A climate that discourages even discussion of constitutional revision or nuclear policy has long constrained Japan’s security debate.
Amid shifting U.S. policy and rising tensions in East Asia, calls grow for open discussion on national defense.
This chapter presents a dialogue on free debate, nuclear deterrence, and Japan’s strategic future.

Those in Japan’s liberal camp who do not even allow discussion are not liberals but totalitarians.
2018-01-06.
The following is a continuation of the previous chapter.
Sakurai.
They do not even allow discussion about constitutional revision.
The allergy toward nuclear issues is even stronger.
In the past, the United States also opposed Japan’s nuclear armament, and when the late Shoichi Nakagawa stated in 2006, following North Korea’s nuclear test, that “we should thoroughly debate whether the Three Non-Nuclear Principles should be reviewed,” President George W. Bush expressed concern and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice flew to Japan, guaranteed the nuclear umbrella, and warned Japan to stop further discussion.
Mr. Nakagawa did not advocate nuclear armament but merely called for debate.
Even so, the United States reacted strongly against it.
Kent.
But now things are completely different.
Sakurai.
Yes.
After all, the president himself has begun saying to Japan and South Korea, “Why not possess nuclear weapons yourselves?”
The Wall Street Journal has analyzed that if Japan were to arm itself with nuclear weapons, similar moves would spread to South Korea and Taiwan, the United States could reduce military expenditures, and deterrence against China would increase.
However, it also argues that if nuclear weapons spread, U.S. influence would relatively decline, discussing both the merits and demerits for the United States if Japan were to go nuclear.
Yet in Japan, there still exists a dominant atmosphere in which merely mentioning “nuclear” or “nuclear armament” is deemed dangerous discussion.
Kent.
Personally, I oppose Japan’s nuclear armament.
If it were accepted, the nuclear agreement with Iran would collapse.
If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia would likely follow.
The global situation would become extremely unstable, so North Korea must be stopped even if it requires war.
Sakurai.
Including Mr. Kent’s view, I believe we must engage in discussion.
Kent.
Exactly.
Not discussing is the worst thing.
Without discussion, no new ideas can emerge.
Those in Japan’s liberal camp who do not even allow discussion are not liberals but totalitarians.
Sakurai.
In the worst-case scenario, nuclear weapons would remain in North Korea, South Korea would move closer to China, and the entire Korean Peninsula could fall under China’s influence.
For Japan, this would truly be a national crisis.
However, if foreseeing this leads the Japanese people to awaken, it may in fact be good for Japan.
Kent.
I agree.
For Japan, it is a major opportunity to become a normal country.