national

Nuclear authority chief draws flak over North Korea missile gaffe

19 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

19 Comments
Login to comment

Foot in mouth syndrome strikes again, sure he will soon saying it was "deeply regrettable."

5 ( +6 / -1 )

More than 50 nuclear reactors. Doesn't have to be on to be a target

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Becoming more like a Punch and Judy show. Tokyo = 27+ million people. Part of the new NRA regulations is that a reactor should be protected against terrorist attacks/missiles/airplanes/drones.

The Sea of Japan with 11 reactors around Fukui/Takahama and a further 7 in Niigata would be a shorter target range from North Korea than to Tokyo. If the NK drones could reach the nuclear power plants, loaded with chemical and bio weapons.

"Chairman Tanaka has offered an apology," but not his resignation?

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Ah, Japanse politicians!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Perhaps he'll claim he was drunk.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

What are moron! Seriously how are they people in power.... oh wait I already abe-know the answer.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Why on Earth does the Japanese voting public select idiots like this guy?

With such a discerning (sarcasm) public, it's no wonder the LDP has stayed in power for so long!

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Why on Earth does the Japanese voting public select idiots like this guy?

Well, then don't. The commissioners of the NRA are selected by the government and approved by the Diet.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

He does have a very, very good point. A NK missile armed with a conventional weapon hitting central Tokyo would likely result in hundreds of deaths and a bit of damage - bit hitting a reactor: well, look at Tohoku. A single conventional weapon could make a large are uninhabitable for a century.

Perhaps his point was, are there any steps taken to protect these reactors? How will Japan respond if one (or more) is struck? It bears serious thinking.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Perhaps his point was, are there any steps taken to protect these reactors? How will Japan respond if one (or more) is struck? It bears serious thinking.

The impact of a nuclear bomb explosion in Tokyo is easy for the public to understand. I guess that what he was trying to say is imagine that and imagine something much worst.

It seems the way he said it does not sound right, but then again I haven't seen the original Japanese text.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I know what he was trying to say, and to an extent he is right but if the English translation in any way reflects what he said in Japanese then it was badly expressed.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

i do not believe that north Korea has the capability to strike a Reactor. Even if the bomb is dropped 50 meters away it wont destroy the containment

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He's a Traitor - giving North Korea top secret targeting advice. Put him on Trial immediately.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kim probably had figured it out already.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Why bring up such stupid hypothetical scenarios for comparisons anyway?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What's the uproar about? He simply stated in response to a question that it would likely be worse if a nuclear reactor was hit by a presumably conventional missile than if it were launched at Tokyo. This is very likely a factual statement. It's not as if he is saying he wants North Korea to attack Tokyo or anything similarly ridiculous.

Furthermore the question he was answering is not quoted verbatim in the story. It is provide in summary by the author of the story which leaves out context. This omission only serves the slanted aspect of the article and its criticism of Tanaka. Poor journalism.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

What he said is most likely a fact. How he said it may have been a problem, but without looking at the original Japanese text one can not be sure, if he used bad wording or if there was something lost in translation. Can't really pass judgement based on this article alone. Right now it does reek of sensationalist journalism that Japan, as well as other countries, are so well known for.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Alternate facts or media manipulation of edited statements, perhaps the facts get in the way of a good story or is stating the obvious unacceptable.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The North Korean ballistic missiles has no accuracy to hit a nuclear reactor, so what he said was very true and very profound!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites