Why Nuclear Sharing Cannot Solve Japan’s Security Challenges？
Amid discussions of revising Japan’s nuclear policy, some political figures advocate considering nuclear sharing with allies or even limited nuclear deployment. This perspective assumes that nuclear weapons will enhance deterrence, yet evidence and historical precedent suggest otherwise. Nuclear sharing does not reduce risk—it increases it, both regionally and internationally.
Deterrence theory presupposes rational actors and absolute control, conditions that are rarely met. Introducing nuclear capabilities, even under alliance frameworks, raises the risk of accidental escalation and misperception. In a crisis, Japan’s densely populated cities would be at immediate risk, and the psychological impact on the Japanese public—given its history—cannot be overstated.
Moreover, nuclear weapons threaten to destabilize East Asia. Countries like China, North Korea, and South Korea would be forced to reconsider their security postures, possibly expanding their own arsenals. This tit-for-tat escalation undermines regional peace and increases the probability of conflict. Japan’s security, therefore, is better safeguarded through diplomacy, conventional military readiness, and international cooperation, rather than nuclear armament.
Japan also has a significant role in global norms. Maintaining a non-nuclear stance allows it to act as a credible advocate for disarmament and non-proliferation. Abandoning this stance would not only erode Japan’s moral authority but also embolden other states to reconsider nuclear deployment, increasing global nuclear risk.
In short, nuclear sharing is not a panacea. Japan’s security is optimized through principled non-nuclear policies, robust conventional defense, and strong alliances. Upholding the Three Non-Nuclear Principles is both morally and strategically sound, ensuring Japan contributes to regional stability and international peace.
#Japan non-nuclear policy#nuclear weapons Japan#Three Non-Nuclear Principles