The following is from the serial column of Masayuki Takayama, who brings the weekly Shincho released today to a successful conclusion.
This article also proves that he is the one and only journalist in the postwar world.
It is a must-read for the Japanese people and people worldwide.
The third bullet is also Japan's.
Some time ago, Beatrice Fihn, 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 suffered atomic bombings, but she was highly stinging.
Japan had rejected the Nuclear Weapons Convention, which she had recommended.
Is it because she didn't like it?
But Japan could not 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 Nuclear Weapons Convention, it will have to get out from under the U.S. nuclear umbrella.
Another reason for not ratifying the treaty is the right of the only nation to have experienced the atomic bombings.
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 yet to apologize for this barbaric act.
The Japanese people swore at that time that they would avenge the war. There is no reason for the Japanese to abandon that vow.
Finn did not understand the situation and angrily said, "I will not allow you to be unfaithful to me and ruin my face.
She said, "In addition to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan will be hit a third time."
If she had not been so racist, she would not have spent her killing time in Japan but would have immediately flown to Moscow and told her feelings to Putin, who had been insinuating the use of nuclear weapons.
She is a very makeshift woman, but her statement that "Japan will take the third bullet" is not an insane statement.
The basis is actually the "former enemy clause" in the UN Charter.
It refers to Japan, Germany, Hungary, Finland, and other countries that fought the Allies in the last World War.
To see how heavy this history is, see Article 53 of the Charter, "Armed Sanctions."
For example, Russia is currently invading Ukraine.
The country used to invade Japan after Japan surrendered and raped, plundered, and slaughtered as it does now in Ukraine.
In the end, they took Japanese territory from southern Sakhalin to the four northern islands.
Russia did not hesitate to open fire on citizens in Eastern Europe who refused to become communists and was happy to run them over with tanks and kill them.
Article 53 of the Charter stipulates that "the nations shall cooperate in imposing military sanctions" against such a wicked country, only requiring the approval of the Security Council to invoke such sanctions.
It was 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 clause that allows countries that feel threatened by a rogue state that is a former enemy, such as Japan or Germany, to "impose armed sanctions without the approval of the Security Council.
The former enemies are rogue states like Russia, which can be lynched at will if they misbehave.
For example, let us assume that Japan is equipped with enemy base attack missiles.
If China or North Korea judges this as a sign of the revival of the Japanese empire, they are allowed to rain nuclear weapons down on Japan.
Moreover, that would be judged as a legitimate act authorized by the UN Charter.
Some say, "No, no, no, the former Enemy Clause is now a dead culture, having been abolished by the UN General Assembly 30 years ago.
However, the Security Council has not yet decided to abolish it.
On the contrary, China's Yang Jiechi has even shown a willingness to use the old-enemy clause in connection with the Senkakus, saying, "You are a former enemy of China, and now you want to take China's territory." The same is true of the North.
The Enemy Clause is a "blade of justice" for such a rogue state.
Yet, in Japan, the prime minister denies 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 an enemy 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?
This article also proves that he is the one and only journalist in the postwar world.
It is a must-read for the Japanese people and people worldwide.
The third bullet is also Japan's.
Some time ago, Beatrice Fihn, 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 suffered atomic bombings, but she was highly stinging.
Japan had rejected the Nuclear Weapons Convention, which she had recommended.
Is it because she didn't like it?
But Japan could not 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 Nuclear Weapons Convention, it will have to get out from under the U.S. nuclear umbrella.
Another reason for not ratifying the treaty is the right of the only nation to have experienced the atomic bombings.
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 yet to apologize for this barbaric act.
The Japanese people swore at that time that they would avenge the war. There is no reason for the Japanese to abandon that vow.
Finn did not understand the situation and angrily said, "I will not allow you to be unfaithful to me and ruin my face.
She said, "In addition to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan will be hit a third time."
If she had not been so racist, she would not have spent her killing time in Japan but would have immediately flown to Moscow and told her feelings to Putin, who had been insinuating the use of nuclear weapons.
She is a very makeshift woman, but her statement that "Japan will take the third bullet" is not an insane statement.
The basis is actually the "former enemy clause" in the UN Charter.
It refers to Japan, Germany, Hungary, Finland, and other countries that fought the Allies in the last World War.
To see how heavy this history is, see Article 53 of the Charter, "Armed Sanctions."
For example, Russia is currently invading Ukraine.
The country used to invade Japan after Japan surrendered and raped, plundered, and slaughtered as it does now in Ukraine.
In the end, they took Japanese territory from southern Sakhalin to the four northern islands.
Russia did not hesitate to open fire on citizens in Eastern Europe who refused to become communists and was happy to run them over with tanks and kill them.
Article 53 of the Charter stipulates that "the nations shall cooperate in imposing military sanctions" against such a wicked country, only requiring the approval of the Security Council to invoke such sanctions.
It was 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 clause that allows countries that feel threatened by a rogue state that is a former enemy, such as Japan or Germany, to "impose armed sanctions without the approval of the Security Council.
The former enemies are rogue states like Russia, which can be lynched at will if they misbehave.
For example, let us assume that Japan is equipped with enemy base attack missiles.
If China or North Korea judges this as a sign of the revival of the Japanese empire, they are allowed to rain nuclear weapons down on Japan.
Moreover, that would be judged as a legitimate act authorized by the UN Charter.
Some say, "No, no, no, the former Enemy Clause is now a dead culture, having been abolished by the UN General Assembly 30 years ago.
However, the Security Council has not yet decided to abolish it.
On the contrary, China's Yang Jiechi has even shown a willingness to use the old-enemy clause in connection with the Senkakus, saying, "You are a former enemy of China, and now you want to take China's territory." The same is true of the North.
The Enemy Clause is a "blade of justice" for such a rogue state.
Yet, in Japan, the prime minister denies 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 an enemy 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?
