Talk:Japanese nuclear weapon program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Japan (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 21:27, August 29, 2015 (JST, Heisei 27) (Refresh)
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


"RUSSIA" vs "SOVIET UNION"[edit]

I corrected errors in this article where the words "Russia" and "Russians" were written where "Soviets" and "Soviet Union" was intended. Please people - LEARN THE DIFFERENCE. There's been enough discussion here to know that plenty of eyes, including plenty of historically educated eyes, have looked over this subject. Why the heck do your eyes not see an error as blatant as saying "English" where "British" is meant? YES IT DOES MATTER AND YES "RUSSIAN" IS HISTORICALLY 100% AND TOTALLY WRONG AND JUST BECAUSE SOME OTHER IGNORAMUS or even historical figure USED IT AS A SHORTHAND DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT FOR YOU TO ACCEPT IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.12.110 (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Edits[edit]

I am new to editing Wikipedia and I do not know if I have breached rules but I simply deleted from the main page a quotation and reference to David Irving for a German atomic programme. Firstly it is not relevant to this article and secondly Irving is a completely discredited author whose books on Hitler's War and the Bombing of Dresden were exposed for their misquotations and distortions in a famous British Court Case. David Irving has also spent time in an Austrian prison for denying the Holocaust. Such an author should not be quoted or taken seriously by anyone. (User oasisdrinker May 18, 2008)

oasisdrinker's edit simple removed the statement: "The author David Irving in his book "Virus House" records that the Nazi codename for Uranium oxide was "Preparation 38."" which, regardless of source, hardly seems relevant to the article. -- 119.31.126.69 (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well Done[edit]

Personally I thought this article was quite well done given the sensitive and controversial nature.

I was wondering if anyone knew answers to the following questions?

What % of spending Japan, Germany or anyone else actually had committed to atomic bombs compared to our effort?

Is there is any information that we knew the enemy programs were more toward nuclear power plants to reduce dependency on oil, rather than weapon?

Did we actually know how advanced the enemy atomic bombs were?

Or info that it was we, and no-one else, who started the atomic-bomb race and was maybe unnecessary?

To those who choose to believe these self-justifying Snell tales even Truman and his cadre didn't refer to when criticized even from within, for the controversial Hiroshima and Nagasaki decisions, a sometimes smart;) friend of mine wrote this...

What happened to American common-sense? You seriously want us to believe:
A. that we were so far behind the Nazi atom bomb program, that we needed the EXCESS uranium Hitler sent to Japan for our 2 atom bombs?
B. that with 10,000 times less investment, the Japanese tied us in the atom bomb race & detonated 1 maybe 2 bombs of their own even without this German uranium?
C. that Hitler wouldn’t have used this uranium to build AND USE his own atom bombs to save himself?
Anything to sell a book I suppose.

My apologies, I believe I got the "10,000 times" number from the recent British/Norwegian documentary on the study of the sunken ferry shipping 'heavy-water', I'd still like to know any numbers that can be better or more accurately, properly ethically 'sourced'. Historians are changing their tunes with each unsealed 'secrecy act' series of documents and records. Is it any wonder we're confused what is right and what is wrong?

IMHO well written article.

TheBalderdasher (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The idea that WWII Japan was close to a nuclear weapon is believable only if you ignore their lack of top physicists, lack of raw materials, and lack of the necessary physical infrastructure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.37.244.9 (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Credibility and Questions[edit]

I'm afraid I don't trust the neutrality of the Yale Avalon Project, under Derek deSolla Price you say? as much anymore. Like others I've read about, I wrote them asking for proof, by scan of actual signed document in their own language, (like I've seen in Slavinsky's and Juke's books when presenting evidence of actual verified pacts), of their supposed English translation of the actual 'Axis Pact', not Tripartite Pact, or Pact of Steel or Anticomintern, but actual alliance title 'axis'. Now I believe those others because my own request has gone unresponded let alone no direction or providing of proof after several months.

When our latest dictionaries from Oxford removed Japan from the definition 'Axis' of ww2, at a convention, their representative said it was because 'upon review and further fact checking' they could find no evidence Japan ever signed, let alone activated, any treaty or pact titled 'axis'. That's why, she said, Japan should be removed from the definition of 'axis' regarding ww2.

So you'll forgive me if I change my mind and not trust the Avalon Project that much anymore.

Is it little wonder that even my own students, let alone much of he world, don't trust what we say since the latest Iraq invasion let alone historical record.

Snell and Wilcox and such people only seem to be trying to edit, even completely make-up, information to fit how they want history to be recorded, rather than the truth, however inconvenient.

I have an expansive question maybe someone better-read can answer please?

Why did the Japanese lie to the Germans about their atomic bomb program? They must have known that cooperation with the Germans would've greatly advanced both atomic bomb programs. That even if Germany got it before Japan, that it could have ended the war without Japan's Unconditional Surrender.

It just seems so odd that the Japanese did not want the Germans to even know that Japan thought the bomb feasible.

AthabascaCree (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


This article probably ought to be deleted[edit]

I'm disturbed that the archive of this talk page has been delinked. I will, if I can find the time, investigate the talk-page history and relink it, but please do so yourself if you get to it before I do. Strange claims about Irene Joliot-Curie have crept into the intro paragraph. The article has yet to be cross-linked to articles about the same topic in any other language (of which Japanese would be far and away the most edifying). I proposed that this article be deleted a long time ago, on the ground that it really would be better to start over from scratch. --arkuat (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I restored the link to the archived discussions - but I do not agree that this article should be deleted. Please work to improve any issue but it looks like a good start to me. Rmhermen (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I just restored it again -- it was lost both times when the article was moved. -- ToET 10:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
No I do not agree that it should be deleted. Just propose how you would like to improve it?Friend2008 (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Current Nuclear Activities, et cetera[edit]

One of the technical problems preventing Japan from being a "screwdriver turn" form having nuclear weapons is that its plutonium is derived from reprocessing nuclear fuel. Therefore, most of it is probably the wrong isotope. Ray Van De Walker (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


Quote from this section:

Some analysts, however, fear that Japan may abandon its anti-nuclear arms stance in the face of North Korea's development of nuclear weapons as part of a wider nuclear arms race in eastern Asia, especially after that nation's nuclear test on October 9, 2006.[citation needed] Others note that despite the U.S.-Japan alliance, there could be the eventuality the Americans refused to retaliate with nuclear weapons even after an enemy attack with an atom bomb on Japan.[citation needed]

Somebody else has already rightfully gone through and put up the "citation needed" tags. Sufficed to say, this is old news and these "analyses" are basically irrelevant now. Japan hasn't gone on to develop nuclear weapons in response to North Korea. I propose removing this particular quoted block all together.

Additionally, in the header, this statement appears:

On the other hand, this policy may be revised on account to the threat of a North Korean nuclear attack.

With this kind of statement in there, one could add another statement that says, "However, given that Japan remains the sole victim of a nuclear attack historically, it is also possible the Japanese public would be strongly against the country developing a weapon."

Personally, I don't think either statement belongs in the article. I also think the "Current nuclear activities in Japan" section adequately covers the facts (sans the block of it I quoted above). Mjatucla (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Nomenclature[edit]

Could we review some of the terms... as is common in many articles about this subject, this article continually uses the term "nuclear weapons" when in fact they were "atomic weapons." While they are similar in concept, an illustration of the difference is that an atomic detonation is essentially required as the fuse of a nuclear detonation. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.59.94 (talkcontribs)

"Atomic weapons" is an old term long since superceded by "nuclear weapons", which is more accurate. Salmanazar (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Japan exploded a atomic bomb before the U.S. Atomic bombing.[edit]

According to a History Channel documentary, which showed actual footage of U.S. soldiers destroying a cycletron at wars end and interviews with Japanese scientists who admitted to the bombs existence and successful explosion on an island off the North Korean coast. 173.80.0.108 (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

felt[edit]

Regarding; "He felt no qualms about this because he saw no possibility of producing nuclear weapons in Japan before the end of the war.[12]" We know what people claim to have felt. We cannot state as objective fact what they did, in fact, feel. --Ryan W (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Current Japanese active nuclear weapon program[edit]

When I was being interviewed for 2008 New Yorker article about me, I mentioned to the author that I felt there was sufficient evidence to at least draw the conclusion Japan was currently working toward the Bomb. He cut me off and said, “They already have it.” In addition to writing article on Japan, the author is a Japan Fellow and has traveled extensively in Japan. He then elaborated a little and told me a high ranking former member of their government told him to his face they have their own nuclear weapon. Several months passed and I queried him by email about the subject since I wanted to broach that issue with a contact I had at the IAEA HQ in Vienna.

Here is his reply.

“The person who confirmed that the Japanese have an active nuke program is a former high-ranking Japanese [deleted]. I would obviously be very leery of giving his name to the IAEA because it could cause a major [deleted] incident and result in the destruction of the man's career and his life. But it was a very interesting conversation, and it did take place . . ..”

A few months before my University of Chicago Enrico Fermi Institute talk, I had dinner with Pulitzer winning author Richard Rhodes. I told him the story and asked him what he knew on the topic. He responded that he once asked the Japanese how long it would take for them to create a nuclear weapon and they replied, “Under six months!”

If that is true, then it obviously means Japan has successfully performed all the preliminary work necessary except for possibly the final fabrication of fissile material along with final assembly of the weapon itself. If it is in a disassembled condition, it is not a "real" nuclear weapon and they could therefore maintain their “plausible deniability” claim. Japan does after all, live in a very dangerous neighborhood with North Korea, Russia, China, Pakistan, and India having increasing nuclear weapon stockpiles. It would be in Japan’s own self-interest to also have a defensive stockpile.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has run at least one article over the years mentioning that the Japanese government has requested (and received) technical expertise from our DOE in how to create weapons-grade plutonium.

Again, if all this is true, then their government callously allows the annual kabuki theater handwringing victimization farce at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to continue since it serves their purpose.Atomicjohn (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Emperor and atomic bomb section[edit]

The "Emperor and atomic bomb" section doesn't have a reference in English (see footnote 16). The passage seems suspect. Mcboozerilla (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. This was taken care of by another editor. And thanks to him, as well! Student7 (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Potential RS[edit]

This source maybe of interest to those who are active in editing this article. It is from the Korea Times:

Hope someone can use this.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Politically correct un-edits[edit]

Given the recent investigations including the original documentation, to whitewash such an important issue in Wiki for the sake of some sense that it's better to forget the past than be embarrassed is not only wrong, but it's dangerous.

This article seems to be very closely watched for edits and anything that even remotely smacks of the truth where such edits are almost immediately deleted.

In my opinion (if it survives) this is a dangerous trend that the Japanese people have come to be all too comfortable with. Again in my opinion this article should go to committee to be permanently flagged as both controversial and potentially biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renner95634 (talkcontribs) 13:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Not following you. If there's something that should be discussed here, please do so. Wikipedia is not censored. But neither does it try to publish WP:FRINGE material.
It seems to me that Japan simply did not throw in the resources required to build an atomic weapon during WWII. It did not possess those resources. Unlike Germany, which tried everything including atomic weapons, jet planes, V2s, etc., Japan did not because it could not. This is why Germany was targeted as "first priority" for the Allies to beat. Japan initially went to war because it lacked resources. The country went downhill from 1942 on. Germany was still firing V2s into 1945! And flying jets! Using radar, and creating fuel out of vegetables. Japan's "answer" was kamikaze, and arming civilians with pitchforks, a rather bottom of the barrel approach.
In the meantime, Germany, US, Britain, and the Russians (having skipped a bunch of steps through stealing Allied research) all had thousands of employees, if not tens of thousands, working on the development of atomic weapons. Centifuging uranium is not a trivial operation. Just look at Iran's progress after many years of trying. Student7 (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Weapons grade Plutonium[edit]

Why do we exclusively focus on reactor grade and ignore the weapons grade stuff that the Americans provided?

Hcobb (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Some of this is already in the article. If you want to try to improve it further, go ahead. Notice that this should be non-political. We did not force the Japanese to accept the plutonium. The capability is obviously directed at their powerful neighbors, China, Russia, and North Korea. The question Japan has answered is do they want to idly stand by and be a victim? Since they have not actually produced weapons, they do not want to be perceived as aggressors either. Student7 (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)