digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Red Sun Rising: A Nuclear Japan?

opinionjournal.com — No one knows how long it would take Japan to go nuclear, though estimates are days or weeks. But for 60 years Japan has refrained from becoming a nuclear power and remained militarily quiescent. That particular sun may be rising again, however, thanks to the support by China and South Korea for the military threats of North Korean dictator.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • bigfkncee, on 10/12/2007, -27/+4as long as they're not aimed at my house...i don't give a rats ass.....i mean , in light of recent events on that side of the world,can you blame them?
    • arunforce, on 10/12/2007, -20/+2I wish a country would turn Plasma powered!
    • threepio, on 10/12/2007, -13/+43?

      Giant walking nuclear robo-tanks?

      !

      Snake? SNAKE?! SNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE!!!!!
    • MasterGrief, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8That's funny right there, I don't care who you are.
    • harley999, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13This is looking more and more like WWIII.
    • smedstadc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Sure, it's nuclear and all that.

      ...but how does it taste?
    • elurstoidi, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Sure, it's nuclear and all that.

      ...but can you run Linux on it?
    • matthewmok, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I think it would be good to inform all of you that in their entire history, ancient and modern, Japan has only been defeated one time, and that was by the United States. Who is to say we could do it again? In any case the Japanese are not to be taken lightly and especially if they obtain nukes.
    • bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"as long as they're not aimed at my house...i don't give a rats ass....."

      These "tough guy" comments are almost a cliche by now, aside from not contributing to any meaningful debate they're predictable and uninteresting.

      Nuclear proliferation is something every sane person should care about, for obvious reasons.
  • truspector, on 10/12/2007, -7/+45I pray that Japan becomes a nuclear powerhouse. When the ***** goes down with N.K. I would prefer Japan to send their nukes and piss off the world instead of the U.S.
    • pilot3033, on 10/12/2007, -29/+5What's to say they won't blast NK, then get some cold, cold revenge on two US Cities?
    • kaje, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30Because I'm sure Japan wouldn't want to lose two more?
    • pbaehr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20@pilot3033:

      And risk the US turning Japan into a nuclear wasteland? I doubt it.
    • dspickes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18We like to believe that the sheer magnitude of the USA's political, economic, and military power will keep Japan from committing such a retarded and nationally suicidal act.

      Common sense, ya know?
    • BritishGolgo13, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Japan's got Gundams and they won't hesitate to use them against NK. It would be nice (not really "nice") to see someone other than the US get involved in these battles for once just like tru said.
    • masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23You people realize that besides the fact that Japan heavily relies on our economy and us their economy, Japan is one of our biggest allies?
    • Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Yeah, Japan would really like to get revenge for the US making them a world economic powerhouse. Look at the top 3 economies in the world: the U.S., Japan, and Germany All states that had their economic systems designed to mesh intricately on the global scale.
    • innerspirit, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15This is a very disturbing discussion. It amazes me how some people can talk about the annihilation of hundres of thousands with such passion and no second thoughts. Maybe we all deserve to be blown up for our selfishness.
    • ThePict, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9'K, you first.
    • 8086ed, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5If Japan STARTED attacking the US with nukes, I'm sure there are more than a few countries who would step in and help.

      It might not be as suicidal as you'd think.
    • TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4It's a suicidal act because no other country has enough nukes to threaten the US effectivly (besides russia but their missles are not in the shape to be fired), THe US still has enough nukes to turn the entire world into a heap of glowing glass. Even if you had all of NATO you couldn't defeat the US.
    • Zero82z, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Hooray, then everyone dies!

      Seriously, the act of ANY country in the world launching a nuke against ANYONE would be an act so monumentally stupid I can't even begin to contempate why anyone would do such a thing. Kim Jong Il may just be insane enough to do it, but Japan never would without sufficient provocation and unless they had something to gain from it. Should they launch nukes at the US, the only thing they would gain would be radiation poisoning.
    • furiouszebra, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"It's a suicidal act because no other country has enough nukes to threaten the US effectivly (besides russia but their missles are not in the shape to be fired), THe US still has enough nukes to turn the entire world into a heap of glowing glass. Even if you had all of NATO you couldn't defeat the US."

      Actually, the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces is the only branch of its military that has received adequate funding since the break up of the USSR. They have even introduced new ICBM types since then. Russian missiles are easily in good enough condition to destroy the US and beyond (although they would not do that unless things got really, really bad.).
  • CaptShmo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I'm fine with this because i feel the japanese will be responsible with it. They also have so many economic interests in america that it really wouldn't make sense for them to ever bomb us, at least not from my point of view. China and Korea better start sweating bullets though...
    • woxidu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think sweating nukes would be a bit more helpful to them than just bullets...
    • Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6And a lot of people in China HATE the Japanese because of the abuses in Manchuko before and during WWII. They call them the eastern dwarfs and they are depicted often as savage gnomelike monsters.
  • chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+42Japan made Hello Kitty. There is nothing to worry about....
  • eexlebots, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Uh oh didn't they learn anything from Godzilla?
    • LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12No joke... the film Godzilla, minus the inherent cheese of the franchise, is actually a fascinating allegory of nuclear proliferation from a Post WWII Japanese perspective.

      The bombing of their homeland was fresh on the psyche of the Japanese, and the film explores the delicate moral quandry of the scientists and engineers akin to the US's Manhattan Project. In the end, the message is clear: some inventions are simply too dangerous to trust in the hands of politicians, and some sacrifices must be made to atone for such inventions.

      ... hey... i took a post-WWII Japanese film class in college. This was one of the more interesting topics :).
  • Feanor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Not surprisingly, Japan has one of the largest anti-nuclear movements in the world. There are a lot of people there completely against it
    • Lisandrych, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I would be inclined to believe that a smaller percentage of Japanese are against nuclear capabilities now that they have missiles flying over their heads.
  • kjizzle, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3Japan's got some bright people I wouldn't worry about revenge on the US...I mean..they DID bomb pearl harbor first
    • aniketnp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4While this was the first direct military strike against the US, it has to be taken into consideration that the US passed sanctions against Japan first, and gave much aid to the Allies, who were Japan's enemies. Of course, this is seldom mentioned in history textbooks in the US.

      I'm not defending Japan's actions, but you should know both sides of the story before making a claim.
    • walterd93, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"they DID bomb pearl harbor first"

      (rhetorical)Did pearl harbor suffer hundreds of thousands of deaths? I don't think so.
  • anasazi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23Why would Japan want to spend money both producing, maintaining, and guarding nukes when they have very big friends who are willing to do all of that for them?

    The Japaneese know very well that if they were attacked we would respond to defend them, they don't need to go waste money on a nuclear weapon program.
    • CaptShmo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2good point
    • trunkster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I would hope we would but who knows what Bush would do.
    • krewemaynard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9With all of the diplomatic fronts the US is involved in, don't you think Japan might be a bit nervous about having to depend solely on America for their defense? In years past it was fine, but the threat level has been ratcheted up quite a bit.

      A quick, decisive response would be necessary if North Korea launched a successful attack. With the capability to defend herself, Japan wouldn't have to wait on us to mobilize--they could do it themselves while we're en route. Plus, a nuclear Japan might keep North Korea, China, and anyone else at bay.

      It's not about using the nukes--it's about being willing to use them.
    • anasazi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1the koreans arn't going to do *****. they enjoy getting people upset, and they enjoy being the "bad boy" of that part of the world, but they know full well that as soon as they actually target another country, that entire part of the world will retalliate against them.

      the N korean leadership are a paranoid people, but they are not stupid.
    • texpundit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"the N koreans are a paranoid people, but they are not stupid."

      The *people* aren't stupid...but their *leader* is certifiably insane. And considering the fact that the *people* in NK have absolutely no power or say in gov't...I really don't think it's the *people* we have to worry about.
  • l0rdn1k0n, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Japan is pretty much forced to use Nuclear power as of now (it should have been earlier) they used to get ALL their power from outside coal and oil, and are trying to switch to cleaner methods of energy, albeit deadlier toxic waste.
    • koko775, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually, LNG makes up a significant portion of their power production. I forget where I saw the figures, though.
  • masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Japan has had the technology for ages, being a superpower. Not to mention that nearly their entire country is run off of nuclear power, so uranium shouldn't be difficult to come by. But Japan is a very different place than it was to our grandparents, you must understand.
    • mrcan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Most classes teach that the atomic weapons were not the best solution to end the war and harbor resentment towards the US for the use.
    • Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Any sane adult japanese knows that they would never have surrenedered so Japan would have been a wasteland if the U.S. didn't use the nuclear bombs and WWII would have lasted at least another 2-3 years. Japan would not be the country it is today had the U.S. NOT bombed them. It's a sad and simple fact that Japan was saved from themselves by the destruction of those 2 cities.
    • DannoHung, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6US or Japanese classes?

      Do they also mention that it was intended as a threat to Russia and to also stop the war before Russian forces could occupy parts of Japan?

      I don't think the Atomic Bombings are a simple enough subject to be appropriately addressed in any single class, unless it's a class about the final year of the Pacific theatre.
    • toby34a, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12@mrcan-

      First of all, the world was a lot different back in WWII, which is what many graduate-level history classes expound upon. While the US could have gone with a conventional attack on the Japanese mainland, the use of the bomb was a death toll calculation carried out at high levels of government. The invasion would have cost tens of thousands of American soldiers, and the American government did not want to deal with that much more death, along with the problem of getting ground troops to the Japanese mainland (most of them were in Europe at the time).

      Truman looked at the data available, and this seemed like the best option- to show American prowess to both the Russians and the Japanese and force them to acquiesce to the demands of unconditional surrender. If an invasion had been executed, the fighting would have been fierce like it had been on every single island throughout the Pacific, with people fighting to the last man.

      Also, "total war" was the de regieur back then. Cities were wiped out completely by differing bombing raids. The fact of the matter is that more lives were lost in the conventional firebomings of Tokyo then in the Hiroshima or Nagasaki blasts.

      History is a two-edged sword, and historians years down the line can second guess the decisions that had to be made at that point. In today's world, it would've never happened- but then again, we haven't had a worldwide conflict since then, so who knows.
    • masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And to make matters funnier, Japan just held a mock tribunal in which they found Truman guilty on accounts of crimes against humanity and breaking international law.
      http://www.crisscross.com/jp/news/379010

      ^_^
  • Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Damn, that's well written. I've missed that kind of quality writing because I get most of my news from grammarphobic bloggers and the juvinile "new media" who couldn't write their way out of a paper bag.
    • ThePict, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Read the article on your recommendation alone (was going to skip it).
      WSJ is the gold standard. Any other news source looks like a rag by comparison.
    • ruprecht, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1juvenile
      sorry, couldn't resist :)
  • interpellated, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If Japan goes nuclear, then South Korea will be inclinded to do the same. So that's four states - China, North Korea, Japan, South Korea - with nukes in that region, four too many for my taste.
    • zedda2k, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1Four countries, not states.
    • ThePict, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5A country is a state, bonehead. You're just confused because you're probably from the USA. The USA founding fathers actually envisioned a state, pardon me, a country governed by a very weak federal government composed of many independent states.
    • catbertz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5zedda2k:
      Educate yourself please :)

      http://www.tfd.com/states
      "10. A body politic, especially one constituting a nation: the states of Eastern Europe."
  • altjeringa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wow. You'd think if any country didn't want nukes. It'd be Japan. It will be interesting to see how Japan is treated by the UN given the Non-proliferation Treaty doesn't say, "Nice people can build Nukes if they like".

    Oh and all ya'll saying "Great" really should stop for a minute and think about what nuclear wepons mean. There are already enough to completely destroy the planet, NOTHING, not even the cochroaches will survive.
  • xpaladin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually, this may not be a bad thing. While yet another country going nuclear sucks, I tend to think that they'd focus more on missile interception technology. No defense contractor has yet to truly perfect it. Regardless, Japan learned their lesson from WW2, with their country and people literally feeling the reprocussions for the past 60 years.
  • jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2For a very long time, Japan was content to field a small but excellent "Self-Defense Force". The US as an ally and former adversary was OK with that. Unfortunately, the realities of the modern world may force Japan to become a regional military power.

    There is absolutely no doubt that Japan has the technology and industry to field a world class military force. Their navy, although relatively small, is excellent. They build and fly the F-15 under license.

    North Korea would be very, very foolish to provoke Japan to the point of rearming in a serious way.

  • ggreeneva, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You have to hand it to the Wall Street Journal: it never lets an opinion get gummed up by an inconvenient fact. I mean, look at the sentence from the summary: "[S]upport by... _South Korea_ for the military threats of North Korean dictator." Seriously? Jigga wha-a-a-a-a?!

    South Korea has a military alliance with the United States. Both countries still, as a technicality, have a state of war with North Korea. And South Korea has the most fortified international border in the world, complete with a 30,000-troop American garrison, to boot. So: what did the Journal smoke when it wrote that editorial ... and why should anyone take what it says as fact?
    • ThePict, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They're referring to "South Korea's naive appeasement". Yeah, it's a stretch, but not impossible to swallow
  • rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2IMHO, China is behind what is going on in North Korea. There will come a day when China will take over Japan if the USA doesn't arm Japan with nuclear missles. Right now our west coast is exposed to long-range missles. Do you really think North Korea won't use them? Especially when North Korea depends on China for their economy to survive? NK is a puppet of China. USA must do something because doing nothing will only show the rest of the world that we are weak. We are on the brink of WWIII.
    • Germanicus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sorry, you make no sense. Why would china want to take over Japan? I'd say that wouldn't happen at least until they make a move on Taiwan.
  • lanzz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1N.K thread on Japan is partly Japans own fault, They never own up to what they did to their Asia neighbor in WWII, they still deny and refuse to apologize even today, always hiding behind the surrender treaty they sign with the U.S. They don't have to go unclear to resolve this problem

    PS. S.K don't like Japan for the same reason.
    • acAeris99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Very true. China, SK, NK all hate Japan for the things they did and the people they killed in their countries.
    • zylvester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Chinese and South Korean populists and the extreme nationalism are still stuck in a 1900s mindset.

      Japan is a very pluralistic people and the extreme nationalist factions were minor league and of no consequence to mainstream culture. Maybe the behaviour of Chinese and South Korean nationalist has increased Japanese nationalist awareness, but still mainstream culture is well into their own things and not hung up on such stupd juvenile crap.

      Statements that Japanese deny things that happen in WWII are very mis-informed and biased. Again, Japan is very pluralistic and the small group who maintain extreme ideas get blown way out of proportion in China and Korea, where people tend to have monolistic thinking and cant picture a pluralistic society with many people have alternative ideas.

  • yahoofrom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Oh no, China has nukes, North Korea has nukes, Japan want to have nukes, and then you know if in a place everybody else has gun but only you don't have a gun, then you wanna have gun too, i mean, South Korea will also want to have nukes then. who likes to be in a place full of nukes? darn.
    If you're American, what would it be like if you find one day that every states of America has nukes ready to be launched to each other states.
  • rderveloy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I know that the article refers to the 9th article of the Japanese constitution, but I don't think they give it enough credit.

    Essentially, Japan is forbidden to have offensive weaponry in the 9th article of their constitution:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Constitution_of_Japan

    "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."

    Additionally, their constitution forbids them from sending offensive forces overseas:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US-Japan_Mutual_Security_Treaty

    "Under the treaty, both parties assumed an obligation to maintain and develop their capacities to resist armed attack in common and to assist each other in case of armed attack on territories under Japanese administration. It was understood, however, that Japan could not come to the defense of the United States because it was constitutionally forbidden to send armed forces overseas (Article 9). In particular, the constitution forbids the maintenance of 'land, sea, and air forces.' It also expresses the Japanese people's renunciation of 'the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes'."

    Nuclear weapons and nuclear powered naval vessels are considered offensive weapons. That's primarily why Japan only has diesel-electric subs and non-nuclear surface ships.

    In order for them to become a nuclear power, they would have to amend their constitution, which requires a national referendum and a two-thirds majority. Additionally, doing so would alter the nature of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan and could, potentially, cause diplomatic strain between the US and Japan.

    It's a fairly rare event that a country amends its constitution. Think about it, It took the US nearly 100 years to pass the thirteenth and fifteenth amendments to abolish slavery and grant former slaves the right to vote. Not to mention that it wasn't until 1920 that women were granted the right to vote.

    The 9th article of Japan's constitution is a very politically sensitive subject just like how the 2nd amendment (right to bear arms) is highly controversial over here in the US. And, just as a lot of Americans consider the 2nd amendment as a founding principle of the US, a lot of Japanese think that the 9th article is a founding principle of modern Japan.

    I know that things are different in Japan, but it takes a large political movement to amend the constitution in both the US and in Japan. This is why, in my opinion, Japan will not change their constitution unless they are directly attacked. Even then, it probably won't be an easy feat.

    Until the Japanese amend their constitution so they can have more than a self defense force, I personally consider this whole article as pointless conjecture.
  • nicstevens42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't know that, were I Japan, would count on the US for retaliatory strikes against the DPRK. We talk tough about Pyonyiang but in the end we have China on the other end of the peninsula, both physically and politically.

    While the DPRK doesn't represent a threat to US mainland the same could not be said for China.
  • CptnMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3As an American living in Japan, I would personally feel more safe at night if Japan had some nuclear powered submarines pointing some nuclear warheads at North Korea. It's a sad fact, but the only way to effectively prevent a nuclear attack is with more nuclear weapons.

    From my own prospective, I don't trust the United States to protect Japan effectively in the event of an all out attack. American forces are already spread too then elsewhere on the planet. While the Japanese Self Defense Force is very formidable, nuclear weapons seem fitting for a world superpower capable of maintaining them responsibly.

    However, I agree with rderveloy's comment that this article is pointless conjecture. The comment of the Chief Cabinet Secretary was merely intended to shock.
  • gregschoen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1China and South Korea do NOT under ANY circumstances want a militaristic Japan. It's been really good over the last few decades BECAUSE Japan didn't have any military for the region to worry about. Japan in this instance is the sleeping giant. I'm afraid that if South Korea and China don't do something about North Korea, they're going to have a BUNCH to worry about from Japan. Before you think how pacified Japan has been, wikipedia "Nanking Massacre," and be VERY afraid.
  • aquax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sounds like the premise to a Tom Clancy novel.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.