A nuclear Japan that remained a U.S. ally would be vastly preferable to a nuclear Japan that was strategically independent. After all, Britain (after the U.S. tried to stop it but failed) acquired nuclear weapons in the form of a sea-based deterrent. That met Britain's strategic needs because (like Japan) Britain is a small populous island lacking strategic depth. And Britain remained a U.S. ally, its nuclear weapons serving usefully to complicate Soviet strategic planning.
The East Asia regional security equation is now changing rapidly. North Korea's having acquired nuclear capabilities as a means of regime survival is setting off a series of consequences that may soon be irreversible. So it's up to China, the U.S. and Japan to decide how they respond to these changes. But if present trends continue, a nuclear Japan seems more likely than not.
Yum. More nukes, a burgeoning cold war.....East Asia will certainly be an interesting place to be doing poli sci on for the next couple of decades....
3 comments:
except that the whole of east asia and europe believe the british are more responsible and trustworthy power than the japanese, i wonder why ...
see aisatimes, Japan already has huge stock pile of weapon grade Plutonium already. it can make thousands of nukes any time they decide to.
Yeah, I know. At the moment, the most untrustworthy power with nukes is the US. I assume you have seen the new doctrine that calls for pre-emptive use of nukes? Did you also see the report I posted a while back about planning for a war with Iran that involves use of nuclear weapons?
The world scares the shit out of me, Sun Bin, and my own president more than anyone.
but let's put some trust into the american people (as a democracy), and the constitution, that the craziness won't put it too far off track.
plus the US track record is not too bad, saved the world in the two world wars. i just wish US can take over Japan's stockpile of Pu.
Post a Comment