Tag Archives: nuclear weapons

Good Signs (for the fight against Russia)

There are good signs in the news today about the world coming to terms with other countries being nuclear powers.  First, India is now able to buy supplies for its nuclear power plants on the open market.

Slashdot | India Joins Nuclear Market
figona brings news that India will be allowed to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). A waiver was approved yesterday that provided an exception to the requirements that India sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. This means India will be able to buy nuclear fuel from the world market and purchase reactors from the US, France, and Russia; something it has been unable to do since it began nuclear testing in 1974 (which inspired the creation of the NSG). 

Second, there is news that Shimon Peres (the President if Isreal) opposes strikes against Iran.   Peace with Iran is important if we are serious about responding to Russia’s invasion of Georgia.  (This follows earlier news that America and Iran have seriously toned down their rhetoric).

Real grand strategy means prioritizing.  Russia’s invasion of Georgia was a crime against peace more serious than anything since the 9/11 attacks or Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.  Weakening Russia, strengthening the New Core around Russia, and absorbing Seam states on the frontier with Russia, are thus important goals of the United States.  More important than enforcing dead-letter nuclear proliferation treaties, that would deny India and Iran nuclear power… and nuclear weapons.

Why the Future Must Be Worth Creating

Don’t blame you for Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” by Masagata, Dear Americans, http://dearamericans.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/03/02/don_t_blame_you_for_hiroshima_and_nagasaki.html, 2 March 2005.

War is a tragedy,” by Dan, Dear Americans, http://dearamericans.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/03/02/don_t_blame_you_for_hiroshima_and_nagasaki.html, 2 March 2005.

Out of the blue I came across this post

I am Japanese and identify myself as patriot and pacifist.

In my country, there is an enormous criticism for that US dropped atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, I do not agree with those who criticise your country for that matter.

The following is the reasons for that,

1) Japan was the first one who started the war. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor first. Once the war is started, the rules are maximum damage on the enemy’s side, the minimum damage on your side. The nation knew it when it started the war and the rules would continue until it wins or surrenders.

2) Japan did brutal masscre of civilians like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. During 1930’s and US-Japan war time, Japanese army occupied China and masscred enoumous number of civilians. One of the examples is Rape of Naking in 1937. Not revewing such facts, we shouldn’t blame others’ brutality. In fact, we haven’t reviewed the past brutality enough like Germans did.

However, I do not support US’s dropping atomic bombs because civilian casualties should not happen and it started the age of nuclear war.

What do you think about my opinion?

Wow. You’re not reminded of nuclear war before you go to bed every night, and certainly not so politely.

I thought for a while, and came up with this comment

War is a tragedy. I wish no one had to die in wars. Many bad things happened in the Pacific War. One friend of my grandfather died in Bataan, and another probably would have been killed in Operation Olympic. But bad things happened to Japanese people too. Many, many, many Japanese people died and disappeared in China and Russia even after the war ended.

I am glad Japan and America are friends now. I hope one day all nations will be friends, and there will be no more wars.

I want a future where cities do not get blowed up. I want a future without death marches, without hundreds of thousands of disappeared, and without war. If we need a star chamber to name the wicked, a leviathon to enforce the star chamber’s will, and a reformed system administrator to rebuild those states, fine.

The democratizations and freedoms of globalization are man’s greatest hope of avoiding war. Let’s hope it is enough.

Six Weeks From the Bomb

Nuclear ‘Breakout’: Risks and Possible Responses,” by Andrew Mack, Department of International Relations, http://rspas.anu.edu.au/ir/working%20papers/97-1.pdf, June 1997.

Just-in-time nukes,” The Acorn, http://www.paifamily.com/opinion/archives/000769.html, 24 May 2004.

Re: Tokyo Needs Nukes,” by Jonah Goldberg, The Corner, http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_02_13_corner-archive.asp#056263, 15 February 2005.

One of Japan Unbound‘s claims is that the U.S. has been pressuring Japan to build an atomic bomb. A post at the Corner implies this isn’t as far-fetched as it seems

From a well-placed military research guy:

Jonah: Japan is classified as a “Virtual Nuclear State”. They have developed a complete nuclear fuel cycle (including plutonium breeding and extraction) but have only refrained from developing nuclear weapons because of the cultural stigma involved. North Korea’s antics over the last decade have been eroding this cultural taboo at an ever-increasing rate. Serious analysts of Japan’s nuclear industry argue (including a very senior member of the National Security Council) that Japan could go nuclear within six weeks of deciding to do so.

Also, Japan has several delivery systems, including a orbital rocket that could be developed into an ICBM rather quickly.

Fear is a dangerous thing. Especially when you are a couple of hundred miles from a madman.

More on the concept of virtual nuclear weapons states (emphasis original)

States that have both the technical expertise to make nuclear weapons and large stockpiles of plutonium are sometimes called ‘virtual’ nuclear weapons states. They are able to ‘go nuclear’ far more quickly than states which would have to produce fissil material from scratch.

Acorn blog earlier chimed

Taiwan could be the first ‘virtual’ nuclear state to cross the Rubicon. The balance of conventional forces is still in Taiwan’s favour, but the Mainland is fast beefing up its strike capability, investing in both enhanced air and naval power.

Virtual nuclear states are in a powerful position. They can use their virtual status both ways, gaining diplomatic benefits from being “peaceful” while using the possibility of going nuclear as a threat.