world over (except maybe Iran), knows what atrocities the Germans had done. The same should be said about Japanese atrocities during WW2. It's only fair.

And I don't like that one bit. By dealing with the events of the war in such a manner, it lets them get away with the crimes they committed in WW2.
How are they getting away with it? The men who comittied such acts are dying, the ones who ordered such acts have long since been in their graves. Or do you too visit the sins of the fathers upon their sons to the 7th generation?

Do they teach students in class about the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Rape of Nanking, and the brutal Japanese conquest of south east Asia.
Yes.

Most Japanese are actually aware of what their country did during WWII. This is actually a large debate point in Japan with conservatives believing that too much time is taken up with this shameful history and many people disagreeing.

What they do teach them is how Japan is the victim in all this. I love the Japanese, don't get me wrong, but Japan the pain upon itself. You just don't f**k with the U.S of A and expect to be let of the hook. I mean look, everyone the world over (except maybe Iran), knows what atrocities the Germans had done. The same should be said about Japanese atrocities during WW2. It's only fair.
I cannot speak of other countries as other countries education systems and how they teach history is their own buisness. Japan however does teach about it and you may be certain that China and the Koreas REALLY cover it.

Indeed, if you want irony, look at the United States, we teach our own children that the Pacific War started at Pearl Harbor, we usually do not cover the decade and a half previous to that, and we certainly tend to ignore any Japanese action that was not against US troops. It should be noted, after all, that the US forced Japan to call the war the Pacific War, making the attack on the US the central point as opposed to the Greater East Asian War, which acknowledges Japan's actions in China, Korea, Vietnam, the East Indies, the Philipines, and other places.

And I don't like that one bit. By dealing with the events of the war in such a manner, it lets them get away with the crimes they committed in WW2. Do they teach students in class about the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Rape of Nanking, and the brutal Japanese conquest of south east Asia.

What they do teach them is how Japan is the victim in all this. I love the Japanese, don't get me wrong, but Japan the pain upon itself. You just don't f**k with the U.S of A and expect to be let of the hook. I mean look, everyone the world over knows what atrocities the Germans had done. atrocities were done by all sides.

right after the War.. Hollywood and the Media focused on the Jews as War Victims.. that is why most remember the Germans atrocities.

The same should be said about Japanese atrocities during WW2. It's only fair. Hollywood lied-to-you .. the Newspapers lied-to-you .. The Politicians lied-to-you .. the Generals lied-to-you .. War is-NOT-Fair .. life is-NOT-Fair

not the first time they Lie to you... nor the last time.

Always keep in mind.. The truth is the first Casualty of War.

right after the War.. Hollywood and the Media focused on the Jews as War Victims.. that is why most remember the Germans atrocities.
Speak for yourself, please.

German soldiers and the Nazis committed plenty of atrocities on anyone they could get their hands on. Choose someone else for your "I'm against the US, therefore anyone against America is automatically good!" exercise, all right?

German soldiers and the Nazis committed plenty of atrocities on anyone they could get their hands on. Choose someone else for your "I'm against the US, therefore anyone against America is automatically good!" exercise, all right?
Ignoring OD (normally a good idea anyway) for the moment, I actually found out that during the occupation, there was a strong sense amoung the Japanese public that racism led to the various charges against the class A's in Japan, when compaired to Nazi Germany, as well as the same rascism led to the focus on the Nazi's victims as opposed to Japan's.

Speak for yourself, please.WTF??

What on earth would make you think I am ever speaking for anyone else???
I always speak for me.

*GreenDay tune* --I walk alone, --

German soldiers and the Nazis committed plenty of atrocities on anyone they could get their hands on. WTF#2
When/where I ever said they did NOT??

use the quote fuction to prove it.. and I shall apologize for my error.

German soldiers and the Nazis committed plenty of ...Interesting..

a 1940 German Soldier and 1940 Nazi Soldier.. What is the difference?
they are the same for me.

Interesting..

a 1940 German Soldier and 1940 Nazi Soldier.. What is the difference?
they are the same for me.
The military wasn't the only part of Germany at that time to commit horrendeous crimes. Gestapo (secret police) and other parts of the machinery also did. I suppose he wanted to include those.

The military wasn't the only part of Germany at that time to commit horrendeous crimes. Gestapo (secret police) and other parts of the machinery also did. I suppose he wanted to include those.I think "nazi" has become something of an scape word.

but yes.. thats what he (probably) means to say.

I think "nazi" has become something of an scape word.
You should know that I use words in their actual meaning and try to stay away from propaganda and appeals to emotion as much as possible.

But your attitude shits me to tears. Whether it's Iran threatening its neighbours, terrorists blowing up innocent civilians for no other reason than to inspire fear in the survivors, Nazis slaughtering millions, Mao forcing young girls to have sex with him to prolong his life...you absolutely refuse to accept that there are worse things out there than Americans and Jews. Indeed, you defend some of them, with others you attempt to deny the charges by calling them "propaganda".

You're not just being a moral relativist, you're actively supporting the bad guys (and I'm not putting that in inverted commas, because some people do bad things that are bad regardless of your particular take on morality). There is absolutely no objectivity about anything you ever say, and that annoys me.

I can't stop you from defending all sorts of people, but I would prefer if you didn't start dragging Germany into this again by implying (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11908348&postcount=60) that the Axis war crimes were made up by Hollywood propaganda.

I .. try to stay away from from propaganda and appeals to emotion as much as possible.You want to stay away from emotions?

Well, you are failing..
whenever someone brings "Holocaust", "Hitler", "Nazi".. Your emotions take over
-just like this very post shows- ..Your emotions are taking over rigth now.


But your attitude shits me to tears. Whether it's Iran threatening its neighbours, terrorists blowing up innocent civilians for no other reason than to inspire fear in the survivors, Nazis slaughtering millions, Mao forcing young girls to have sex with him to prolong his life...you absolutely refuse to accept that there are worse things out there than Americans and Jews. Indeed, you defend some of them, with others you attempt to deny the charges by calling them "propaganda".

You're not just being a moral relativist, you're actively supporting the bad guys (and I'm not putting that in inverted commas, because some people do bad things that are bad regardless of your particular take on morality). There is absolutely no objectivity about anything you ever say, and that annoys me.

I can't stop you from defending all sorts of people, but I would prefer if you didn't start dragging Germany into this again by implying (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11908348&postcount=60) that the Axis war crimes were made up by Hollywood propaganda.
Like many Germans.. you are stigmatized. you cant help it.

And Canada. Hell, we sold India and Pakistan their nuclear technology. Plus, we have huge uranium deposits.

I know, but don't you say that aloud, those paranoids you have on your southern border might get scared and invade you...

I know, but don't you say that aloud, those paranoids you have on your southern border might get scared and invade you...

Us Australians have the same problem. New Zealanders are always plotting against us. They pretend to be a "nuclear free zone" but we all know better. They want our uranium so they can build nukes and beat us at something besides rugby.

Us Australians have the same problem.
You have paranoids on your southern border?:D

New Zealanders are always plotting against us. They pretend to be a "nuclear free zone" but we all know better. They want our uranium so they can build nukes and beat us at something besides rugby.
Yep. That's also why France built nukes in the first place, they want to be able to beat us Italians at something, sometimes. But, since the first nuclear reactor was built by Enrico Fermi... eheheh...:D :D (sorry, my French friends, I could not resist)

Ahh, nukes... the most useless weapons in history.

But, since the first nuclear reactor was built by Enrico Fermi... eheheh...:D :D (sorry, my French friends, I could not resist)

Ahh, nukes... the most useless weapons in history.


oh good. Europe can claim that thanks to us the world has nukes (an italian) and nerve gas (a german). yay