Prime Minister Leaves Door Open For Reviewing Policy of No Nuclear Weapons in Japan (upi.com) 27
At a Hiroshima memorial ceremony, Japan's prime minister said the country "maintains" its three long-standing non-nuclear principles, reports UPI.
But the prime minister "stopped short of promising that the policy would remain unchanged, fueling speculation that her government could review a longstanding ban on allowing nuclear weapons into the country." [Prime Minister Sanae] Takaichi made the remarks Thursday at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Ceremony marking the 81st anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of the city... Unlike previous prime ministers who pledged that Japan would "continue to uphold" the principles, Takaichi described the government's current position without making an explicit commitment about the future [only saying that Japan has "a mission to continue efforts toward realizing a world without nuclear weapon..."] The wording has drawn attention because her government plans to revise Japan's three key national security documents by the end of the year. At a news conference after the ceremony, Takaichi again said the government "maintains the Three Non-Nuclear Principles as a matter of policy." Asked whether the principles would continue to be included in the revised security documents, however, she declined to commit, saying she would refrain from prejudging the outcome.
Japan's Three Non-Nuclear Principles state that the country will not possess nuclear weapons, will not produce them and will not permit their introduction into Japanese territory. The principles originated with a 1967 statement by then-Prime Minister Eisaku Sato and have remained a central element of Japan's postwar nuclear policy. Takaichi has previously questioned the third principle — the prohibition on allowing nuclear weapons into Japan. Before becoming prime minister, she argued in a 2024 book that Japan should retain the commitments not to possess or produce nuclear weapons but that an absolute prohibition on their introduction was unrealistic.
Her argument was that barring port calls by U.S. vessels carrying nuclear weapons could limit the effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear umbrella protecting Japan... The Japan Innovation Party has also called for a review of the third principle. In security policy recommendations submitted to the government in June, the party called for a "realistic review" of the ban on allowing nuclear weapons into Japan... Under existing government interpretations, Japan could respond flexibly in an extreme national emergency involving a U.S. vessel carrying nuclear weapons. Some within the ruling party therefore question whether formally revising the non-nuclear principles would provide enough practical benefit to justify the political controversy it would create.
Critics also warn that changing the policy when Washington has not publicly demanded such a move could give China and North Korea additional grounds to portray Japan as expanding its military role... If Japan were to allow temporary entry by U.S. nuclear weapons or port calls by nuclear-armed vessels, Washington would gain additional operational options for its nuclear forces in Northeast Asia. Such a development could strengthen deterrence against North Korea and China but could also intensify debate over differences between U.S. extended deterrence arrangements with Japan and South Korea.
"How the principles are addressed in Japan's revised security documents later this year could determine whether the issue develops into a broader debate over the future of extended nuclear deterrence among Japan, South Korea and the United States..."
But the prime minister "stopped short of promising that the policy would remain unchanged, fueling speculation that her government could review a longstanding ban on allowing nuclear weapons into the country." [Prime Minister Sanae] Takaichi made the remarks Thursday at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Ceremony marking the 81st anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of the city... Unlike previous prime ministers who pledged that Japan would "continue to uphold" the principles, Takaichi described the government's current position without making an explicit commitment about the future [only saying that Japan has "a mission to continue efforts toward realizing a world without nuclear weapon..."] The wording has drawn attention because her government plans to revise Japan's three key national security documents by the end of the year. At a news conference after the ceremony, Takaichi again said the government "maintains the Three Non-Nuclear Principles as a matter of policy." Asked whether the principles would continue to be included in the revised security documents, however, she declined to commit, saying she would refrain from prejudging the outcome.
Japan's Three Non-Nuclear Principles state that the country will not possess nuclear weapons, will not produce them and will not permit their introduction into Japanese territory. The principles originated with a 1967 statement by then-Prime Minister Eisaku Sato and have remained a central element of Japan's postwar nuclear policy. Takaichi has previously questioned the third principle — the prohibition on allowing nuclear weapons into Japan. Before becoming prime minister, she argued in a 2024 book that Japan should retain the commitments not to possess or produce nuclear weapons but that an absolute prohibition on their introduction was unrealistic.
Her argument was that barring port calls by U.S. vessels carrying nuclear weapons could limit the effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear umbrella protecting Japan... The Japan Innovation Party has also called for a review of the third principle. In security policy recommendations submitted to the government in June, the party called for a "realistic review" of the ban on allowing nuclear weapons into Japan... Under existing government interpretations, Japan could respond flexibly in an extreme national emergency involving a U.S. vessel carrying nuclear weapons. Some within the ruling party therefore question whether formally revising the non-nuclear principles would provide enough practical benefit to justify the political controversy it would create.
Critics also warn that changing the policy when Washington has not publicly demanded such a move could give China and North Korea additional grounds to portray Japan as expanding its military role... If Japan were to allow temporary entry by U.S. nuclear weapons or port calls by nuclear-armed vessels, Washington would gain additional operational options for its nuclear forces in Northeast Asia. Such a development could strengthen deterrence against North Korea and China but could also intensify debate over differences between U.S. extended deterrence arrangements with Japan and South Korea.
"How the principles are addressed in Japan's revised security documents later this year could determine whether the issue develops into a broader debate over the future of extended nuclear deterrence among Japan, South Korea and the United States..."
no nukes haha (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean sure Japan doesn't have nukes.
They've got a large nuclear power industry with reprocessing and etc and socks of literal tons of plutonium.
They keep trading places for the top fastest supercomputer.
They have a solid fuel scientific satellite launcher with mobile capability from when you just need to launch a satellite from an undisclosed location after a long time in storage. It's not an ICBM no not at all. But if it were it would probably be the best in the world. Good job it's for scientific satellites.
Japan's been hovering around the "we could have nukes by next Tuesday" point for quite a few years now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about them building nukes, it's about letting more US ships visit their ports, and removing an annoyance from the military cooperation.
When the US first started operating the F-35 and did a large scale fly-by just outside North Korean airspace, to announce it afterwards and scare the North Koreans, the Japanese F-35's were right there flying with them. Any regional conflict they're likely to be fighting with the US, regardless of how their laws require them to phrase it. Increasing cooperation be
Re: (Score:2)
It's the classic Japanese fig leaf. Technically they don't have aircraft carriers either, they have "helicopter destroyers" that look exactly like aircraft carriers, complete with a runway and naval jets.
But there is still a lot of opposition to both nuclear weapons and having a military that isn't purely defensive. Aside from the history of the military causing huge disasters for Japan, people see that other countries tend to get swept up in US military adventures, and don't want that.
The conservatives tal
NPT (Score:3)
The more realistic discussion is about strengthening deterrence through the US alliance, including the possible return of US nuclear assets to Japan (yes, return: because Japan has hosted US nuclear weapons in the past, particularly during the cold war).
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely that it would require withdrawing from the NPT, because the US would likely give them permission and nobody cares what France thinks.
The US is the only country with a large stockpile that's following the monitoring rules, so what can they say? The answer is, "When your compliance is up to date we'll be ready to review your complaint."
Re: (Score:2)
Problem with deterrence through the US alliance is, you never know what Trump thinks of the Islamic Republic of Japan when Japan really needs the help.
As someone currently in South East Asia, and having visited S Korea, Japan, etc before, I have no issues with Japan, N Korea and Taiwan getting nukes.
We know what happens if you have no nukes and a larger country wants what you have (Ukraine and Russia). And we know the UN is toothless when a belligerent nation is a perm member of the UN Sec Council (or a clo
If North Korea is pursuing nuclear weapons (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
...without having nuclear weapons first.
What keeps Japan right wing? (Score:1)
But they've been doing right wing economics and policies since the 90s and have been in a permanent recession since then. It's the definition of insanity.
And they basically just elected Trump in a dress.
I know the Yakuza there are used as Union busters. I used to wonder why they didn't have any push for unions like we did here and that's why. In Ameri
Self-reliance (Score:5, Insightful)
They know they U.S.A. Is not reliable anymore.
(For the dunces who do not read serious newspapers, unhinged tariffs= economic war = not an ally at all. Retards at the U.S. government= not funny at all = decapitated head of military staff = U.S.A. Not able to fight long wars for lack of a competent brass in charge, etc... What matters is their perception, not ours.)
So they need their own deterrence. It would not be the first time they have someone else's nuclear weapons on their soil. But my guess it that "nuclear talk" is a way to slowly introduce the Japanese public to the idea that they must be ready to build their own nuclear deterrent quickly if an urgency arises. Besides the nuclear aspect, military alliances are reshaping in the region to face the loss of trust in the U.S.A.
It is fascinating that most of the American public, even the part that passes for more or less left are not at all aware of this. There is no "going back to normal after the midterms"
Re: (Score:1)
None of that has anything to do with the reliability of the US nuclear shield, or the depth of our commitment to Japan.
Don't be a moron who acts like there's only one issue in the world.
Re: (Score:3)
They know they U.S.A. Is not reliable anymore.
they might, and they might even want to wean themselves off but they're too far intertwined. japan is basically a us vassal since 1945. these nukes are aimed at china and the idea came very likely from the us ... now that the us cannot hide anymore that their conventional deterrence is obsolete and has become an unmaintainable blunder, nukes are the final option: saudis, japan, the list will continue ... as will asinine think tanks wondering about how tactical nukes could be used without going full ballisti
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is the beginning of a long process.
They are close to a nuclear threshold, but do not talk yet of building their own deterrent. But they talk openly of needing a nuclear deterrent. which is IMHO how they prepare their public for what might come next.
Re: (Score:2)
They know they U.S.A. Is not reliable anymore.
It's not about the USA. It is not about Trump. It is not about you. Try to not make every single situation America-centric, you self-centered twat.
A minority in Japan really really wants nuclear weapons. The majority doesn't. By "leaving the door open" she is able to appease the minority while not being rejected by the majority. Japanese politics is full of double-speak of this type. If you turned off your American-centric worldview, you might know this. Again: not everything is about you.
If Japan wanted them (Score:5, Insightful)
they could build them fairly quickly. They'll probably continue their pledge and remain in the NPT up and till the point where it no longer is safe not to have nukes.
The triggers for this would be:
1. The United States withdrawing it's nuclear umbrella.
2. North Korea deploying megaton-class thermonuclear weapons and or deploying anti-missile systems and nuclear submarines in large numbers.
3. China increasing its thermonuclear and ICBM stockpile (This is slowly happening right now).
4. Increasing conflict around the world leads to widespread fighting.
Japanese people are smart (Score:4, Insightful)
Without nuclear weapons Japan is vulnerable and the US cannot play world police forever...if the US can't pummle Iran to submission then is there really any hope with a more capable adversary? Also what if Trump suddenly invents a reason to put tariff on Japanese good or invent some BS like what he said about the EU being created to exploit the US.
Geopolitical power is shifting and Japan must change with the times...
Deterrance (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
When has Japan ever launched an unprovoked sneak attack on anyone?
Japan did no wrong during WW2. (Score:1)
The prime minister has repeatedly stated that Japan had done nothing wrong during WW2, and has constantly gone to the the Yasukuni Shrine where they worship class A war criminals as war gods.
Only men can have delusions of grandeur? (Score:2)
Rather disappointed by the discussion so far, which saps the motivation to say anything. I think there's a deep problem in Japanese thinking, but the most clear evidence is probably the Reiwa thing. The Heisei emperor asked to retire, but there was no rush. He's still alive now so they had plenty of wiggle room about when to start Reiwa--but the LDP deliberately chose to inflict imperial stupidity on everyone when they had the easy option of syncing the start of Reiwa so the digits would match up. Insane de
Nukes are a critical deterrant (Score:2)
It was in the news yesterday. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have formed a NATO like pact. Saudi Arabia has mostly realized that it cannot rely on the US. Most others have come to the same conclusion and are quickly evaluating their own nuclear weapon options. In this case, they are aligning with someone else that has nukes.