THE MOOD IN JAPAN FOLLOWING THE ATOMIC BOMB.

At the time of bombing. I was stationed in the Kyushu area to protect the area where the Americans were expected to land. No one knew what kind of bomb had dropped or how much damage there actually was. After a long time, as we began to discover what kind of bomb it was, the feeling of astonishment and disgust gradually began to grow.

HOW WERE THE NUCLEAR POLICY AFFECTED.

Because the feeling of disgust in the people was so strong, the government could not have a policy accepting the nuclear weapon. So, in principle, the government's policy has been consistently anti-nuclear.

HOW WAS HIS PERSONAL VIEW INFLUENCED BY THE BOMBING?

My view has always been the same as the Japanese people. And based on that, it has always been anti-nuclear weapon, and it has never changed.

DID HE LOSE HIS FAMILY?

I have a brother who was exposed to the explosion, but no member of the family was killed.

WHAT WAS HIS FEELING ABOUT THE CIVILIAN NUCLEAR-ENERGY MOVEMENT IN THE EARLY DAYS?

That was a controversial issue in my political party, but finally we agreed to accept the peaceful use of nuclear energy under certain conditions. They were free will, democracy, and to make it open to public. We approved it under the assumption that these principles would be protected.

HOW WAS HE INVOLVED IN THE ANTI-NUCLEAR WEAPON MOVEMENT?

Well, my election district is Sasebo (?) where the US nuclear-equipped vessels come in. Therefore, when the atomic submarine first came to Japan, and when the Enterprise and the New Jersey came, I was deeply involved in the opposition movement with the my people.

ABOUT THE "NUCLEAR ALLERGY?"

Well, I don't think it is an appropriate word, but I believe it represents the Japanese people's-feeling of resistance, hatred, and fear against the nuclear weapon and the atomic bomb. And I think it's something you have to protect.

ANY PARTICULAR INCIDENT HE REMEMBERS. THE LUCKY DRAGON INCIDENT?

I was ready in the Diet at the time of the incident. My view has been consistent since then. I believe if we don't abolish the nuclear weapon, the mankind will be destroyed.

HOW DID THIS INCIDENT AFFECT JAPANESE THINKING?

The incident is sometimes called "the third nuclear bomb," Hiroshima and Nagasaki were during the war, but there was a bombing even after the war. So in that sense, that incident had a little different effect.

DID HE PARTICIPATE IN ANTI-NUCLEAR DEMONSTRATION?

As I said, it wasn't just a matter of demonstration when the nuclear-equipped vessels came into Japan at my feet. I fought against it with my life. I think I was one of the people who fought the most in the country

HOW DID JAPAN CONTRIBUTE IN THE NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT DEBATE IN 1950s?

We (the Socialist Party) continued to demand the disarmament to the US and the Soviet Union at every occasion. But if it comes to how our demand was reflected in the government policy, I cannot say it was. I doubt very much that the Japanese government had any contribution to the disarmament. I think they just made a speech at the Diet and that was it.

PRESIDENT NEHRU'S VISIT TO HIROSHIMA.

I don't remember, exactly what each person did when he visited Hiroshima. I just remember who visited and who has not.

HIS RECOLLECTION ON THAT INCIDENT,(THE MUTSU INCIDENT)?

I was against it as I am against the US vessels. But in this case the demand is partially fulfilled, because the Mutsu is going to be disposed soon. So this fight had accomplished something. The US vessels are still coming in though.

[DIRECTION AND DISCUSSION]

Hundred thousands of people fathered when the demonstration took place. There was a direct confrontation with the police squad, and it became a historic struggle. The number of victims was high and the trial for the accused students is still going on. So to tell you the truth, it's not an incident I would like to remember. I did not understand why the Japanese people had to fight among themselves over US military vessel.

WAS THE JAPANESE DIET UNIFIED?('50s-'60s)

The basic policy in the '50s–'60s and in the present does not admit a nuclear-equipped vessels to come into a Japanese port. Do the Americans know that? We the Japanese are told to believe that when the Enterprise or the New Jersey are coming to Japan, they unload the nuclear weapon, because the government is not supposed to admit any nuclear-equipped vessels into Japan, as you should know.

WHAT SECURITY CONCERNS DID THE JAPANESE HAVE IN THE '50s AND '60s?

We did not have much security concern. The only concern we had was the possibility of the American military base being attacked. But, besides that, there was no anxiety that Japan will be invaded.

THE CHINESE EXPLOSION IN 1964.

It happened the day I arrived in Peking. I remember I spoke up against it so strongly, the Chinese got pretty upset.

WOULD THAT MAKE OTHER COUNTRIES TO FOLLOW SUIT?

He are against any country becoming a nuclear power. As I said the Chinese explosion happened the day arrived in Peking, and we made a statement opposing it, and at the conference, we spoke up against it. The Chinese became pretty upset because they were enjoying the success of the explosion, and they thought we were pouring cold water on their achievement. I don't think about who's going to be next. I am just against becoming a nuclear power.

WHAT WAS THEIR MOTIVATION?

If it's possible economically, financially, and technically, any military country has a desire to become a nuclear power. But some country cannot afford it financially or technically. Japan is able in both respect, so the Conservatives always brag that we have the basic potential to possess nuclear weapon.

HIS VIEWPOINT ON NPT IN 1968.

I was the Head Secretary in the Socialist Party at the time, and the party was split in two on this issue. One side was against it saying that Japan signing the treaty will not result in disarmament. It will only permit the nuclear monopoly of the US and the Soviet. The other side said that by signing the treaty, one thing will be sure; that Japan will never be a nuclear power. I had to settle the issue between these two strong opinions and we settled on the latter. The ambassador of the US and the Soviet Union often visited me and asked me to join the treaty. Both countries repeatedly said that there will be no monopoly and promised that they will work for disarmament. Since then, I have repeatedly demanded them to fulfill such promise but it has not come true yet.

DIFFERENCE IN THE DIET CONCERNING THE NPT HIM AND MR. NAKASONE.

Mr. Nakasone was the Chief Secretary of LDP at that time. We met one day near the Diet building, but he did not say much of his opinion-He just asked me how the Socialist Party will respond to the bill. I said if he wants to pass the bill within this term, I don't think I could unite the party for the supportive side, and that will encourage the opposing members within his own party. But if you wail for one year, I could unite the party to support the bill. Mr. Nakasone did wait for a year, and the next year the Socialist Party supported the bill and the bill was passed.

WERE THERE PRO-NUCLEAR PEOPLE AT THE TIME?

I think it's better to investigate on your own than to hear it from me. But Mr. Nakasone was once pro-nuclear. He thought we: should possess our own nuclear weapon, I saw him as pro-nuclear.

WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG TO RATIFY THE TREATY?

As I said before, because it was only to permit the nuclear monopoly of the US and the Soviet Union and it will work against disarmament. Back then, the Chinese told us that proliferation will lead to disarmament, that it's better to let many countries possess nuclear weapon. If only the small number of country possess nuclear weapon, we move away from disarmament. That is one way of thinking. I think.

WHY WAS THE SECURITY GUARANTEE SO CRITICAL?

I don't think the issue is Japan's security. I just believe the possession of nuclear weapon will destroy the mankind. I said that to Vice President Bush and to Secretary Gorbachev. I told them that I know the present situation gives you the key to decide man's future, but I never gave them the right to choose the future of man. I demanded them to work seriously for disarmament.

HAS NPT BEEN SUCCESSFUL?

I think it was successful in limiting the number of nuclear weapon, but limiting is not the goal. The goal is to abolish the nuclear weapon, and that goal has not been reached. We have permitted the monopoly of the US and the Soviet Union, and that's moving away from the goal.

IS HE CONCERNED ABOUT THE NUMBER OF COUNTRIES THAT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO POSSESS NUCLEAR WEAPON?

That in one of my greatest concern. If you approve of any military power, it's natural to seek nuclear weapon in the nuclear age. So in that sense, it (the increasing number of capable country) is my greatest concern.

PRESENT DAY SECURITY CONCERN AND HOW THEY ARE MET WITH NUCLEAR UMBRELLA.

It's a repetition, but it is unacceptable to connect one country's security with nuclear weapon. To approve the possession of nuclear weapon is to assume the mankind will be destroyed. So we have to start thinking about disarmament seriously. If we keep saying we need nuclear weapon for country's security, how could we ever abolish nuclear... European are more concerned, I think. They doubt that the US will protect them under their nuclear umbrella...there is a risk of the US being attacked. I think their concern and anxiety are right. Security granted by nuclear weapon is basically nonsense. There will be nothing left in Japan if the nuclear weapon protected us. The US has an enormous land so there might be some part of if left, but in Japan there will be ruins. Hunger, dead bodies and ruins...To counter my opinion, some people say that the nuclear weapon will never be in use, and that is why it's called "nuclear control." But how could we produce and possess enormous amount of nuclear weapon, possible to destroy the mankind so many times without ever-using it? Also, even if the loaders have no intention of using it, there is always a possibility that it might go off by mistake. So we could never assume that nuclear weapon will never be used. Also, if you say "control" you have to possess it to control it. To any that any vessel or aircraft coming into Japan has no nuclear weapon is a lie, and such lie is unacceptable and intolerable.

WHAT WAS THE MOTIVATION FOR A COUNTRY TO POSSESS NUCLEAR WEAPON?

I think there are many motivation but the basic one is hatred. Any country who has an adversary wants to have nuclear weapon. The US and the Soviets, India and Pakistan, Israel and the Arab countries, Iran and Iraq. Those countries want nuclear weapon, and that means the possibility of nuclear weapon being used is very high. New Zealand says no. The possibility of the nuclear weapon being used there is low. They want nuclear weapon to destroy their adversary.

DO YOU BELIEVE IN NUCLEAR DETERRANTS?.

As I said, the concept of nuclear detente is that nuclear weapon will not be used, and that the possession of the nuclear weapon is already effective. If so, there will never be disarmament. All the talk of disarmament will be just a play then. If we keep saying we possess nuclear weapon to avoid war, disarmament will never come about.

IS THE THREE NON-NUCLEAR PRINCIPLES ENOUGH?

No, I don't think it's enough. That's why we have to stand against the admittance of nuclear-equipped vessels. We tell them not to lie and demand them to go hack.

WHAT COULD BE DONE, THEN. THE IDEAL WAY IS TO HAVE A LAW AGAINST THE ADMITTANCE OF NUCLEAR WEAPON LIKE NEW ZEALAND. ANYWAY, THEY ARE LYING TO US THAT NO NUCLEAR-EQUIPPED VESSEL IS ADMITTED INTO JAPAN. THE TNNP STANDS UPON SUCH LIE. HOWEVER, WE CANNOT HAVE A POLICY ADMITTING THE NUCLEAR-EQUIPPED VESSELS, SO WE ARE ASKING TO FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLE. JUST MAKE THEM FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLE. MAKE THE US TO FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLE. HIS PRESENT VIEW ON THE US NUCLEAR UMBRELLA?

When I visited New Zealand, Prime Minister Longi said to me that they are not under the US nuclear umbrella and will never be in the future. I completely agree with him. Both, Japan and New Zealand are allies with the US but that does not mean we are under their nuclear umbrella. I think, in reality, the concept of nuclear umbrella is not conceivable. The Europeans are more rational on this matter. They suspect the US would protect them when there is a possibility that the US would also be bombed. The nuclear umbrella does not exist in this theory. I think the Europeans have a very rational point of view.

(QUESTION INAUDIBLE)

My opinion has not changed ever since the peaceful use of nuclear energy first became an issue. There exists a limit to the production of oil, and there is a need to develop a new kind of energy from nuclear fusion and put it into a practical use. But it will take some time before that happens. If the atomic energy is needed as a link between the two. I have to accept it. However the period of its use should be near zero or as short as possible. One problem is in its safety. In the Three-mile incident of the US and in the recent incident in the Soviet, the safety problem became a serious issue. We realized that safety cannot be completely guaranteed. Another problem is the nuclear waste. Pretty soon the earth will be covered with waste. For the above reasons, the nuclear age is better not to exist, or it should as short as possible, and we should develop the nuclear fusion energy as soon as possible. But I am afraid the development has not come about as fast as it should be because it cannot be used for a military purpose.

THE NEXT TEN YEARS OF NUCLEAR AGE?

One immediate goal is to start again the talk between the leaders of the US and the Soviet and let them work seriously for zero nuclear weapon. That is my wish. We are willing to do whatever we can to help. That's all I can say because the initiative is in their hands.

IS IT POSSIBLE FOR JAPAN TO EVER BUILD A NUCLEAR BOMB?

Theoretically, it is possible. We are capable both technically and financially, and our military power is increasing. Therefore it is possible for us to have a desire to build a nuclear weapon someday. We cannot deny the possibility. The Socialist Party will stand against it, though. If our party loses any more power, it will be possible. Specially if the relationship between the US and Japan, the Ron-Yasu alliance, stays the same, it will be possible.

PRESENT SECURITY CONCERN?

It is stated in our constitution that we should stand neutral, and we like to stay that way. However, we sign military treaties with the US and let them build military bases. That brings out our anxiety. If we stay neutral nobody will attack us without any reason. Therefore if there should be a concern, it is the possibility that the US's enemy might attack us because we are allies and we have military bases in Japan.