politics

Hatoyama says Japan will stay nuclear-free if DPJ wins election

34 Comments

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

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

34 Comments
Login to comment

Seems like the DPJ will do EXACTLY what China and NKorea would like Japan to do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is a really easy vote-winning policy, as the vast majority of Japanese are so anti-war and anti-nuclear.

It is only really a small handful of people who have a more questioning intellect, or are old enough to remember what war is like, to understand the threat from NK and to go against the grain and push for stronger defence policy.

Having said that, generally I like the DPJ policies and look forward to them gaining power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh yeah? I wonder how these people would feel without the protection of the United States.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DPJ doesn't have a long range plan. They just want a quick fix in order for them to win, that's all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Seems like the DPJ will do EXACTLY what China and NKorea would like Japan to do."

Poor Ossan still just doesn't get it. Unlike with other matters, this is one realm where Japan still has a bit of option for control, and independence. Ossan would have them do 'EXACTLY what the radical and out of touch Americans want them to do', but since the DPJ doesn't want that he takes the old Republican tack (I'm not saying he's Republican, he's just using their 'tactics') of 'for us or against us' that lost them everything last November. Or perhaps he thinks Obama pushing for a non-nuclear world, along with Russia, is incorrect? What's worse is that he doesn't even realize that Japan going nuclear would only INCREASE the threat abroad.

Good on the DPJ. I agree with salarymanblues that in part this is just a vote getter; I only hope the DPJ has the stones to stick with it once they are elected.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyway, on a final note to Ossan, and before he can make up excuses about any detractors (from his comment) being anti-American J-bashing NKorean 'supporters', this is about what JAPAN wants, not what the US, China, NKorea, or even Ossan wants. Support rates to this promise by the DPJ will show that unequivocally.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nuclear free? There are like 40 nuclear power reactors in Japan?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

gogogo: Indeed. And the fact that they are hiding under the US nuclear umbrella and allowing nuclear subs and what not to call to port, there's a lot of hypocrisy going on. But it's pretty clear we're talking about actual nuclear weapons.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sounds like the DPJ are going to have some good policies when they take power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Statistician: Definitely. The big question is how many will they actually apply, and how many will they suddenly declare as being 'unfortunately unfeasible'?

I think for a change the DPJ is making promises that would head Japan in the right direction, but no one is foolish enough to believe they are going to make due on their promises, especially given that the REAL power will be held by Ozawa, who's as 'OB' as they get. It'll be right back to unnecessary construction and 'research panels' on changing taxes in no time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tell the people what they want to hear. Make exceptions after the election. Works every time. Politicians will be politicians.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can we safely assume the pro-nuke nuts in the Happiness Realization Party don't have a chance of winning? I imagine they would have Communist-style missile parades in Shibuya, if they had it their way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TokyoXtreme: They don't have a chance in hell, no. BUT, once it's clear they aren't going to win any seats they will just disband and join whatever party is winning.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Poor Ossan still just doesn't get it. Unlike with other matters, this is >one realm where Japan still has a bit of option for control, and> >independence.

Smith doesn't undertand that this is the one area, ie; dependence upon the United States that Japan DOESN'T have the option of full control and independence.

Ossan would have them do 'EXACTLY what the radical and out of touch >Americans want them to do',

In smith's mind, Taxpaing US citizens = radical and out of touch Americans.

Or perhaps he thinks Obama pushing for a non-nuclear world, along with >Russia, is incorrect? What's worse is that he doesn't even realize that >Japan going nuclear would only INCREASE the threat abroad.

Not only is this article NOT about Obama, but Japan hoing nuclear would NOT increase any threat abroad for the simple reason that those threats already exist and have existed without Japan going nuclear. Tell us how Japan not going nuclear has kept China from going nuclear, or NKorea doing the same.

Anyway, on a final note to Ossan, and before he can make up excuses >about any detractors (from his comment) being anti-American J-bashing >NKorean 'supporters',

Calling a poster what they are is hardly an excuse. Smith supports the DPJ's position in the rticle because it supports the position of bopth China and the PRC and goes against US interests.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If NK drops a nuke on Tokyo is Japan still nuke free? It would be a wonderful thing if the world did get rid of nukes but that is as unlikely as getting rid of all the dictators. Since the US is now ready to engage NK unilaterally who will represent Japan's interests? Who will defend Japan?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Since the US is now ready to engage NK unilaterally

This has yet to be determined. The Obama administration went to great lengths to distance the Clinton resucue mission from official US policy. I do think it's too soon to declare direct US-NKorean bilateral engagement, as the NKoreans have done.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan: "Not only is this article NOT about Obama, but Japan hoing nuclear would NOT increase any threat abroad for the simple reason that those threats already exist and have existed without Japan going nuclear."

Dude, like it or not, and deny it all you want, part of the politics of this statement ties directly into Obama's declaration that he wishes to pursue nuclear disarmament and is trying to cooperate with Russia to do so. It IS funny to watch you mention the US in pretty much every statement of yours but then try to deny it has anything to do with the president of the country.

What's more, and sorry, but both the US and Japan have to listen to China, like it or not, as much as NK does. You have said time and time again that NKorea won't start a war because "China won't allow it". Well, neither can the US or Japan, and sorry to have to teach you yet again, but Japan developing nukes would indeed anger the aforementioned China, and THAT, unlike choosing to adopt nukes based on the viewpoint of radical Americans like yourselves (I know plenty of taxpayers who disagree with nuclear weapons, and agree with Obama that they should be abolished, thank you), is something they cannot do if they want to keep up economically.

"alling a poster what they are is hardly an excuse. Smith supports the DPJ's position in the rticle because it supports the position of bopth China and the PRC and goes against US interests."

HAHAHAHAHahaha!!! I KNEW you would destroy your little remaining credibility within the same post! I support the DPJ's stance because I am against nuclear weapons, and for the same reason I am against NK further developing them and want them to return to the table for talks -- something they most certainly will NOT do if Japan decides to take on nukes. And in case you're still a bit light-headed, that is an increased threat, as is China pointing MORE warheads at Japan because the latter decides to entertain the thought of arming.

But hey, I'll bite... go ahead and point out where I say I support North Korea... you haven't been able to any of the other two-dozen times I've challenged you, and as such you will NEVER have any credibility when you claim it's so. On the other hand, you did exactly as I said you would and ridiculously asserted that I support them, as you have in many other cases without a shred of proof.

Anyway, I still think your original post is the funniest! Hang in there, OssanUltra/America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ca1ic0cat: "If NK drops a nuke on Tokyo is Japan still nuke free?"

That's as silly a statement as saying, "Yes, since they didn't pay for it!"

"It would be a wonderful thing if the world did get rid of nukes but that is as unlikely as getting rid of all the dictators."

Agreed, but at the same time should the process be eliminated? I daresay the number of dictators doesn't seem to be dropping but in some cases INCREASING because of the idea that forcing one's ideology onto others is okay. Hell, look at SAmerica! With nuclear arms it's a whole lot easier -- countries can work together on reducing stockpiles and engage in diplomacy to keep countries that don't have nukes from getting them. The idea that you should do NOTHING because it's unlikely to be a nuke-free world in the near future is virtually guaranteeing your reasoning for doing nothing will come true.

I'm surprised Ossan didn't attack your post for referring to Obama's 'nuke free world' thinking. Come to think of it:

Ossan: "This has yet to be determined. The Obama administration went to great lengths to distance the Clinton resucue mission from official US policy. I do think it's too soon to declare direct US-NKorean bilateral engagement, as the NKoreans have done."

What happened to this not being about Obama at all? :) (ouch!)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ca1ic0cat: "Since the US is now ready to engage NK unilaterally who will represent Japan's interests? Who will defend Japan?"

Meant to comment on this in my last post but I was reminded of Ossan's hypocrisy and paradoxical arguments. My bad.

Japan has to up its game in terms of diplomacy, bottom line. You remember the other day when Clinton rescued the two journalists? you remember the subsequent "we want our abductees home, too!" from Japanese relatives of the supposedly abducted? That's another example of where Japan needs to start building up its defenses in terms of TALKING and DIPLOMACY. They suck at it now, any which way you slice it, and have NO pull in world issues where huge amounts of money passing hands are not involved (and even then, like with the UN, they can't get a seat!), so they have to work on that first and foremost. Better diplomacy and improved relations guarantees a safer nation that can protect itself, instead of Ossan's bleak vision of everyone pointing nukes at the other and saying "YOU back off!" (we won't get into his contradictions as to what China says other nations can do).

Anyway, once again, good on the DPJ for suggesting it's best that Japan remain non-nuclear. I'll be even more impressed if they follow through with it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wish Japan well for choosing pacific path and having no nuclear weapon, if I believe completely politician's promise during election time that is...But I still don't see the wisdom of it since everyone else is trying to get hold of nuclear weapon when they have a chance,but not Japan? President Obama may talk about nuclear free world thing, but his administration will last maximum only 8 years ! Things may change again then.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It IS funny to watch you mention the US in pretty much every statement >of yours but then try to deny it has anything to do with the president >of the country.

Show me where the name "Obama" or the term "President of the United States" appears in the above article.

but Japan developing nukes would indeed anger the aforementioned China, >and THAT, unlike choosing to adopt nukes based on the viewpoint of >radical Americans like yourselves

If Japan went nuclear, what exactly can China do about it? Will it cease all trade with one of it's most important trading partners? Will it start a massive nuclear arms race that will cause a confrontation with the United States? News flash for you, it has been established that IF, anmd that's a big hypothetical IF, Japan ever did want to go nuclear there is literally NOTHING that any nation, US, China, Russia you name it can do about it other than voice opposition. Furthermore nuclear nations like UK, France, India probably wouldn't give a hoot either way. As to you calling mer a radical American, is supporting what's in America's interests "radical" to you?

I support the DPJ's stance because I am against nuclear weapons, and for >the same reason I am against NK further developing them and want them to >return to the table for talks -- something they most certainly will NOT >do if Japan decides to take on nukes.

And how do YOU know this? Here you go again SUPPORTING NKorea's continued nuclear weapons development in the face of world-wide condemnation. In case you haven't noticed NKorea ALREADY has gone nuclear. If Japan went nuclear now it would make any difference. As to your naive notion that China would aim MORE missiles at Japan, they already have enough aimed at Japan to destroy the entire archipelago. There is no logical reason to increase the number.

And in case you're still a bit light-headed, that is an increased >threat, as is China pointing MORE warheads at Japan because the latter >decides to entertain the thought of arming.

As to your naive notion that China would aim MORE missiles at Japan, they already have enough aimed at Japan to destroy the entire archipelago. There is no logical reason to increase the number.

go ahead and point out where I say I support North Korea

You just did by excusing NKorea's already accomplished nuclear weapons development and claiming that if Japan did the same it would cause other nations to increase their own nuclear weapons development. The paucity of your common sense and logical thinking ability is an adornment to your complete lack of aby credibility. You always prove what I say in your own response.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan has to up its game in terms of diplomacy, bottom line. You remember the other day when Clinton rescued the two journalists? you remember the subsequent "we want our abductees home, too!" from Japanese relatives of the supposedly abducted? That's another example of where Japan needs to start building up its defenses in terms of TALKING and DIPLOMACY.

This is confusing. You criticize Japan for bringing up the abduction talks during the six party frame work because you state that nuclear disarmament is more important and Japan should just shut her trap.

On the other hand, you praise Clinton for bringing up only the abduction of their two jounalists since NK specifically instructed not to talk about the nuclear disarmament.

You're all over the place once again smitty.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan: "Show me where the name "Obama" or the term "President of the United States" appears in the above article."

How about where I just show you it appears in the post immediately after your post saying it has nothing to do with Obama?

"OssanAmerica at 08:07 PM JST - 12th August Not only is this article NOT about Obama... OssanAmerica at 09:15 PM JST - 12th August The Obama administration went to great lengths to distance the Clinton resucue mission from official US policy. I do think it's too soon to declare direct US-NKorean bilateral engagement, as the NKoreans have done."

ZING! Now, 'show me where the above article has anything to do with Obama' and then tell me the relevance of your subsequent post. Dude... you really gotta think things through before you argue.

"If Japan went nuclear, what exactly can China do about it?"

You mean the same country that Japan was whining about when the media prematurely announced Obama favoured China over Japan (after which even the foreign minister had to admonish the media for 'mistranslating')? The fact of the matter is that Japan and China need each other, but as the world opens up to China and closes to Japan, as is happening in spite of some people's denial, it's clear Japan needs China as much as the US does. If China, with nuclear weapons and millions of troops which would annihilate Japan at the outset of any battle, says Japan should not have weapons, Japan has more reason to listen to that than they do any threats from NK.

"You just did by excusing NKorea's already accomplished nuclear weapons development and claiming that if Japan did the same it would cause other nations to increase their own nuclear weapons development."

You still have yet to point out a single place where I say I support NK. In fact, I'm going to use your logic to say that it is in fact YOU who supports the North Korean regime. You want Japan to have nuclear weapons to justify North Korea building them. That's what you've said day in and day out from the get go. I don't have to go back and point this out with any proof, people need simply look back on your numerous posts to see that what you actually want is in favour of NK's nuclear program. Pretty easy, eh? :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan: "Show me where the name "Obama" or the term "President of the >United States" appears in the above article."

How about where I just show you it appears in the post immediately after >your post saying it has nothing to do with Obama?

Where in the ARTICLE?? The ARTICLE refers to the JT Article entitled "Hatoyama says Japan will stay nuclear-free if DPJ wins election". Not in your OWN POST.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nigelboy: "This is confusing. You criticize Japan for bringing up the abduction talks during the six party frame work because you state that nuclear disarmament is more important and Japan should just shut her trap."

It is indeed confusing for people who can't or WON'T see that they are two different issues, for which I was merely drawing an allusion. Allow me to dummy it down for you so you can understand:

Yes, Japan needs to, in general, up their game of diplomacy. I gave a couple of examples.

One of said examples was the abduction issue, which I said could come AFTER the talks on nuclear disarmament. Japan will not be included in any talks until they up their game, or unless NK is REALLY desperate for money.

"On the other hand, you praise Clinton for bringing up only the abduction of their two jounalists since NK specifically instructed not to talk about the nuclear disarmament."

I did indeed! And if you bother to actually try and read what I said (tough at midnight, I know!) you'd see that I was picking on the Japanese for begging the US to try and get back the supposedly abducted via someone like Bill Clinton, who got back two Americans.

Now, do I have to dummy that down further for you, seriously?? or are you just so desperate and holding so many grudges against me that you need to drag the luggage into this discussion? because, bud, that's just lame. The Japanese coming on the heels of Clinton rescuing the two journalists and saying they want the same of the abductees was an indication that there are NO Japanese who can do what the man in question did. FACT. They also have no people who can speak well in discussion with North Korea. FACT. Therefore, they need to up their diplomacy, bottom line.

It's actually kind of hard to understand why it's hard for you to understand that. And here I was thinking you actually were posting better these days.

"You're all over the place once again smitty."

Seems that way when you cherry-pick without reading the comments, yes. Fortunately, not everyone else is as premature as yourself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan: "Where in the ARTICLE?? The ARTICLE refers to the JT Article entitled "Hatoyama says Japan will stay nuclear-free if DPJ wins election". Not in your OWN POST."

And yet you posted on Obama on this thread yourself. Simply hilarious!

Moderator: Readers, please stop this childish sniping at each other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan: I really do want to point this out again though:

One more time, people!

(on my comment that Hatoyama is in part following in, as he has said in the past two days 'http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/aso-hatoyama-differ-over-nuke-free-world', Obama's "nuke-free world" policy):

"Show me where the name "Obama" or the term "President of the United States" appears in the above article."

"OssanAmerica at 08:07 PM JST - 12th August Not only is this article NOT about Obama... OssanAmerica at 09:15 PM JST - 12th August The Obama administration went to great lengths to distance the Clinton resucue mission from official US policy. I do think it's too soon to declare direct US-NKorean bilateral engagement, as the NKoreans have done."

Too... too... funny.

Once again, though, my friend, I raise the gauntlet; please show me one post where I flat out say, as you have claimed, that I support North Korea. It seems in all my talk about how I support the DPJ if they are truly interested in a nuke-free world you have gotten lost in some cold-war, misdirected anger, and taken on the part of the fool.

Again, and for the record (for the 50th time), I support the denuclearization of NK and EVERY other country around the world. Since I am against nuclear arms, and war in general, it therefore stands to reason I am against Japan obtaining nuclear weapons and causing more tension and threats to their nation, and the world. Those who cannot understand that holding a gun creates more problems than asking for less guns world-wide is simply stupid (and by 'gun' I mean 'weapon').

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One more time, people!

One more time smith. Show me where Obama is mentioned in the above article.

Don't quote me other articles and don't quote me my own posts. Show me IN THE ABOVE ARTICLE where it mentions Obama. You're looking more and more brain dead laughing by yourself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Those who cannot understand that holding a gun creates more problems than asking for less guns world-wide is simply stupid (and by 'gun' I mean 'weapon').: he who says these crazy words should use its talents? to convince China, NK, Iran...abandonning all their nukes ,or dream of nukes first. Go to these countries and tell them that having nukes is simply stupid, no good for peace...if you dare and believe in what you preaching.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is indeed confusing for people who can't or WON'T see that they are two different issues, for which I was merely drawing an allusion. Allow me to dummy it down for you so you can understand:

Thank you. They are two different issues. Thank you thank you thank you. And if you read the entire six party framework, denuclearations of Korean peninsula is ,believe it or not, just ONE of several issues in which a separate working group is established for all of them. So let me dumb it for you. When the denuclearization talks occur as per six party agreement, there are representative for each of the six nations and Japan does not bring up abduction talks in this specific working group. Understand? Now on the other hand, there is another working group that specific deals with the normalization of Japan and North Korea. For obvious reasons, the parties involved in this specific working group are Japan and North Korea only. Follow me? This is where Japan brings up the abduction issue. Do you understand now?

And let me also add that according to the agreed frame work, "In principle, progress in one WG shall not affect progress in other WGs". So to dumb it enough for you, the agreement calls for

"Progress in "denuclearization of NK" shall not affect the progress in "normalization of Japan-DPRK (abduction, etc) or vice versa".

So the next time these talks come up, I sincerely hope that you don't bring up your repeated rant about how "Japan's bringing up the abduction issue is jeopardizing the denuclerization of NK". But then again, I won't hold my breath.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nigelboy: "Thank you. They are two different issues. Thank you thank you thank you."

You're welcome. Not so tough, was it?

"So the next time these talks come up, I sincerely hope that you don't bring up your repeated rant about how "Japan's bringing up the abduction issue is jeopardizing the denuclerization of NK". But then again, I won't hold my breath."

I only bring it up when they don't stick to the framework or insist that the order of one issue be presented before the other. What's more, despite them being separate issues, Japan refuses to fulfill its promises of aid until the alleged abductees are returned, which is detrimental to improved ties, and compromises the talks in general. That you can't see the connection there is amazing... or perhaps not so much amazement as complete denial.

Back to the real issue, though, Japan does not need nukes, nor does it need more defense spending -- but that's what it is; MONEY. In order to keep that money rolling in, despite being protected by the US nuclear umbrella and supposedly having a superior inter-ballistic interceptor defense, Japan NEEDS NK to continue to be a 'threat' to get more funding and help. The next step in that direction, particularly with the US bent on holding talks with NK, is to threaten to develop nukes themselves. This will of course up the ante and INCREASE the threat.

Again, only a fool thinks everyone having guns/weapons and mouthing off to neighbours makes them 'safe'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tclh: Bang on! Exactly what I was talking about.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My poor dear smith. Please remember what you just stated.

"They are separate issues"

And second, nowhere does the agreement calls for each of the five nations to give aid in equal amounts nor does the agreement calls for which party to give such aid. So who cares where it comes from? The other four (U.S., SK, China, Russia) didn't make a fuss about it. The only party that made an issue out of it was of course, NK.

The fact that you have yet to understand the six party framework agreement after all these post is simply amazing. Then again, who am I talking to?

Moderator: Readers, please stop sniping at each other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

World free of nuclear weapons. Stop..

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