While North Korea tensions increase to the breaking point, Japanese Prime Minister Abe dissolved the Diet to being special elections with attention to social welfare. The new Hope Party shows a severe lack of North Korea policy and promises nothing but a vague anti-Liberal Democratic stance.
Meanwhile in the U.S., debates heat up over the use of nuclear weapons against North Korea.

Limiting Presidential Authority Means A Drop In Deterrence

In January, the Democratic Party proposed a bill prohibiting the U.S. President’s right for preemptive use of nuclear weapons without Congressional approval. Jeffrey Bader and Jonathan D. Pollack of The Brookings Institution published an article in The NY Times (12 September) advocating an amendment of the War Powers Act to “ensure that the President could not simply provide the codes to his military aide carrying the nuclear ‘football’ and launch such an attack on his own authority”.

The War Powers Act keeps the president in check by allowing only Congress to formally declare war. It has been the centre of a controversial debate with President side claiming it to be unconstitutional and ineffectiveness as it limited the power of the President (the highest authority).

Bader and Pollack’s article stated that “Legislation should provide for a small group of officials, possibly including the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the four leaders of the House and Senate, to give unanimous consent to any such pre-emptive nuclear strike”. This kind of amendment would overcome the unconstitutional aspect of the War Powers Act, they claimed.

A more serious problem surfaces, however, with responding to emergency situations. By limiting the President’s power to use nuclear weapons to select officials from Congress, will it really increase deterrence?

If anything, it will decrease deterrence, because deterrence means making the enemy state (North Korea) realize that using nuclear weapons will create greater loss than gain.

It doesn’t matter how powerful U.S. nuclear weapons may be; if Congress were going to limit the President’s authority the U.S. would lose time in making a pre-emptive strike. This would give North Korea more freedom and opportunity to play around with their weapons. It would also mean a greater chance of their attacking U.S. allies such as Japan, as they will think that the U.S. would fail to make a retaliatory nuclear strike.

In other words, passing war authority to Congress will mean a greater chance that North Korea will attack neighboring countries such as Japan. It will, instead, encourage them to use their nuclear weapons.

North Korea Fear U.S Bunker Busters Most

What then if President Trump decided to consider a preemptive nuclear strike? The liberal media claims that this will increase the chances of a nuclear war, but this is wrong.

Currently the one thing North Korea fears most is the nuclear bunker buster, also known as an earth-penetrating weapon. This is because all of North Korea’s important control centers and military facilities are underground.

In 2005, when member of the House visited North Korea, the U.S. weapons that North Korean officials showed most concern about were the nuclear bunker busters.

This prompted the U.S. to test the B-61Mod11 in Nevada in October 2005, and to publicize the photographs. This bomb can reach targets much deeper than the bunker buster, and the nuclear warhead adds to the power of the explosion. It can easily destroy any North Korean underground facility.

The U.S. decided to publicize this test – the likes of which usually remain confidential – to act as a deterrent by threatening North Korea.

Displaying Intention For Nuclear Preemptive Strike Will Slow North Korea

As many specialists have concluded, normal weapons are insufficient to totally destroy North Korean military powers, and there are risks of a potential retaliatory attack on South Korea and Japan. This accounts for the popular arguments against a preemptive strike.

With regard to the U.S. allies in Asia, there is no danger, since if North Korea faces a preemptive strike of nuclear bunker busters and ICBMs, they would have no time to counterattack. A confident display of this most effective option would keep North Korea in check.

In April, President Trump ordered Secretary of Defense James Mattis for a Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) within the year. It was the first review in 7 years, the last of which was in April 2010 during the Obama administration.

In his Prague address in 2009, Obama promised a “nuclear-free world” and ordered an NPR against President Bush’s from 2001. While admitting the importance of nuclear deterrence, Obama promoted the possibility of ordinary weapons in a bid to reduce the role played by nuclear weapons.

President Bush’s NPR was understood to support the use of weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear weapons, against enemies of the U.S. if the need arose. Trump’s NPR similarly holds a constructive view of nuclear weapons.

In other words, it is anticipated that he will strengthen the possibility of deterrence through an open display of an intention for a preemptive strike.

Trump’s military and diplomatic strategy is “peace through strength”. He plans to pressure North Korea through an undeniable display of the possibility of a preemptive strike to make them surrender without a need for war.

The media aside, the U.S. public is actually in support of Trump’s idea. In an August census, a clear majority of Americans answered “yes” to a nuclear strike against powers that threaten the U.S.

Japanese PM Abe Throws All Responsibility on the U.S.

Amidst this tension, Japan’s decision for a special election will create a void in their politics: a symbolic throwing of all responsibility upon the U.S.

The anti-nuclear energy stance, the central philosophy of the new Hope Party, would nullify all potential for Japan’s future nuclear development as a means of survival in a nuclear Asia. These recent political maneuvers in Japan only serve to encourage invasion by enemy states.

What Japan needs most is to open sound debates on the matter, like the U.S. is doing, and to not vote for parties that decide to throw all defense responsibilities on the U.S.

If the Prime Minister decides to continue relying on the U.S. for national safety, it means he has abandoned his responsibilities as the highest state authority. It is utter absurdity for the government to avoid discussion of defense policies in the current world condition.

In the 72 years since WWII, Japan has entrusted its right to life to the hands of the U.S. Entrusting Japan’s defense in the hands of the U.S. would mean diplomatic relations, and U.S. Congressional decisions will directly influence Japan.

The people of Japan must realize the gravity of this situation, and reform the state system to become a country that can protect itself.