Possibility of Nuclear Weapons on the Island?

[IamKira]

ahh i see what you're saying now... my only response would be to say that if nukes were ever launched by the u.s. or at the u.s., japan would be destroyed anyway regardless if they have nukes or not located on their land. there are so many nukes out there that russia has them aimed at pop. 400 towns in the midwest of the u.s. because there are radio broadcast stations there. there's no way with that level of arsenol that japan wouldn't be targeted when the u.s. hold such close ties there.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by MMM

I am in Japan now, and this is the first I am hearing of this.

I'm not sure I follow; the fact that you don't know it and are in Japan? Mutually exclusive in my mind. A couple of key words in the search engine will bring it right up. I'm sure its not hitting the headlines every day since late December.

http://www.asahi.com/Herald-asahi/TKY200912240069.html
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national...23TDY01301.htm

But FoxNews does bring in the important front page news on the front page that other news sources put hide in the back pages or don't post at all. You should start getting your news from FoxNews all the time.

Originally Posted by MMM

I am not sure what you mean by "Do you think things could change?"

What don't you understand? Stop nit picking.
Does the board think Japan would accept Nuclear weapons on Japanese soil? There are none now; will it change now that this deed has been uncovered? With the North Korean threat... etc. A portion of the artilce was Japanese reaction to the possibility. I thought the board reaction might be of value...

In any event this is actually quite a historic find.

[Nyororin]

Willingly allow nuclear weapons? I highly doubt that. Anyone at the top who would suggest it would be committing political suicide, and taking their entire party down with them.

Even with the North Korea issue, they still can`t even get people to approve of defensive attacks off of Japanese soil. Now the defense force is only to directly defend. If there is something outside of Japanese waters attacking Japan (say, a ship or missiles being fired from another country) nothing can be done. There is a lot of push to extend the defense to something more proactive - ie. allowing a missile base outside of Japan to be attacked to defend the country. But even this cannot be pushed through with the large number of people against it.
I cannot even imagine the level of response and backlash a suggestion of allowing nuclear weapons on Japanese soil would bring.

[Tsuwabuki]

There are two conflicting interests here. Nyororin describes the typical Japanese response from the "man (or woman) on the street." At least two to three full generations of Japanese have been raised as pacifists, with the ultimate fear being nuclear weapons. A suggestion by the political establishment to allow nuclear weapons in mainland Japan would be greeted by unanimous disgust (well, all but the black van driving nationalists, but no one takes them seriously). Even Okinawa would be bad enough.

This, however, conflicts with Japan's populous's unwillingness to defend itself at all. If America is to be tasked with defending Japan, and America says it needs nukes to do that defending... I don't know. Right now the Japanese have their cake and are eating it too. They can claim to be a pacifistic nation completely uninterested in military operations, even to the point of their own defense... knowing full well if the fecal matter hits the ceiling mounted rotary cooling device, the US will swoop in to defend it.

Of many things in Japan that I find hypocritical (and note, I still love it here, and it is my home, no country is immune from hypocrisy), this routinely stands out in my mind.

There is a status quo in Japan that neither side will probably rock. I would doubt, in this day of nuclear disarmament, with Obama claiming to work with Russia on the largest stockpile reduction since President Reagan's administration, that America would ask for this "secret agreement" of Nixon's (if it exists, and it may well exist), to be put into action. It would just be stupid.

[Sangetsu]

Originally Posted by termogard

SLBMs aren't the same as ICBMs deployed on mainland. SLBMs are part of heavy underwater carrier (submarine) which belongs to certain country of so-called Nuclear Club
When you place nuclear weapon on a territory of some foreign country, you automatically convert this territory into a target for possible nuclear counter-attack. Plain and simple. I don't think Japan would be happy to become a primary target for Russian/Chinese/North Korean ICBMs armed by nuclear and thermo-nuclear warheads just for the sake of American interests.

Japan is already a strategic threat to the above-mentioned because of the large US military presence in the country. This presence is responsible for Taiwan still being an independent nation, and thwarts any North Korean attempts to strike South Korea.

Japan has no offensive Army, and only a limited self-defense force, which is the reason Japan allows (and pays for) the stationing of US military forces within the country. Because of this, any attack on Japan is no different than an attack against America itself, and, as America is a nuclear power, Japan, by extension, is also a nuclear power.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by clintjm

I'm not sure I follow; the fact that you don't know it and are in Japan? Mutually exclusive in my mind. A couple of key words in the search engine will bring it right up. I'm sure its not hitting the headlines every day since late December.

http://www.asahi.com/Herald-asahi/TKY200912240069.html
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national...23TDY01301.htm

But FoxNews does bring in the important front page news on the front page that other news sources put hide in the back pages or don't post at all. You should start getting your news from FoxNews all the time.

I am in Japan, watching the news and talking to people every day, and this has not come up once. I have talked about the possibility of moving the base in Okinawa, and this seems to be pretty persistant news here, at least right now. but nothing about Japan possibly agreeing to allow nuclear weapons on Japanese soil. You can say that is mutually exclusive, but is an alternative experience to Fox news. (Which I avoid like the plague. There is nothing "fair or balanced" about their "reporting".)

Originally Posted by clintjm

What don't you understand? Stop nit picking.
Does the board think Japan would accept Nuclear weapons on Japanese soil? There are none now; will it change now that this deed has been uncovered? With the North Korean threat... etc. A portion of the artilce was Japanese reaction to the possibility. I thought the board reaction might be of value...

In any event this is actually quite a historic find.

How is asking for clarification nitpicking? I think you are reading too much into my very simple question.