4 ms·

There is a geopolitical component to that as well. The geopolitical landscape, including the rise of China and the weakening of the US, as well as the uncertain

There is a geopolitical component to that as well. The geopolitical landscape, including the rise of China and the weakening of the US, as well as the uncertain peace in Ukraine, may lead to an increase in the proliferation of nuclear weapons. This is because the situation in Ukraine demonstrates that even if a country is able to win on the battlefield, they may still be forced to make concessions when facing a nuclear-armed adversary. As a result, it is reasonable for countries like Japan to consider investing in nuclear energy as a potential means of securing their own nuclear weapons in the future, should the need arise. It's much easier to "pivot" into weapons than to start everything from zero.

eloff 4y ago
Japan is already in this position. I don’t think the change is about weapons.
totetsu 4y ago
Japan.. having nuclear weapons.. that's not a pivot.
chrisweekly 4y ago
I think you make valid points. I'm curious about "peace in Ukraine", given Zalinskyy's speech before US Congress just last night. I'm not an expert but it seems to me there's still a shooting war in progress in Ukraine. What am I missing?
- londons_explore 4y ago
  uncertain peace... I think it's clear this will be a simmering low-intensity war for many years to come.
  - twelve40 4y ago
    I thought so too until recently, but they are raising the stakes with Patriot missiles and "need to win" rhetoric, so there is a certain chance it will keep escalating.
    - jeromegv 4y ago
      The "need to win" rhetoric... its an odd way of looking at it. Ukraine territory is invaded. What do you expect them to do.. just surrender? Of course they need to win. It's their home, their land, there is no reason whatsoever why it should become Russian territory.
      - twelve40 4y ago
        no, i don't expect them to surrender or any of what you mentioned. The US is continuously escalating by now supplying Patriot missiles - just the most recent in a sequence of more and more destructive weapons - and drumming up the "need to win" rhetoric. So, back to the point, it might not just be a "long-simmering", this one.
        sofixa 4y ago
        > The US is continuously escalating by now supplying Patriot missiles - just the most recent in a sequence of more and more destructive weapons An anti-air system is not really a destructive weapon, it's for self-defence. And saying the US is escalating is really weird considering Russia is the one invading and escalating with brutal attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure.
        londons_explore 4y ago
        The whole US war machine is called the "Department of Defence". And they have defended halfway around the world in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. But obviously that isn't destruction, it's just defence. /s
        sofixa 4y ago
        Are you claiming that Ukraine aren't defending themselves? Or that an anti-air system, one that shoots down planes or missiles around a limited range (over your own territory), isn't defensive?
  - m4rtink 4y ago
    I don't think this is really suistainable long term for Russia, with all the sanctions, international isolation, let alone all the people the front consumes even when relatively static. Not to mention the already disastrous demograhic curve in Russia before this all started.
- poszlem 4y ago
  Ukraine's goal is to regain control of territory currently occupied by Russia, including Crimea, and potentially see Russia break up into smaller countries. Meanwhile, the United States aims to weaken Russia as a potential threat to NATO countries, but not to the point of its collapse, as they prefer to avoid having Russia become dominated by China. While some NATO countries, particularly those in Eastern Europe and the UK, may support Ukraine in its efforts, others would have been quite content with Russia taking over much of Ukraine and ending the conflict in March 2022. There are powerful forces at play that are attempting to pressure Ukraine into accepting a compromised peace out of fear of a nuclear conflict with Russia. There are concerns that the support provided by the United States may not be sustained in the long term. As a result, Ukraine has considered adopting a more self-reliant approach to defense, similar to that of Israel, which is known for being proactive in its self-defense efforts. Those same ideas are now circulating in much of Eastern Europe, and I suspect in many other middle size countries. The message is clear as day, if you want to be safe, you too have to have nuclear weapons.
fyfirhffuug 4y ago
Energy independence is rapidly being realized for it's value I agree but I don't think it has much to do with a weakening USA. I'd argue it's more to do with a shift in national strategic considerations around the globe towards a model that acknowledges energy independence as a component of maintaining sovereignty. If anything the situation in Ukraine shows that with even limited American material support a small nation can make a go of defending itself from a nuclear armed adversary as long as that adversary isn't part of NATO. The Russians were originally saying they'd be done by Christmas.
- poszlem 4y ago
  The shift towards energy independence can be seen as a response to the crumbling global order, particularly in the context of America's role in enforcing this order after World War II. The global order that emerged after World War II was largely shaped by the United States and its allies, who established institutions and frameworks that facilitated globalization and economic interdependence. As a result, many countries became reliant on the global supply chain and the free flow of goods and services. The current situation can be attributed in part to the damage done to the United States' reputation as a security guarantor due to the failure to deter Russia from attacking Ukraine and the negative outcome of the Afghanistan disastrous withdrawal. From my personal experience and through my connections with people in Eastern Europe, I have noticed a shift in the perception of the United States and NATO as reliable sources of security. While there was previously a belief that these countries could always be relied upon for protection, there is now a sense of uncertainty and concern following the failure to deter Russia and the refusal to provide offensive weapons. This has led to a greater focus on acquiring their own weapons for self-defense (including ! talks about acquiring nuclear weapons). I very much doubt things are much different in Japan.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Not sure I agree. Many countries were already on the path to using more and more oil. And many countries simply don't have coal resources, see Switzerland needing coal imports from Nazi Germany. So in energy terms I think the use of oil naturally leads to globalization as people had few other options. Coal is more widely distributed and would likely have seen some more use, but oil and gas were gone increase in use WW2 or not.
panick21_ 4y ago
Civilian nuclear energy has little to do with nuclear weapons. If the goal was nuclear weapons, you would do it very differently. This is not about nuclear weapons.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  It is all about creating the industrial base with people going through university specializing in it. In 2017 this angle was up in the news in the UK. Take the responses as you like. > The government is using the “extremely expensive” Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to cross-subsidise Britain’s nuclear weapon arsenal, according to senior scientists. > In evidence submitted to the influential public accounts committee (PAC), which is currently investigating the nuclear plant deal, scientists from Sussex University state that the costs of the Trident programme [1] could be “unsupportable” without “an effective subsidy from electricity consumers to military nuclear infrastructure”. > [...] > This week, the Green MP Caroline Lucas asked the government about the Ministry of Defence and the business department discussing the “relevance of UK civil nuclear industry skills and supply chains to the maintaining of UK nuclear submarine and wider nuclear weapons capabilities”. > Harriett Baldwin, the defence procurement minister, answered that “it is fully understood that civil and defence sectors must work together to make sure resource is prioritised appropriately for the protection and prosperity of the United Kingdom”. > [...] > At the PAC hearing, the Labour MP Meg Hillier asked whether “Hinkley is a great opportunity to maintain our nuclear skills base”. > Lovegrove answered: “We are completing the build of the nuclear submarines which carry conventional weaponry. So somehow there is very definitely an opportunity here for the nation to grasp in terms of building up its nuclear skills. I don’t think that’s going to happen by accident. It is going to require concerted government action to make that happen.” https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/12/electricity-consumers-to-fund-nuclear-weapons-through-hinkley-point-c https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/12/electricity-... > Andrew Stirling believes that there was a crucial, largely unspoken, reason for the government’s rediscovered passion for nuclear: without a civil nuclear industry, a nation cannot sustain military nuclear capabilities. In other words, no new nuclear power plants would spell the end of Trident. “The only countries in the world that are currently looking at large-scale civil power newbuild programmes are countries that have nuclear submarines, or have an expressed aim of acquiring them,” Stirling told me. > Building nuclear submarines is a ferociously complicated business. It requires the kind of institutional memory and technical expertise that can easily disappear without practice. This, in theory, is where the civil nuclear industry comes in. If new nuclear power plants are being built, then the skills and capacity required by the military will be maintained. “It looks to be the case that the government is knowingly engineering an environment in which electricity consumers cross-subsidise this branch of military security,” Stirling told me. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c-dreadful-deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_(UK_nuclear_programme) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_(UK_nuclear_programme)
wbl 4y ago
Japan already has several tones of plutonium sitting around as well as a solid fuel rocket system that can put things in orbit.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Japan's breeder program can be thought of as providing a rationale for accumulating thousands of weapons worth of reactor-grade plutonium (and yes, reactor grade Pu can be used in weapons, with some effort.)
  - peterfirefly 4y ago
    Given its neighbours, I'd say that is an extraordinarily happy coincidence...
- m4rtink 4y ago
  And the solid fuel space launch rocket is even consistently advertised as highly automated & requiring minimal personnel to launch. Wink wink, nudge nudge. ~_^
credit_guy 4y ago
I once heard former Defense Secretary Robert Gates saying that Japan can have nukes in a matter of weeks if they want.

eloff 4y ago

Japan is already in this position. I don’t think the change is about weapons.

totetsu 4y ago

Japan.. having nuclear weapons.. that's not a pivot.

chrisweekly 4y ago

I think you make valid points. I'm curious about "peace in Ukraine", given Zalinskyy's speech before US Congress just last night. I'm not an expert but it seems to me there's still a shooting war in progress in Ukraine. What am I missing?

londons_explore 4y ago
uncertain peace... I think it's clear this will be a simmering low-intensity war for many years to come.
- twelve40 4y ago
  I thought so too until recently, but they are raising the stakes with Patriot missiles and "need to win" rhetoric, so there is a certain chance it will keep escalating.
  - jeromegv 4y ago
    The "need to win" rhetoric... its an odd way of looking at it. Ukraine territory is invaded. What do you expect them to do.. just surrender? Of course they need to win. It's their home, their land, there is no reason whatsoever why it should become Russian territory.
    - twelve40 4y ago
      no, i don't expect them to surrender or any of what you mentioned. The US is continuously escalating by now supplying Patriot missiles - just the most recent in a sequence of more and more destructive weapons - and drumming up the "need to win" rhetoric. So, back to the point, it might not just be a "long-simmering", this one.
      - sofixa 4y ago
        > The US is continuously escalating by now supplying Patriot missiles - just the most recent in a sequence of more and more destructive weapons An anti-air system is not really a destructive weapon, it's for self-defence. And saying the US is escalating is really weird considering Russia is the one invading and escalating with brutal attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure.
        londons_explore 4y ago
        The whole US war machine is called the "Department of Defence". And they have defended halfway around the world in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. But obviously that isn't destruction, it's just defence. /s
        sofixa 4y ago
        Are you claiming that Ukraine aren't defending themselves? Or that an anti-air system, one that shoots down planes or missiles around a limited range (over your own territory), isn't defensive?
- m4rtink 4y ago
  I don't think this is really suistainable long term for Russia, with all the sanctions, international isolation, let alone all the people the front consumes even when relatively static. Not to mention the already disastrous demograhic curve in Russia before this all started.
poszlem 4y ago
Ukraine's goal is to regain control of territory currently occupied by Russia, including Crimea, and potentially see Russia break up into smaller countries. Meanwhile, the United States aims to weaken Russia as a potential threat to NATO countries, but not to the point of its collapse, as they prefer to avoid having Russia become dominated by China. While some NATO countries, particularly those in Eastern Europe and the UK, may support Ukraine in its efforts, others would have been quite content with Russia taking over much of Ukraine and ending the conflict in March 2022. There are powerful forces at play that are attempting to pressure Ukraine into accepting a compromised peace out of fear of a nuclear conflict with Russia. There are concerns that the support provided by the United States may not be sustained in the long term. As a result, Ukraine has considered adopting a more self-reliant approach to defense, similar to that of Israel, which is known for being proactive in its self-defense efforts. Those same ideas are now circulating in much of Eastern Europe, and I suspect in many other middle size countries. The message is clear as day, if you want to be safe, you too have to have nuclear weapons.

fyfirhffuug 4y ago

Energy independence is rapidly being realized for it's value I agree but I don't think it has much to do with a weakening USA. I'd argue it's more to do with a shift in national strategic considerations around the globe towards a model that acknowledges energy independence as a component of maintaining sovereignty. If anything the situation in Ukraine shows that with even limited American material support a small nation can make a go of defending itself from a nuclear armed adversary as long as that adversary isn't part of NATO. The Russians were originally saying they'd be done by Christmas.

poszlem 4y ago
The shift towards energy independence can be seen as a response to the crumbling global order, particularly in the context of America's role in enforcing this order after World War II. The global order that emerged after World War II was largely shaped by the United States and its allies, who established institutions and frameworks that facilitated globalization and economic interdependence. As a result, many countries became reliant on the global supply chain and the free flow of goods and services. The current situation can be attributed in part to the damage done to the United States' reputation as a security guarantor due to the failure to deter Russia from attacking Ukraine and the negative outcome of the Afghanistan disastrous withdrawal. From my personal experience and through my connections with people in Eastern Europe, I have noticed a shift in the perception of the United States and NATO as reliable sources of security. While there was previously a belief that these countries could always be relied upon for protection, there is now a sense of uncertainty and concern following the failure to deter Russia and the refusal to provide offensive weapons. This has led to a greater focus on acquiring their own weapons for self-defense (including ! talks about acquiring nuclear weapons). I very much doubt things are much different in Japan.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Not sure I agree. Many countries were already on the path to using more and more oil. And many countries simply don't have coal resources, see Switzerland needing coal imports from Nazi Germany. So in energy terms I think the use of oil naturally leads to globalization as people had few other options. Coal is more widely distributed and would likely have seen some more use, but oil and gas were gone increase in use WW2 or not.

panick21_ 4y ago

Civilian nuclear energy has little to do with nuclear weapons. If the goal was nuclear weapons, you would do it very differently. This is not about nuclear weapons.

Gwypaas 4y ago
It is all about creating the industrial base with people going through university specializing in it. In 2017 this angle was up in the news in the UK. Take the responses as you like. > The government is using the “extremely expensive” Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to cross-subsidise Britain’s nuclear weapon arsenal, according to senior scientists. > In evidence submitted to the influential public accounts committee (PAC), which is currently investigating the nuclear plant deal, scientists from Sussex University state that the costs of the Trident programme [1] could be “unsupportable” without “an effective subsidy from electricity consumers to military nuclear infrastructure”. > [...] > This week, the Green MP Caroline Lucas asked the government about the Ministry of Defence and the business department discussing the “relevance of UK civil nuclear industry skills and supply chains to the maintaining of UK nuclear submarine and wider nuclear weapons capabilities”. > Harriett Baldwin, the defence procurement minister, answered that “it is fully understood that civil and defence sectors must work together to make sure resource is prioritised appropriately for the protection and prosperity of the United Kingdom”. > [...] > At the PAC hearing, the Labour MP Meg Hillier asked whether “Hinkley is a great opportunity to maintain our nuclear skills base”. > Lovegrove answered: “We are completing the build of the nuclear submarines which carry conventional weaponry. So somehow there is very definitely an opportunity here for the nation to grasp in terms of building up its nuclear skills. I don’t think that’s going to happen by accident. It is going to require concerted government action to make that happen.” https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/12/electricity-consumers-to-fund-nuclear-weapons-through-hinkley-point-c https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/12/electricity-... > Andrew Stirling believes that there was a crucial, largely unspoken, reason for the government’s rediscovered passion for nuclear: without a civil nuclear industry, a nation cannot sustain military nuclear capabilities. In other words, no new nuclear power plants would spell the end of Trident. “The only countries in the world that are currently looking at large-scale civil power newbuild programmes are countries that have nuclear submarines, or have an expressed aim of acquiring them,” Stirling told me. > Building nuclear submarines is a ferociously complicated business. It requires the kind of institutional memory and technical expertise that can easily disappear without practice. This, in theory, is where the civil nuclear industry comes in. If new nuclear power plants are being built, then the skills and capacity required by the military will be maintained. “It looks to be the case that the government is knowingly engineering an environment in which electricity consumers cross-subsidise this branch of military security,” Stirling told me. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c-dreadful-deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_(UK_nuclear_programme) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_(UK_nuclear_programme)

wbl 4y ago

Japan already has several tones of plutonium sitting around as well as a solid fuel rocket system that can put things in orbit.

pfdietz 4y ago
Japan's breeder program can be thought of as providing a rationale for accumulating thousands of weapons worth of reactor-grade plutonium (and yes, reactor grade Pu can be used in weapons, with some effort.)
- peterfirefly 4y ago
  Given its neighbours, I'd say that is an extraordinarily happy coincidence...
m4rtink 4y ago
And the solid fuel space launch rocket is even consistently advertised as highly automated & requiring minimal personnel to launch. Wink wink, nudge nudge. ~_^

credit_guy 4y ago

I once heard former Defense Secretary Robert Gates saying that Japan can have nukes in a matter of weeks if they want.