This story out recently:

The Japanese government recently looked into the possibility of developing nuclear warhead, a news report said Monday, citing an internal government document. …

The Japanese daily Sankei reported that experts affiliated with the government estimated that it will take at least three to five years for Japan to make a prototype nuclear warhead.

The experts also estimated that Japan would need to spend about 200 billion yen ($1.68 billion) to 300 billion yen ($2.52 billion) and mobilize several hundred engineers to produce a prototype nuclear warhead, according to Sankei.

The interesting thing here is that Japan is claiming that it would take three to five years to develop a nuke, after spending tons of money and employing “several hundred engineers.” This when Japan has been pretty much universally recognized as being within one year of producing a nuke; this Federation of American Scientists’ report from 1998 is perhaps a pretty solid source:

Japan’s extensive nuclear industry contains tons of already separated reactor-grade plutonium, which could be used for nuclear weapons. Within a year of deciding to develop a nuclear weapon, Japan could acquire the weapons materials and a workable design by drawing upon available unclassified information and its technical expertise.

So, what does the difference in the report mean? Were international estimates too high, overestimating Japan’s ability to fabricate a nuclear weapon? Or perhaps there is a difference in the type of nuclear weapons capability each estimate was measuring, with the FAS report guessing at the time to produce one nuke and the internal Japanese report estimating how long it would take to build a minimal arsenal? Maybe the Japanese study overestimates the time and effort needed due to bureaucratic or engineering standards that call for such so that actual performance can exceed expectations. Or, perhaps, the report is simply a fake or hoax of some sort.

However, the probable truth is that the report is real; Japan, after all, has been making various noises recently about a nuclear weapons program in response to North Korea’s own program. And, one has to admit, even if Japan is dead against building nukes, it would only be a reasonable, rational move to at least study what is or is not possible, just to have the information on hand in case things change. After all, it is not inconceivable that Japan and America could have a falling-out and North Korea could become much more overtly threatening in any number of ways; in such a case, Japan would have a real reason to consider nukes.

The worry, however, is not just that Japan might develop nukes (which itself would be enough of a worry, if for no other consideration than how other nations in the region would react), but that a nationalistic government of Japan were to have nukes along with a resurgent desire to assert itself militarily–something which also is not inconceivable.