据多家日本媒体报道，日本首相官邸一名负责安保政策的高官日前向媒体宣称日本应该拥有核武器。相 关言论被披露后，在日本国内引发强烈批评。 日本前防卫大臣中谷元12月19日指出，代表政府立场的人士"不应轻率发表个人意见，这种言论不可容 忍"。他认为，既然这些言论已经公开，就必须采取相应措施，"首相高市早苗应考虑采取适当的措施， 包括该官员的去留"。 日本公明党党首齐藤铁夫19日在国会对媒体表示，这类言论"性质严重，足以解除发表该言论者的职 务"。他表示，"无核三原则"和核不扩散体制是"日本安全保障的基础"，拥有核武器不仅会导致日本在 外交上被孤立，还会严重恶化日本的安全环境。 日本共产党籍参议员小池晃对媒体表示："这是极其不负责任的言论，绝对不能接受。日本政府应该要 求其撤回言论，并将其免职。" 日本前首相石破茂20日在电视节目中表示，如果日本拥有核武器，就不得不退出《不扩散核武器条约》 以及国际原子能机构。他强调，这将使支撑日本能源体系的核能政策无法成立，"对日本而言，这绝不 是一件有利的事情"。 日本原子弹氢弹受害者团体协会19日发表谈话，抗议高市早苗政府官员宣扬"核武装论"。谈话指 出，"这是在容许核战争，让 ...

原标题：日本社会各界批评高市早苗政府强军扩武（国际视点） 日本《冲绳时报》发表社论指出，此番言论彻底背离日本政府应有立场，应进一步追究首相高市早 苗的用人责任。文章认为，自民党内部时常出现容忍核武器的言论。"高市早苗应亲自解释本次拥核言 论，并明确表示坚持'无核三原则'。" "防卫预算持续增加，形成军工复合体的风险正在上升" 近来，日本高市早苗政府加快强军扩武。政府高官公然宣称"日本应该拥有核武器"，防卫开支预算 提前两年实现"占国内生产总值（GDP）的比例达到2%"的目标，执政党内部就进一步取消武器出口限 制达成一致……日本政府的危险动向引发日本社会各界警惕与反对。 "这是极其不负责任的言论，绝对不能接受" 据多家日本媒体报道，日本首相官邸一名负责安保政策的高官日前向媒体宣称日本应该拥有核武 器。相关言论被披露后，在日本国内引发强烈批评。 日本前防卫大臣中谷元12月19日指出，代表政府立场的人士"不应轻率发表个人意见，这种言论不 可容忍"。他认为，既然这些言论已经公开，就必须采取相应措施，"首相高市早苗应考虑采取适当的措 施，包括该官员的去留"。 日本公明党党首齐藤铁夫19日在国会对媒体表示，这类言论"性质 ...

新华社东京12月22日电 专访｜警惕日本军国主义回潮的现实危险——访日本龙谷大学教授松岛泰胜 新华社记者梁晨 长期从事琉球问题研究的日本龙谷大学教授松岛泰胜日前在接受新华社记者采访时说，当前日本政坛右 翼势力扩张、军事部署进程加速，这一趋势背后是日本近代以来以"国家存亡"为名的扩张逻辑，暗藏军 国主义回潮的现实危险。 松岛认为，日本政府之所以至今仍拒绝承认琉球人是土著民族，与日本政府当前的安全政策和军事部署 紧密相连。《联合国土著人民权利宣言》中明确规定，不得在土著人土地或领土上进行军事活动。但现 实中，约70%的驻日美军基地集中在冲绳，并持续推进基地扩建。松岛指出，一旦承认琉球人为土著民 族，日本现行的军事战略和安全布局将难以维持。 "高市早苗在成为首相之前，就曾多次表达推动军工产业发展的意愿。通过制造战争风险，让军工产业 不断壮大。"松岛说，这种逻辑并不新鲜，而是日本近代以来扩张思维的延续。 在回顾历史时，松岛提到，日本政府在19世纪对外扩张过程中，正是反复以"关系国家存亡"为理由，为 侵略行为寻找正当性。"1874年日本出兵台湾、1879年吞并琉球，都是在这样的逻辑下进行的。"他说。 松岛还指出，随着日 ...

（文章来源：新华社） 日本前外务大臣、立宪民主党常任顾问冈田克也表示，取消对武器出口的5种类型限制意味着允许具有 杀伤能力的武器出口，这将改变日本长期以来的原则。当前日本防卫预算持续增加，形成军工复合体的 风险正在上升。 人民财讯12月21日电，日本多名在野党高层21日在日本广播协会的一档电视节目中集体谴责执政联盟自 民党与日本维新会拟取消对武器出口的5种类型限制、为武器出口大幅"松绑"的做法，认为此举将使日 本走上危险道路。 ...

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the articles highlights that global conflicts have significantly boosted the profits of American arms manufacturers, with companies like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon Technologies reporting strong financial results in their third-quarter earnings [1][3][6] - Lockheed Martin reported third-quarter sales of $18.6 billion, an 8.8% year-over-year increase, and earnings per share of $6.95, exceeding market expectations of $6.38 [1] - Northrop Grumman's earnings per share reached $7.67, surpassing the expected $6.46, while Raytheon Technologies saw a revenue increase of 11% to $22.5 billion, exceeding market predictions of $21.27 billion [3] Group 2 - The driving force behind the robust profits of American defense giants is attributed to the current global turmoil, ongoing military conflicts, and a general increase in military spending and arms races [3] - The U.S. military budget has been on the rise in recent years, with pressure on allied nations to increase their defense spending and purchase American weapons, as many allies lack the capability to independently secure their defense [3] - The geopolitical competition among major powers has created a favorable environment for U.S. defense companies to market their products effectively, leading to substantial profits [3] Group 3 - The strong financial performance of defense giants may enhance their lobbying power and influence in U.S. domestic politics and policy-making [7] - Defense companies play a crucial role in the U.S. economy, impacting employment and voter tendencies in various states, which facilitates their lobbying efforts to influence both domestic and foreign policies [7] - This influence contributes to a militarized approach in U.S. policy-making, making it challenging to adopt peaceful resolutions to international issues [7] Group 4 - The contrast between the U.S. government's portrayal as a "peace maker" and the booming arms sales is notable, as external crises often stem from policies that respond to defense industry demands [8] - The militarization of U.S. foreign policy has become evident, with the defense industry significantly shaping the country's international actions, leading to a perception of the U.S. as a more aggressive actor rather than a peace promoter [8] - The label of "peace maker" is seen as a political narrative that does not align with the reality of U.S. actions, which often exacerbate global conflicts [8]

Core Viewpoint - Ukraine's decision to open arms exports marks a significant shift from its previous policy of a complete ban, aiming to transform from a recipient of aid to a supplier of military equipment, while also addressing surplus inventory and funding needs for its military [3][5][6]. Group 1: Arms Export Policy - President Zelensky announced that Ukraine will begin limited arms exports, focusing on successful products like maritime drones and anti-tank missile systems [3]. - The shift in policy is seen as a means to alleviate financial burdens from surplus weapons and to reinvest proceeds into urgent military needs, creating a "production-export-reinvestment" cycle [5][6]. - Ukraine plans to establish three dedicated export platforms to engage with the U.S., Europe, and other supportive nations, emphasizing partnerships with serious collaborators [8]. Group 2: Risks and Concerns - There are concerns about the potential for arms to enter the black market, as Ukraine has already become a significant hub for arms smuggling during the conflict [11][13]. - Historical precedents show that Western-supplied weapons have previously circulated in illegal markets, raising alarms about future security risks [15][21]. - The Ukrainian government insists that exports will prioritize frontline supplies, but balancing international orders with battlefield needs poses a significant challenge [10]. Group 3: Impact on Military Industry - The new export policy has led to a surge in global military stocks, with major U.S. defense contractors seeing an average stock price increase of 24% in Q3 2025, adding over $50 billion in market value [22]. - European defense companies are also experiencing significant growth, with Rheinmetall's stock soaring from €4.2 billion in 2022 to €86 billion in 2025, a staggering increase of 1948% [24]. - Ukraine's arms exports are expected to have geopolitical ramifications, including military cooperation agreements with countries like the Philippines, which plans to procure 500 maritime drones [27]. Group 4: Geopolitical Implications - The arms export strategy is seen as a form of "armed diplomacy," potentially altering the geopolitical landscape and creating tensions within NATO [8][29]. - The collaboration with the Philippines to procure maritime drones could be aimed at countering Chinese maritime activities, indicating a shift in regional military dynamics [27]. - The interplay between European defense autonomy and U.S. strategic interests may lead to further complications in transatlantic relations [29].

Group 1 - The article highlights the irony of gun rights in the U.S., particularly focusing on the case of Charlie Kirk, who supports gun rights but was shot by an extreme right-wing individual [1] - It emphasizes the ongoing issue of gun violence in America, suggesting that the notion of gun freedom has become a dark joke in the current societal context [1] - The article reflects on the broader implications of gun culture in the U.S., questioning the effectiveness of gun rights advocacy in preventing violence [1]

Core Viewpoint - The recent decision by President Trump to rename the Department of Defense back to the "War Department" reflects a shift in messaging towards military readiness and determination, although the current structure and function of the department have evolved significantly from its historical origins [1][12]. Historical Context - The War Department was established in 1789, initially overseeing only the Army, and its powers were limited due to fears of military overreach in the new republic [3][4]. - The department's size fluctuated dramatically with wartime needs, exemplified by the significant increase in Army personnel during the War of 1812, which later saw drastic reductions post-war [3][4]. Military Operations and Challenges - The War Department faced logistical challenges during the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), leading to inefficient military operations and high non-combat casualties [4]. - In contrast, the Navy, separated from the War Department, received more funding and support, showcasing a disparity in military capabilities [4]. Structural Changes and Military Integration - Post-World War II, the U.S. military underwent significant restructuring to address inter-service rivalries, culminating in the establishment of a unified military command under the National Security Act of 1947 [6][7]. - The integration aimed to enhance joint operations among the Army, Navy, and newly independent Air Force, although initial leadership faced challenges in exerting authority over the services [7][9]. Emergence of the Defense Industry - The formation of the Department of Defense marked the beginning of a "military-industrial complex," which became a powerful entity with substantial budgetary demands, particularly during the Cold War [11]. - The complex has been criticized for perpetuating military engagements and justifying defense spending by continuously identifying new threats [11][12]. Current Implications - The renaming of the Department of Defense to the War Department does not signify a return to historical military strategies but rather reflects ongoing complexities in U.S. military policy and global military presence [12].

Group 1 - The book "The Rise of Religion and Capitalism" argues that contemporary economic views, particularly the belief in free markets, are deeply rooted in religious thought, contrasting with the traditional view of economics as a secular product of the Enlightenment [2] - It explores the historical connections between religion and economic thought, highlighting how Protestantism influenced modern economic ideas and how Calvinism shaped early capitalist values and behaviors [2] Group 2 - "Mediterranean Ten Cities" discusses how classical civilization, represented by ancient Greece and Rome, laid the foundation for contemporary Western culture and arts [4] - The author outlines the rich heritage left by classical civilization through ten cities, emphasizing the political ideologies born from the Greek city-states and the expansion of Greek culture across Europe and Asia [4] Group 3 - "Global Food Crisis: Industrialized Britain, Food Systems, and World Ecology" addresses the unprecedented global food crisis, linking it to unsustainable dietary choices and agricultural dependencies that threaten both human health and ecological balance [8] - The book traces the origins of this crisis back to late 18th-century Britain, where a diet rich in meat, wheat, and sugar became prevalent, leading to increased reliance on global resources [8] Group 4 - "The Possibilities of Development: Agricultural Modernization in the US and Mexico Before and After WWII" examines the historical similarities between the agricultural challenges faced by the southern United States and Mexico in the early 20th century [14] - It discusses how agricultural movements in both regions developed in parallel and influenced each other, particularly highlighting the impact of Roosevelt's New Deal policies on Mexican agricultural reforms [14] Group 5 - "The Legal Theater: A History of Legal Construction" explores the historical context of legal development in Western society, focusing on the roles of professors, legislators, and judges as key actors in the legal system [16] - The book traces the creative forces behind legal norms, including legal science, legislation, and judicial power, and their historical missions and functions [16] Group 6 - "The Milk Craze: Body, Science, and Hope" investigates the transformation of milk consumption in China from a fear of dairy to a strong preference for it, analyzing the cultural, social, and economic factors behind this shift [22] - The book discusses the historical relationship between milk production, consumption, and traditional health beliefs, as well as the impact of foreign milk products on the Chinese market [22] Group 7 - "The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time" describes the transition from pre-industrial to industrialized Europe, revealing significant ideological, social, and political changes during this period [32] - The author critiques the inherent flaws of self-regulating free markets and predicts the severe consequences of market economies on people, nature, and production organization [32]

Group 1 - The core argument is that U.S. military aid to Ukraine is a profitable business for the American military-industrial complex, with most funds eventually returning to the U.S. [1][3] - Since February 2022, the U.S. has allocated approximately $182.8 billion in aid to Ukraine, with actual payments around $84 billion, and 90% of this money flows back to the U.S. [1][3] - The "Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative" allows Ukraine to directly contract with U.S. defense companies, leading to significant profits for these firms and job creation in various congressional districts [3][5] Group 2 - The "Presidential Drawdown Authority" (PDA) enables the U.S. president to transfer weapons from stockpiles to Ukraine, which clears inventory and creates new orders for defense contractors [6] - For instance, the U.S. provided "Stinger" missiles from its inventory, which had not been produced for over 20 years, and subsequently signed a $624.6 million contract to restart production [6] - The ongoing crisis is seen as a financial boon for U.S. defense companies, with increasing demand for military equipment from NATO countries, further enhancing the profitability of U.S. arms sales [7][9] Group 3 - The cost of manufacturing a Patriot missile system is approximately $1 billion, with individual missiles costing around $3.7 million [8] - The longer the conflict persists, the more financial gain the U.S. military-industrial complex realizes, as the demand for arms continues to rise [9]