Japan reconsiders nuclear deterrent taboo

Hiroshima survivors issue warning as debate over hosting weapons restarts in face of regional threats

FOR Shigeaki Mori, Japan’s nuclear debate is personal. He was eight years old when the US bombed Hiroshima on Aug 6, 1945. The blast’s epicentre was less than two miles from his home.

“I thought the Earth itself had exploded,” he said. “It was only by a miracle that I was not injured. The explosion blew me into a stream, and then I was in the cloud of debris. It was so black that I couldn’t see my hands when I held them up in front of my face.”

He sustained cuts and bruises, but survived. Not all his family and friends were as lucky.

As many as 125,000 people died in the attack on Hiroshima, many from radiation-related diseases over the following years. An estimated 80,000 people died from a second atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki three days later.

Since then, even talking about hosting nuclear weapons in Japan – with the small exception of the US bases in Okinawa – has been deeply taboo, let alone the country acquiring their own.

But for the first time in nearly 80 years, that is changing. Amid the growing threat posed by a belligerent China, an increasingly unpredictable North Korea, and now Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and accompanying nuclear threats, senior political figures including Shinzo Abe, the former prime minister, are saying it is time to discuss having a nuclear deterrent. For Mr Mori, nothing could be a bigger mistake. “They cannot do this,” he said as he fought back tears.

“Mr Abe and the others never saw Hiroshima on that day. They never saw the dead across the city. If they had experienced what I went through, then they would not even dream of this. For me, it is very frightening that they are even saying these things.”

Yet like it or not, the conversation is happening. Mr Abe, the longest-serving prime minister in Japanese history, and still a powerful force in politics, started the debate last month by saying that Japan “should not treat as a taboo discussions on the reality of how the world is kept safe”. He said it was time to consider a nuclear-sharing pact with the US, similar to the agreements that non-nuclear members of Nato already have.

Such an arrangement would require nuclear weapons to be stationed in Japan, a breach of the nation’s three nonnuclear principles: not possessing, not deploying and not permitting nuclear weapons on Japanese soil.

His comments were quickly dismissed by Fumio Kishida, the current prime minister, who represents a constituency in Hiroshima. But some on the conservative wing of Japanese politics have since expressed support for the idea of at least talking about nuclear weapons.

“If we are to protect our people and our country, then we must not shy away from any debate whatsoever,” said Tatsuo Fukuda, chair of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party’s general council.

Sanae Takaichi, the party’s equally hawkish policy chief, added: “Discussion over whether to make an exception when the safety of the people is in peril should not be suppressed.”

Adding to the urgency of the debate is the regional situation. North Korea has shown signs of restarting its nuclear programme, while China, another nuclear power, has made its intention to annex Taiwan increasingly clear. Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine and its hints that it could use its nuclear weapons have only aggravated fears that Japan is falling behind.

Public opinion polls consistently indicate that more than 80 per cent of Japanese are opposed to nuclear weapons. But that could now shift.

“I sense a sea-change in public opinion in Japan,” said Yoichi Shimada, a professor of international relations at Fukui Prefectural University. “Mr Putin has made it clear that he is ready and willing to use nuclear weapons against a nonnuclear state that cannot defend itself. That has sent shock waves through Japanese politicians and people.”