"...like, next week, if we want them."
I'd say that was clear enough. So is this, the purest example of an exception swallowing a rule that I've ever seen:
Aso reiterated his belief that the constitution's pacifist clause does not prevent Japan from having nuclear bombs for the purpose of defense.So, the clause permitting "minimal" arms now permits the most dangerous weapons ever developed.
The constitution's Article 9 bars Japan from the use of force to settle international disputes.
"Possession of minimum level of arms for defense is not prohibited under the Article 9 of the Constitution," Aso said. "Even nuclear weapons, if there are any that fall within that limit, they are not prohibited."
I've got no problem with Japan developing nukes -- and, as Aso notes, it doesn't matter if I do have a problem with it. I'd just like to point out that that's the healthiest Living Constitution I ever saw.
No comments:
Post a Comment