Will Japan Go Nuclear?

Japan has a surprisingly large influence on U.S. nuclear policy. But it is not the influence that most Japanese citizens think it is -- or want it to be.

U.S. officials are presently working hard to finish a new Nuclear Posture Review that will shape the direction of U.S. nuclear policy and the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal for the next five to ten years. This report is written by the Department of Defense and will be given to President Obama at the end of the year.

In preparing the report, defense officials are not citing the appeals from the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Nor are they citing the important statement of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, who said, "I highly approve of President Obama's courageous leadership... We will work together with the United States toward a world without nuclear weapons."

No, the most important Japanese voices in the United States right now are secret voices. A small group of conservative Japanese defense officials have spread the view that if the United States reduces its nuclear arsenal, then Japan will build its own nuclear bombs.

Conservative Myths

This issue emerged this year in the deeply-flawed report of the U.S. Strategic Posture Commission, chaired by former-Secretaries of Defense William Perry and James Schlesinger. Conservatives on the commission twice brought in Japanese officials to make these claims. It worked. The report devoted key sections to the issue of "extended deterrence." This is the theory that the U.S. nuclear arsenal protects U.S. allies who, therefore, do not have to build their own nuclear weapons.

Conservatives used these Japanese statements to justify keeping a massive U.S. nuclear arsenal indefinitely. Nuclear hawk Keith Payne, a member of the Commission, said, "If the U.S. extended nuclear deterrent loses credibility, some in Japan believe that other security options will have to be examined."

The Commission itself noted in veiled language that "one particularly important ally" [read: Japan] argued privately that perceived credibility in the U.S. extended deterrent depended on the U.S. maintaining "specific capabilities to hold a wide variety of targets at risk."

Thus, Japan again looms large in U.S. nuclear policy. Some officials -- including some writing the posture review -- believe these repeated stories of deep Japanese concern over U.S. reductions. They may tell the President that he cannot reduce U.S. weapons without causing a Japanese nuclear weapons program. In sum, they are saying that nuclear reductions will promote proliferation.

Japan must correct this record. Japanese officials must rebut these false claims. If they do not, this myth will persist and prevail. If they do not, we may lose the chance we now have to put the United States and Russia firmly on the path to deep reductions and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear Facts of Life

The United States has an estimated 9,400 nuclear weapons. About half of these are scheduled for dismantlement and half in the "active stockpile." Several thousand weapons, each ten times more powerful than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, are earmarked for targets in the Pacific region. At any moment, in service of its nuclear strategy in the Pacific, the U.S. has ready about 100 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles, over 1,000 Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles, and well over 1,300 extra warheads in reserve if necessary. In addition, the U.S. designates 500 warheads on its Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles for strike options in the Pacific region, and gives contingency nuclear missions to U.S.-based strategic and tactical bombers.

Photo: U.S. Navy tests a Tomahawk Land Attack Missile

Our massive arsenal holds far more weapons than necessary to deter any threat to Japan. As Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists notes, even if this Pacific posture were cut in half, it would still be three times the size of the entire Chinese nuclear stockpile.
Thus, even after the United States retires some weapons, including the Tomahawk cruise missiles, it will retain for years the equivalent of 1000s of Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs that will effectively deter any nuclear attack on Japan.

We should strive to eliminate all nuclear weapons, step by step, with all nations reducing together. While we reduce -- and after we abolish -- nuclear weapons, Japan will be defended by the strong and enduring U.S.-Japan alliance. This alliance is about much more than nuclear bombs. It is backed by powerful conventional forces and more importantly, the close, often personal, political bonds between the U.S. and Japan.

The threat to Japan is not the elimination of weapons, it is their spread. President Obama said at the United Nations, "The threat of proliferation is growing in scope and complexity. If we fail to act, we will invite nuclear arms races in every region, and the prospect of wars and acts of terror on a scale that we can hardly imagine."

Positive Progress

There has been positive progress in the last few months bringing North Korea slowly back to negotiations. There has been also progress with Iran in just the past few weeks. Japan can play important roles in both these crises, with tough, direct diplomacy to support strong sanctions if the two nations continue to violate U.N. resolutions and to support direct dialogue to negotiate an end to both nuclear programs.

Last month at the UN, Chinese President Hu Jintao supported the resolution on nonproliferation and disarmament. President Hu said, "All nuclear-weapons states should make a firm and unconditional commitment not to use or threaten to use weapons against non-nuclear weapons states."

Japan's Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada agrees. He said at his inaugural press conference in September that "the first use of nuclear weapons should not be accepted," and that he "[does] not believe that deterrence would be weakened as a result." He further stated, "I believe an argument can be made that it is illegal for countries that possess nuclear weapons to use nuclear weapons against countries that do not possess nuclear weapons."

Prime Minister Hatoyama says in support of the elimination of nuclear weapons, "It is high time for us to take action." He is correct. The Japanese government should repeat as often and as clearly as possible that it supports reductions in U.S. and other nations' nuclear arsenals and that it supports U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. He should consider writing an article for U.S. newspapers directly stating his views.

As Mr. Hatoyama has said, "we have no time to waste." Now is the time to act.

A longer version of this article appeared originally in the Hiroshima Peace Media Center of the Chugoku Shimbun.

Follow Joe Cirincione on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Cirincione

Comments

[JacqueItch]

The elimination of nuclear weapons, and constant monitoring by all nations for those who would attempt to build such a weapon is the only sane reality for the future of mankind.

And, paraphrasing George Carlin, I wouldn't bet on the human race to survive. So far they haven't shown the ability to overcome their cruel ignorance, only transform it to the next level.

[MichaelTurton]

Japan is almost certain to go nuclear, or else remain poised right on the brink, not neocons, but a sea-change in the US Establishment since the rise of China: they are all making money off it.

In the Obama Administration alone it would be easy to name a half-dozen people with Asia policy connections who are also involved with businesses doing business with China. Obama's ill-fated appointee for the NIC, Charles Freeman, is an excellent example -- he sat on the board of a state-owned oil company, did business with China through project international, and his son is with CSIS, the pro-business think tank, and also has his own consulting business with China.

Because of this, the US is fundamentally changing its "security" posture in East Asia: it is selling out Taiwan to China (the Establishment strongly supports the current pro-China president of Taiwan) and has been neglecting Japan most shamefully. As China rises and the US withdraws, Japan will be forced to re-assess its security situation, meaning either accommodation -- and the loss of territory, face, and resources, since the price will no doubt be the Senkakus and in the long term, Okinawa -- or fighting. And the latter will require a nuclear backup against a nuke-armed China.

You are right in arguing that the US posture is a key factor, but I believe you have misunderstood how that influence is now working.

Michael Turton
The View from Taiwan blog

[sighn in]

You are correct Michael. Obama's love for the Chinese is going to harden other countries like Japan and India for sure.

India, Japan and Taiwan are not trusting Obama and his men.

[unitron]

India has nukes because Pakistan has nukes.

Pakistan has nukes because India has nukes.

Although to be fair, India having nukes probably keeps Russia and China at bay.

[addisonsteele]

Two years ago, at the Davos conference, the Japanese Foreign Minister made an ambiguous comment about Japan's nuclear capabilties. It meant either that Japan already has nuclear weapons or that they were about to have nuclear weapons.

[sighn in]

I hope Japan goes Nuclear. They must. How can they not while China is not being asked to give up their nuckes.

[lightningbolt]

I'm not so sure eliminating all nuclear weapons is such a good idea. Nuclear weapons have prevented many wars between large world powers. Nuclear weapons are the only guarantee to peace between large world powers.

[MajorKong]

Maybe.

We came a lot closer than you think on several occasions.

Either way, they're very expensive systems and it would be nice to cut the numbers back.

[Jaywalkker]

Can you point out the memo where a country said, "if it weren't for the nukes, I'd have invaded _____ long ago?"

[lightningbolt]

The Soviet Union would have probably invaded Western Europe, and the U.S. might have invaded Cuba. China and Russia almost went to war but I'm sure they thought twice before risking nuclear war. World War 2 would have lasted much longer and more people would have died if the U.S. had not used nukes. Bush would have invaded France.
No I don't have a memo to point out. Why would you trust a memo anyway?

[unitron]

"Can you point out the memo where a country said, "if it weren't for the nukes, I'd have invaded _____ long ago?" "

That's what Saddam would have said if Iran had had nukes.

That's why Iran wants nukes, so that nobody f***s with them.

That's why Japan, with North Korea and China nearby, want nukes.

[Inquisitr]

You're missing one aspect.

North Korea.

A nuclear power that loves to test fire missiles in Japan's direction.

Even if the US keeps it's arsenal high there are many Japanese who say they need to build their own nukes to deter NK. It's a huge part of the math the US plays with China, because china does NOT want a nuclear Japan.

china wants a nuclear Japan less than we want a nuclear Iran.

[spike009k]

I think would trust Japan more than most other countries to have a responsible nuclear weapons program; having been the victim of nuclear attacks in the recent past, they'd probably have a healthier respect for their destructive potential.

[Jaywalkker]

Given Japan's past actions in SE Asia and their culturally inclusive society, I don't think it would be hard for them to look past the human impact if warhawks started a fight Sometimes, it bothers me that such a world power has virtually no natural resources on an overcrowding island chain.

[den1953]

Let's hope the whole world looses the nukes once and for all and work on the real problems that saves the world and not destroys it!

[Aaror]

Loses, not looses, PLEASE!!!
Lets not have every nuclear power launch all weapons.
I know I misspell badly myself, but I can't let that one go untouched, sorry.

[spike009k]

Good call.

[cupcake65]

Well, DOH!! Unlike Obama, the Japanese are realists and fiercely protective of their state and people.

[MajorKong]

Because he's only spending 8 1/2 times on defense as the next country?

[cupcake65]

So what?

[lightningbolt]

Obama's defense budget is the largest defense budget the U.S. has ever had, and the largest defense budget in the world by far. Your lies make you look like a fool.

[cupcake65]

So what? Read the comment again.

[sighn in]

exactly.

Go Japan!

[Realization]

And what makes anyone think that Japan has done everything but produce nuclear weapons anyway? Wouldn't take them long. They are very competent at this game. Actually, it would be in our interest for Japan to go nuclear in its own right. Why should we be on the line to protect them? Doesn't get us anything. Let them be a problem for China. All we would want is to be able to deny that we approve.

[Aarky]

For many years the Japanese military sent troops to Ft Bliss, TX for missile training. With their ability to miniaturize things, their 20,000 LBS OF PLUTONIUM in storage would make a lot of nukes. It's been processed from the spent fuel from their nuclear power plants. Even using wasteful techniques they could still manufacture 1300 Nagasaki type nukes. Surprised that they have so much bomb grade material? No body talks about it and I only saw the information once.

[Realization]

I have been to the reprocessing plant at Tokaimura and remember when there was discussion of whether to let them reprocess. Am convinced they could field nukes in short order and have done everything needed but test.

I'd rather have them out of the closet and have us a bit de-linked from the defense umbrella. Our relationship with Japan has, for a long time, really been an economic relationship and we should focus on eliminating the trade deficit. Also need to balance FDI and tech transfer (which has bee one way in to Japan for several generations).

Same for Korea. No point in having troops there. North Korea won't attack. China and South Korea are closely linked. That's the same reason our troops are a neagative. SK certainly will never let us use them against China (not that I think that will be needed but there is no other reason to be there). SK is in China's pocket. Quite natural with China growing economically. Look at a map.

And with China. Solving the trade problem (eliminate the trade deficit, go straight reciprocal on FDI, and eliminate excessive borrowing) is the most important thing we could do for national security.

[research]

ALL sovereign nations will logically take a good look at getting WMD

to deter the USA and others from invading their country.

The USA's aggressive posture toward Iran,

Accelerates proliferation.

[Inquisitr]

Iran's aggressive posturing, lying to the international community, and denying it's citizens their human rights accelerates the USA's aggressive posture with Iran.

We can play that game to sunshine.

[research]

Denying their citizens thier rights? Compared to the USA's torture, rendition, and political pot prisoners? The USA lied the world into war with Iraq, Iran has invaded nobody in a long time. Take the log out of your own eye, before you help another take the splinter out of theirs.

You get it?

The USA does not have the moral authority. Bush threw that away.

If the USA is the worlds cop, it's the worlds Corrupt cop, for sale to war profiteering and religious christian fanatics.

Still don't get it?

It is a War crime to threaten to invade another country. and our necons have been doing it for decades.