But that guy is dead so his prediction is free to be changed at any time depending on if the Japanese government and the US government is willing to make this arrangement happen because with an economy like Japans right now, it doesn’t have the investment capabilities to make this happen not to mention that the USA no matter what they say is never going to let this happen“[The Japanese have] a pretty clear view of where they’re going; they’re heading towards becoming a nuclear power in five years.” - Henry Kissinger, April 2023.
If one is realistic about the current geopolitical situation in Asia, there is only one issue that matters: The circumstances that served Japan so well following its defeat in World War II no longer exist. A nuclear China is an ever-expanding menace, flexing its muscles well beyond its borders. North Korea has a growing arsenal of nuclear weapons and shows no signs of tempering its hostility toward its neighbors. Most of all, the American “nuclear umbrella” that allowed us so many years of peace and prosperity under Washington’s military protection is increasingly frayed, probably irreparably. A long list of government officials and academic experts has always viewed America’s guarantees of protection against enemies as the foundation of its security. What policymaker in Japan, looking at the present disarray in Washington, can still take those guarantees for granted?
Indeed, Washington’s reliability and its nuclear umbrella have always been at the heart of Tokyo’s security policy. Posed in its simplest terms, the question is: Would America be willing to risk the destruction of Los Angeles to protect Tokyo? As the Chinese and the North Koreans expand their nuclear capabilities, the question has taken on lethal pertinence. As the question grows in importance for Japan’s future, one is forced to look back at the U.S.-Japan alliance and ask how strong it is or has ever been. Japan has always been the junior partner. Washington makes a decision, and Tokyo accommodates and adapts. But should it be satisfied to remain a junior partner?
A historic turning point in the relationship arrived in the early 1970s when Richard Nixon went to China and took the United States off the gold standard. These were profound “shocks” to Japan’s political and economic positions. Crucially, they demonstrated to Tokyo that Washington was prepared to pursue what it perceived to be its national interest, even if it damaged the interests of its allies. To be sure, the internationally-minded Nixon offered reassurances to the Japanese government—and it adapted. Then, America abandoned its ally in South Vietnam, and Japan adapted. The United States also turned its back on allies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, Japan adapted. Washington failed to support Tokyo when North Korea Japanese citizens. It drew a “red line” in Syria and refused to uphold it. It withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, and the nuclear agreement with Iran. It made promises to defend the integrity of Ukraine, then failed to risk the lives of its own troops after the Russian invasion. Just how much can Tokyo trust any promises coming out of Washington?
What’s more, Japanese doubts are double-edged. If they have serious concerns about the United States doing too little, they also worry about it doing too much. In the years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has proved to be impetuous and sanctimonious, canceling agreements with Russia, invading Iraq and Afghanistan, and intervening in Libya with little consideration of the long-term consequences. By tying their security to the decisions of impulsive and unreliable leaders in Washington, the Japanese are allowing themselves to be whipsawed. This is not a condition any country should have to live with, certainly not one as powerful as Japan.
Perhaps no other issue reveals the uncertainty and weakness of the U.S.-Japanese alliance at present as the vulnerability of the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, claimed both by Japan and China (where they are known as the Diaoyu Islands). A full-scale attack on Japan by China is unimaginable, but gradual encroachments that shift the balance of power in the Senkakus are another matter. This dispute has continued for decades. Yet, in recent years, as the nuclear-armed Chinese have grown stronger militarily, they have become more assertive, Coast Guard patrols into what they claim are “Chinese territorial waters,” and scrambling their aircraft overhead. There are about two dozen Chinese military bases within range of the Senkakus, but only four U.S. and Japanese bases.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
But that guy is dead so his prediction is free to be changed at any time depending on if the Japanese government and the US government is willing to make this arrangement happen because with an economy like Japans right now, it doesn’t have the investment capabilities to make this happen not to mention that the USA no matter what they say is never going to let this happen
Japan is further away from breakthrough capability in having a viable nuclear weapon than they were, say, like two decades ago. But if they funded a crash program they could certainly do it. South Korea is another country which could have nuclear weapons if they wanted to.
The key is to look for any country going for these technologies: uranium enrichment, plutonium separation, multiple stage solid rocket technology. South Korea and Japan had AVLIS uranium enrichment programs at one point, Japan used to have facilities to handle MOX fuel. And Japan has a multiple stage solid rocket 'Epsilon'.
Can China enforce a blockade if Japan go nuclear route? I think China will not allow it. It is more likely US base nuclear weapons on Japan than allow Japan do it on its own. China is less likely to go straight up war in that case.
Yes. The US will most likely put Dark Eagle land launched hypersonic glide vehicle launch sites in Germany and Japan. This is expected to be nuclear capable.
The US has historically tried to prevent its 'allies' from having nuclear weapons. Because this might make them have an independent foreign policy. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.
According to 53rd and 107th clauses of the UN charter, aka "enemy clauses", IF China defines Japan going nuclear as part of "agression policy", China can take any action including military WITHOUT separate authorisation from UNSC. And Japan as an "enemy state" has no say in what its actions constitute "aggression". Essentially, these clauses give all UN charter signators almost a blank cheque. That's why Japan struggles so hard to remove these clauses.
In practice for example, the US Japan "mutual defence treaty" is a dressed up occupation. If Japan refused the treaty by saying I don't need foreign assistance in defence, US could have called Japan's refusal as "agressiv policy" and justify its occupation as executing clause 53 of UN charter. For this reason, US would need to keep these clauses in place.
The charter gives almost unlimited possible options to choose from, just matter of "want" or "will" and the calculation of pros and cons.
Last edited:
supercat
Major
Today's instance of censorship in the Western media:
Another case of gaslighting by a major Western media outlet:
The Ukrainian military is done. Tragically, tens of thousands of Ukrainian men, even those in their 40s and 50s, will continue to die for the Western MIC.
LMAO - the Indian who is wrong on so many things about India wants us to believe his "warning" about China. BTW, India will never rise if it refuses to build infrastructures and develop its industrial base and manufacturing sector as China did.
Another case of gaslighting by a major Western media outlet:
The Ukrainian military is done. Tragically, tens of thousands of Ukrainian men, even those in their 40s and 50s, will continue to die for the Western MIC.
LMAO - the Indian who is wrong on so many things about India wants us to believe his "warning" about China. BTW, India will never rise if it refuses to build infrastructures and develop its industrial base and manufacturing sector as China did.
How true is this article? Anyone following Chinese internet? Does this kind of people really exist who want to takeover rocky mountains? I find it hard to believe.
I actually see the opposite in places like Chinese language reddit where there are many reverse anti-China nationalists who want to breakup China into pieces.
That article is completely made up bullshit. All its claims are made without naming any references or mentioning any specific person, writing, speech, or even internet posting. Any fantasy novel would be more grounded in reality than that article.
Hardcore han ethno-nationalist do exist, but they are both very few in number and also extremely scared of actually doing anything IRL. They only fight with mouth cannons online.
For example, can any of you think of a Chinese counterpart to Strelkov? You see any organized attempt at gathering volunteers to take part in the fighting in Kokang?