Home >> East Asia >> Japan

     Email   Print 

Will North Korea propel Japan to revisit its Nuclear option?

Shamshad Ahmad Khan - 7/27/2009

Security analysts of Japan has often argued that commensurate with its economic superpower status Japan will try to become a military superpower, amend its Constitution and will ultimately become a nuclear weapon state. The statements by the political elites also suggests towards that ambition. The recent nuclear and missile tests by North Korea have also triggered the nuclear debate in Japan. But judging Japan’s future nuclear strategy mere on statements and the events would be deceptive and foolhardy. The issue should be judged whether Japan has the delivery capability, “Second Strike” capacity and most importantly whether nuclear weapon has strategic significance for the country.

The debate that Japan sooner or later can opt for nuclear weapon for its defence, stems from the fact that it has large number nuclear reactors and enriched nuclear fuels which could be converted to nuclear weapons. But even if Japan opts this option, it does not have a delivery capability. It is crippled by US drafted Constitution which bans possession of “war potentials” and denies right of “belligerency of the state”. The government interprets the Constitution of allowing maintaining defense capabilities but only those that does not go beyond minimum self defence limit. Japan also admits that procuring WMDs and those characterized, as offensive weapons would exceed the minimum self-defense limit. Japan’s defense whitepaper also admits to the fact that its defense force is “not allowed to possess Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), long range, strategic bombers, or attack aircraft carrier”. Thus Japan does not have a declared long-range missiles capability and had not gone for acquiring them from any other countries. Japan’s defence whitepaper admits of having only Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) and Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3), surface-to-air short to medium range missile that can track and hit incoming targets. PAC-3 has a range of about 12.4 miles while SM-3 has range of about 60 miles.

There are various signs on which it could be argued that Japan could go nuclear or not. First whether Japan would pursue to acquire long and short range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. In the recent pasts the countries which acquired nuclear capability - India, Pakistan, and North Korea, or Iran which is considered to have this ambition, had gone through these exercises. But Japan does not belong to this category of nation and does not seem entering into this race. It may be argued that it may buy these missiles from its ally, the US. But the US is unlikely to strengthen Japanese defence by long-range missiles or nuclear weapon because it is geographically as closer to the US as North Korea and if in the future Japan-US Security alliance is dissolved the US might perceive a security challenge. The US-Japan Security Treaty has a provision that either party can terminate the treaty with one year prior notice. There had been growing demands by Japanese pacifists groups to terminate this treaty. The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), the main opposition party, which has come very close to wrest power from the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), is in favour of a Security alliance with the US without permanent bases on Japan’s territory. In case the DPJ manages to wrest power from the LDP, there would be certain pressure from its electorate to renegotiate the present treaty. Thus the US would neither wish nor encourage Japan to acquire nuclear weapon and long range missiles to avoid any future concern to its security.

Second Japan has adopted a three non-nuclear principle of “not to produce, possess or introduce nuclear weapon on its territory” and had been advocating for denuclearisation and elimination of WMDs from the world. Based on its commitment to promoting international disarmament and non-proliferation, it has been asking more diplomatic weightage in the UN bodies including the UN Security Council. In the event of Japan going nuclear it would have lost much of its legitimacy in campaigning for international disarmament.
The strong resistance against nuclearisation in Japan comes from within, its nuclear allergic people and pacifist group who keep reiterating their pledge of not letting go Japan nuclear each year during Hiroshima and Nagasaki days when the entire nation commemorate anniversary of the atomic bombing. We should not ignore that Japan’s social constructivism has been an important factor in influencing affairs of the state by mobilizing citizens for an anti-nuclear policy.
Finally, the most important factor which has held Japan’s nuclear ambition on check is that it falls under the category of nations that have small geographical area and cannot develop “second strike capacity”. It is widely agreed that the countries which cannot have second strike capacity; nuclear weapon would have no “strategic significance” for them.

Then Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone Yasuhiro who was considered hawkish because of his effort to unshackle pacifist Japan strengthened Japan’s defence by breaking 1% GDP cap on defence spending. However he did not argue for having nuclear weapon. On the contrary, he only favoured three non-nuclear principles. In his book “Japan, a State Strategy for the Twenty First Century” published in 2003, he argues: “In terms of geopolitics, Japan a long chain of island does not have a second strike capacity. It is widely acknowledged that without a second strike capacity the possession of nuclear weapons has no strategic significance.” He further argues that “…the nuclear superpowers continued to throw massive amount of money at increasing their nuclear capacity until eventually they reached the stage where building anti-ballistic missiles. It would be imprudent for Japan to follow this path… I believe that Japan must act as a middle ranking state pursuing an independent, Japanese strategic plan adhering to the three non-nuclear principles”.

The argument by the hawkish Prime Minister favouring non-nuclearization for the country demonstrates the strategic thinking of the country. Even though his pronouncement came in recent past, or much before North Korea conducted nuclear tests, the reality remains the same. It geographical area which has checked its ambition cannot be stretched; it will remain the same.

For Japan, the viable option to secure itself from a nuclear attack is further improving anti-ballistic missile defence and to remain within the US nuclear umbrella. The ongoing realignment of the US forces in the name of easing the burden of Okinawa to different parts of Japanese archipelago can prove a blessing in disguise for Japanese in the wake of North Korean nuclear threat. To secure its forces that are now being realigned to different place in Japan, which was earlier concentrated in Okinawa, the US would have to provide security cover to its forces, besides guarantying security to Japan.