If nuclear power is to be rejected absolutely, the same uncompromising pressure must be applied to all nuclear-promoting nations. This essay exposes the inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty of selective anti-nuclear activism.

2016-08-27
The following essay was originally published on 2012-05-13.

What I wish to say to those who, like fundamentalists, loudly proclaim the immediate and total abolition of nuclear power is this.
If that is the case, then consider, for example, that the government of neighboring South Korea—reachable by airplane in barely one hour—has not only officially decided in recent years to increase its current twenty-plus nuclear reactors to just under forty, but has also reportedly begun construction on new ones just the other day.

If so, then one should go en masse to countries such as South Korea, China, Russia, France, and others, take out full-page opinion advertisements in each nation’s leading newspapers, and attempt to block their policies.
That is what must be done.

Otherwise, I strongly believe, it has no meaning whatsoever.

Not only does it have no meaning, but given that Japan has already continued utterly ineffective policies even in currency competition—thereby deepening and prolonging deflation and relentlessly expanding national debt—one may safely assert that such behavior would further drive Japan, which has accumulated deficits totaling some 900 trillion yen over more than twenty years, into even greater hardship, as readers surely understand.

To claim that because the response during the nuclear accident was disastrous, everything said by those involved in nuclear power is therefore untrustworthy is a grave mistake.

The reason is that many—indeed most—of those now loudly proclaiming opposition to nuclear power acted together with this country’s mass-media editorialists and commentators to shape public opinion into “Ichirō Ozawa is a bad man,” achieving approval ratings exceeding 80 percent, and thereby selecting the worst cabinet in history, that of Naoto Kan.
Moreover, subscribers should clearly understand what kind of situation March 11 was for him.

It was none other than you who created such a cabinet.
And if South Korea, China, Russia, or France were to encounter exactly the same accident, how would they respond.
As made clear by Chernobyl, or by reports that more than one month of concealment occurred during South Korea’s recent nuclear accident, the reality—factually established—is that their response would have been no better than Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, or perhaps even worse.

There is no guarantee that accidents similar to Japan’s will not occur in countries that promote nuclear power.

Therefore, with the same loud voice and the same uncompromising attitude used against Japan, one must confront all governments.

If this is not done, I believe there is no choice but to conclude that you are merely people who think only of the moment and the immediate situation.

When it was global warming, you declared that warming must be stopped at all costs.
Now, without thoroughly thinking, you declare absolute opposition to nuclear power.

If so, why do you not raise the same voice of absolute opposition toward neighboring South Korea, which can be reached by ship in about two hours.
Why do you not descend en masse upon the South Korean embassy.

Do you claim that the technology and ethics of countries now promoting nuclear power are superior to those of Japan, which you accuse as though all its related personnel were incompetent.

Needless to say, such a claim is utterly laughable.