politics

Suga says Japan will not join U.N. treaty banning nuclear weapons

86 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

86 Comments
Login to comment

As the only country to have ever suffered atomic bombings during wartime, Japan has a responsibility to take the lead in efforts by the international community to realize a world without nuclear weapons," Suga said in parliament.

"But the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons does not have the support of nuclear weapons states nor many non-nuclear weapons states," he continued. "In line with our position that it is necessary to pursue a steady and realistic path toward nuclear disarmament, Japan has no intention of signing the treaty."

Typical LDP idiocy.

9 ( +35 / -26 )

It is a mistake not to sign the UN ban on nuclear weapons? . . . nukes pollute the land, water which they are stored in . . . there are many instances of nuclear accidents throughout the world . . . . if Japan wishes to be treated peacefully, then it should abandon nuclear weapons and . . . . for sake of Japan's environment, even consider diminishing nuclear energy . . . .

12 ( +23 / -11 )

Clearly, Japan supports a nuclear war.

-17 ( +14 / -31 )

Only nations that armed to the teeth with nukes will decline such a treaty

15 ( +19 / -4 )

Will Japan win in a nuclear war ? What if Japan loses ?

-18 ( +9 / -27 )

Oh, Suga .. what are you up to now??

Doesn't sound too good!

5 ( +15 / -10 )

Stupidity and madness are dangerous mix.

-6 ( +16 / -22 )

As the only country to have ever suffered atomic bombings during wartime, Japan has a responsibility to take the lead in efforts by the international community to realize a world without nuclear weapons, But the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons does not have the support of nuclear weapons states nor many non-nuclear weapons states

Doesn't taking the lead inherently mean taking the first steps potentially alone? In the hopes of encouraging others to follow?

13 ( +13 / -0 )

Japan must and should sign the treaty. The only country to be at the end of atomic bombings.

11 ( +27 / -16 )

Where is the logic??

9 ( +16 / -7 )

If only it were up to Suga...he's just toeing the US-dictated LDP line.

As pointed out yesterday, the US pressured Japan into accepting nuclear power in order to profit (GE & Westinghouse) as well as to provide bomb material for the US.

14 ( +17 / -3 )

There is no point to signing a meaningless document that has no ability to bring about what it proposes to achieve. Even a symbolic gesture should have some meaning. I like. it to the Paris Climate treaty - it doesn’t do anything of substance to improve the purported problem.

-10 ( +8 / -18 )

"The U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 together killed an estimated 214,000"

Estimate is correct, but now America has the dreaded "football" which can make the earth like klingon moon Praxis.

12 ( +13 / -1 )

Why should one person decide the date of millions of people?

Have a referendum on the matter, and let the Japanese people decide...

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

In a perfect world, all nations would sign the treaty and dismantle every nuclear warhead in the world. However, in the real world, Japan has nuclear weapons pointed at her from Communist China, North Korea and totalitarian Russia. That is not going to change.

The nuclear umbrella has protected Japan for decades. That won't change, and Japan would be hypocritical signing some pie-in-the-sky treaty.

9 ( +19 / -10 )

The a-bombing was a result of Japanese atrocities and the kamikaze attacks of peal harbor. Not condoning nuking as payback but I think Japan should stop playing victim as if they were angels of WW2

-1 ( +15 / -16 )

Heres why Japan can't sign.

In order to abide by the terms, "The Treaty also prohibits the deployment of nuclear weapons on national territory and the provision of assistance to any State in the conduct of prohibited activities"

https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/tpnw/

Signing it would mean that the US, and any visiting navy or armed force, would need to declare that all vessels entering Japanese Territory were free of nuclear weapons. No nuclear armed state would be willing to do that, as it immediately designates which vessels have nuclear weaponry aboard, and in the case of war, which vessels should be targeted first in case of armed conflict by enemy combatants.

This is the exact same situation that New Zealand found itself in the late 1980's when it declared itself Nuclear-Free. The US navy was at that time a regular visitor to NZ ports. The US would not declare which vessels were nuclear armed, and it subsequently led to the break up of the ANZUS Defence Treaty for this exact reason.

15 ( +18 / -3 )

Estimate is correct, but now America has the dreaded "football" which can make the earth like klingon moon Praxis.

The "football" simply provides a way for the President to tell US nuclear forces to scramble and launch. There is always, always, at least two humans causing the launch from every US platform. They train and train and train to do this task. The training and the actual event aren't known until afterwards by the crews responsible for the launches. There is no remote trigger by a single person in the US weapons deployment. The USSR may have removed the middle men, I don't know for certain.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Japan has no choice because it has chosen to not posess it's own nuclear weapons. Therefore it must rely on the US Nuclear Umbrella as other US alllies do. Considering it's position as the only country to have received nuclear bombings it sounds contradictory but it is a necessity to protect itself.

Even leaving Japan aside, the idea of "No Nukes" globally is an infantile fantasy. Funny how we don't see the No-Nuke crowd protesting in Russia, China, North Korea, Iran. Frankly, if these countries didn't have nukes many other nations probably wouldn't need them.

Akie, will your beloved China give up it's nukes?

5 ( +15 / -10 )

There is no point in signing because none of dangerous countries that hold nuclear weapons has sign the treaty. If Japan sign it, then we are like fish in a chopping block when a nuclear war happen. Like sitting ducks waiting to be slaughter without able to resist. This will also put our alliance with the US in danger.

Unless US, Russia, China and North Korea agree to sign it, otherwise this whole treaty is pointless. But i don't see it happnening because china has been increasing their arsenal heavily the last few years.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Funny how we don't see the No-Nuke crowd protesting in Russia, China, North Korea, Iran. 

Well argued, @ OssanAmerica. Id love to see the No-nuke crowd in this photo above have the guts to take their protests to Russia, NK or Communist China - the very 3 nations that are a threat to Japan. I wonder how long they'd last?!

6 ( +9 / -3 )

"As the only country to have ever suffered atomic bombings during wartime, Japan has a responsibility to take the lead in efforts by the international community to realize a world without nuclear weapons," Suga said in parliament.

Doesn't taking the lead inherently mean taking the first steps potentially alone? In the hopes of encouraging others to follow?

That’s exactly right, but we all know Japan follows the US like a puppy. Because ( there it is ) unfortunately geography wasn’t too kind and Japan has to deal with 3 not so pleasant neighbors.

The first steps need to be taken by the US and Russia. Until then, keep dreaming.

The a-bombing was a result of Japanese atrocities and the kamikaze attacks of peal harbor. Not condoning nuking as payback but I think Japan should stop playing victim as if they were angels of WW2

Nobody is saying the Japanese were “angels”. The ( same old ) government and its “brainwashed” people ( small percentage of the population) are the ones “trying” to “ play the victim “. When you use the kind of language you used, you’re basically saying there is a justification for what happened. My grandfather in law who was in school in Hiroshima that morning would like to say a word. What happened was wrong, period.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Suga’s decision not to sign the treaty is quite sensible. As the only country that has ever suffered destruction and devastation of nuclear explosions, Japan has the right (more than any other country in the world) to have nuclear weapons to protect itself from hostile nuclear powers that surround the island nation.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

Nippon Kaigi has no intention of joining a U.N. treaty banning nuclear weapons.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

In other words, be protected by US is a necessary evil..

2 ( +7 / -5 )

AkieToday 07:18 am JST

Will Japan win in a nuclear war ? What if Japan loses ?

The USA would come to the defense of Japan. If Japan loses most of the country would be wiped out I am sure the Government has nuclear bunkers to survive a nuclear war.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

"As the only country to have ever suffered the atomic bombings, and to milk that each and every year while insisting some bad things that happened in the past with Japan be forgotten, and the only nation to know the inhumanity, horror, and pain caused by such weapons, we are going to insist they be kept, and will not at all fight against their proliferation. The only option to avoiding the use of nuclear weapons now and forever is to keep them readily available for use now and forever. Me Suga... Me smart."

-2 ( +10 / -12 )

If you have them already, and know that your enemies have and will use them, why would you give them up? It is one thing to hope for a nuclear weapons free world and another thing to realize the world will never be free of them.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

OssanAmericaT asked "Akie, will your beloved China give up it's nukes?"

If 120 million Japanese believe that it can be protected by nuclear weapons, what will 1.6 billions Chinese believe ?

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

Short sighted.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

There is no need for Japan to host nuclear weapons now or in the future. The only reason for Suga's action is that the USA may have nuclear weapons in Japan today. The USA would love to host American IRBM's which is a first strike weapon.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

What is the need for possession of a WMD?

There isn’t, except for the insane...

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Why do these people protest against China and North Korea for their nukes?

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Should be:

Why do these people not to protest against China and North Korea for their nukes?

10 ( +13 / -3 )

With all its nuke plants Japan has a huge quantity of radioactive material to produce A-bomb. Money and technology is available too to make such kind of bomb in a pretty short period of time.

I believe this is an option Japan wants to keep without admitting it.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

@vanityofvanities

"Why do these people not to protest against China and North Korea for their nukes?"

The best question for half a century.

14 ( +16 / -2 )

Do you wan to go deep?

"American mutilation of Japanese war dead"

The phenomenon of "trophy-taking" was widespread throughout America enough that discussion of it featured prominently in US magazines and newspapers. Franklin Roosevelt himself was reportedly given such a gift.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

There is at least 8 UN nations that officially had Nuclear weapons prior to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) (China, Russia, US, UK ,France, India Pakistan and Israel the last 3 never signed the NPT also 1 rogue that says they have them North Korea. there are possibly at least 2 other that may have them and deny they have them is Japan and Australia who both signed or ratified the NPT in the 1970's

If Japan or Australia sign the New Treaty it pretty much confirms to everybody that yes we do not have Nuclear Weapons, by not signing they can leave them all slightly wondering.

So it benefits Japan not to sign whether or not they have Nuclear capabilities as it might just be enough to deter another nation from attacking Japan

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The a-bombing was a result of Japanese atrocities and the kamikaze attacks of peal harbor. Not condoning nuking as payback but I think Japan should stop playing victim as if they were angels of WW2

here is the US victim that plays the Pearl Harbor story...

Japan was forced to attack Pearl Harbor due to the trade restrictions made by the US, the rest is the history written by the winners

the US always play the role of victim, Pearl Harbor, the Nanchino accident, the Colin Powell speech at UN, lol

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Japan needs to sign the treaty and make it forever impossible for the USA to place IRBM's in Japan which will threaten the peace.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

"considering observer status" ...5000 yrs B.J.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"As the only country to have ever suffered the atomic bombings, and to milk that each and every year while insisting some bad things that happened in the past with Japan be forgotten, and the only nation to know the inhumanity, horror, and pain caused by such weapons, we are going to insist they be kept, and will not at all fight against their proliferation. The only option to avoiding the use of nuclear weapons now and forever is to keep them readily available for use now and forever. Me Suga... Me smart."

surely is smarter than you

why the dictatorship in North Korea is still there and not whiped out like that one in Iraq ?

cause mr. Kim has nuclear weapons that prevent the country to be attacked by the defender of the freedoms, the united states of ammerica, the guys strong with the weaks and chicken with the strong, 20 years and not even yet able to free Afghanistan lol and just doing good in Syria or at least until the Russia came to defend the syrians from IS (which is an US creature made by the great Peace Nobel prize mr.president of the USA, fyi)

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

"As the only country to have ever suffered atomic bombings during wartime, Japan has a responsibility to take the lead in efforts by the international community to realize a world without nuclear weapons," Suga said in parliament. Then, with a straight face:

"Japan has no intention of signing the treaty."

Perfect LDP Doublethink in action.

Point 1: Play the victim card

Point 2: Assert leadership role

Point 3: Obstruct progress.

Freedom is Slavery

War is Peace

Ignorance is Strength

2 ( +4 / -2 )

AkieToday  09:35 am JST

OssanAmericaT asked "Akie, will your beloved China give up it's nukes?"

If 120 million Japanese believe that it can be protected by nuclear weapons, what will 1.6 billions Chinese believe ?

Clearly, China supports a nuclear war.

Will China win in a nuclear war ? What if China loses ?

Stupidity and madness are dangerous mix.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@ YuriOtani -

There is no need for Japan to host nuclear weapons now or in the future. The only reason for Suga's action is that the USA may have nuclear weapons in Japan today. 

Pray tell, what do you suggest Japan do with the three aggressive, totalitarian enemy states to the West constantly threatening, with nuclear missiles pointed at them, occasionally flying over, and jets constantly buzzing?

Reason with them diplomatically? Get real. Japan is protected by the US and its nuclear umbrella - FACT -and it wont change. Period.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Suga san daijobu desuka?

What kind of "human" is that?

Any normal explanation of no support...?????

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

OssanAmerica said "

Clearly, China supports a nuclear war.

Will China win in a nuclear war ? What if China loses ?

Stupidity and madness are dangerous mix."

Hahaha, just have a direct line with China, this is their official reply:

China will not threat Japanese with nuclear weapons;

China will not occupy Japan with nuclear weapons;

China will not destroy Japan with nuclear weapons.

Let me know if these replies are stupid so I can deliver your answer to China.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Whether the nuclear ban treaty is effective or not, Japan should sign it in order to set an example to other dithering nations. 

The three non-nuclear principles -- no possession, no production, no introduction of nuclear weapons -- are truly commendable policy guidelines that Japan has maintained since the 1960's and formerly adopted in the parliament in 1972.

But if Japan sought the U.S. nuclear umbrella for its security, that policy of non-nuclear principles lose its foothold completely, offsetting everything subline and commendable. That's the reason why many Asian people are always suspicious of Japan's action on an international scene.

The same with the war-renouncing clause of the constitution (Article 9).

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Premier Suga must have been right in questioning the effectiveness of nuclear deal. Nevertheless, Japan is in no position to hold any nuclear weapons, it is not in the picture at all..

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

“ The a-bombing was a result of Japanese atrocities and the kamikaze attacks of peal harbor. Not condoning nuking as payback but I think Japan should stop playing victim as if they were angels of WW2 “

here is the US victim that plays the Pearl Harbor story...

Japan was forced to attack Pearl Harbor due to the trade restrictions made by the US, the rest is the history written by the winners

the US always play the role of victim, Pearl Harbor, the Nanchino accident, the Colin Powell speech at UN, lol

History written by the winners. The same history that likes to distort the facts. They didn’t need ( and they knew it ) to drop those atomic bombs to win the war. The world has changed but the truth remains: we would be better off without nuclear weapons ( the worst invention in the history of mankind ).

0 ( +2 / -2 )

With all its nuke plants Japan has a huge quantity of radioactive material to produce A-bomb. Money and technology is available too to make such kind of bomb in a pretty short period of time.

Most nuclear power reactors don't create good bomb fissionable material. But I think Japan has 1 reactor capable of doing that at Rokkasho. There are only a handful of reprocessing places in the world. Britain had one, but either shut it down or is refusing any spent fuel commercially. It is a dirty, expensive, process. USA has none.

Recycling today is largely based on the conversion of fertile U-238 to fissile plutonium.

New reprocessing technologies are being developed to be deployed

in conjunction with fast neutron reactors which will burn all

long-lived actinides, including all uranium and plutonium, without

separating them from one another.

ref: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx

China doesn't worry me as a first strike nuclear country. They didn't go completely crazy like the US and USSR/Russia did building thousands. I worry about crazy, paranoid govts mostly with only 2 of them not on good enough terms with the US.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan still an aggressor. Nuclear weapon and self importance-wise, there is no difference with North Korea/Russia etc etc.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Do you people listen to yourself?

Japan doesn't have the nuke. You realize that right?

Japan never used such a weapon and was the only victim of a nuclear weapon being used. Twice.

Japan understands what this weapon does better then any other country in the world. The only ones to be at ground zero. Twice.

Japan has 0 Nukes. None. No Nuclear bombs. Has never even tested one! Pointless arguments and insults by many of you towards a country with 0 Nuclear Weapons.

Congrats, your wasting your time on a country with 0 Nukes. Under Article 9 for the past 80 years.

Restricted military,navy, army, space capabilities, USA right in our backyard watching every move.

Dumb argument against Japan, sorry but someone has to say it.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

@Jtsnose

 if Japan wishes to be treated peacefully, then it should abandon nuclear weapons

Japan can't because of US nukes hosted in Japan.

Japan signing the treaty means the US nukes must be removed from Japan and of course Japan can't ask the US to do that.

@ReasonandWisdomNippon

Japan has 0 Nukes. None. 

Unless you don't count US bases as not part of Japan, of course there are hundreds of nukes in Japan. Just not under Japanese control.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The Treaty is a pipe dream!

U.N. - Hey NK you can't have Nukes.

N.K. - So come get them then.

U.N. - We have a treaty says No Nukes

N.K. - Come get them or shut up

U.N. - Ok we will shut up

Ok so this treaty is supposed to accomplish what?

NOTHING!

They wasted some trees for the paper they used!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Unless North Korea, China, US, Russia and whatever other religiously led country in the middle east join, there's no point for any of the other countries to sign.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The countries that have them, or are under their “protection,” have refused to sign. That is true. Japan could make a demonstration of opposition to nukes if it chose to, but being under the US nuke umbrella does weaken the statement. Still, I don’t see the “safety” of a nuke umbrella, which would most likely zap an aggressor only after the nukes had already been used.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Yes agreed of Suga's comments "doubts about the effectiveness of an agreement that is not supported by nuclear weapons states." This is true , whether you like it or not.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Japan doesn't have the nuke. You realize that right?

The utter drivel one reads on here is astonishing. There have been nuclear weapons in Japan for 50 years.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

The three non-nuclear principles are a dead horse now as far as Japan is ensconced itself under the U.S.'s nuclear umbrella. 

U.S. nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines are freely calling port in Japan or even making Yokosuka in Kanagawa Prefecture and the White Beach in Okinawa Prefecture their indefinite home bases. Nobody knows if they actually carry live nuclear weapons. Ammunition facilities on Okinawa are always ready to accept and store nuclear weapons.

 So Suga's reasoning that Japan won't sign the U.N. treaty is just an explanation.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No need to join since the ones that really have the nukes do not want to give it up including India to self protect they said. They will only use it for deterrence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

FarmboyToday  02:34 pm JST

Still, I don’t see the “safety” of a nuke umbrella, which would most likely zap an aggressor only after the nukes had already been used.

Deterrence

Noun

the action of discouraging an action or event through instilling doubt or fear of the consequences.

"nuclear missiles remain the main deterrence against possible aggression"

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

AkieToday  12:06 pm JST

OssanAmerica said "

Hahaha, just have a direct line with China, this is their official reply:

China will not threat Japanese with nuclear weapons;

China will not occupy Japan with nuclear weapons;

China will not destroy Japan with nuclear weapons.

Let me know if these replies are stupid so I can deliver your answer to China.

The issue is not one of stupidity, It is one of honesty.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

InspectorGadgetToday  08:24 am JST

Heres why Japan can't sign.

In order to abide by the terms, "The Treaty also prohibits the deployment of nuclear weapons on national territory and the provision of assistance to any State in the conduct of prohibited activities"

https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/tpnw/

Thanks for answering the question I was going to look for. The article just made me scratch my head nonetheless. Japan is clearly anti-nuke weapons but would still make this stance. Talk about being consistent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

”As the only country to have ever suffered atomic bombings during wartime, Japan has a responsibility to take the lead in efforts by the international community to realize a world without nuclear weapons," Suga said in parliament.

"But the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons does not have the support of nuclear weapons states nor many non-nuclear weapons states," he continued. "In line with our position that it is necessary to pursue a steady and realistic path toward nuclear disarmament, Japan has no intention of signing the treaty."

This is real BS logic. “We’re totally committed to this goal but won’t do the thing that leads to that goal because the countries which stand in the way of the goal aren’t already doing the thing.”

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"nuclear missiles remain the main deterrence against possible aggression"

Ossan,

Yes, and the nukes keep getting better, so we are surely safer than ever?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

We just witnessed how wholesome it is to have two opinions in a democracy.

To have only one leaves you with no yardstick to gauge other options.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

FarmboyToday  03:40 pm JST

"nuclear missiles remain the main deterrence against possible aggression"

Ossan,

Yes, and the nukes keep getting better, so we are surely safer than ever?

There have been nuclear weapons on this planet since 1945. Deterrence and the concept of "Mutual Destruction" has kept WWIII from happening for 75 years,

The idea of "No Nukes" is wonderful, but it only works if everybody whi has nuclear weapons participates.

BTW, Nukes aren't getting "better", their delivery systems are including defeating counter measures.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

AkieToday 07:16 am JST

Clearly, Japan supports a nuclear war.

Even more clearly China, who designs, builds and maintains nuclear weapons, supports a nuclear war much more than Japan does.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

China will not threat Japanese with nuclear weapons;

But China might threaten Japan with masses of conventional weapons.

China will not occupy Japan with nuclear weapons;

But China can occupy Japan with masses of conventional weapons.

China will not destroy Japan with nuclear weapons.

But China can and would destroy Japan with masses of conventional weapons.

Meantime Japan has article 9 and will not settle issues with war. But Japan will defend itself if anyone attacks it.

China has not renounced war, it maintains the worlds largest navy and a regular army of over 2 million soldiers.

It also has nuclear weapons to destroy multiple entire cities with one missile.

Some posters should not criticize Japan on issues in which China stands out as one of the worlds biggest dangers. Better to first fix China before expecting Japan to be perfect.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Every government sucks, even Japanese.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Nobody is saying the Japanese were “angels”. The ( same old ) government and its “brainwashed” people ( small percentage of the population) are the ones “trying” to “ play the victim “. When you use the kind of language you used, you’re basically saying there is a justification for what happened. My grandfather in law who was in school in Hiroshima that morning would like to say a word. What happened was wrong, period.

There is plenty of justification in any language for what happened. An end had to.be put to one of the the most disgusting regimes in human history. Ask the grandchildren of the victims of unit 731. What happened was justifiable and right, period.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

China has not renounced war, it maintains the worlds largest navy and a regular army of over 2 million soldiers.

With respect, Communist China's Navy is rubbish. Rusting ex-Soviet carriers and outdated Chinese knockoffs of them. Easy pickings for the worlds Naval big hitters like Japan.

As for PLAs standing Army. Having millions in a standing Army is 19th century stuff. China could raise an Army of 5 million men easily. Theyd be wiped out in one afternoon by US Stealth bombers.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Are we really talking about yesterday’s conflicts?

What do you do in the international space station as just one member of give or take 200.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Having fun with teasing how he is saying it or how Japan is saying it? This kind of how Japan behaves as the only victim of the real proving ground of the A-Bombs is SO ridiculous.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

There is plenty of justification in any language for what happened. An end had to.be put to one of the the most disgusting regimes in human history. Ask the grandchildren of the victims of unit 731. What happened was justifiable and right, period.

I know all about Unit 731 and the countless atrocities committed by the Japanese and I’m gonna say it again: what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Back on topic please.

The complete ignorance expressed in many posts about 'nuclear war' and the concept of winning is beyond ludicrous. Nuclear weapons as deterrence: deterrence to what?

In Nuclear Weapons and Coercive Diplomacy (2017), the political scientists Todd Sechser and Matthew Fuhrmann examined 348 territorial disputes occurring between 1919 and 1995. They used statistical analysis to see whether nuclear-armed states were more successful than conventional countries in coercing their adversaries during territorial disputes. They weren’t.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

No Davos this year; so sorry, no talking no advance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@fighto

'Naval big hitters like Japan'.

Hahahahahaha.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

With respect, Communist China's Navy is rubbish. Rusting ex-Soviet carriers and outdated Chinese knockoffs of them. Easy pickings for the worlds Naval big hitters like Japan.

As for PLAs standing Army. Having millions in a standing Army is 19th century stuff. China could raise an Army of 5 million men easily. Theyd be wiped out in one afternoon by US Stealth bombers.

More echos of the 1930's.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

The quote by Foreign Minister Motegi pretty much verifies the first paragraph of 'De facto nuclear state' under the wiki-read for 'Japanese Nuclear Weapon Program'.

''While there are currently no known plans in Japan to produce nuclear weapons, it has been argued Japan has the technology, raw materials, and the capital to produce nuclear weapons within one year if necessary, and many analysts consider it a de facto nuclear state for this reason.[31][32] For this reason Japan is often said to be a "screwdriver's turn"[33][34] away from possessing nuclear weapons, or to possess a "bomb in the basement".[35]''

Combine the above information with the wiki-read on Japan's 'State Secrecy Law', and it should be as clear as mud that 'build a bridge' is most likely also a euphemism, and mere citizens have no say in the matter.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Why ???.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The most anti nuclear weapon country against the treaty of banning nuclear weapons!

You have got this awesome moral standard!

No wonder why China, North Korea were laughings!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

OssanAmerica: "The issue is not one of stupidity, It is one of honesty."

Except the incredible dishonesty of starting every sentence with, "As the only country to have suffered atomic bombings..." and then finish with, "We cannot support a ban on nuclear weapons" and still want to be taken seriously.

If you support nuclear weapons, fine -- it's stupid, but it's your prerogative. But PLEASE stop pretending you care one wit about the atomic bombing victims and use of the bombs in general. It's like one of those morons in the US who's child dies from a self-inflicted gun wound from their parents' gun, and the parents still insisting the gun is there for safety purposes.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

He is right, why to sign up to something that can't be done. Nuclear equipped states will sign up anything that limits the other countries to procure the same nuclear weapons that the have. If we cant disarm the USA then no one will feel safe to disarm or to abstain from arming them selves. See what happens to countries without nukes, USA and allies bully and intimidate them and eventually bomb them and destroy them, like Libya, Iraq and Syria and Yugoslavia.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites