He said that "it is not realistic" to reject a preemptive nuclear attack when it comes to the security of Japan.

This means, in a word, that a preemptive nuclear attack alone guarantees the security of Japan.

His foolish remarks clearly indicate how potential and grave Japan's nuclear threat to its neighboring countries and other parts of the world is.

Japan has been under the "nuclear umbrella" of the United States and possesses the technology of manufacturing nuclear weapons as well as their delivery means, to say nothing of nuclear fuel. This indicates that Japan itself is in a full position to go nuclear. On this basis, the Japanese reactionaries are rushing headlong into a more adventurous nuclear war.

His outbursts once again clearly prove the hypocrisy and dangerous nature of the assertions of the U.S. and other countries that the DPRK's access to nukes leads to Japan's access to nukes.

The theory of "chain reaction" to the access to nukes that Japan is bound to go nuclear in the future because of the DPRK was enunciated on the wrong premise from a logical point of view.

Preparations for Japan's nuclear weaponization have been already wound up, not a thing to happen in the future. The theory of "chain reaction" to the access to nukes based on the wrong premise is nothing but sophism.

Japan is seized with nuclear war fever when humankind is growing stronger in its desire to see a nuclear-free world. This is a direct product of the application of the double standards by the U.S. and other countries to the nuclear issue.

They have applied such standards to the nuclear issue, letting loose such unscientific sophism as the above-said theory of "chain reaction," and pushed Japan to such dangerous phase where it is asserting a preemptive nuclear attack as today. They can never evade the responsibility for this.

They keep mum about the fact that even at present Japan is openly posing a nuclear threat to the DPRK and its neighboring countries by crying out for a preemptive nuclear attack.

"The nuclear issue of north Korea" was cooked up, pursuant to the U.S. hostile policy toward the DPRK aimed to stifle it in violation of the principle of impartiality.

The six-party talks were plagued with such inequality that a certain country was allowed to assert a preemptive nuclear attack while other country was pressurized to dismantle its nukes. This brought the talks to an end.

The present situation eloquently proves how just the DPRK was when it had access to nuclear deterrence for self-defence and decided to pull out of the six-way talks and how vital and urgent the U.S. retraction of its hostile policy toward the DPRK is for settling the nuclear issue.