Published on December 2, 2019.
As a continuation of Kanji Ishizumi’s essay “Japan, Possess Nuclear Weapons!” published in the monthly magazine WiLL, this article introduces the argument that Japan must establish nuclear capability and military-technological superiority rather than merely pursue constitutional revision.
It discusses Japan’s excessive reliance on the U.S.–Japan alliance, the reality that America’s strategic interest in Japan is concentrated on Okinawa, and the historical fact that nations without the “latest and strongest weapons” have eventually been destroyed or absorbed by great powers, using the contrast between Venice and Aleppo.
It argues that the rise and fall of nations are determined not by abstract ideals but by Techno-Supremacy and Military Supremacy.

December 2, 2019
Conversely, a country that does not possess the “latest and strongest weapons,” no matter how hard it tries through omnidirectional diplomacy, will eventually be destroyed or possessed by a great power.
The following is the continuation of the previous chapter.
No value other than Okinawa.
Another reason I now decided to publish my own view in this magazine is that the current Liberal Democratic Party government is strangely leaning forward toward constitutional revision.
The current debate over constitutional revision merely ignites an “ought-to-be” argument, or an “in-the-first-place” argument, saying in spiritual terms that MacArthur’s Constitution is strange, and it divides national opinion; it is not something to do in the final stage of an administration.
That is because a sense of crisis accumulated in my heart that it has only the effect of turning Japanese eyes away from the cold historical fact that “only military technology determines the fate of a nation,” namely Techno-Supremacy.
The argument for abolishing or revising the MacArthur Constitution is, in international military terms, an extremely trivial issue.
What is ten thousand times or a million times more important is to establish, as soon as possible, “Military Supremacy” backed by “Techno-Supremacy.”
The reason is truly simple: in every age, the countries that survived always possessed the “latest and strongest weapons.”
Conversely, a country that does not possess the “latest and strongest weapons,” no matter how hard it tries through omnidirectional diplomacy, will eventually be destroyed or possessed by a great power.
Nearby Okinawa is a good example.
First of all, the Japanese should abandon the illusion that “America will protect us.”
In fact, at his 2017 inaugural address, President Trump expressed dissatisfaction, saying that America “has sacrificed its own military in order to defend other countries.”
Indeed, looking at current American public opinion and President Trump’s movements, the stance that “there is no need to defend other countries at America’s sacrifice” has not changed at all.
In other words, it can be said that the situation is such that the U.S.–Japan alliance, namely the U.S.–Japan Security Treaty, could be abandoned at any time.
The reason America possesses nuclear weapons has, more than the maintenance of deterrence, a strong meaning of enabling America’s own preemptive attack.
And a preemptive attack requires a corresponding motive and situation.
According to American public-opinion surveys, the results show that America would not carry out a nuclear preemptive attack unless the lives of roughly twenty thousand American citizens were placed in danger; however, a situation in which twenty thousand U.S. soldiers would be sacrificed in order to defend Japan is almost inconceivable.
The only conceivable case would be if the Chinese People’s Liberation Army invaded the area around Okinawa, but what matters to China is Taiwan and the Taiwan Strait.
If the U.S. military holds those two, China is unlikely to attack Okinawa while taking a great risk.
Rather, what should be feared is an emergency on the Korean Peninsula.
The situation in which America is most likely to use nuclear weapons would be if North Korea invaded South Korea, thereby endangering the lives of the 27,000 U.S. troops stationed along the 38th parallel.
In that case, the U.S. military might carry out a nuclear preemptive attack, but of course those nuclear weapons would not be used for Japan’s sake.
From America’s standpoint, the important strategic region within Japan is, after all, Okinawa.
Perry came to Japan in order to possess Okinawa, and the reason he came off Uraga was not to shock Edo.
Even if one looks at Perry’s voyage records from the time, he visited Edo Bay, now Tokyo Bay, only once or twice, whereas he stopped by Okinawa seven or eight times and surveyed every bay in the surrounding area.
That is how decisively important Okinawa is to America as a region for deploying fleets from China toward the Indian Ocean.
In other words, for America, Japan has no value other than the U.S. military bases in Okinawa where many American soldiers are stationed, and even those bases are not bases for defending Japan but merely bases for America’s Pacific strategy.
Barely, Yokosuka and Iwakuni serve as repair and supply bases for nuclear submarines, but all of that could simply be moved to Guam, and it could also be provided by U.S. bases in Okinawa.
In short, if America can reach an accommodation with China by concluding even a secret mutual non-aggression agreement over Taiwan and Okinawa and dividing the Pacific with the Chinese navy, the strategic value of the Japanese mainland will become “zero.”
In other words, the Japanese mainland, to put it plainly Tokyo and Osaka, will no longer have value for the U.S. military to protect through a nuclear preemptive strike.
The rise and fall of nations and “armed force.”
Therefore, what Japan must do now in order to continue surviving for several hundred years into the future is to possess nuclear weapons, not to revise the Constitution.
In recent years, constitutional revision under the Abe administration has become a political issue in Japan, but constitutional revision is not a prerequisite for nuclear armament, and the two are completely unrelated.
Unless Japan possesses the “latest and strongest weapons,” it cannot survive amid the struggle for world hegemony.
Looking back at history also proves this.
As one of the most prominent examples, let us introduce two contrasting cities: “Venice” and “Aleppo.”
Venice was a city-state that flourished in medieval Europe and a commercial city that expanded its trade network as far as the Middle East.
At the same time, it was also the largest armed state in medieval Europe, possessing powerful military strength.
Above all, Venice at the time possessed the ability to build several warships in a single day, to the extent that even if several battleships were sunk in war, it could deploy a great fleet of several hundred ships in the Mediterranean the next day.
Naturally, those warships were always equipped with cannons that possessed the greatest destructive power of the time.
Aleppo, on the other hand, was located at a key point on the Silk Road connecting China and the Mediterranean, and was a commercial and cultural city that continued to flourish from around 2000 B.C. until the twenty-first century.
It was once said that “if Europeans travel, everyone goes to Aleppo,” and there were not a few cultural remains of world-class excellence.
However, unlike Venice, Aleppo never thought of possessing armed force, let alone the latest weapons.
As a result, it was tossed about by the threats of the great powers of the Mesopotamian region, such as the Hittites, Assyria, the Byzantine Empire, and the Ottoman Empire, and finally in 2014 it was completely destroyed by an al-Qaeda-affiliated organization.
The goods flowing along the Silk Road were controlled on land by Aleppo, while the goods that flowed through Damascus and into the Mediterranean by sea were controlled by Venice.
Venice and Aleppo had precisely a relationship of mutual dependence: when one prospered, the other also prospered.
Nevertheless, the decisive factor that caused the two city-states to follow completely different paths was, after all, whether or not the state possessed armed force.
In particular, Venice constantly continued to manufacture the latest and strongest weapons of each era.
That is precisely why it was able to continue flourishing as a city-state longer than Aleppo.
However, an event occurred that caused that very Venice to fall.
The cause was that the world’s largest city-state, which had never once allowed invasion by another country thanks to the latest and strongest weapons, was brought down by Austria through the world’s first “air raid,” strictly speaking, balloon bombs.
This is only an analogy, but when one is bullied, one possible response is to “tell the teacher and have the teacher protect you instead.”
However, if no one will protect you, there is no choice but to become strong yourself.
The simplest response is to possess a weapon.
If the other side has a knife in hand, you carry a pistol.
That one can silence the other side by always countering with the latest and strongest armed force is, indeed, a “simple and clear” historical truth.
To be continued.