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 NATO membership and nuclear sharing as “Option B” if Japan finds it difficult to possess nuclear weapons independently.
Considering Japan’s heavy disaster-recovery costs and its difficulty in investing in Techno-Supremacy and Military Supremacy, it examines nuclear sharing with the United States, collective security, and the limits of missile-interception systems.
It also argues that as long as Japan remains dependent on America and lacks the right of self-determination, it cannot truly be called a prosperous nation.

December 2, 2019
Therefore, if it is difficult for Japan to possess nuclear weapons independently, I strongly recommend, at the very least, joining NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, as “Option B.”
The following is the continuation of the previous chapter.
The possibility of nuclear sharing.
Japan inevitably has to spend enormous amounts of money on reconstruction support after natural disasters.
In last year and this year alone, as much as 4.7 trillion yen has already been used for disaster reconstruction.
The increased revenue from the consumption-tax hike should originally be invested in pursuit of “Techno-Supremacy,” such as nuclear armament, nuclear shelters, military technology, and especially the development of quantum computing capable of neutralizing other countries’ encryption technology, and should be used to pursue “Military Supremacy.”
However, the present reality is that disaster recovery must inevitably be given priority.
In other words, Japan is a country that cannot allocate money for “Military Supremacy.”
That is the difference from Israel.
Alongside the United States, China, and Russia, Israel has long made cyberattacks and the development of quantum computing one of the highest priorities of national policy.
Therefore, if it is difficult for Japan to possess nuclear weapons independently, I strongly recommend, at the very least, joining NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, as “Option B.”
Joining NATO would impose the obligation to build collective security, while also making nuclear sharing with the United States possible, and when considering Japan’s nuclear possession, it can be said to be the most realistic and efficient means.
With this, it would likely be easier to obtain the consent of ordinary citizens who are resistant to Japan possessing nuclear weapons independently.
In terms of cost as well, it would be overwhelmingly less expensive than independently developing and manufacturing nuclear weapons, and would surely be far better than being made to buy large quantities of expensive weapons from the U.S. military.
Which country attacks, and in what manner, depends on the situation, but if several hundred missiles were launched simultaneously, defense would be absolutely impossible no matter how many dozen Aegis destroyers Japan had.
As proof of that, even Iron Dome, the world’s best surface-to-air missile network jointly developed by Israel and the U.S. military, cannot shoot down one out of every ten missiles in reality.
Therefore, this is not something that can be dealt with by Japan’s interception systems, such as the Air Self-Defense Force’s Patriot system or the Ground Self-Defense Force’s Aegis Ashore.
If the approach of a Chinese nuclear submarine cannot be confirmed and multiple missiles are launched simultaneously, if even one of them cannot be shot down, that is the end.
Rather, if Japan possessed even one nuclear weapon from the beginning, the possibility of missiles being fired at Japan would be overwhelmingly reduced, and it would no longer be necessary to spend unnecessary national funds to buy interception systems and fighter jets from the United States costing tens or hundreds of billions of yen each.
Moreover, while Iron Dome is a surface-to-air missile network jointly developed in a form in which the Israeli military led the U.S. military, Japan’s Patriot systems, Aegis destroyers, and F-35 fighter jets are, for convenience, described as jointly developed with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, but Mitsubishi has hardly been involved in their development.
The definition of a nation’s prosperity is not limited merely to being able to eat one’s fill.
Paradoxically, from my point of view, North Korea is more prosperous than Japan.
The reason is simple: it can decide matters concerning its own country by itself.
By contrast, Japan follows America’s orders in everything and cannot resist, so it has no room for choice whatsoever.
A country with so little right of self-determination cannot be called a “prosperous nation” even as flattery.
Japan is truly a “strange country,” in that although Israel can provide weapons with the same power and precision at about one-tenth the price of America’s, it is almost impossible for Japan to buy them from Israel.
Singapore has equipped almost all of its armed forces with Israeli-made weapons.
The idea that Japan achieved independence through the San Francisco Peace Treaty is an illusion, and the U.S.–Japan Security Treaty, which has no guarantee or basis to serve as a backing, is something Trump has hinted at abandoning, but rather Japan should be the one to abandon it.
Since the American people, and President Trump himself, have no intention of defending the Japanese mainland except for Okinawa, there should be no problem.
To be continued.