Possibility of Nuclear Weapons on the Island?
 

Japan to Come Clean on Secret Nuke Deals With U.S. - Asia | Travel | Map - FOXNews.com

Japan to Come Clean on Secret Nuke Deals With U.S.

"The 1969 document, signed by Sato and President Richard Nixon, showed they agreed that U.S.-occupied Okinawa would be returned to Japan, but the U.S. would retain the right to have nuclear weapons on the island if the necessity arose. The agreements on Okinawa were a key part of the secret pacts that also covered U.S. warships entering ports throughout Japan."

"Japanese today are more shocked by the cover-up than by the deed itself, but they remain attached to the non-nuclear principle."


Think things could change?

fox news can suck it.
officially renaming it foxPROPAGANDA.

If you haven't got anything to contribute to on the topic, then you are off topic.

Guess you think the Associated Press "can suck it" too.
Which is fine, but you would still be off topic.

Fox News haters remind me of weak minded Nazis burning books.

He's trying to make a point, (If that's where you got it from) That it is not somthing to panic over based on the source (maybe)

So link to AP instead. Nobody of much consequence respects foxlies anywhere.

besides that, the u.s. has had nukes positioned all over the world, including the seas around Japan (they're called nuclear subs) so if they're on the mainland, woopdie doo.
is this really news to anyone?
several countries around the world host nukes in remote locations

nice cat with a puzzle xy! (I am going off topic again :O ... i am so evil :) mwahahahahaaaaaa)

remote locations
 

SLBMs aren't the same as ICBMs deployed on mainland. SLBMs are part of heavy underwater carrier (submarine) which belongs to certain country of so-called Nuclear Club
When you place nuclear weapon on a territory of some foreign country, you automatically convert this territory into a target for possible nuclear counter-attack. Plain and simple. I don't think Japan would be happy to become a primary target for Russian/Chinese/North Korean ICBMs armed by nuclear and thermo-nuclear warheads just for the sake of American interests.

I am in Japan now, and this is the first I am hearing of this.

I am not sure what you mean by "Do you think things could change?"

@termogard
how do you think it will become a target?
give me one instance where a country has been attacked by another gov't whilst that country has held nuclear weapons... the u.s. has attacked thousands of tiny islands in the pacific and inherently killed off small tribes all over the place. did they have nukes? no - has the u.s. ever attacked.. say, russia whilst they have harbored nuclear arsenal?

nukes are simply a deferment strategists tool. they are never intended to be used. because of second strike capability a country that has nukes is ensured to be kept safe from a nuclear attack. attacking a country with second strike capabilities leads to a least desirable outcome for all players involved and will inevitably seek out peaceful tactics (softpower) as a result

and of course there are technical differences, but in the end, both icbm's and slbm's are fired from one location, strike another location delivering a nuclear payload and annihilate lots and lots of lives.

targets
 

Yes, that's why it will be possible target for nuclear counter-attack". Only in case of war, of course.
I bet you know about concepts of "First strike" and "Second strike" and "Massive retaliation".

According to *Second strike* and *Massive retaliation* concepts, all targets which provided launches of ICBMs during the operation *First strike* must be attacked in response.

ahh i see what you're saying now... my only response would be to say that if nukes were ever launched by the u.s. or at the u.s., japan would be destroyed anyway regardless if they have nukes or not located on their land. there are so many nukes out there that russia has them aimed at pop. 400 towns in the midwest of the u.s. because there are radio broadcast stations there. there's no way with that level of arsenol that japan wouldn't be targeted when the u.s. hold such close ties there.

I'm not sure I follow; the fact that you don't know it and are in Japan? Mutually exclusive in my mind. A couple of key words in the search engine will bring it right up. I'm sure its not hitting the headlines every day since late December.

http://www.asahi.com/Herald-asahi/TKY200912240069.html
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national...23TDY01301.htm

But FoxNews does bring in the important front page news on the front page that other news sources put hide in the back pages or don't post at all. You should start getting your news from FoxNews all the time.


What don't you understand? Stop nit picking.
Does the board think Japan would accept Nuclear weapons on Japanese soil? There are none now; will it change now that this deed has been uncovered? With the North Korean threat... etc. A portion of the artilce was Japanese reaction to the possibility. I thought the board reaction might be of value...

In any event this is actually quite a historic find.

Willingly allow nuclear weapons? I highly doubt that. Anyone at the top who would suggest it would be committing political suicide, and taking their entire party down with them.

Even with the North Korea issue, they still can`t even get people to approve of defensive attacks off of Japanese soil. Now the defense force is only to directly defend. If there is something outside of Japanese waters attacking Japan (say, a ship or missiles being fired from another country) nothing can be done. There is a lot of push to extend the defense to something more proactive - ie. allowing a missile base outside of Japan to be attacked to defend the country. But even this cannot be pushed through with the large number of people against it.
I cannot even imagine the level of response and backlash a suggestion of allowing nuclear weapons on Japanese soil would bring.

There are two conflicting interests here. Nyororin describes the typical Japanese response from the "man (or woman) on the street." At least two to three full generations of Japanese have been raised as pacifists, with the ultimate fear being nuclear weapons. A suggestion by the political establishment to allow nuclear weapons in mainland Japan would be greeted by unanimous disgust (well, all but the black van driving nationalists, but no one takes them seriously). Even Okinawa would be bad enough.

This, however, conflicts with Japan's populous's unwillingness to defend itself at all. If America is to be tasked with defending Japan, and America says it needs nukes to do that defending... I don't know. Right now the Japanese have their cake and are eating it too. They can claim to be a pacifistic nation completely uninterested in military operations, even to the point of their own defense... knowing full well if the fecal matter hits the ceiling mounted rotary cooling device, the US will swoop in to defend it.

Of many things in Japan that I find hypocritical (and note, I still love it here, and it is my home, no country is immune from hypocrisy), this routinely stands out in my mind.

There is a status quo in Japan that neither side will probably rock. I would doubt, in this day of nuclear disarmament, with Obama claiming to work with Russia on the largest stockpile reduction since President Reagan's administration, that America would ask for this "secret agreement" of Nixon's (if it exists, and it may well exist), to be put into action. It would just be stupid.

Japan is already a strategic threat to the above-mentioned because of the large US military presence in the country. This presence is responsible for Taiwan still being an independent nation, and thwarts any North Korean attempts to strike South Korea.

Japan has no offensive Army, and only a limited self-defense force, which is the reason Japan allows (and pays for) the stationing of US military forces within the country. Because of this, any attack on Japan is no different than an attack against America itself, and, as America is a nuclear power, Japan, by extension, is also a nuclear power.

I am in Japan, watching the news and talking to people every day, and this has not come up once. I have talked about the possibility of moving the base in Okinawa, and this seems to be pretty persistant news here, at least right now. but nothing about Japan possibly agreeing to allow nuclear weapons on Japanese soil. You can say that is mutually exclusive, but is an alternative experience to Fox news. (Which I avoid like the plague. There is nothing "fair or balanced" about their "reporting".)

How is asking for clarification nitpicking? I think you are reading too much into my very simple question.