This column by Masayuki Takayama (Shukan Shincho, June 2, 2022) analyzes Beatrice Fihn’s infamous statement that Japan “will take a third atomic bomb,” and explains why her words are not entirely irrational.
It uncovers the dangerous reality of the UN Charter’s enemy state clauses, which still allow military action—including nuclear strikes—against former Axis nations without Security Council approval.
The article exposes Japan’s vulnerability under the MacArthur Constitution, the unresolved right to nuclear retaliation, America’s lack of apology for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the growing aggression of China, Russia, and North Korea.
It warns that Japan’s refusal to debate nuclear deterrence only increases the likelihood of a “third strike,” as hostile states feel emboldened by Japan’s passivity.

“Japan Will Take the Third One Too” — Isn’t That Madness Already Crossing the Sea of Japan?

A short while ago, Beatrice Fihn, the representative of an NGO that won the Nobel Peace Prize for advocating nuclear abolition, came to Japan.
Given the purpose, one might expect her to show sympathy toward Japan, the world’s only country to have suffered atomic bombings, but this woman was extraordinarily prickly.
Japan ignored the Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Treaty she recommends.
That must have displeased her.

But Japan, thanks to the MacArthur Constitution, possesses neither nuclear weapons nor a normal army.
To defend the country, it relies on America’s nuclear umbrella, and if Japan were to join the nuclear ban treaty, it would have to step out from under that umbrella as well.
There is another reason Japan does not ratify it: “the right of the world’s sole A-bombed nation.”
To avoid ever again being exposed to nuclear threat, Japan has the right—prior to any other nation—to possess nuclear arms to protect itself.

Moreover, against the United States, which dropped inhumane atomic bombs, Japan still retains the right to retaliate with two nuclear strikes.
Of the 200,000 people killed by the atomic bombs Truman ordered dropped, eighty percent were noncombatant women and children under international law.
And in Nagasaki, the United States even conducted “a plutonium-type human experiment” (U.S. Department of Energy).
America has still not apologized for that barbarity.

The Japanese swore at that time that they would one day take revenge.
There is absolutely no reason to renounce that right on our own.

Fihn, without understanding any of these circumstances, became angry and said something outrageous, refusing to allow her “face to be disgraced.”
Her line was astonishing:
“Japan will take a third one, in addition to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”

If she had no sense of racial discrimination, she would not be wasting time in Japan.
At this moment she would be flying straight to Moscow to confront Putin, who is openly hinting at nuclear use.
She is a truly cowardly woman, but what she said—“Japan will take a third one”—is not necessarily irrational.

The grounds lie in the “enemy state clauses” of the UN Charter.
These refer to Japan, Germany, Hungary, Finland, and others who fought the Allied Powers in the last war.
To see how heavy this historical stigma is, one need only read Article 53, which concerns “military enforcement action.”

Take Russia, now invading Ukraine.
After Japan surrendered, this country attacked Japan and indulged in the very same raping, looting, and killing it is now inflicting in Ukraine.
In the end it stole Japanese territory from South Sakhalin to the Northern Territories.
In Eastern Europe too, Russia fired without hesitation on citizens who resisted communization, and gleefully crushed them with tanks.

Against such an evil nation, Article 53 says that “all states shall cooperate to impose military sanctions,” and that such action requires authorization by the Security Council.
This should have applied this time as well, but as a permanent member, Russia vetoes it, so nothing passes.

However, the latter half of Article 53 says something else:
If the rogue state in question is one of the “former enemy states” such as Japan or Germany, any country feeling threatened may impose military sanctions “even without Security Council approval.”
“Former enemy state” effectively means a natural-born rogue state like Russia—one that may be lynched at will if it misbehaves.

For example, suppose Japan equips itself with missiles for attacking enemy bases.
If China or North Korea arbitrarily decides this is a sign of “the revival of Japanese imperialism,” they may drop nuclear weapons on Japan.
And that would be judged as legitimate action under the UN Charter.

Some say the enemy state clauses were abolished thirty years ago by a UN General Assembly resolution and are therefore dead letters.
But the Security Council has yet to adopt the abolition.
Quite the opposite: China’s Yang Jiechi, regarding the Senkaku Islands, has even hinted at invoking the enemy state clauses, saying, “Does a former enemy state like Japan intend to seize Chinese territory?”
North Korea is no different.

Such rogue states have been given a “sword of justice” by the enemy state clauses.
Yet in Japan the prime minister says, “Because we have the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, we will not discuss nuclear matters,” denying even nuclear retaliation, and the foolish opposition parties uniformly object to enemy base strike capability.

If Japan signals that it will not retaliate even if a third nuclear strike is delivered, China and North Korea will have no reason to hesitate.
Isn’t such madness already unmistakably reaching us from across the Sea of Japan?