--Security should be considered from a structural perspective, not from an emotional one--
Whenever nuclear possession is discussed in Japan, strong opposition is always raised.
Many of these arguments are based on morality, ideals, and past memories.
This in itself should not be rejected.
However, national security is not a competition of correctness, but a design for survival.
In this article, we will organize the most common arguments directed at Japan’s nuclear possession and refute each one from a structural perspective, rather than an emotional one.
Opposition that it is morally unacceptable for Japan, a country that was the victim of atomic bombing, to possess nuclear weapons
This is the argument I hear most often.
It’s a sentimental backlash that for Japan, a country that was bombed, to possess nuclear weapons
would be an act of trampling on the memories of the victims.
However, there is a major leap in logic here.
Possessing nuclear weapons and using them are not the same thing.
Nuclear deterrence is the power to avoid using nuclear weapons.
In fact, no country understands the reality of the destructive power of nuclear weapons more than Japan.
We know this not from theory or myth, but from experience.
Being a country that was bombed
can be a reason to reject nuclear weapons,
but at the same time, it is also the condition for managing nuclear weapons most carefully.
Opposition that possessing nuclear weapons will invite war
There is a persistent opinion that possessing nuclear weapons will provoke the enemy and lead to war.
However, historical facts show the opposite.
Nuclear-armed nations have avoided all-out war.
The reason is simple:
The side that attacks first is sure to suffer fatal damage.
A war where there are no winners is not an option for rational nations.
It is not nuclear weapons themselves that invite war.
It is the vacuum in deterrence that invites risky behavior.
Non-nuclear nations
are prone to calculating that no matter how far they attack, retaliation will be limited.
This is actually more dangerous.
Opposition that it will promote nuclear proliferation
The argument is that if Japan possesses nuclear weapons, other countries will follow suit, destabilizing the world.
But in reality, nuclear proliferation is already underway.
There is no precedent for nuclear proliferation being stopped by Japan not possessing nuclear weapons.
It is not idealism that is holding back nuclear proliferation,
but each country’s calculations of its national interests and a deterrent structure.
Japan’s possession of nuclear weapons is not disorderly proliferation.
It is a limited and transparent deterrent force premised on advanced management capabilities.
The clearer the deterrence,
the more predictable regional actions will be, which will ultimately contribute to stability.
Opposition that it is unnecessary because of the Japan-US alliance
The idea is that Japan is protected by the nuclear umbrella of its allies.
But here lies a question that has been intentionally avoided:
Will allies really protect Japan even if it means being prepared to suffer a nuclear attack themselves?
Nations do not act out of goodwill.
In the final decision, they always prioritize harm to their own country.
Alliances are important, but they are not a permanent guarantee.
Interpretations change with changes in government and international situations.
Alliances and independent deterrent forces are not in conflict.
In fact, having an independent deterrent force stabilizes an alliance.
Opposition to isolation from the international community
There are also concerns that possessing nuclear weapons would lead to international condemnation and isolation.
However, the international community is not a place that is driven solely by moral judgment.
In reality, countries with power and integrity are treated as negotiating partners.
Though nuclear-weapon states are criticized,
they are not excluded and remain at the core of the international order.
Whether a country becomes isolated depends not on whether it possesses nuclear weapons or not, but on the design of its diplomacy.
Japan already has economic power, technological capability, and international influence.
Opposition that it would violate the treaty
There are legal arguments that possessing nuclear weapons violates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and other treaties.
However, treaties are not superior to the survival of a nation.
If the security environment fundamentally changes,
international law also anticipates that a treaty may be reconsidered or withdrawn from.
If upholding a treaty puts the lives of its citizens at risk,
the government has a responsibility to review that treaty.
Conclusion
Much of the opposition to Japan possessing nuclear weapons stems from the following confusion:
– Possessing nuclear weapons and using them
– Moral rejection and security decisions
– An ideal world and the real world
Nuclear possession is not an ideology that supports war.
It is a way of thinking that assumes the worst-case scenario in order to avoid war.
Should Japan possess nuclear weapons?
More important than the answer is whether Japan is prepared to face this question head-on.