I would like to nitpick a little bit some of the statements that have come up here so far. (Given the sensitive subject, i should perhaps mention at this point that if i happen to voice disagreement with part of what somebody has been saying, it does not mean that i disagree with everything that they have said.)

1. Regarding Paul Midford's claim from Sep 19

"As for nuclear regulation, I think what we have seen proves that long-term effective regulation of the nuclear power industry is not feasible. Nuclear power by its nature is too concentrated in terms of size, sunk capital, expertise, etc., and hence a very corrupting influence on the political system and hence the regulators."

Well, not necessarily. I would like to bring Finland into the discussion. I would not like to say that the parliamentary approval of the new-build projects for the Olkiluoto 4 and the new plant at Hanhikivi have been models of good governance, but what _has_ been is the ongoing friction between the technology provider Areva and the nuclear regulator STUK in the case of the Olkiluoto 3 reactor. I think there have been calculations showing how that one reactor has become the most expensive building project in the history of mankind, simply due to the intransigence of STUK in the implementation of safety regulations. We're talking of "Nope, that's no good, tear it down and build it again"
type of interventions. Hardly the stuff that corruption scandals are made of. There you have a concrete empirical example that organizations _can_ be designed in ways that make regulatory capture difficult.

If i am not mistaken, even in Japan, this is exactly the stuff that regulatory battles rage on about: how much independence to give to a regulatory agent. People here obviously also know how to create an independent body - it is only that the interest calculus of politicians has leaned more in the direction of political control. I think the more interesting normatively driven practical question would be what to do to change that calculus.

2. Same message by Paul Midford:

"[Noda's phaseout of nuclear power]
is legally binding in the sense that the recently enacted law on nuclear safety specifies a 40 year life span for commercial reactors"

The limit on the life spans is legally binding, but it is distinct from the recent statement by the Cabinet.
The life span is indeed referred to in the document, but it is a law in its own right, cranked out at some point in February, if i am not mistaken? The Cabinet statement, btw, is an "an" (a proposal). Not a lot of legal oomph there. Yet i couldn't agree with Paul Midford more about his observation that the policy is "absurdly contradictory". I still would like to hear people's opinions on why on earth Noda, Edano, the DPJ, its factions (you know, ANYBODY at ANY level) might have thought that saying one thing on Friday and a different thing on Saturday would be wise.

3. Greg Johnson's message from Sep 19:

"Japan's nuclear village is so powerful it can force a government to renege on a desperate election promise even before the election, almost immediately after it is uttered"

Ok, i know that talking about early elections is a guilty pleasure of everybody on this forum. The constant jabber in the media about this may have something to do with this. But can somebody explain to me why on earth would the PM call for an election now?
This man has already shown a couple of times that he delights to step back and just watch his opponents crumple into an ineffectual puddle. Personally, if i were him, i'd just stay back, watch the hype about the new LDP head fade away, wait for Hashimoto to say a couple of more inflammatory things to put off indecisive voters, and then just walk into the regular elections at a much calmer time. Picking his own battleground, if you will.

I realize that Noda is not prescient and crises can jump on anybody out of nowhere, but am i really alone here thinking that calling for elections now would simply be stupid? Can anybody here comment about what drove past PMs into calling elections? Some comparison and contextualization would be really helpful.

Thank you.

Alex Luta,
PhD Cand,
Tokyo Institute of Technology.