Adverse Opinion - Even though Japan is a non-nuclear country, it does not necessarily mean that peace comes from not having nuclear weapons. A country's political power is in someway attached to nuclear weapons. Isn't it natural that Japan should have a nuclear weapon?

Comment - This response is symbolizes what is known as deterrence theory - the idea that possessing a weapons will deter others from attacking. Nuclear weapons have become a symbol of power as indicated by the continued development and role they play in international politics. It is in my opinion that is important that Japan maintain its non-nuclear stance. Japan has a prime opportunity to exhibit leadership in moving the world away from a proliferation path to one, in which the long term goal is disarmament, and a nuclear free world. Granted this will not be immediate and there will need to be incremental steps, but if this vision is not stated, it will be increasingly difficult to achieve.

Adverse Opinion - Such a peace pledge does not match with the Japanese culture. If it is thought that it is necessary to have such a peace pledge in Japan, won't it make Japan's commitment to non-proliferation and non-possession of nuclear weapons weaker? Isn't it obvious that Japanes will not participate in nuclear movements?

Comment - Yes in many ways the idea of an individual pledge is a departure from traditional ways of approaching commitment in Japan. I personally feel however that many of the Japanese people do feel individual responsibility however had never the opportunity to make an explicit statement as such.

Furthermore, although the Pledge was started in Japan, it is intended to be an international movement. We have contacted scientists and newspapers abroad to notify them of the campaign and have begun to receive comments from non-Japanese scientists both within and outside of Japan.

Although Japan did suffer immensely from the atomic bombing, the memory itslef does not provide the substance of trust. There are changes in the political environment which leads to concerns by other countries and even within Japan regarding the possible research of nuclear weapons in Japan. The Pledge Movement is one step to bring these concerns to the surface and encourage scientists to think about the consequences of their work, and choices that are necessary to maintain a peaceful world. In numerous trips abroad, people from foreign countries have raised the questions, "What would it take for Japan to make a nuclear weapon? Would the political climate change?" In some of the comments that we have received thus far, we find that there are some within Japan that do believe nuclear weapons and other weapons can enhance political standing in the international environment. As these opinions exist, they need to be discussed in the open. If necessary, they should be brought to the international level. Personally, I believe that there should be more steps towards cross-cultural exchange at a young level on peace education and war prevention. Please see the "Comments from Kids Page".

It is also key that the Japanese government openly recognize that such opinions exist. Until now, it has often been assumed that Japan will never posess a nuclear weapons, yet with the changing security environment in the region, there are more innuendoes both from abroad and with in Japan that Japan is increasing its military stance. As the MOFA stronglyy pledges non-nuclear commitment and commitment in the Basic Atomic Energy Law, it is necessary to explicitly address opinions that run contrary to these commitments.

Adverse Opinion - Shouldn't the Pledge be more specific regarding the technologies that do contribute to the construction of such weapons?

Comment - To this question, there is no one absolute answer. We have received numcerous comments regarding which technologies do contribute to the construction of such weapons, and intend to strengthen our education efforts on these issues. However at the momemt, we would like as much feedback as possible and are trying not to ostracize or eliminate scientists from the discussion.

Opinion - Within the Pledge itself, you should have OR rather than AND.

Comment -This comment is well taken. The Pledge itself must broadly, not narrowly cover the types of work that may lead to the constrution, development or use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.