This text rejects the slogan “show power without possessing nuclear weapons” as mere wordplay, argues that Japan must raise its national-level understanding of nuclear deterrence, and warns against overreliance on the U.S. “nuclear umbrella,” emphasizing that states ultimately prioritize their own national interests.

The Democratic Party and others put forward an incomprehensible argument such as “Show power without possessing nuclear weapons!”, but in the world of international politics and military affairs there is no such thing as “power without possessing.”
2016-10-31
The following is a continuation of the previous chapter.
The Democratic Party and others put forward an incomprehensible argument such as “Show power without possessing nuclear weapons!”, but in the world of international politics and military affairs there is no such thing as “power without possessing.”
It is nothing but mere “wordplay.”
If one truly believes such words, I would like them to dress themselves in fur and jewels so as to be clearly recognizable as wealthy, and then try, in some gun society somewhere, to see whether they can demonstrate “the power of not possessing a gun.”
From the perspective of those who do possess guns, it is utterly unclear what “the power of not possessing a gun” even means, and the result would likely be nothing more than a wealthy person stripped of everything, begging for their life while naked.
In the first place, domestic leftists who enthusiastically claim anti-nuclear positions toward Japan are hardly ever heard criticizing China’s nuclear weapons or calling for China to abandon them.
In other words, it seems they simply want “Japan alone” to remain weak and defenseless forever.
Here, I will not go so far as to say “Japan should possess nuclear weapons,” but it can undoubtedly be said that “discussion is necessary,” at least to raise the national-level knowledge standard regarding the meaning of nuclear possession, the conditions for use, and deterrence.
In any case, an unarmed doctrine that leaves completely missing the question of “how Japan will be protected from North Korea’s nuclear weapons and the like in the future” is nothing but a cessation of thought.
When asked “How will Japan be protected,” the answers offered by unarmed advocates generally fall into roughly two categories.
One is an answer that displays baseless trust, claiming “China (or North Korea) is not a threat.”
The other is an optimistic claim that “the United States will protect us.”
First, we must never forget the fundamental premise that “every country prioritizes its own national interests above all.”
Of course, “the United States prioritizes America’s national interests above all.”
Of course, “China prioritizes China’s national interests above all.”
There have been cases in which the United States withdrew out of fear of escalation when Chinese nuclear submarines approached Taiwan, and even when North Korea conducted nuclear tests, the United States proceeded to lift sanctions and remove North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
Even when Japanese territory is encroached upon by China or South Korea, the United States leaves it as “a diplomatic issue between the parties.”
To repeat, the fundamental premise is that “the United States prioritizes America’s national interests above all.”
Japan is one important ally for the United States in maintaining its influence in Asia, but when facing a “nuclear-armed enemy state” that could retaliate against New York or Washington, it is 100% impossible for the United States to prioritize Japan “over the American homeland.”
In other words, if North Korea—which cannot attack the American homeland—were to attack Japan, the United States would probably retaliate, but if China—which can launch a nuclear attack on the American homeland—were to attack Japan, the United States would never retaliate.
In fact, if China or Russia were to fire nuclear missiles into Japan,
the United States would not undertake retaliatory nuclear strikes against China or Russia for Japan’s sake, at the risk of suffering nuclear attacks from China or Russia on New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and the like.
International relations scholars Huntington, Waltz, and Jervis (Columbia University)
have clearly stated that “unless the U.S. homeland is directly subjected to a nuclear attack, an American president will never carry out nuclear war.”
Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
“A superpower would never commit suicide in order to guarantee a ‘nuclear umbrella’ for its allies.”
Former CIA Director Admiral Stansfield Turner.
“If Russia were to fire nuclear missiles into Japan, there is no way the United States would launch nuclear attacks against Russia.”
Former Acting Assistant Secretary of State Bob Barnett (a close friend of Ito Kan) said in private that it would be useless when it truly mattered.
If Russia or China were to launch a nuclear attack on Japan, the U.S. president would never retaliate by using missiles.
It is unfortunate, but America would abandon Japan.
There is nothing else that can be done, is there.
A U.S. president cannot expose American citizens to the danger of nuclear attacks from China and Russia.
(And yet) up to now he has told other Japanese government officials that Japan should rely on America’s “nuclear umbrella.”
He has said that Japan must not possess nuclear weapons.
Congressman Mark Kirk (member of the House Armed Services Committee, Republican).
The United States cannot win a war against every country in the world.
The United States cannot go to war with nuclear-armed Russia or China.
In the future, China’s military power will continue to grow, making the idea of the United States going to war with China increasingly unrealistic.
Therefore Japan needs to possess an independent nuclear deterrent.
Most American politicians, diplomats, and military officers understand that in the future it is impossible for the United States to go to war with a nuclear-armed China in order to protect Japan.
Such a war would pose risks that are far too great for the U.S. government.
To be continued.
The above is taken from http://ccce.web.fc2.com/a.html.