A Nuclear Japan?

Charles Krauthammer has a column today at the Washington Post that argues we should "let" Japan acquire nuclear weapons. Frankly, I don't think it is up to us to decide. But it is instructive to see his reasoning.

The first stop on Condoleezza Rice's post-detonation, nuclear reassurance tour was Tokyo. There she dutifully unfurled the American nuclear umbrella, pledging in person that the United States would meet any North Korean attack on Japan with massive American retaliation, nuclear if necessary.

An important message, to be sure, for the short run, lest Kim Jong Il imbibe a little too much cognac and be teased by one of his "pleasure squad" lovelies into launching a missile or two into Japan.

But Rice's declaration had another and obvious longer-run intent: to quell any thought Japan might have of going nuclear to counter and deter North Korea's bomb.

The Japanese understood this purpose well. Thus, at a joint news conference with Rice, Foreign Minister Taro Aso offered the boilerplate denial of even thinking of going nuclear: "The government of Japan has no position at all to consider going nuclear."

The impeccably polite Japanese were not about to contradict the secretary of state in her presence. Nonetheless, the very same Aso had earlier the very same day told a parliamentary committee that Japan should begin debating the issue: "The reality is that it is only Japan that has not discussed possessing nuclear weapons, and all other countries have been discussing it."

Just three days earlier, another high-ranking member of the ruling party had transgressed the same taboo and called for open debate about Japan's acquiring nuclear weapons.

The American reaction to such talk is knee-jerk opposition. Like those imperial Japanese soldiers discovered holed up on some godforsaken Pacific island decades after World War II, we continue to act as if we, too, never received news of the Japanese surrender. We applaud the Japanese for continuing their adherence to the MacArthur constitution that forever denies Japan the status of Great Power replete with commensurate military force.

His argument is mostly that Japan is a stable democracy and can be trusted with such weapons. He's right in one sense. India and Pakistan tested their nuclear weapons and the Clinton administration did nothing. The time to bar the door is long past now on those states. North Korea continued its weapons program while the Clinton administration patted itself on the back about how they had stopped the program. So why should we stop a strong ally or even discourage them?

The Chinese appear to have given North Korea, and especially Kim Jong Il himself, a rather pointed warning that another test would be a bad thing. So in one sense, the threat of a nuclear arms race has made China realize that they were playing with fire by allowing their propped up little lunatic to act freely. But if Japan does go the nuclear route, will China stop warning Kim and encourage him instead? Or will just the threat of it be enough to make them act a bit more responsibly?

Frankly, I do not want to see any more countries join this little club, there are too many members already.. On the other hand, if China and Russia see that other democracies are willing to run this kind of race, maybe they will both awaken to the fact that it is in the world's best interest to keep nations run by lunatics out of the club. If the world stands together we can turn back the nuclear ambitions of Iran. Possibly we can even turn back the clock on the North Korean program.