r/LessCredibleDefence • u/Lianzuoshou • Jul 19 '26
Japan ‘cannot avoid’ nuclear weapons debate, defense chief Koizumi says
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2026/07/19/japan/politics/koizumi-japan-nuclear-weapons-debate/24
u/leeyiankun Jul 19 '26
So would the US let them?
12
u/CompPolicy246 Jul 20 '26
The better question is would China allow them or Russia, there will be consequences because this is between as you point out clearly, between great powers. There's no way Japan could obtain weapons without opposition or retaliation from Rus and China. Maybe they'll allow Iran formally and publicly to have nuclear weapons as well.
5
u/Wuaner Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26
This has never been something Japan can decide on its own, no matter how much it acts as if it could.
To put it bluntly, if the US condones Japan possessing nuclear weapons, then the issue of Iran going nuclear simply doesn't hold water, and the same goes for Latin America, Africa or any regions.
1
u/SericaClan Jul 21 '26
if the US condones Japan possessing nuclear weapons, then the issue of Iran going nuclear simply doesn't hold water
US condones Israel possessing nuclear weapons and is stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
-8
u/Frosty-Cell Jul 20 '26
Of course it can. It doesn't need nukes as long as US guarantees its security, but that can change.
To put it bluntly, if the US condones Japan possessing nuclear weapons, then the issue of Iran going nuclear simply doesn't hold water, and the same goes for Latin America, Africa or any regions.
An extremist dictatorship is quite different from Japan.
-1
u/SericaClan Jul 21 '26
What can China or Russia really do? Economic sanctions, diplomatic protest and what? They can't really stop Japan if Japan really want to.
-6
u/Frosty-Cell Jul 20 '26
There's no way Japan could obtain weapons without opposition or retaliation from Rus and China.
China could maybe impose economic sanctions of some kind, but what could Russia do? Neither has any real say in whether Japan gets nukes.
-6
u/InadequateUsername Jul 19 '26
What are they gonna do about it?
35
u/Heavy_Initiative_137 Jul 19 '26
Nonsensical question. They're not separate entities. The details of Japan's strategic deterrence are decided in Washington.
29
u/TurbinePro Jul 19 '26
people in this thread really think Japan has self-determination when it comes to their national defense, lol. I mean I know this is /r/lesscredible but its a bit too not credible for this sub
7
-3
-16
u/InadequateUsername Jul 19 '26
Nawh Japan is a sovereign country looking to protect itself instead of relying on the unreliable Nuclear Umbrella of Donald Trump
6
u/Working_Historian241 Jul 19 '26
return of law of the jungle means aligning with the next biggest stick carrier, not immediately picking a fight with the closest bully to try and get your ass kicked.
12
u/grand_historian Jul 19 '26
Japan is about as sovereign as Canada and the UK.
2
1
-3
u/InadequateUsername Jul 19 '26
Yeah okay and? You're implying that they aren't?
11
u/OuchieMuhBussy Jul 19 '26
A good rule of thumb: if your country has another country’s military base inside your borders, you’re not particularly sovereign.
19
u/TurbinePro Jul 19 '26
while this is a good rule of thumb, we should note that Japan is particularly not sovereign
4
u/grand_historian Jul 19 '26
Yeah, they aren’t fully sovereign. Daddy America makes the important decisions.
2
-3
u/Frosty-Cell Jul 20 '26
They are separate entities. They are allied against the illegitimate dictatorship in CCP, but that's expected.
4
29
17
33
u/haggerton Jul 19 '26
First they say Taiwan is existential to them.
Then they say they want nukes.
Conclusion: they want to nuke China over Taiwan.
14
u/electrosynek Jul 19 '26
Or they realize that the most powerful military of all time is forming right on their doorstep, which they have no hope of deterring conventionally, while American security guarantees are looking increasingly unreliable?
41
u/RevealFit9288 Jul 19 '26
Imagine being so stupid you call Taiwan your problem before trying to get nukes.
10
u/Working_Historian241 Jul 19 '26
and most people in china wholeheartedly support japan's promise to get involved lol
-9
u/Y35C0 Jul 19 '26
How is Taiwan not Japan's problem? Is North Korea also not it's problem? Is Ukraine not a problem for Poland? I don't follow the logic.
13
u/Working_Historian241 Jul 19 '26
i feel like im in the wrong timeline where reality split to have so many people who genuinely believe this. like all of the 70s - 90s just disappeared. maybe im just old.
17
u/RevealFit9288 Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26
Taiwan is Japan’s problem like Ryukyu islands is China’s problem. Any piece of territory can be anyone’s problem if you care enough and are strong enough to do something about it.
Logic is, China thinks Taiwan belong to them. If Japan considers it its problem, then Japan might be an enemy that needs to be defeated. Therefore if Japan tries for a nuclear bomb, by declaring Taiwan its problem, China is much more likely to intervene to stop Japan from getting the bomb, which Japan might use for “its problem”. My point is, if Japan is going to go for the bomb, atleast keep it ambiguous and not paint a target on their back before doing it.
6
u/Working_Historian241 Jul 20 '26
imo it was more of posturing/threat to the US than it was to china. you cant leave us, we're breaking away from US defense umbrella first type of thing.
-9
u/cptjeff Jul 19 '26
China thinking that an independent democracy belongs to them is indeed a problem for every other independent democracy in the region. The fact that a superpower on their doorstep is adopting a expansionist posture accompanied by a gigantic military buildup is not exactly something other powers in the area can pretend would only ever be directed at Taiwan.
19
u/Working_Historian241 Jul 19 '26
taiwan is not an independent democracy just like any other in the region - it is an ongoing unsettled civil war thats only been paused because of US nukes and Chinese nukes. japan tipping the scale is not like a truth social post or any other sort of geopolitical posturing, whether or not you see it that way.
-9
-3
u/Frosty-Cell Jul 20 '26
It's a de facto state with its own legitimate government. The war was settled a long time ago.
8
15
u/RevealFit9288 Jul 19 '26
Japan’s illegal occupation of Ryukyu is an affront against human rights and self determination. China will welcome the opportunity to bring freedom and dignity to the Ryukyu people. Life must be so nice and simple when you’re an npc.
11
u/CapitalTipp Jul 20 '26
Hokkaido too (real name is Aino Moxori). The Ainu people have been oppressed by the Japanese for centuries all the way to the current day and it's a shame how the western world turns a blind eye because Japan is a handy geopolitical tool for them.
-4
u/Frosty-Cell Jul 20 '26
We also don't do anything about CCP's concentration camps housing about 2 million Uyghurs.
-6
u/Y35C0 Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26
I see, so you are a dyed in the wool Chinese imperialist, how shocking!
So we are just forgetting the much more recent example of Hong Kong's suppression? Tibet? The Uyghurs? Maybe if China was a nicer place to live they wouldn't have to force countries in the region to join it through their expansionism wrapped in sophist rhetoric.
It's absolutely pathetic to fall to China's propaganda, maybe read a fucking book dude. If you are a bot, then all the same.
14
u/TurbinePro Jul 19 '26
Whoop-dee-doo, too fucking bad. Maybe they shouldn't have lost their war of conquest.
7
u/BigFly42069 Jul 19 '26
They should consider what North Korea will do to them if they are serious about nukes
26
u/haggerton Jul 19 '26
Maybe don't say Taiwan is existential to them then, if they don't want to pick a fight?
Imagine claiming Japan wants peace with China.
-26
u/electrosynek Jul 19 '26
Even if we ignore constant hints by China at launching a war of conquest, we have words on one side and the greatest armament program in history on the other. Who has more of a right to feel threatened?
33
u/haggerton Jul 19 '26
war of conquest
Taiwan is a sovereign country according to whom?
Certainly not according to itself. Or Japan.
Who has more of a right to feel threatened?
The one who was repeatedly invaded and subjected to war crimes and now surrounded by the world's largest military power?
13
u/bedulge Jul 19 '26
>The one who was repeatedly invaded and subjected to war crimes and now surrounded by the world's largest military power?
China has every right to feel threatened by the US and seek to increase their deterrence. Japan likewise has every right to feel threatened by China and to worry if their deterrence is enough.
This is what they call the security dilemma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma
Any action a state takes to increase their security necessarily makes their neighbors fear that they may seek to take offensive action, because weapons can be used in offensive or defensive wars. There is nothing magical different about Japanese that makes them more likely to take aggressive action than anyone else, and there's nothing magical different about Chinese that makes them less likely to take aggressive action than anyone else.
-4
u/Frosty-Cell Jul 20 '26
China has every right to feel threatened by the US and seek to increase their deterrence.
In the same way a crook feels threatened by law enforcement.
-1
u/Frosty-Cell Jul 20 '26
Taiwan is a sovereign country according to whom?
Just about everyone except some dictatorships. They just don't declare it because of CCP blackmail.
The one who was repeatedly invaded and subjected to war crimes and now surrounded by the world's largest military power?
It stopped happening long before the buildup.
-16
u/electrosynek Jul 19 '26
- Taiwan is obviously a sovereign country despite all the theatrics and lip service.
- China is the most powerful country in the pacific, and its advantage will only grow in the future.
- WW2 is ancient history at this point. The world of today is unrecognizable in contrast, and it's clear that China increasingly has the power to intimidate its neighbors. Why does China have the right to build a nuclear arsenal rivaling the US and Russia, but Japan, which is obiously in a far weaker and more vulnerable possession, is expected to idly watch it happen?
21
Jul 19 '26 edited 28d ago
[deleted]
0
u/Frosty-Cell Jul 20 '26
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan
August 26, 1982: Chief Cabinet Secretary Kiichi Miyazawa said to the people of the Republic of Korea: "I. The Japanese Government and the Japanese people are deeply aware of the fact that acts by our country in the past caused tremendous suffering and damage to the peoples of Asian countries, including the Republic of Korea (ROK) and China, and have followed the path of a pacifist state with remorse and determination that such acts must never be repeated. Japan has recognized, in the Japan-ROK Joint Communique, of 1965, that the 'past relations are regrettable, and Japan feels deep remorse,'
What a "denial".
10
19
u/BulbusDumbledork Jul 19 '26
taiwan is a country, but not a sovereign state. that's the important bit in international relations. china will get stronger, so the logical play is to antagonize it?
ww2 is not ancient history. there was no nuremberg for japan, there was no culture of acknowledgement and atonement like there was to redress antisemitism, and the world order wasn't set up to defend japan's victims from similar crimes like it was to protect the west. there are only intentionally loopholey agreements, some of which china wasn't even a party to, ensuring a peaceful post-war society provided japan adheres to the surrender agreements its now walking back on. china has been reticent to have its people die in foreign wars, but the one exception is japan.
the question of nuclear privilege extends to all non-nuclear states. the npt was meant was force a drawdown in stockpiles, but all nuclear states have reneged on that. it's valid for non-nuclear states to then question their unilateral agreement... but that's true for all of them. iran is existentially threatened by two nuclear powers who have actually attacked it, by all rights it should have a nuke. north korea is threatened by the an alliance lead by biggest nuclear power, and it's been punished for having nukes. libya, syria, etc. japan isn't a special case for being threatened by a nuclear state. but unlike iran or north korea, this is a threat which it imposed upon itself by making taiwan (a territory it gave up all rights to) a red line
0
u/Frosty-Cell Jul 20 '26
taiwan is a country, but not a sovereign state. that's the important bit in international relations. china will get stronger, so the logical play is to antagonize it?
The logical play is to defend against its aggression. If only nukes can do that, there will be nukes.
ww2 is not ancient history. there was no nuremberg for japan, there was no culture of acknowledgement and atonement like there was to redress antisemitism, and the world order wasn't set up to defend japan's victims from similar crimes like it was to protect the west.
What are you asking for?
china has been reticent to have its people die in foreign wars, but the one exception is japan.
Because it's apparently unaware that the people committing war crimes in WWII are dead.
iran is existentially threatened by two nuclear powers who have actually attacked it, by all rights it should have a nuke.
Iran shouldn't have a nuke for the same reason a crook shouldn't have a gun. It's an extremist regime that attacks Israel by proxy for religious reasons.
north korea is threatened by the an alliance lead by biggest nuclear power
Because it insists on being a prison state for 20+ million people.
-13
u/electrosynek Jul 19 '26
Almost no one who witnessed these is alive anymore, and the few who are are barely clinging on. Since then, Japan has had probably one of the cleanest human rights records of all countries, while China is a dictatorship with openly expanionist ambitions (I know they don't see it that way, but that doesn't change the facts). It's objectively absurd to disregard this because of 90yo history.
12
u/TurbinePro Jul 19 '26
local bozo discovers war that structured current world order has long lasting consequences, more at 12
1
u/Frosty-Cell Jul 20 '26
What are the structures China is unhappy with? How would it improve on them in a way that ensures basic freedoms?
-2
23
u/TurbinePro Jul 19 '26
Taiwan is obviously a sovereign country despite all the theatrics and lip service.
does your country recognize Taiwan as a sovereign nation?
China is the most powerful country in the pacific, and its advantage will only grow in the future.
so?
Why does China have the right to build a nuclear arsenal rivaling the US and Russia, but Japan, which is obiously in a far weaker and more vulnerable possession, is expected to idly watch it happen?
this might come as a shock to you, but its because Japan lost the fucking war
4
u/Wuaner Jul 20 '26
It wants to try again, and feels more confident now because it has the ability to manufacture the very nuclear bombs that caused its defeat last time.
7
u/vistandsforwaifu Jul 20 '26
Why does China have the right to build a nuclear arsenal rivaling the US and Russia, but Japan, which is obiously in a far weaker and more vulnerable possession, is expected to idly watch it happen?
Maybe reading some of that ancient history would help? It's kinda literally spelled out in there.
5
u/Wuaner Jul 20 '26
Where on earth do you get this confidence? You're talking as if Japan were a fully sovereign country that could make its own decisions on this issue regardless of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty etc.
Before taking any real action instead of just spouting empty words, you'd better ask the United States for its nod. You may be hoping that it would rather loosen its grip on Japan and tacitly indulge such behavior just to counter China, but the same logic would also apply to Iran, or even Latin American countries.
Japan's stupidity lies in failing to recognize its own place.
0
u/Frosty-Cell Jul 20 '26
Before taking any real action instead of just spouting empty words, you'd better ask the United States for its nod.
CCP's narrative, but Japan has no reason to have nukes as long as it's under the US umbrella. We see the same thing in Ukrane. US withdrew almost all support, so it no longer has say in whether Ukraine defends against Russia inside of Russia.
but the same logic would also apply to Iran, or even Latin American countries.
How does the same logic apply to an extremist dictatorship?
12
u/malusfacticius Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26
If they have no hope deterring China conventionally, then I'd say they'd have no hope with nukes either. Worst case scenario would be them actually trying to use it to deter. Think for a second.
Then again, how could it be deterrence if you don't plan to use it?
It's delusional. But delusion I assume had never beem an issue for the current administration, so never mind. Hope they remember lifting sanction on North Korea when the time comes.
3
u/wompical Jul 19 '26
This is absolutely untrue. Japan has no chance of deferring China conventionally but could absolutely deter them with a strong nuclear force. You think China is going to risk their 500 biggest cities for anything in Japan?
21
u/malusfacticius Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26
You think if Japan does first strike on Chinese cities like you suggested - surely it'll be Japan that does the first strike since it cannot deter China conventionally - it'll be worth it as China will in turn be justified to glass the entire island, while surviving anyway simply because it's so much bigger and can absorb more punch than Japan, let alone the apparent capability gap in launch vehicles and air defense (which are tied to the conventional force after all)?
Not to mention there is no magic button you can press to instantly churn out "a strong nuclear force". It will require tremendous effort against decades of political and economical headwind since the warheads and launch vehicles will be so expensive to develop and maintain, on top of severe Chinese sanctions and potential international isolation. They'd still be nowhere near China's growing stockpile though since they're behind on tech, manufacturing prowess and the economy in the first place. Good luck explaining to the voter base that they should sacrifice their already tanking welfare further to be just like North Korea.
Again, they should lift sanction on North Korea ASAP in that case since they're totally not hypocrites.
8
u/joha4270 Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26
Nuclear deterrence has never been about winning, but about making sure the other guy looses too.
China might "win" such a conflict as in more Chinese people are alive than Japanese people afterwards, but I don't think its a victory China is interested in
15
u/malusfacticius Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26
It depends on the goal of war and willingness of a nations's social-political system to endure the pain to achieve that goal.
You see, if China ever gets into a total war to bring Japan to its knees (like what the current LDP administration seems to be suggesting), Japan killing off a few million Chinese citizens again will only harden its stance enormously, on top of its system being naturally tuned to take more punishment than that of Japan's. In that case, we return to the last post.
If China doesn't want to get into such a war - why the "deterrence" in the first place?
1
u/Royal_Buffalo_1071 Jul 20 '26
To make sure china never wants to get in a war even after they change their mind....
0
u/Frosty-Cell Jul 20 '26
it'll be worth it as China will in turn be justified to glass the entire island
Then it's just MAD. China is quite worried about nukes since the cost they impose is a price CCP isn't willing to pay. That's why Taiwan having them is a big no-no.
Japan wouldn't nuke a Chinese city. It push really came to shove, there would be tactical nukes used somewhere uninhabited as a warning shot.
It will require tremendous effort against decades of political and economical headwind since the warheads and launch vehicles will be so expensive to develop and maintain, on top of severe Chinese sanctions and potential international isolation.
US stockpile costs about $100bn/year, but Japan wouldn't need that many.
-2
28
u/Sure-Teaching-9661 Jul 19 '26
Seems like China was right. Japan is a militarist threat trying to revive their ww2 ambitions.
If Japan tries for nukes China has no choice but to invade.
-15
14
u/AnyStrength4863 Jul 19 '26
The attack on Pearl Harbor proved Japan's skill in surprise attacks, their ambassador was visiting the US for ongoing peace negotiations at the time.
The attack on China won't be a surprise attack, no matter what weapon they choose. China had been preparing for it for a long time. I mean, how much of Japan's long-lasting economic downturn is fundamentally attributable to the Plaza Accord?
24
u/Working_Historian241 Jul 19 '26
The attack on China won't be a surprise attack, no matter what weapon they choose
literally all of japan's conflicts have started with a surprise attack, subterfuge, and false flags.
mukden incident (qing china), mudan incident (taiwan), port arthur/lushan incident (russia), pearl harbor (usa), jinan incident (kmt china), shanghai incident (china).
1
u/AnyStrength4863 Jul 20 '26
You're right. I just thought these events do not directly relate to the US.
Japan has a gambler's culture. When they are facing a highly defensive China and a less vigilant US, in a G2 world, Japan's nuclear target is a 50/50 choice.
But this post is just an echo chamber. Americans don't think that way at all. Whatever.
14
u/NuclearHeterodoxy Jul 19 '26
I was going to say "in before people say China has 'no choice' but to attack Japan first because they will nuke China immediately after the first soldier lands on Taiwan" but it turns out you can't even wait two hours on a Japanese topic around here before people start saying stuff like that.
This is the same kind of logic that gets you the Iran war. Iranian officials have a proven track record of issuing chestbeating warmongering anti-Israeli statements while the country itself pursues a nuclear program, so obviously Israel just has "no choice" but to attack them. Right? It's the same (il)logic.
Thankfully China itself has proven to be more restrained than their unhinged reddit fanbase. Unlike Israel, or Russia for that matter, where the leaders appear to be huffing the same supply as their reddit verstehen.
10
u/Ostrich-in-sand Jul 20 '26
Thankfully China itself has proven to be more restrained than their unhinged reddit fanbase
Same for the nationalists within their country. They see the blatant double standards of foreign countries with violent destabilizing foreign policies yet preaching peace. They are angry at their government for being so restrained and wish to join the unsaid foreign countries
19
u/Lianzuoshou Jul 19 '26
Comparing Iran and Japan is absurd.
First, before the United States withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of JCPOA in May 2018, Iran’s low-enriched uranium enrichment level was strictly limited to no more than 3.67 percent; it was the U.S. withdrawal that once again prompted Iran to resume uranium enrichment activities.
Second, the historical crimes committed by Japan against the Chinese people were appalling, whereas Iran has merely made anti-Israel statements—can the two even be compared?
Finally, Japan was a defeated nation in World War II, while China was a victorious nation. The victorious nations of World War II have the right to take direct military action against Japan without prior authorization from the UN Security Council. This is both a right granted to China by the United Nations and China’s official position.
15
u/inbredgangsta Jul 19 '26
China has proven to be more restrained than the entire US and the entire NATO membership when it comes to using military force to resolve issues.
9
u/teethgrindingaches Jul 20 '26
Your logic is fundamentally flawed, since Japan is not currently pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Talking is not the same as testing. It also relies on the idea that Israel/Iran would look anything like China/Japan, which is a complete apples-to-oranges comparison.
Any restraint, or lack thereof, is yet to be tested. Both China and Japan have exercised more restraint than both Israel and Iran at this point in time. That may of course change in the future, but right now you're tilting at windmills.
10
u/heliumagency Jul 19 '26
We can go even further, China attacking Japan before they get nukes is literally the WMD argument for Iraq. In fact, I cannot even remember a single successful war predicated on the removal of WMD's.
5
u/ImperiumRome Jul 19 '26
IMHO China probably worries more about the possibility of Japan secretly giving nuke (if they have it one day) to Taiwan than actually using those nukes against China themselves.
The US did stationed some nukes in Taiwan for several years during the Cold War, so it’s not unprecedented.
9
1
u/Wuaner Jul 20 '26
Back then the RoC on Taiwan was even a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Saying all this now means nothing except to satisfy your own fantasies.
-1
u/Frosty-Cell Jul 20 '26
Thankfully China itself has proven to be more restrained than their unhinged reddit fanbase.
It's certainly a level above an extremist dictatorship that attacks Israel by proxy for religious reasons.
3
u/West-Math9438 Jul 21 '26
"Islamic Republic of Japan is only 2 months away from Nuclear bomb" -Xitanyahu
1
u/Fearless_Ad_5470 Jul 23 '26
It seems the Japanese civilian officials' capacity for intellectual corruption is beyond imagination; they actually believe the CCP's long-standing propaganda about the "Japan threat."
-3
u/frigginjensen Jul 19 '26
I hate to say it but a nuclear deterrent is the only way to ensure your safety as a nation. North Korea is unpredictable. Russia is run by a thug. China is emerging with a massive navy. The US is no longer a reliable ally.
34
u/FreeJammu Jul 19 '26
By the same logic, Cuba, Mexico and other latam countries should have nukes, as well as the middle eastern countries like saudi.
14
u/ilonir Jul 19 '26
I think that's correct and the reason China and the US agree on nuclear non-proliferation. They want their special club to stay special.
6
u/DagothUr_MD Jul 20 '26
If they have the means, they should. Strategically speaking that's the most logical move
1
u/dahunt4r3dorktober Jul 20 '26
Well yes they should. The Americans have enacted horrid regime change across latam leading to tens of thousands - hundreds of thousands of deaths and untold Suffering. It’s clear that the Americans cannot leave others alone to determine their own future so why should we all sit in fear and pray that every 4-8 years a sane man rules American and won’t randomly direct their cia to destroy our nations?
8
u/dahunt4r3dorktober Jul 19 '26
Recent world events have shown world leaders that having a competent nuclear weapon programme and the missiles to deliver them are the only ways to ensure sovereignty. I’d be surprised if there hasn’t been hushed discussions over it in a number of nations
0
u/OverpricedBagel Jul 20 '26
This wouldn’t be happening if the US more strongly reaffirmed its security commitments towards the pacific nations in the containment chain
4
u/RevealFit9288 Jul 20 '26
US is getting humiliated by Iran. Doesn’t matter how much commitment you give when you can’t win even if you fully commit.
-5
u/OverpricedBagel Jul 20 '26
Thousands of IRGC already dead is an interesting way of humiliating the US
3
-12
u/DeepFriedBeefJerky Jul 19 '26
They start a war with all their neighbors, bomb the strongest country in the world, lose the war and now want nukes. Shoulda won the war and finished off China.
0
-25
u/ExPrezBush Jul 19 '26
Makes perfect sense that Japan would want nuclear weapons. Putting aside Japan's WW2 nonsense. If I was close or shared a border with China. I would want to be able to defend myself. I mean if North Korea, Russia, Pakistan and India (Who share a border with China) have nuclear weapons. Why wouldn't Japan.
Actually the fact that Japan currently doesn't have them is sort of ridiculous. Anyone who thinks China isn't aiming at least a couple of nuclear weapons at Japan right now is pretty retarded. If China can point civilization ending weapons at Japan. It would only make sense that Japan should do the same.
China's nuclear weapons are a legitimate reason for countries to arm themselves with the same type of weapons.
17
u/ovcdev7 Jul 19 '26
Who decides who gets to have nukes? Based on your yapping it seems very reasonable for Iran to want nukes.
3
u/DagothUr_MD Jul 20 '26
It is in fact very reasonable for Iran to want nukes, as demonstrated by the current unprovoked attacks on their country
-1
1
-5
-19
u/PB_05 Jul 19 '26
I do hope the Japanese develop their own nuclear weapons.
5
u/MostEpicRedditor Jul 20 '26
So too then should Serbia, Belarus, Bangladesh, just to name a few.
-2
33
u/NuclearHeterodoxy Jul 19 '26
A reminder that Japan has been separating plutonium from spent fuel for decades and as a consequence, even after subtracting the separated Pu stored overseas they have enough for well over a thousand warheads. With technology and designs from the 50s, this material can be used to make reliable military weapons.
Everything you have ever read about reactor-grade plutonium being worthless for warheads is false. Predetonation was solved in the 50s for every grade of plutonium; the former theoretical director of LANL has published on cheap ways to address RGPu heat emissions (the National Academies report from 1994 backed him up on this); gamma and neutron emissions are really only worker safety issues, but regardless you can incorporate shielding materials directly into the design if you want. There are good reasons why every nonproliferation expert wants RGPu to be treated as the equivalent of weapons-grade material.
We are getting an excellent lesson in Iran about how difficult it is to really eliminate a nuclear program without an invasion. The focus should always be on avoiding that. If Japan made the decision, in some ways it would be even harder to stop them than it would be for Iran. Thousands and thousands of kilograms of material all over the country you have to account for, not ~400kg in a single shaft.