China’s Ultimate Nightmare: Japan Armed With Nuclear Weapons

[terranMarine]

And this is why Viets are full of sh!t, first you guys said the US is now back in Asia and now there's a real danger the US will withdraw

 

[xunzi]

a nuclear armed Japan will shift the balance of power in Asia. I think the day will come considering the threats Japan is facing: China, North Korea and Russia, plus the danger of a potential reduced involvement of America in East Asia. especially the arrogance and aggression of the chinese make the rise of japan military easier. from theory to reality.

You are delusional. The balance of power is guarantee by the US. Without the US, there is no balance of power. And US will never allow Japan to build nuke as it will trigger proliferation in the Middleeast.

 

[Viet]

You are delusional. The balance of power is guarantee by the US. Without the US, there is no balance of power. And US will never allow Japan to build nuke as it will trigger proliferation in the Middleeast.

What has Japan to do with Middle East?

good, that you recognise the role of America for balance of power, deep in your heart, especially against a potential hooligan like you.

 

[Lurch Adams]

We want to rise peacefully but some guy just does not like that.

Claiming a vital international shipping lane for oneself, building islands close to it and then threatening other countries for "violating" territorial sovereignty are not exactly signs of peaceful rise.

You are delusional. The balance of power is guarantee by the US. Without the US, there is no balance of power. And US will never allow Japan to build nuke as it will trigger proliferation in the Middleeast.

The only possible reason that the US does not want Japan to build its own nukes have little to do with triggering proliferation in the Middle-East (I guess you meant Far East?). The American nuclear umbrella provides a valid pretext for American presence in this region. The more belligerence China shows, lesser the need for excuses, as now all concerned parties except China are advocating American presence in any case. In other words, if Chinese belligerence in South China Sea increases any further, the Americans will have nothing to lose by allowing Japan to develop its own nuclear arsenal, as American presence in the region is in any case welcomed by the other nations.

 

[cnleio]

It is perhaps China’s greatest nightmare: a nuclear-armed Japan. Permanently anchored off the Asian mainland, bristling with nuclear weapons, a nuclear Japan would make China’s security situation much more complex than it is now, and force China to revise both its nuclear doctrine and increase its nuclear arsenal.

To be perfectly clear, Japan has no intention of building nuclear weapons. In fact, it has a strong aversion to nukes, having been the only country to actually be on the receiving end of a nuclear strike on its cities. Japan’s strategic situation would have to grow very dire for it to undertake such a drastic and expensive option.


At the same time, China has no interest in provoking Japan into building them. China’s nuclear “no first use” policy is in part aimed at reassuring Japan that, unless it were attacked first with nuclear weapons, it will not use them in wartime. Japan has no nukes, therefore, if China holds to its word, Japan should be reassured. “If” and “should” being the operative words here.

Still, it’s an interesting proposition. Nuclear phobias and the lack of a pressing need aside, there’s certainly no reason why Japan,the third largest economy in the world, couldn’t build nukes.

What would a Japanese nuclear deterrent look like? Let’s examine the traditional nuclear triad of land-based ballistic missiles, strategic bombers and ballistic missile submarines and each leg of the triad’s suitability for Japan’s circumstance. For the sake of argument, let’s say Japan can choose just one leg to invest in.

We’ll also set the number of nukes at roughly 300. Japan’s high population density would mean that the destruction of just a handful of cities could kill or injure the majority of the country’s civilian population. Against an adversary such as Russia or China, Japan must be able to inflict similar losses.



Land-based missiles

Japan could invest in a small arsenal of land-based missiles, each carrying one or more nuclear warheads. The missiles could be stationed in hardened silos, like the American Minuteman III, or on mobile launchers like the Russian RS-24 Yars. A Japanese ICBM would be smaller, not needing the range and fuel to reach North America. The ability to reach all of China, European Russia and the Middle East would be sufficient.

Eventually, Japan might settle on a force of 100 intermediate-range ballistic missiles, each equipped with three 100 kiloton warheads. The missiles could be based in hardened silos in eastern Hokkaido, Japan’s northernmost island, or moved around on mobile launchers.

This is the least survivable of the three ideas. Japan’s close proximity to China means that in the event of a nuclear attack from the latter it would need to have a “launch on warning” doctrine to ensure the missiles survived. That would considerably increase the possibility of accidental nuclear war, as a hardware or software malfunction in Japan’s early warning system could be incorrectly interpreted as an attack.

Geography makes land basing even less attractive. Japan’s high population density makes it impossible to find a location for 100 missile silos that would not would invite terrible collateral damage in the event of attack. Even basing them in remote places like the northern Island of Hokkaido would incur needless risk. Mobile launchers would be far too large and heavy to travel Japan’s road network, unless a separate track were built somewhere. Even that would make their positioning more predictable.

Strategic bombers

Japan could build a wing of stealthy bombers to deliver cruise missiles and nuclear gravity bombs. Such an aircraft could fly nuclear penetration missions against adversaries, knocking out enemy nuclear weapons, command and control and other counterforce targets. Nuclear bombers would give Japanese strategic warfare planners the flexibility to go after multiple targets or change the targets in mid-flight. Nuclear bombers can be recalled at any point in the mission.

A bomber scheme could involve three squadrons of twenty-four bombers each, for a total of seventy-two jets, each the size of an FB-111 strike aircraft. Each bomber would carry four short-range attack missiles, each with a 100 kiloton yield, for a total of 288 nuclear weapons.

Geography also makes strategic bombers unlikely. A lightning attack against Japan’s bomber bases could wipe out the entire force on the ground before they are given the order to scramble. If tankers are necessary for the bombers to reach their targets, the destruction of the Japanese tanker force would make the bombers irrelevant. Furthermore, advances in air defense technology could make the bombers dangerously vulnerable.

Japan could, like the U.S. Air Force’s Strategic Air Command of old, maintain a force of bombers permanently in the air, but that would be expensive and require enough bombers in the air (and aerial tankers) at any one time inflict a punishing blow. The cost and complexity of standing up and maintaining such a force would be prohibitive.

Dear @Nihonjin1051, such answer should ask the United Nations including U.S/Russia/China/Britain/France in UNSC ... building nuke is not simply depend on the will of Japan government, it's the test for U.N attitude to a nuclear armed Japan. I think we need to study 《The United Nations Charter》 again ... especially the " Enemy Provision" in the Charter of the United Nations

 

[AugenBlick]

The most exiting thing about the Japanese Bomb would be.......





















....... The Mascot.
Mushroom-Chan
@Nihonjin1051

 

[Lurch Adams]

Dear @Nihonjin1051, such answer should ask the United Nations including U.S/Russia/China/Britain/France in UNSC ... building nuke is not simply depend on the will of Japan government, it's the test for U.N attitude to a nuclear armed Japan. I think we need to study 《The United Nations Charter》 again ... especially the " Enemy Provision" in the Charter of the United Nations

Irrelevant. The UNSC is not exactly a democracy. If it were, a 3-member majority would have definitely thrown Russia (definitely) and China (probably) out of it by now. The single US veto is enough to ensure that no resolution can be passed against Japan. And the Nuclear Suppliers Group hurdle is irrelevant for the Japanese.

Also, I missed the part in the UN Charter that specifically states that Japan cannot have nukes...as regards the "enemy states" provision, if China or any other state genuinely believe it had any relevance today, they are welcome to try.

Here is a more recent analysis of the nonsense provision:
Germany, Italy, Japan and the UN Charter’s “Enemy State Clause”: Obstacle to an Asian and European Peace? | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

 

[cnleio]

Charter of the United Nations

Article 53

1. The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.
2. The term enemy state as used in paragraph 1 of this Article applies to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter.

Article 77
1 The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:

a. territories now held under mandate;

b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and

c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.

2 It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.

Article 107
Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action, in relation to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorized as a result of that war by the Governments having responsibility for such action.

Simply speaking, When U.N Top5 feel the former enemy nations armed again and threat the peace, they can start war first to the enemy nation and U.N promise the action to the ally. Thank you very much for reading !

Irrelevant. The UNSC is not exactly a democracy. If it were, a 3-member majority would have definitely thrown Russia (definitely) and China (probably) out of it by now. The single US veto is enough to ensure that no resolution can be passed against Japan. And the Nuclear Suppliers Group hurdle is irrelevant for the Japanese.

Also, I missed the part in the UN Charter that specifically states that Japan cannot have nukes...as regards the "enemy states" provision, if China or any other state genuinely believe it had any relevance today, they are welcome to try.

Here is a more recent analysis of the nonsense provision:
Germany, Italy, Japan and the UN Charter’s “Enemy State Clause”: Obstacle to an Asian and European Peace? | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Keep trolling U.N, except WWIII to replace U.N & Charter of the United Nations here nothing will be changed in the world. U.S/Russia/China/Britain/France just sitting in UNSC until to next World War.

 

[saurav]

In future strong Japan is needed for stable Asia. If there is a potential threat to Japan and US is not willing to provide the kind of support needed, I am sure Japan can develop the required missiles in very short span.

As much as SSBNs are concerned, Japan can also develop one or, develop a derivative of its SSKs for the purpose. For training her naval forces to operate SSBNs, option of leasing from "friendly countries" is always there. Arihanth can always be spared for dear friend Japan.

 

[Lurch Adams]

Charter of the United Nations

Article 53

1. The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.
2. The term enemy state as used in paragraph 1 of this Article applies to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter.

Article 77
1 The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:

a. territories now held under mandate;

b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and

c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.

2 It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.

Article 107
Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action, in relation to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorized as a result of that war by the Governments having responsibility for such action.

Simply speaking, When U.N Top5 feel the former enemy nations armed again and threat the peace, they can start war first to the enemy nation and U.N promise the action to the ally. Thank you very much for reading !


Keep trolling U.N, except WWIII to replace U.N & Charter of the United Nations here nothing will be changed in the world.

This seems like a special Chinese tactic. Remind me again, what part of "US will veto the resolution" do you not understand? As for Article 107, China is free to trust its wordings and act accordingly. But don't hold your breath if in case instead of "support from the UN", you find an American fleet in your waters instead. Silly emoticons do nothing to add weight to your argument.

 

[cnleio]

This seems like a special Chinese tactic. Remind me again, what part of "US will veto the resolution" do you not understand? As for Article 107, China is free to trust its wordings and act accordingly. But don't hold your breath if in case instead of "support from the UN", you find an American fleet in your waters instead. Silly emoticons do nothing to add weight to your argument.

That's the game between Top5 of U.N , not the game between the Ally of U.N with former enemy nations ... u should understand it, thank you very much ! Anyways the U.N gave the right for Top5 to start war when feel threat from former enemy nations of WWII, that wrote into the Charter of the United Nations, that's the war rule after WWII victory ! Or u become one member of former enemy nations which U.N Charter defined.

 

[Lurch Adams]

That's the game between Top5 of U.N , not the game between the Ally of U.N with former enemy nations ... u should understand it, thank you very much ! Anyways the U.N gave the right for Top5 to start war when feel threat from former enemy nations of WWII, that wrote into the Charter of the United Nations, that's the war rule after WWII victory ! Or u become one member of former enemy nations which U.N Charter defined.

As I said, China is free to try interpreting the provision as it deems fit. To claim that the world will watch in silence as a thuggish Totalitarian regime attacks probably the most admired and restrained member of the international community by showing an anachronistic provision that no one even remembers, shows how poor your grasp of reality is. Where is China's support in the international community, apart from equally thuggish African dictatorships like itself? China will be out-voted by a margin of atleast 5-6 times in the UN on any issue against Japan. The whole world looks up to Japan as a peaceful and dignified nation. Wake up and smell the coffee, this isn't 1945 anymore.

 

[Dungeness]

It is China's ultimate nightmare, but it will be Japan's Armageddon.

 

[cnleio]

As I said, China is free to try interpreting the provision as it deems fit. To claim that the world will watch in silence as a thuggish Totalitarian regime attacks probably the most admired and restrained member of the international community by showing an anachronistic provision that no one even remembers, shows how poor your grasp of reality is. Where is China's support in the international community, apart from equally thuggish African dictatorships like itself? China will be out-voted by a margin of atleast 5-6 times in the UN on any issue against Japan. The whole world looks up to Japan as a peaceful and dignified nation. Wake up and smell the coffee, this isn't 1945 anymore.

Go ahead ... U.N is the result of WWII Victory, China is one member of the Ally and one member of Top5 in UNSC ... don't blablabla some useless words here, give a ultimate 'NOT' vote to u on UNSC conference. Keep trolling outside the room, China don't care ...

 

[Lurch Adams]

Go ahead ... U.N is the result of WWII Victory, China is one member of the Ally and one member of Top5 in UNSC ... don't blablabla some useless words here, give a ultimate 'NOT' vote to u on UNSC conference. Keep trolling outside the room, China don't care ...

The Chinese regime is so used to trampling over its own people that it sometimes (always?) forgets that the rest of the world are not as easy to manage. Majority of world governments distrust China and with good reason. The onus is not on me to do/prove anything. Let China take care of the fact that all its immediate neighbours detest its regime and are more comfortable dealing with a Western nation on the diplomatic front. For all of its great power ambitions, China is friendless in its own backyard. The truth hurts, I know.