politics

Ex-U.S. officials ask Japanese leaders to accept no-first-use nuclear plan

38 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

38 Comments
Login to comment

OK LDP, do you want to start a nuclear war? That's what first use means.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

If every country on earth had a no 1st use policy AND stuck with it, there wouldn't be any need for nukes at all. It is those countries with nukes, but other inferior military capability that will not agree to this policy ... and both Russia and China.

I don't know if I agree that the US should have this policy or not. It is risky, but someone has to take a step if we want to have fewer nuclear weapons in the world.

If you look at the believe counts of weapons by the main nuclear countries, China had the most useful, numbers, historically. What good are 5K nuclear weapons against an enemy? Just a few will be sufficient to scare the world and stop any war.

Of course, the US and Britain have nuclear armed subs that are able to devastate any aggressor, should that become necessary. As an enemy, I'd prefer the easily located aircraft carrier group near my shores over the hidden subs that cannot be found.

For Japan, perfect is the enemy of better than current.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The problem with a "no first use" policy is that it favors countries with powerful conventional armies. Sadly nuclear weapons are a great leveler.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Japan does not have any nuclear weapons

True, but the nation Japan would rely upon heavily if attacked has them, and China recently announced it would not adhere to its own no first use policy in the instance Japan helped defend Taiwan from a Chinese takeover. Japan might find a no first use promise on the part of the US as leaving Japan open to having to suffer a Chinese first strike before the US would respond in kind.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

As an enemy, I'd prefer the easily located aircraft carrier group near my shores over the hidden subs that cannot be found.

A carrier strike group can be hidden from detection. The Soviets had better satellite surveillance during the Cold War than China has today and we successfully hid carrier strike groups from Soviet detection. Review how Admiral Ace Lyons hid the Eisenhower strike group from detection from Norfolk all the way to the entrance to the White Sea. Ivan didn't know they had company until a Bear being refueled in flight was buzzed by a pair of F-14s. It can be done. It has been done. In fact the US Navy counts on being able to do so. US subs routinely followed Soviet SSBNs on their deterrent patrols so claiming subs can't be found is not necessarily true either. In both cases operational art and training make the difference. I still vividly remember three officers from a ASWOC (ASW Operations Center) telling us about them listening to the reactor meltdown and sinking of a Victor class boat in the Indian Ocean back in the mid 1980s.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Personally I would prefer the US didn't do so. I prefer the US to be seen by its adversaries as potentially dangerous and a little bit unpredictable, like a badger or a bear.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

@zichi

Japan does not have any nuclear weapons.

This is about the US not using nukes first to defend Japan.

@Desert Tortoise

leaving Japan open to having to suffer a Chinese first strike before the US would respond in kind.

Well, Japan can always invest in a nation-wide Missile defense like Korea's doing.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Whatever policy, treaty, agreement are to be overruled, ignored, dumped very conveniently with lies and silly excuse anyway.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Look at CCP's China Allies has fed up announcing to exclude Japan that doesn't even own nukes as an exception of NFU.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Nuclear umbrella contradicts MAD, thus is just a dream and simply means more scapegoats under the umbrella for mad nations, especially with NFU

2 ( +2 / -0 )

expatToday  10:34 am JST

"Japan does not have any nuclear weapons." Japan follows a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy w/ visiting US warships at Yokosuka, Sasebo and elsewhere, which you can rest assured carry nuclear weapons.

That is making US's MAD strategy complete

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Japan, as well as South Korea and Taiwan should have their own nuclear weapons. China and North Korea would have to think twice whether they want to attack.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Japan, as well as South Korea and Taiwan should have their own nuclear weapons. China and North Korea would have to think twice whether they want to attack.

South Korea? It's nuclear plans are mainly CANDU furnace despite it must rely on imported Uranium without meaningful land capacity to dump radioactive waste unlike Canada.

How come?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Japan should have such policy after we get our own nuclear umbrella.

Britain has their own nuclear deterrence.

So does France.

Israel.

All those countries are Allies of USA, Good Allies. Yet they have their own Nuclear Deterrence.

It's called a backup plan. It Also Helps America in the process.

Japan the only nation to be hit by such weapons. Now threatened with Nuclear destruction by North Korea, China and Russia built Tsunami Nuclear weapon with Japan in mind I promise.

We should have our own Nuclear Deterrence and No First Use Policy.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

"It would be tragic if Japan, the only country to suffer nuclear attacks, and a staunch advocate of the abolition of nuclear weapons, blocked this small but important step toward the abolition of nuclear weapons"

It is indeed tragic and mind-boggling that the leaders of the only country that suffered nuclear attacks should oppose the U.S. government's policy of no first use of nuclear weapons. But if the U.S.'s nuclear weapons are solely for deterrence, should the U.S. openly declare the no-first-use of nuclear weapons policy for starters? 

The PRC (China) had held a similar policy which it repeated announcing every year until 2013 when it started not mentioning it. Is the Biden administration trying to mimic the erstwhile China? And the government of Japan, whose national policy is based on the three principles of not producing, possessing and allowing entry of nuclear weapons into the country, is panicking to stop it? 

That's something of a farce and comedy. No foreign country will trust Japan as it is. It must be reborn and rejuvenated once again.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Japan have no nuclear weapons?

But it can assemble one in 2-3 hrs!

2 ( +6 / -4 )

If China, which claims to have a NFU policy is making an exception in the case of Japan if it should assist Taiwan, then the United States can declare a NFU with the exception of China if it attempts to attack/invade Taiwan.

Otherwise, the U.S. should never declare a NFU policy.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

This means that Americans won't consider protecting Japan under its nuclear umbrella.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

He suggested nuclear weapons should only be used to retaliate against a nuclear attack against the country or its allies.

Japan needs its own nuclear weapons for self defense and deterrence. Why constantly try to keep Japan down a level? The US is still looking over its shoulders and concerned about Japan, it’s closest ally in Asia.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

As if a second-use-only policy would make any difference. Are you probably crazy or something like that? Abolish and destroy all nukes worldwide, that’s the only damned thing you have to negotiate now and set quickly into practice after so many decades.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Desert Tortoise

officers from a ASWOC (ASW Operations Center) telling us about them listening to the reactor meltdown and sinking of a Victor class boat in the Indian Ocean back in the mid 1980s

Wow, what a fascinating story. But I think these guys just wanted to show off, or were under influnce of some very powerful substances while listening some fish frolicking. The Soviets lost a couple of nuclear subs in high seas, but that were Yankee and November classes, all happened in North Atlantic and the subs sank due to internal fires, without reactor meltdowns. No Victor class subs were ever lost at sea, no Soviet subs losses happened in the Indian Ocean.

Personally I would prefer the US didn't do so. I prefer the US to be seen by its adversaries as potentially dangerous and a little bit unpredictable, like a badger or a bear

Well, you can have your wish fulfilled, after aggressions against Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya the U.S. is already seen by many as very unpredictable and dangerous. The present nuclear standoff with North Korea is the result of this "let everybody be afraid of us" policy, now Kim thinks the U.S. is unhinged, and he will never surrender his nukes. Great foreign policy achievement for the U.S. Congrats, or something.

@Hiro S Nobumasa

Japan have no nuclear weapons? But it can assemble one in 2-3 hrs!

Assemble, like from Lego? Not in one, but in 2-3 hours? Wow, that'll be a major scientific feat.

Seriously, Japan technically can produce a nuclear device, but it will become a weapon only if there is some vehicle to deliver it to the enemy territory (bomb or missile). Japan does not have any of these, and to "assemble" them much more time and effort are needed.

I think it's stupid that such a technologically advanced country as Japan relies on somebody else's declarations for its safety. Any declaration can be ignored or nullified at the declarator's wish, wily diplomats will later explain why. If you want your safety guaranteed, defend yourself.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Using nuclear weapons is not an option

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Don't play into the US plan.

Like North Korea, nuclear weapon plan should be domestic.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

kurisupisuToday  02:40 pm JST

Using nuclear weapons is not an option

Tell that to China.

"China threatens to nuke Japan if country intervenes in Taiwan conflict

They vowed to never use a nuclear weapon first but tensions have risen and a new threatening video targets one country in particular."

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/china-threatens-to-nuke-japan-if-country-intervenes-in-taiwan-conflict/news-story/d9af14dc6b90628082e79ab4c77629e1

2 ( +2 / -0 )

But second-use is a bit late, is it?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

isn't it?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

But second-use is a bit late, is it?

Not really. If one side launches, both sides will, so it's not late.

The idea is that if everyone agrees to no first-use, then there is never a first use.

The major problem with first-use is that Americans have a nasty habit of deciding to attack first because "that's what they'd do", which isn't a logical argument. Look how it worked out in Iraq, where they used that strategy to justify the invasion of the country without the backing of the UN, due to the WMDs America promised the world were there. How many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died for that lie? How much generational hatred of America was created through that lie?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Wow, what a fascinating story. But I think these guys just wanted to show off, or were under influnce of some very powerful substances while listening some fish frolicking.

Neither. Just the conversation in the chow line. The ASWOC crew were normally taciturn saying very little outside their circle. That day they were talking excitedly in the chow line so a couple of us asked what all the excitement was about. So you have three junior officers in line and the first one says "A Victor just sank". The next one said "it had a reactor melt down" and the third one added "we heard the reactor drop out the bottom". Not every day you are the aural witness to the loss of a Soviet sub and considering the enmity that existed no tears were shed. Just one of those moments in my time as an officer I will never forget. But be aware the ocean has ears and even then the US had acoustic capabilities to track subs world wide. SURTASS has made much of the old SOSUS system obsolete now.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

 No Victor class subs were ever lost at sea, no Soviet subs losses happened in the Indian Ocean.

I can say with assurance a lot of things happened in the deep blue sea that never made the history books. A lot of maritime combat occurred in the Persian Gulf in the 1980s that remains largely undocumented, the so-called Tanker War. I was out there for part of it. The Soviets hid their losses from the public when they could. The ones you read about are the ones that had survivors, the loss was too big to hide such as the Kursk or in the case of K129 because its salvage by the Glomar Explorer became public knowledge. That loss would have never been acknowledged had the US not tried to salvage it and the Russians will never tell you why it was where it was, well off its normal patrol area having apparently attempted an unauthorized launch of its nuclear missiles. To this day you will hear different stories by different people who served back then whether or not part of that sub or the whole sub was salvaged. I have been told to my face the whole boat was salvaged but many history books say otherwise. I can't prove it one way or the other but this Victor took its whole crew to Davy Jones Locker so the Soviets could safely hide its loss. It's not like the families would risk the Gulag to make noises about it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The idea is that if everyone agrees to no first-use, then there is never a first use.

Not to be disrespectful but that expectation is not credible. If, say, the Chinese or the US somehow had their backs to the wall in a till then conventional war and were on the verge of losing everything, they would go nuclear regardless of any previous NFU pledge. No doubt about it. Their leadership would be incredibly negligent to lose a war and your country with your nuclear weapons still safely in their silos because of a previous NFU pledge.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Not to be disrespectful but that expectation is not credible

Not now, no. But naysayers like you will ensure it never happens. Naysayers are the obstructionists of progression.

Biden is aiming for an ideal which is what humanity needs to do to get past our current failures. History will remember him well for it.

If, say, the Chinese or the US somehow had their backs to the wall in a till then conventional war and were on the verge of losing everything, they would go nuclear regardless of any previous NFU pledge

And the rest of the world would isolate them politically. If anyone lives.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Desert Tortoise

I can't prove it one way or the other but this Victor took its whole crew to Davy Jones Locker so the Soviets could safely hide its loss

You can believe whatever you want, but the logic disagrees with you. The Soviets could hide something (yes, it was a complete info blackout about the loss of K129), but that was possible only during Soviet times. The USSR is long gone, all its military secrets are known, all its military disasters including sub losses are well-researched. Old Soviet submariners told their stories. In such circumstances still completely hide a loss of a nuclear sub, with her entire crew??

One more thing. Why the Americans still keep silence? I can understand their silence back in 80s in order not to disclose their capabilities then. But now? I'm sure a lot of guys in Pentagon will be more than happy to raise a stink and tell loudly "These Russians are still hiding a major nuclear disaster, environment is under grave threat". Why not to blame Putin for that?

Anyway, if you still believe in your story you can become famous, just tell the media about your secret.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Naysayers are the obstructionists of progression.

I would agree that nuclear arsenals could be greatly reduced but they will never be eliminated entirely and for entirely practical reasons. Here is why. Assume the known nuclear powers all agreed to completely eliminate every nuclear weapon they have. The first possibly erroneous assumption is that we really know who all the nuclear armed nations are. Do we? All it would take is one cheater hiding five or six nuclear weapons to hold everyone hostage. Hiding a handful of weapons is very possible. Consider that nobody was aware Sweden had a nuclear weapons program and had conducted underground tests until their Prime Minister announced in 1970 that Sweden was discontinuing their nuclear weapons program. It was a stunning revelation that caught every other nuclear power off guard. To this day no one outside of Sweden is certain weather their ten or so underground tests were subcritical or had a nuclear yield. The ability to hide enough nuclear weapons to hold the rest of the world hostage is why complete nuclear disarmament is probably never going to happen. But a large reduction in nuclear arms is entirely possible if there is the political will to do so. I don't consider that being an "obstructionist". I am being realistic. If you were the President of the US would you really eliminate the entire US nuclear arsenal knowing some nation out there could be hiding a half dozen? I think that would be negligence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You can believe whatever you want, but the logic disagrees with you.

I was there. You weren't. You didn't see some of the other stuff that happened that never made the press.

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