Subject: EEE会議　(Re: 日本核武装論）
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 08:51:20 +0900
From: "kkaneko" <kkaneko@eagle.ocn.ne.jp>

各位

新年早々こういうきな臭い話ばかりで不本意かつ恐縮ですが、またまた関連
メールが今朝小生の所に沢山届きましたので、その一部をご紹介します。　２
番目のメールは、まさに日本のプルトニウムとロケット計画を意識しているも
ので、どうしてもここに目が行くようです。　送信者（Chan）の素性は知りま
せんが、多分中国系米国人または在香港中国人では？

金子熊夫

*****************************

A nuclear armed Japan would force China to target Japanese cities,
which would increase the threat to Japan. After nuclear strikes on
the Kansai and Kanto plains, and northern Kyushyu, Japan would
be a country of small mountain villages with enormous refugee
camps in the flat areas. They know what happened in 1945 with just
two low-yield weapons. Why would Japan go against its own
interests? The Japanese know how to wait out administrations in
Washington that prove to be slow learners.

The US-Japan Security Treaty provides enormous benefits not just
to Japan but also to the US. Where do you put the 3rd Marine
Division if it has to leave Okinawa? Who pays? Kadena and
Yokosuka remain critical support bases. Communications facilities
of all sorts are more cost effective over there. In the strategic
balance, this Treaty remains a two-way street, not just an
arrangement of benefit to Japan.

Steve Dawkins

******************************

There are obvious downsides for Japan to acquiring a nuclear
weapon.

But whether or not ALL (as opposed to some) Japanese believe the
risks outweigh the potential benefits I would question.

Tokyo maintains an unusually large stockpile of separated
plutonium (4.7 tons of separated plutonium stored in Japan, another
11.4 tons in Europe).

Adding to all of this is Japan's high competence in rocketry. The H-
2A maybe a boondoggle, but that doesn't mean all the launch
vehicles produced by Japan are useless as potential ballistic
missiles.

Japan hasn't developed a nuclear weapon, and in the end may not
develop one. But that doesn't mean Japan is completely forgoing
the capability to build a functional nuclear deterrent. The situation
right now is latent, as opposed to actual, nuclear weapons
capability.

As such, it wouldn't be prudent to completely write off the
possibility.

It is also worth noting that while Japan is probably less capable
then other countries of withstanding a nuclear strike, the issue of
whether or not a nation can survive a nuclear war is generally not a
major factor in whether or not to pursue a nuclear weapon. For
example -- vulnerabilities resulting from overcrowded cities and
weak public health systems have not proven to be a deterrent to
either India or Pakistan pursuing nuclear weapons. The calculus of
whether or not to build or not to build is more often a function of
the
external security environment -- not whether or not the nation can
survive a nuclear exchange.

Never say never.

Stan Chan