Nippon's nukes!

[ApTyp]

<strong>[ Community -> Article ]</strong>

<p>Despite cries of protests from the survivors of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki bombings, and the general anti-nuke stance of Japanese
government and society, the nuke taboo seems to be <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asi ... ce">giving way</a>:

</p>
<p>
</p><blockquote>Politicians have more recently become bolder in challenging the nuclear
taboo. A senior opposition figure, Ichiro Ozawa, said in 2002: "We have
plenty of plutonium in our nuclear power plants, so it's possible for
us to produce 3,000 to 4,000 nuclear warheads." The same year the chief
cabinet secretary, Yasuo Fukuda, stunned the nation by claiming Japan's
"pacifist" constitution did not prohibit nuclear weapons.</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>How would you like that? But I'm pretty sure United States
government would support Japan, should it decide to put nukes in its
arsenal - the political situation in Asia is becoming worse every year.
Having a nuclear-capable ally would certainly help.</p>
<p>I'm somewhat surprised there's no "nuke rape" porn in Japan - you
know, the kind where giant plutonium-powered robots rape saucer-faced
pre-teens with their mammoth airbomb-shaped members. I would, you know,
pay money for that. Or something.

</p>
<blockquote />

[Brother None]

How would you like that? But I'm pretty sure United States
government would support Japan, should it decide to put nukes in its
arsenal - the political situation in Asia is becoming worse every year.
Having a nuclear-capable ally would certainly help.

They already have one.

India has been officially recognised by the US as having and having the right to have and develop nuclear weapons. Since nobody can protest, that pretty much means India is now officially a nuclear power.

Funny thing being that India never signed the NPT, meaning that of the six official nuclear powers India is the only one that has no limit on its development of nuclear weapons. It can pretty much do what it wants thanks to yank support

Is bound to piss the Pakis off, that.

It's bad news all around, though, bad news all around. If India has this right, other interested powers are bound to pop up, South Korea and Japan first, having the geo-political reasons and resources for it.

[ApTyp]

Well you know these things tend to happen when a political and military tool as useful as a nuke is invented.

I doubt many Americans would cry if Pakistan was nuked, though. Recent news paint the Pakistan society possessing the worst traits of mountain tribalism and militant Islam.

On the other hand, Pakistanis don't steal our jobs!

[Brother None]

Pakistan is one of those "wrong" countries that America allies with nonetheless. America never has a problem with a country being corrupt or despotical as long as it supports US goals, see Uzbekistan.

That's hardly the point, though. Japan's reaction is just the first step in a wave of political backlash to the US' breaking the NPT. It was a pretty smart political move by Bush, technically, but on the other hand I think he might've missed the long-term problems. If the NPT falls apart, as it's now bound to do, there's nothing to stop Russia from rebuilding their arsenal or their little neighbours of White Russia and Kazakhstan to rebuild nukes with the knowledge they still posses. Not to mention that nothing'd stop China from becoming a full nuclear power.

China currently has about 12 nukes capable of hitting the US and that's neat, but it might be a problem if it developed more.

Not to mention Israel and Pakistan, who together with India were the "countries that we accept to have nukes, though they shouldn't". I never liked potentially unstable countries like those having nukes.

[ApTyp]

Israel is politically unstable? That's an interesting theory.

[Brother None]

Israel is politically unstable? That's an interesting theory.

Yes, it is, not just because it's been at war since its inception and is holding patches of land that aren't its own. Israel has a lot of problems internally with extremist Jews.

A place where the pres getting murdered by religious fanatics is not just not a surprise but just a question of "when" rather than "if" is not a stable country to me.

[ApTyp]

Yes, it is, not just because it's been at war since its inception and is holding patches of land that aren't its own. Israel has a lot of problems internally with extremist flowers.

And yet the state of Israel is still here.

A place where the pres getting murdered by religious fanatics is not just not a surprise but just a question of "when" rather than "if" is not a stable country to me.

Domestic terrorism is not an indicator of country's stability or lack thereof. Neither Britain, nor Israel (and certainly not United States) are going to become "unstable" simply because a few citizens have decided that terrorism and assassination are acceptable means to further political process.

[Brother None]

Domestic terrorism is not an indicator of country's stability or lack thereof. Neither Britain, nor Israel (and certainly not United States) are going to become "unstable" simply because a few citizens have decided that terrorism and assassination are acceptable means to further political process.

Apples and pears. Neither Britain nor the US are judaic states governed technically by the rules of the Torah.

The situation in Israel should be well displayed by the fact of mass protest against the withdrawal out of gaza and, more importantly, mass-desertion from the army. Even the army won't work with the government anymore, if anything shows instability...

Now that level of instability wouldn't be a problem if they didn't have nukes.

[S4ur0n27]

I think you don't understand the israeli situation and it's magnitude, ApTyp

[ApTyp]

Yeah, the enigmatic jews are a total mystery to me.

[VasikkA]

I find it rather amusing that it is the US who decides who can develop nukes and who can't. Israel or India aren't worthier nations to wield nukes than China or Iran. It just happens to be that Israel and India are US's allies. Political instability or corrupt leadership aren't of importance.

The United Nations is completely submissive to US policy in this matter.

[Redeye]

I find it rather amusing that it is the US who decides who can develop nukes and who can't. Israel or India aren't worthier nations to wield nukes than China or Iran. It just happens to be that Israel and India are US's allies. Political instability or corrupt leadership aren't of importance.

The United Nations is completely submissive to US policy in this matter.

True, true. The Iran thing is a bit different, due to the fact that they have
declared war on the US rhetorically more than once.
That would indicate *intent*, rather than mere desire for some nuclear
guarantee of self defense.
Then again, the US support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war was
perhaps partially a payback for the embassy-hostage thing in 1979.
Iran may be thinking that the US won't feel properly avenged until
the mullahs are ousted, and they want a way to stay in power forever, behind a nuclear shield.
Of course, Iran is a democracy now... so why should the US care?
Maybe it is not the "right" kind...

[vx trauma]

First(?) sign for US-Iran conflict emerging since the Iranian nuclearpower :
Rumsfeld directs critic on Iran as weapons have constanly flowed to the insurgents through the iran-irak
border.

Will the Mullahs get their bomb ready in time?
Or is the whole thing just another oil-affair?

[King of Creation]

You are an incredibly stupid person if you think the United States presence in the Middle East has anything to do with oil at all.

[Redeye]

You are an incredibly stupid person if you think the United States presence in the Middle East has anything to do with oil at all.

It's just a coincidence.
Does anybody remember "forward defence"?
(Hint: NATO 70's/80's.) But it's *hot* this time.

Or maybe it's about control, and boredom.
Peace is boring.