Japan’s National Security in Question: Nuclear Deterrence

http://www.thenewargument.com/?p=393

October 13, 2008
The Bush administration removed North Korea, the isolated country ruled by an erratic leader playing with fire(arms), from its blacklist last weekend. Recently elected Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso has opposed the United States’ decision, as Pyongyang’s abductions of Japanese citizens are unresolved. However, he admitted yesterday that he understood why the United States removed North Korea from its list of terrorists “considering it would be better to do something about (the nuclear issue) than not doing anything.”.


Why isn’t Japan taking a solid stance against the United States’ lenient reaction to North Korea? Japan is one of the most advanced countries in the world—isn’t it time for it to form its own militia and obtain its own nuclear weapon?

The debate on whether it is in Japan’s national interest to obtain nuclear weapons and anti-ballistic missiles has erupted once again in reaction to North Korea’s eccentric behavior. This has been a reoccurring phenomenon in Japan after North Korea’s first nuclear test in October of 2006, which put the balance of power in Asia in question and raised previously unprecedented concerns about and Japan’s reliance on the United States for security. To nuclearize or not to nuclearize… that is the question.

There are more reasons and benefits for Japan to not go nuclear than to add itself to the list of nuclear states. The majority of Japanese citizens see themselves already protected by U.S.’s nuclear umbrella over Japan. Furthermore, Japan faces many factors that limit it from exercising the full potential of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) that deter them from going nuclear.

First, Japan is an important country that has signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). By pulling out of the treaty as North Korea did in early 2003, Japan’s credibility as a peaceful, respected nation will suffer. Japan cannot allow itself to be lowered to the same standards as the rogue state.

Secondly, the consideration of Japan building a nuclear arsenal strikes a nerve for Japanese citizens, for of course, Japan is the sole country in the world which has experienced the horrors that nuclear weapons can inflict. Should such a nation pull down the blinds on the disasters history demonstrated and create the monster which brought so much pain to its own people? A decision to own nuclear weapons will be hypocritical and would bend the laws of order—Japan will throw away its dignity, and its symbolic implications will likely spur other nations to create their own WMD. Eventually, Japan’s constitutional promise of “aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order” by “forever renouncing war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes” will be broken.

Furthermore, Japan cannot practice MAD theory because of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki devastations it experienced. The country vowed never to point their guns to another country again—let alone WMD. Ethical issues that arise from this debate often surpass any reasoning that supports the nuclear armament of Japan. This is reflected in the the Japanese constitutional law’s famous article 9, which cites that “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained”, and that “the right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.” It is clear that under the current constitution, attaining nuclear bombs is out of the question. This is why Japan relies solely on the protection provided by the U.S.’s nuclear umbrella.

Some argue that the Japanese constitution is outdated and should be changed to allow Japan to own their own militia for their own protection, as the previous Japanese Prime Minster, Shinzo Abe advocated. But the Japanese have experienced the luxury of living in peace— getting away with just providing financial support while other countries sacrificed lives and provided military support. Japan has been taking a back seat for the past 60 years, and a large number of Japanese citizens have grown rather fond of the seat.

Japan is quite possibly the only country that can pull this off—not owning a military, but remaining secure. All it needs to do for nuclear deterrence is occasionally allow U.S. nuclear ballistic missile submarines through the ports of Japan to subtly notify the rest of the world (especially North Korea) that the protective umbrella is open at all times. It just means that U.S.-Japan alliance is essential for Japan’s national security.

Japan’s foreign policy regarding nuclear deterrence is therefore quite simple: all Japan needs to do is to demonstrate the strong diplomatic relations with the United States. And as Japan is one of the United States’ most dependable and trusted ally in Asia, this alliance is here to stay. Considering Japan’s history, the current constitutional status, and the people’s emotional state, this is the ultimate peaceful form of nuclear deterrence that only Japan can slip by with. The only thing Japan has left to do is to hope that Kim Jong Il is not so capricious that he tests the U.S.-Japan alliance.