No not for the usual reasons such as Japan’s overly strict gun laws. But when I read this article on a Cold War era treaty Japan had that allowed nuclear armed United State’s naval units to port the following exert struck me:
The secret pact is controversial because after World War II and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan adopted the three “non-nuclear principles” – not making or possessing nuclear weapons, nor allowing them on to its soil.
Now I’m the first person to say nuclear weapon proliferation is a bad idea (Although we in the United States have no right to tell other countries they can’t build or own them). The things are vicious but if everybody else has them you really need to as well less you get nuked and not have a method of retaliation (Mutually assured destruction is the only reason I believe the Cold War stayed cold).
But Japan’s mentality mirrors that of some anti-gun and anti-self defense advocates. The idea is to blame the devices not those who are wielding it. For instance some people who are mugged at gun point becomes advocates for banning firearms since they incorrectly believe that will disarm the criminals and make streets safer. Japan seemed to develop the same attitude towards nuclear weapons. Since they got nuked they decided that ensuring there are no nukes in their country will prevent them from getting nuked again.
I just found that interesting since I’d imagine the only country to be nuked in a time of war would like a means of ensuring it doesn’t happen again (Once again mutually assured destruction). But of course this piece was also interesting:
The secret deal was sealed in the 1960s between US and Japanese diplomats, who agreed that the transit of nuclear arms through ports did not constitute the introduction of weapons into Japan, and so did not require prior consultation on the US side.
Much like anti-gunners are willing to call the police to be a proxy of violence Japan seemed just fine with our nuclear capable ships being in their waters. If Japan was so dead set against nukes you would think they would be angry about anybody having them. But it’s easier to take the moral high road when you can decry violence while still having somebody defend you if somebody brings violence upon you.