It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
having an offensively armed japan sounds like a nice addition towards the balancing of power with other countries in the area in regards to china...on paper atleast. also, think of all the $$ made from selling japan more military equipment and tech. could this be in the minds of our gov't officials?? i think so.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Personally from what I know of Japan’s capabilities I wouldn’t recommend a preemptive strike. North Korea has hundreds of short and medium range missiles capable of hitting Japan, and these missiles are on mobile launchers. So I don’t see the rational here, stop a possible attack from one missile and draw a counter attack from hundreds? This is probably just a response from Japan.
But I know big brother China cannot be happy at North Korea, a Japan having closer military ties with the US, questioning its defensive position and giving its constitution a look over is NOT what China wants. They don’t want a stronger opposing force in the PACRIM region than the one already there. An offensive Japan with significant force projection would put a damper on their plans but it would help free up the US and help redistribute balance in the region.
Originally posted by Willard856
There is still a lot of historical angst in the region due to Japanese aggression prior to, and during, WWII.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Imperium Americana do you see why it would be foolish for Japan to preemptively strike North Korea? It does not make sense to start an almost certain war which will be costly to Japan because they are afraid of one missile test, which in all likelihood will not hit their territory. Kim may be unstable but self preservation is a strong influence on any leader.
Originally posted by Imperium Americana
What I think, and again IMHO, you are seeing is a US/Japanese counter strategy in the works. Here is my take: US/Japan realizes China/Russian is using NK and the missile crisis to gain intel on BMD, thus giving them the ability to develop systems and procedure to counter the BMD shield. US/Japan know they have been duped and are now forcing China's tactical victory into a Chinese strategic defeat. The Last thing China wants is a re-militarized Japan.
Originally posted by looking4truth
A strike on N. Korea by Japan could not happen without the U.S. being involved in some capacity. Most of the intel needed to make a precision strike taking out nuke and missle facilities would most likely come from us, not to mention that with all of our military assests in the region how the heck could we not know if Japan was moving from a planing to an operational stage on a strike against N Korea. Plus most of Japans military hardware is US made.
Now, the real question is......... What role would the U.S. actually play in a Japanese strike, and does Washington reveal it's role or put out the talking .s with that BS contrived look of suprise that Japan acted "unilaterally"? I wonder.
I don't like what the NK government stands for or it's policies, I question the wisdom of poking a snake with a stick though. War in that part of the world is as bad or worse than in the middle east. In the middle east it's the oil that hurts the world if it's disrupted. In that part of Asia so much of what is consumed and used in everyday life worlwide is manufactured. What happens when NK retalliates by sinking cargo ships loaded with discount mega-store merchandise?
I agree, China and Russia could be very well using NK to gain very valuable intel. And on the other side the US doesn't have to play a hand if Japan takes the lead militarily with respect to NK. Good point Imperium.
Ahh, makes you glad the cold war tensions of yester-year ar over huh?