Should Japan have its own nuclear weapons as a deterrent against security threats?

No, because Japan doesn't have any real security threats, only made up ones to support the US against China. Countries facing real security threats from countries with much stronger conventional forces would be wise to get them.

Probably. The bomb has proven to be the ultimate defensive weapon in a hostile world. On the other hand, if we cannot reshape such a hostile world then we are probably doomed anyway. And yes, China is a threat. It showed its cards by militarising the reefs and islands in the South China Sea and basically bullied its neighbours in the process.

Yes.

Majority of China’s public wants war with Japan, with many supporting nuclear war. Deterrence is essential at least on a government level

YES! YES! YES! Power is the only thing countries like China and Russia understand!!!

If you have to use them in retaliation then they're not a deterrent

No, but neither should any other country....

No... what kind of question is this?

No doubt that Japan needs to have enough fire power to defend itself and its interests, but that and having nukes are two very distinct things.

Just like saying, I have an orchad of apples, so I can sell Cyanide

No, because nuclear weapons pollute the land, environment . . . . No because it is not in Japan's interest to be viewed as a threat by countries with nuclear weapons . . . .

The newest global developments taught us very clearly that they only speak and understand that language.

No. The world needs to encourage those currently with nuclear weapons to divest themselves of this world ending weapon. Encouraging more to have them makes that job so much less likely to be successful. Japan falls under the defensive nuclear umbrella of it's ally and that should be sufficient.

Doubtful. Depends whether they agree with the US stance on nuclear deterrents. Nuclear-anything brings all sorts of added costs which should be avoided.

I'd rather not buy insurance, but when there are risks that I want to spread out over many months/years, I buy it. If I have $20M in the bank, a $500K life insurance policy doesn't make much sense.

Nuclear weapons are like insurance, that you pay to the enemy after they've already left no other choices. For Japan, the US is that insurance. I'm a bit jealous as a US taxpayer. It would be good if Japan provided the nuclear "insurance" and paid all those costs for the US, so we didn't have to.

If Japan gets them then South Korea and Taiwan will follow. All of East Asia can be one happy nuclear family.

definitely not.

agree

“If you bring a weapon to a fight you should be prepared to have that weapon used against you.”

If Japan wants to have a deterrent arsenal, it should consider kinetic weapons and hypersonic missiles instead.

I believe that nuclear arms don't have deterrence themselves. It depends on the will and capability of top political leaders, and on how the enemy country interprets them.

As the first strike is banned, Japan only has the option for nuke-retaliation. But after nuke-attacked, would PM Kishida have enough guts to get even? What most likely he would do first is do 検討 or "examine the situation carefully, consult with people around, discuss, back to re-examine it".... and delay any decision. That's ZERO deterrence!

Nuclear war = End of the World. Tokio = Hiroshima. Washington = Hiroshima. London = Hiroshima. Paris = Hiroshima. Etc. Etc. Etc. @ Libitum.

Yes, you want to be seen as a force to reckon with and show that you don't need the US to hold your hand entirely and build up your nuclear arsenal.

Arming oneself to the teeth to achieve peace is the pathetic excuse of war-loving fools..

For example..

Yes, you want to be seen as a force to reckon with and show that you don't need the US to hold your hand entirely and build up your nuclear arsenal.

The aim should be denuclearisation not proliferation.

Yes and no. No first. The 1960 security treaty between Japan and U.S. in which U.S. commits to guaranteeing the defense of Japan means it does not need its own nuclear weapons. Also, if Japan makes nuclear weapons, South Korea would likely follow. But yes, if this guarantee is ever removed or reduced. But I don't think U.S. would ever do that, because that would start a nuclear arms race in East Asia.

Tough question. On the one hand, Japan is the only country to have suffered from the use of atomic bombs, so it is a symbol regarding the horrors of nuclear war. On the other hand, if you have a choice between being invaded by a foreign country and/or neighbor, then having nuclear weapons just may be enough to prevent countries like Chine or Russia from invading. A burglar, for example, would be less likely to break into a house if he knows there's somebody with a gun (a peacemaker) inside. Why take the risk?

For example, if Ukraine had held on to its nuclear weapons, would Putin/Russia have taken the nuclear risk by invading Ukraine? Probably not.

In a perfect world . . .

Japan should have nukes. We have seen that posessing nukes is the only real deterrent to a foreign invasion. That said, Japan will probably never hold nukes because (1) Japan is not willing to take the political responsibility that goes with it, and (2) they are already covered by the U.S. Nuclear Umbrella.

But as others have pointed out, if (2) dissappears, Japan will likely go ahead to hold it's own nukes out of necessity.

Some have pointed out that Japan having nukes would cause South Korea and Taiwan to follow. Well those are two nations that are actually exist day to day under threat of attack, by North Korea and China respectively. So for them to hold nukes is even more important.

Should Japan have its own nuclear weapons as a deterrent against security threats?

Defiantly not.

"Should Japan have its own nuclear weapons as a deterrent against security threats?"

Nuclear weapons DO NOT make 'deterrents'. They make TARGETS.

No, not because there are threats from other countries, No because the government clearly sees citizens as if we are SIM characters / money supply in their world and they are not trustworthy. Even if we owned nuclear weapon, I doubt the government is able to use it properly to protect this country and people. After all they are just Moonie's puppets. It's going to make more problems without solving any.

No. Not for now, but a procedure to produce some as quickly as possible might be a good idea.

No nation needs any defensive weapons if it’s willing to obey the dictates of an aggressor. Better to live if even on your knees, right? Or not?

If you have to use them in retaliation then they're not a deterrent

I doubt any country would launch an all-out nuclear war. However, one might “demonstrate” by detonating one within sight of a population center as a warning. The ability to respond with a “demonstration” might work as a deterrent.

The use of any size nuclear device even once, however, adds considerable risk.

this would mean South Korea would also go nuclear of course.

I think Japan already has all the parts in close formation that could be assembled in minutes.

It does not posses nuclear weapons technically.

If a neighbor was shooting a shotgun over my house all the time and using belligerent language constantly, I’d have two shotguns at the ready.

China isn't threat to Japan. China never attacked Japan. This hype only because of mad grandma Pelosi. However Japan several times attacked China, so what medias tried to convince us if Japan suddenly attack China its will be fine, because China wanted to attack Japan?