The third atomic bomb was also dropped on Japan... Isn't that kind of madness certainly coming from across the Sea of Japan?
June 02, 2022
The following is from Masayuki Takayama's column in the latter part of today's issue of Shukan Shincho.
This article also proves that he is the one and only journalist in the postwar world.
It is a must-read not only for the Japanese but also for people worldwide.
The third atomic bomb was also dropped on Japan.
Some time ago, Beatrice Finn, the head of an NGO that won the Nobel Peace Prize for calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons, visited Japan.
One would think that she would be sympathetic to Japan, the only country to have experienced atomic bombings, given the purpose of the Peace Prize, but the woman was highly stinging.
Japan ignored her recommended Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Maybe she didn't like that.
However, Japan cannot have nuclear weapons or a proper army because of the MacArthur Constitution.
Japan needs the U.S. nuclear umbrella to protect itself, but if it joins the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, it will have to get out of the nuclear umbrella as well.
Another reason for not ratifying it is the "right of the only country to have been bombed."
Japan has the right to have nuclear weapons to protect itself from the threat of atomic weapons before any other country.
Japan still reserves the right to retaliate with two nuclear bombs against the U.S., which dropped the inhumane atomic bombs.
Of the 200,000 people killed by Truman's atomic bombs, 80% were women and children, non-combatants under international law.
Moreover, the U.S. conducted "plutonium-type human experimentation" (U.S. Department of Energy) in Nagasaki.
The U.S. has not yet apologized for this barbaric act.
The Japanese vowed to take revenge at that time.
There is no reason for the Japanese to abandon that vow.
Finn didn't understand the situation and declared angrily that she would not tolerate sulkiness like "lose my face."
Her words were terrible.
She said, "In addition to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan will be hit a third time."
If she were not so racist, she would not be killing time in Japan but would be flying to Moscow right now to tell Putin, who has been insinuating the use of nuclear weapons, how she feels.
She is a very underhanded woman, but what she said, "A third atomic bomb will hit Japan," is not an unreasonable thing to say.
The basis for this is actually the "UN Enemy State Clause" in the UN Charter.
It refers to Japan, Germany, Hungary, Finland, and others who fought against the Allied Powers in the last war.
To see how serious this history is, look at Article 53 of the Charter, which deals with armed sanctions.
For example, there is Russia, which is currently invading Ukraine.
This country invaded Japan after Japan'sJapan's surrender and exploited the full extent of rape, plunder, and murder, just as they are now in Ukraine.
In the end, they took away Japanese territory from South Sakhalin to the Four Northern Islands.
Russia also had no hesitation in firing at citizens who refused to be communized in Eastern Europe and was happy to run them over with tanks.
Article 53 of the Charter allows "all nations to cooperate in imposing military sanctions" on such bad countries but requires the approval of the Security Council to implement them.
That was also supposed to be the case this time, but it did not pass because Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council, used its veto.
However, Article 53 has a second part, which says that if the rogue state is a former enemy state like Japan or Germany, countries that feel threatened may "impose military sanctions without the approval of the Security Council."
Former enemy countries are countries that are born rogue, like Russia, and they are allowed to lynch them at will if they misbehave.
For example, let's say Japan is equipped with missiles for attacking enemy bases.
If China or North Korea arbitrarily decides that this is a sign of the revival of Japanese imperialism, they can drop nuclear weapons on Japan.
It is deemed a legitimate act and is recognized by the UN Charter.
No, no. The UN Enemy State Clause was abolished 30 years ago at the UN General Assembly, and some say it is now dead.
However, the Security Council has yet to decide to scrap the bill.
On the contrary, China's Yang Jiechi has even shown a willingness to use The UN Enemy State Clause in connection with the Senkakus, saying, "You are a former enemy of China, and you want to take China's territory."
The same can be said for North Korea.
The UN Enemy State Clause gives such rogue states the "blade of justice."
Yet in Japan, the prime minister denies any nuclear retaliation, saying, "We have three non-nuclear principles, so we will not discuss nuclear weapons."
At the same time, the opposition parties foolishly argue that a hostile base attack would be unwise.
If Japan has no intention of retaliating even after a third nuclear strike, neither China nor the North will hesitate.
Isn't that kind of madness certainly coming from across the Sea of Japan?
2024/8/24 in Kojima, Okayama
