Takaichi says, “There is room for review” in response to the past administration’s remarks about “exceptional permission to bring in nuclear weapons.”
Quick Look
- Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi said that there was room to review the government's past statement that the import of nuclear weapons could be permitted as an exception in relation to Japan's three non-nuclear principles.
- This is interpreted as a reexamination of former Foreign Minister Okada's 2010 remarks that U.S. nuclear-capable ships should be allowed to visit ports for national security reasons.
- Foreign Minister Motegi also emphasized the need for review on the premise of maintaining principles in response to changes in the security environment, but Prime Minister Takaichi announced that he would refrain from making predictions about the inclusion of specific expressions.
AI-generated summary
Why It Matters
Japan has maintained the three post-war non-nuclear principles as national policy, but amid recent changes in the security environment and discussions on extended deterrence centered on the United States, discussions have been raised regarding the flexibility of the principles.
(Tokyo = Yonhap News) Correspondent Cho Sung-mi = Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi announced on the 14th that "there is room for review" of past remarks by Japanese government ministers that could be interpreted as allowing the introduction of nuclear weapons in exceptional cases in relation to the "three non-nuclear principles" that the country adheres to.
This statement is attracting attention as it leaves room for the possibility of revising the three non-nuclear principles of ‘not possessing, manufacturing, or importing nuclear weapons’, which has been maintained as a national policy.
Prime Minister Takaichi was asked a question about the three non-nuclear principles at the Budget Committee of the House of Representatives (House of Representatives) held on this day and answered that there was room to review remarks made by then Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada in 2010 when the Democratic Party was in power.
Former Foreign Minister Okada assumed a situation in which Japan's safety could not be protected if the National Assembly at the time did not acknowledge the port call of the U.S. nuclear-equipped ship, and responded, "The regime has decided to risk its fate and explain it to the people."
It is a remark that is understood to run counter to the clause prohibiting the importation of nuclear weapons made in other countries into Japan among the provisions banning the possession, manufacture, and importation of nuclear weapons made in other countries, with the intention that the government should decide to allow U.S. nuclear-equipped ships to port in Japan for the sake of national security in the event of war or other emergencies.
Prime Minister Takaichi himself had shown a critical attitude toward the principle of banning the import of goods before taking office as prime minister.
In the book 'National Power Research' published just before the Liberal Democratic Party presidential election last year, he argued, "Even if we continue to maintain a ban on the possession and manufacture of (nuclear weapons), it is unrealistic to expect extended deterrence from the United States, which will 'not import' them."
Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi said at the National Assembly on this day, "Compared to the time when former Foreign Minister Okada responded, the severity (of the situation) has grown overwhelmingly, and various forms of threats are also expanding," adding support to Prime Minister Takaichi's related remarks.
Foreign Minister Motegi said, "Although we maintain the three non-nuclear principles, there is a need to review them based on the greatly changed security environment and threat perception."
However, in his response to the National Assembly on this day, Prime Minister Takaichi did not comment further on the specific expressions to be included in relation to the three non-nuclear principles in the three major security documents that the Cabinet is seeking to revise within the year with the aim of strengthening defense capabilities, saying, "I will refrain from making predictions."
Regarding 'nuclear sharing', which involves deploying and jointly operating US nuclear weapons in Japan, Prime Minister Takaichi repeated the position presented in the National Assembly on the 7th, saying, "Nuclear sharing is not currently being considered in Japan and is not appropriate."
The Japan Restoration Association, which forms a ruling coalition with the Liberal Democratic Party and claims to be an 'accelerator' for policies to strengthen defense capabilities, argues that the principle of prohibiting the import of nuclear weapons should be reviewed and the introduction of nuclear-powered submarines should be discussed.
The Asahi Shimbun reported that a plan is emerging within the Japanese government to additionally specify former Foreign Minister Okada's answer after maintaining the three non-nuclear principles in the three major security documents.
The media also predicted that a nuclear submarine equipped with a "sea-launched nuclear cruise missile" (SLCM-N), which the U.S. government decided to develop in 2018 during the first term of the Donald Trump administration, is likely to make a port call in Japan after the 2030s.
However, it is reported that there is a difference of opinion between the United States and the Japanese government, as it believes that a port call by a nuclear-capable ship does not constitute the importation of nuclear weapons.
What to Watch
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
There is a possibility that the Japanese government will include flexible language related to the three non-nuclear principles in the three major security documents being revised within the year.
Likely · Within months
Open Questions
- Which of the three non-nuclear principles will be subject to review first?
- Will there be a concrete agreement on sharing nuclear weapons or allowing port calls in negotiations with the United States?
- How will the reactions of the ruling party, opposition party, and civil society in Japan be divided?







