U.N. nuclear arms ban treaty leaves Japan in a dilemma


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


©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

It is unrealistic in this, the most dangerous time in Japan for 75 years, surrounded by 3 aggressive, heavily nuclear-armed enemies, to sign an anti-nuclear weapon treaty. A nuclear arms ban is pie-in-the-sky.

Japan will maintain the US nuclear umbrella protection, simple as that.

8 ( +29 / -21 )

Japan, time to grow a pair and sign the Treaty.

-11 ( +18 / -29 )

Nippon Kaigi militaristic influence in the LDP means it doesn't want a treaty even though the world has signed one. Conventional weapons are effective enough, you don't need "tactical" nukes. Unlike other nations, Japan with Article 9 and this treaty it would help Japan even more though but they can't see it

There's an opportunity here to change course and embrace peace through world cooperation.

Maybe instead of visiting Yasukuni, leaders should instead visit Hiroshima park, and ring that bell for peace.

0 ( +21 / -21 )

Also you don't need to bomb anyone, just wipe out their economy. China is running out of US Dollars without a shot fired, for example

Totalitarian nations need to be removed from the world economy.

21 ( +27 / -6 )

Setsuko Thurlow, a Canada-based atomic bomb survivor and peace advocate, criticized Japan's stance over the treaty under former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who stepped down last month after nearly eight years in power.

"I would like Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga to see the reality in a flexible way without doing the same thing as his predecessor," said Thurlow, who survived the 1945 U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima at age 13, in an online event.

Here's a deal; fly to Pyongyang and persuade Kim Jon-un to scrap nuclear arms programs in order to join the ban treaty. That's still a minimum demand tit-for-tat with Japan. We'd continue to make sure that the cheat-prone North will keep complying with the agreement.

13 ( +23 / -10 )

MickeliciousToday  04:13 pm JST

Japan, time to grow a pair and sign the Treaty.

Japan is protected by the U.S. nuclear umbrella.

4 ( +20 / -16 )

Hang on! Hasn’t Japan been campaigning for banning nuclear weapons since Nagasaki and Hiroshima were devastated by the bombings 70 years ago? Now they are backing down because the US (big brother) won’t sign the treaty. It’s quite pathetic really.

0 ( +21 / -21 )

Japan - US relationship is like a marriage, a necessary "evil"..

**** all nuclear powers !!.. All of you are a danger for the world !!.

10 ( +16 / -6 )

If the leaders of Japan would stop harping about how Japan is the only country to suffer from a nuclear bombing, I wouldn’t mind if they didn’t sign a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

But they do.

Every August. So, if they really hope that other countries shouldn’t suffer from a nuclear bombing, sign the treaty.

1 ( +16 / -15 )

There have not yet been 50 "countries" ratify this treaty. One signatory "Nation" called Palestine, does not yet exist or have a seat at the United Nations. Yet is is counted as one of 50 to ratify this treaty. I do not see how that is possible without it being a recognized sovereign Nation. Palestine must be freed immediately on 1967 borders and gain a seat on the United Nations before it's ratification can be recognized as legitimate.

The UN can not use Palestine when it wants to then deny it membership when it becomes inconvenient.

6 ( +16 / -10 )

Any nation that was dumb enough to attempt this will be wiped off the map by the US in 30 minutes and cease to exist.

Maybe yes or maybe no. The US doesn't always live up to treaties. If Putin wiped out Japan, Trump would say he knows more about nuclear than anyone and talk about how beautiful the mushroom clouds were and it would be a win for American car companies.

-7 ( +12 / -19 )

Japan is surrounded by three countries with nuclear weapons.

11 ( +15 / -4 )

Trump will be out very shortly. Since WWII ended the US has built alliances because the world knew they were good for their word. Trump is the first president since then who has damaged our relationships. So let's forget about Trump, he does not represent America going forward.

1 ( +15 / -14 )

The ideal of a world without nuclear weapons is one we all would applaud, unfortunately this does nothing to achieve it. Until and unless there is agreement among ALL overt and covert nuclear states with rigorous and enforced destruction of the weapons and production capabilities anything else is just pious hot air.

Palestine is neither a nation or a state and never has been, it was an administrative area of the Ottoman Empire, a British mandate and a part of the Kingdom of Jordan but never a nation or state. It’s inclusion in the UN is purely anti-Israeli political posturing by certain states. There is far greater justification for granting recognition to Taiwan and Somaliland which are successful democratic functioning states.

9 ( +14 / -5 )

If Japan signs this...

In 2045-2055 Hiroshima and Nagasaki 2.0.

No one cares it happened to Japan except for Japanese people themselves, just like in 1945.

America built more, Russia built more, North Korea has them, China has them. Between the country who Nuked Japan and the ones who has the capability now in 2020, Japan is surround, waiting for another bomb to happened.

Does it matter we are the only country to get nuked? No 0 none today, not even for defense or as a second option. Disaster waiting to happen!

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

@Peter Neil

Maybe yes or maybe no. The US doesn't always live up to treaties. If Putin wiped out Japan, Trump would say he knows more about nuclear than anyone and talk about how beautiful the mushroom clouds were and it would be a win for American car companies.

Comment of the year!

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

When the Missiles start flying it doesn't matter what bit of paper you've signed...

6 ( +10 / -4 )

The CCP is the biggest threat to the World - they're willing to go that extra step to achieve their own Goals - as we have seen with COVID-19, and their threats to Governments around the World to do as they say or else...

7 ( +13 / -6 )

Russia is, in my view more trustworthy than China. They at least know the problems that will result from a conflict, and simply develop new weaponry to (a) support their own defense Industry, (b) try to be one step ahead of the Competition, and (c) like other reasonable adversaries won't actually use it

China's CCP falls outside of the reasonable adversaries box... way outside. Even N. Korea seems friendly compared to the Chinese CCP.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

Japan under the LDP will always remain a vassal state of the US.

-2 ( +9 / -11 )

Peter Neil - You nailed that!

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Japan a client state. Despite the bluster, which Suga echoes, the LDP is beholden to whatever twit president reigns in the USA. Japan is functionally a forward base for the US military.

The model is Switzerland.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

In the name of financial profits and political "power" these politicians and their military arm threaten the future of the entire planet. The scientists who helped to develop these weapons lived the rest of their lives in depression and shame.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

UN is a joke, nobody need to take serious about them. Whatever involved China and America, UN will suddenly bow down and become the "yes-boss-man"

0 ( +5 / -5 )

In 20 years, it will be the 100th anniversary of the start of WWII. Everyone who fought in that war will be dead, including those that fought in the Korean War. Yet, nothing changes. When we look back at those long wars between France and England or between the Moors and the Spanish, we think of how crazy that was but here we all are today basically at war for a likely 100 years. The US is still in Afghanistan too. What a crazy world we still live in. The only positive is that there hasn't been a nuclear weapon used since WWII, but we're still a long ways from total denuclearization. Even Israel won't admit it has nukes.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Japan has to choose between war and peace. There is no other choices.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

Of course, everyone is against atomic bombs, war, economic conflicts etc... But what is the reality after 75 years? Still existing atomic bombs, wars, economic conflicts... Nothing has been learned by mankind, in contrary, almost everything has been forgotten. In addition, Japan has an aging and almost childrenless society. When you go by train or bus, you can count more big dimensioned retirement home complexes through the windows than young mothers inside the bus or train. So the question is, who or what can or will defend this country , without having enough JSDF forces and without enough conventional or atomic arsenal. What is it in the hands, to go with to any negotiation table ?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Akie: "Japan has to choose between war and peace. There is no other choices."

Japan doesn't like to choose, they always want things chosen for them. Even in saying they won't sign the treaty, they talked on and on about being the victims of atomic bombings and the suffering, how only they know, etc., and yet, the very next sentence after talking about how "It should never be repeated and how they are never okay with nuclear bombings" is "We're okay with nuclear weapons". The government here continually wants to play both sides of a coin. What you SHOULD have said is that Japan cannot cry foul and claim to be a victim when it is putting the ammunition in the hands of people who might use it against them and the rest of the world. Any proliferation and use of weapons has been given the green light by Japan.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

This action in a must.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Five years ago, I was entirely against the idea of Japan weaponizing.

However, with the instability created through the America pull-out from the world, and the upcoming civil war, I think Japan needs to place its own defense into its own hands. When your neighbor is China, and they are becoming more and more aggressive, it's the only prudent thing to do. I still don't think Japan should change it's constitution to allow war, but they most definitely should be creating a hell of a defense wall against the Chinese.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It is very aburd if Japanese people view China as the number one enemy, view back history,China did not cause harm to Japan which on the contray harmed baddly on China. and it is now obvious Japanese view US as close friend who dropped nuclear bombs on Japan.

take the picture as whole. something must be wrong , need to be corrected.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Japan can't sign this treaty because Japan hosts US nuclear weapons, and signing this treaty would require to ban the US from bringing in its nuclear weapons.

This is why all of NATO members also didn't sign this deal for the same reason.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Japan is protected by the U.S. nuclear umbrella.

What a very sick joke at best. The very act of using the nuclear deterrent would kill millions upon millions of Japanese people. The best defense would be to make peace with China, Korea and Russia.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The United Nations said Saturday that 50 countries have ratified a U.N. treaty banning nuclear weapons, paving the way for its entry into force on Jan 22, a move praised by anti-nuclear activists but opposed by the United States and other nuclear powers.

..."We share the idea (behind the treaty), but we find it very unrealistic" in ridding nuclear states of their arsenals, Masahiko Shibayama, acting secretary general of the governing Liberal Democratic Party, said Sunday on an NHK program in Tokyo.

...Although the treaty will not be able to legally require nuclear power states to abolish their arsenals, the launch of the treaty is likely to spur momentum toward reducing stockpiles.

The U.N. is playing another one of their public jokes. There are 193 nations in the world, and U.N. could only get (almost) 50 of them to sign a worthless piece of paper. AND the U.N. has absolutely no way of enforcing this treaty.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

But some experts have questioned the effectiveness of the treaty as it does not involve any of the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- all of which are nuclear power states.

Other nuclear weapon states -- India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea -- are not party to the treaty, either.

LOL. We, a few of the non-nuclear nations, are going to "force" the nuclear nations into giving up their nuclear advantage.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Yet U.S. nuclear umbrella is no help defending Japan from conventional attack as from Democratic People's Republic of Korea. America's use of nuclear weapons would kill more Japanese than any possible conventional attack.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The world without nuclear weapon is ideal as we all know.

As long as totalitarian and despotic countries that have developed their own nuclear have influenced in international order recent years, US and Japan won’t change their policy.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Strangerland, why would Japanese people have to be against Chinese people ?

Ideally, they wouldn't. But, with the aggressive and obnoxious behavior China has been showing in the world as of recent, it's only a good idea for Japan to be ready protect itself. As a small island nation with limited resources, my opinion is that their best position would be to speak softly, and carry a big stick.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

So only 50 countries out of a total of 195 countries was needed to ratify such a ban ... not likely and what will happen if the US, China, Russia, United Kingdom, and France leave the UN because of it

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The very act of using the nuclear deterrent would kill millions upon millions of Japanese people. The best defense would be to make peace with China, Korea and Russia.

News flash:- Japan is already at peace with China, Korea and Russia. However if any of them attack Japan then they have chosen war with Japan, not the other way around. That is why the JSDF exists and why people talk of defense and what can best defend Japan.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

The world without nuclear weapon is ideal as we all know.

The big and powerful have always dominated the small. One way to ensure survival for small nations is to poses a Nuclear arsenal to keep the big powerful nations at bay. Without such a deterrent the world will no longer have any deterrent to full scale war between the powers. Conventional arms races will ensue and large scale wars will return.

Some form of deterrent is of benefit. Just what that could be without nuclear arms is unclear.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The mayor of Hiroshima should be pleased, as every year they send out a letter to end nuclear weapons. Now that letter has the weight of a worldwide UN treaty and 50 nations added to the cause. That's pretty significant.

But not Japanese central government. In the years it has taken to get this treaty signed Japan has since become an arms dealer under Abe in 2014.

It's going to make for a weird museum display update.

Meanwhile instead of crying crocodile tears every year in Yasukuni shrine, they should be celebrating a hard fought win in Hiroshima park.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Some form of deterrent is of benefit. Just what that could be without nuclear arms is unclear.

Economic. China is failing as it's running out of US Dollars. USA blocked banks for dealing with China and anything that uses a bank (lots of things) are drying up.

https://youtu.be/dQ8qFhq7pXQ China Uncensored: China is Running out of US Dollars

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Now that letter has the weight of a worldwide UN treaty and 50 nations added to the cause. That's pretty significant.

Forty nine nations and a people looking for statehood for the past 60-70 years or so. Not yet at 50 nations but hey why not fudge the numbers.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I should note they have a lot of investors so it's not that direct but it's certainly volatile

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here is what the dreamers are missing. Assume it were possible to convince existing nuclear powers to eliminate all of their nuclear weapons. All it would take is one cheater hiding a half dozen weapons somewhere to hold the rest of the world hostage. That is why total disarmament is a fantasy. Arms reduction is possible, very much so. It is possible to verify a nation has dismantled 100 or 1000 warheads. But is that every single warhead they have? Really? Beyond a certain point no one can ever be certain a nation has honestly eliminated every nuclear weapon in its arsenal. it's just not possible. Small numbers of nukes can always be hidden away onesy-twosey. If existing known nuclear powers are allowed by a notional treaty to have, oh say, 100 warheads and a cheater has 120 because they were able to hid some, it's not as if they can blackmail you into submitting to their will. You still have a hundred nuclear warheads you can use. But if you have no nuclear weapons and another nation has six and threatens to use them, what do you as a nation do? You get bent over that way. So while perhaps and admirable idea nuclear disarmament is a pipe dream. Don't hold it against Japan for not signing on.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Strangerland - Americans are already arming and taking to the streets. You don't think that's going to happen en masse when half the country is bitterly angry that their party lost? And when half the country doubts the results of the election?

Not true. Only the CNN-type news outlets are pushing that fear-mongering agenda. And only the CNN-type viewers are repeating that propaganda.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

sf2k - The mayor of Hiroshima should be pleased, as every year they send out a letter to end nuclear weapons. Now that letter has the weight of a worldwide UN treaty and 50 nations added to the cause. That's pretty significant.

Only 49 nations, out of 193, consider this to be "pretty" significant. And none of the significant nations signed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ichiro_WeatherForecaster - The world without nuclear weapon is ideal as we all know.

There were only 20 years between the War To End All Wars (aka WW I) and World War II. How many world wide bloodbaths were started after the atomic bomb was created? The answer is not one, none, nada, zero. The atomic genie can't be put back into the bottle. The science behind the fusion, and fission, weapons is known. Mutually assured destruction has kept nuclear nations from using nuclear weapons, and will continue to do so.

Wars between nations will not stop, but they will not expand into the next multi-nation world wide bloodbath. So we've got that going for us.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The world without nuclear weapon is ideal as we all know.

You all have forgotten there was a time when nuclear weapons did not exist and the world was nuclear-free. That was before 1945. Nuclear weapons didn't exist until 1945. Prior to that there were no nuclear weapons, only conventional weapons (and chemical weapons, although most nations agreed to not use them widely).

The pre-1945 world was hardly peaceful.

The U.S., Soviet Union and China avoided a World War III because of nuclear weapons and learned to precariously coexist with one another, despite the ideological and political differences.

A world without nuclear weapons was a world where major all out wars were thinkable and fightable. Do we want to return to those times again?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Too may far-left people, many under the banner 'antifa' will not sit for another four years of Trump if he wins.

Too may far-right people, including the Boogaloo Bois an the Proud Boys, will not accept that Trump actually lost if Biden wins.

The media (yes yes, MSM blah blah) is reporting much the same:

“Part of the issue we’re seeing is with people congregating, whether it’s for protests or other issues, in cities, is it has basically brought together extremist individuals from all sides in close proximity,” said Seth Jones, the director of the Transnational Threats Project at the center. “We’ve seen people on all sides armed, and it does raise concerns about escalation of violence in U.S. cities.”

The report also linked the threat of violence to the country’s charged politics, the coronavirus pandemic and its financial fallout. It warned that violence could rise after the presidential election because of increasing polarization, growing economic challenges, concerns about racial injustice and the persistence of coronavirus health risks.

It said that if the Democratic presidential candidate, Joe Biden, wins the election, white supremacists could mobilize, with targets likely to be Black people, Latinos, Jews and Muslims. A Republican presidential victory could involve violence emanating out of large-scale demonstrations, the report said.


-1 ( +0 / -1 )

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