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 discusses the decisive role of nuclear weapons in the international order after World War II.
It argues that the nations that weaponized nuclear fission won the war and shaped the postwar order, and that the absence of full-scale war between nuclear-armed states demonstrates the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence.
Using Ukraine’s nuclear disarmament and Russia’s occupation of Crimea as an example, it warns that non-nuclear states remain vulnerable to invasion by great powers, and that Japan cannot survive in the long run if it remains intoxicated by the temporary peace of the postwar Yalta order.

December 2, 2019
If Japan thinks it can survive by becoming absorbed in nothing more than the temporary peace situation of the Yalta Agreement order, lasting only the eighty years since the war, it is gravely mistaken.
The following is the continuation of the previous chapter.
The ruthless international community.
In the Second World War, the countries that realized that “nuclear fission could become a weapon” prevailed in the war.
The reverse is also true: the countries that realized this but could not turn nuclear fission into a weapon were defeated.
Hitler, who quickly noticed that nuclear fission could instantly generate enormous energy but failed to put it into practical use, was defeated.
Churchill, who learned of Nazi nuclear development, and Roosevelt, who, through Churchill’s advice, undertook its full-scale practical application, prevailed in the world war, and those two countries continue even now to hold world hegemony.
Looking at the present situation of nuclear possession after the world war, the reality is that, with the exception of India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel, which forcibly achieved nuclear possession, only the victorious countries are permitted to possess nuclear weapons, while the defeated countries are, in principle, not permitted to do so.
Moreover, the reality that, without nuclear weapons, a country can be invaded all too easily by a nuclear-armed state using conventional forces is clear if one looks at Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014.
If Ukraine had not abandoned nuclear weapons with the collapse of the Soviet Union, it would not have had the Crimean Peninsula occupied by Russia.
Not only Russia, but also nuclear-armed victorious countries such as the United States, France, and Britain have waged wars around the world even after the Great War, but in every case their opponents have been countries without nuclear weapons.
And nuclear-armed states have never once fought one another, except for small skirmishes near the border between India and Pakistan.
From this fact alone, one must acknowledge the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence.
Some may object by saying, “What about Switzerland?”
But there is a world of difference between that small Alpine country and Japan in geopolitical terms, especially in the strategic value seen by Russia, which occupied the Northern Territories and even attempted to come as far as Hokkaido.
“If a country does not possess armed force, it will eventually be destroyed.”
What destroys it differs depending on each era and the environment surrounding the country.
However, unless a country possesses the latest and strongest armed force, the possibility that it will always be attacked by another country cannot be denied.
In any case, in the twenty-first century, unless Japan possesses nuclear weapons, it is destined, over the long span of history, eventually to be destroyed.
If Japan thinks it can survive by becoming absorbed in the temporary peace situation of the Yalta Agreement order, lasting only the eighty years since the war, and by doing nothing but economic activity and visit-based aid-sprinkling diplomacy, saying this and that about a strong yen or fiscal stimulus, it is gravely mistaken.
In every age, there has never been an example of a peaceful era continuing for long.
In the international community, there is no country that will protect another country while taking risks for itself.
All the more so if that country is the Japanese mainland, which has no strategic value, a declining country with a falling birthrate.
To be continued.