In 2009, President Obama proposed “peace and security” for a world without nuclear weapons. He added, “this goal will not be reached quickly.” As demonstrated by the Measheimer and Zakheim discussion, we cannot be certain if nuclear weapon realize the world a more secure place, but we should minimize the potential power-inbalance caused by disarmament . In order to reach Obama’s “utopian” vision, the United States has to choose as realist approach, like the one posed by Carr . This paper proposes a realistic approach to nuclear disarmament. Obama’s plan does not take into account the power-inbalance that his plan would create in East Asia. Nor does it fully appreciate how Japan would respond to this power inbalance. This paper analyzes Japanese nuclear history in order to explain the current attitude toward nuclear weapons and how this attitude need to be taken seriously by the United States. First it needs to be repeated that Japan is the only country in the world to have suffered through nuclear attacks. As a result, the population in Japan is strongly opposed to nuclearization. This sensitivity has increased since the Fukushima nuclear disaster. But there still remains to the possibility of nuclearization since some political leaders have even sought out nuclear bombs. This stance is the result of a lingering Cold War structure that still exists in East Asia. Since World War II, Japan has officially officially expresses opposition toward nuclear weapons. In the 1976, Japanese Parliament passed “Three Non-Nuclear Principles”. The tenets state that Japan shall neither possess nor manufacture nuclear weapons, nor shall it permit their introduction into Japanese territory. The principles were outlined by Prime Minister Eisaku Sato and then earned him the Nobel Peace Prize. Every subsequent Japanese administration has adopted the principles as their