It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Japan panel wants 'first strikes' against enemies

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   

A Japanese ruling party panel is to propose that pre-emptive strikes against enemy bases be allowed despite the country's pacifist constitution, Kyodo news agency said on Monday, weeks after a North Korean missile launch.


What are the coincidences - if any - this information comes to light one day before N.Korea begins *testing*?

Why did it take so long for Japan to move propose the “pre-emptive strike” plan - especially considering the aggressive actions, threats and posturing by N.Korea over the past few years?


"Japan should have the ability to strike enemy bases within the scope of its defense-oriented policy, in order not to sit and wait for death," Kyodo quoted


Commonsense that... But... (Question later)...


The committee also plans to call for Japan to develop early-warning satellites to detect the launch of missiles toward the country, Kyodo said. Japan currently depends on information from a U.S. early-warning satellite, the agency said.


So, if Japan had the early warning system already in place, and the *strike force* to back it up - does that mean N.Korea would be nothing but a big glowing dot on the map today?

That being said and considering both countries, Japan and Korea North are still in on piece - If the *First Strike* had been in place we’d be in WW3 at the moment, no?

I'm not a military minded person (on this scale), nor do I pretend to *know* what I'm talking about here.

I bring this to the board to ask questions of those of you who do know.

peace


[edit on 26-5-2009 by silo13]




posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   
That is not inconsistent with self defence policies.

I seem to recall that NK has previously made belligerent threats against Japan. Jeeze we don't need to wait for 2012 do we ?

All the action we can cope with here in 2009.

This feels eerily like Europe in 1939.




What are the coincidences - if any - this information comes to light one day before N.Korea begins *testing*?


Well last week South Korea's former pro reproachment premier Roh Moo-hyun committed suicide as a scandal began to break of corrupt profiteering deals with NK involved.

Japan obviously knew some of the details last week.




[edit on 26-5-2009 by sy.gunson]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by sy.gunson
 


Thank you.
I appreciate any responses hear - I'm really in a learning process here and what better place to hear from peers than ATS.

But again - the question rises.

If the *first strike* option was already in place, and the technology and weapons to back it up - wouldn’t N.Korea be dust at the moment?




posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Well had Japan or USA made a first strike it would breach International law. By waiting for provocative acts to breach UN Resolutions Japan would be far more justified to act.

That is the purpose of UN resolutions by the way.

If China and Russia agree on limitations for NK and then NK breaches that resolution then Japan can act without creating war crimes.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by sy.gunson
 


So the emergency UN meeting going on now - might grant these *powers* to Japan?

Somehow that isn’t reassuring.

Even Japanese Defence Minister Hamada is reserved...


Defense Minister Yasukazu Hamada is among those are cautious about the prospect, though the government's stance is that such strikes should be allowed if an attack were certain to take place.

link

But I suppose if it comes down to kill or be killed?

What an insane World.

Thanks for the info... Muchly appreciated.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


They want first strikes? Why do they even have to ask? Why would ANYONE complain if Japan launched a full scale invasion of DPRK and conquered and colonised the country?
I wouldn't complain, but then I'm not a politically correct left-wing do-gooder. Which brings me to this: the only reason that these 'dangerous' countries are blatantly 'spitting in the face' of the rest of us is because the rest of us are controlled by politically correct left-wing do-gooders who won't ever take any sort of action to actually stop them, and they know it too.
If the countries of the world were being run by real leaders (not gutless ones) the actions of 'dangerous' countries would not be tolerated. Lets think of great leaders of the past.
What would Alexander do? What would Julius Ceasar do? What would Ghengis do? Even Hitler, what would he do?

BOMB North Korea, assassinate Robert Mugabe, invade Sudan and crush the genocide, execute every suspected terrorist, murderer, rapist and here's a message for anyONE who disagrees: YOU are the reason why the world is becoming the way it is.

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 26/5/2009 by Mirthful Me]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13

But again - the question rises.

If the *first strike* option was already in place, and the technology and weapons to back it up - wouldn’t N.Korea be dust at the moment?



I don't think so. NK gave a heads up to China and the US that they would be testing an underground nuke. The US would have given Tokyo a call.

More interesting is the fact that Japan doesn't want to rely on the US satellite info any more AND wants to change it's military doctrine.
I wonder what the Japanese imagine their first strike option to be? They never developed nukes and generally dislike the idea of the things even existing (getting bombed twice does that to a peoples mindset). So they would be looking at conventional first strike options? Ant thoughts?



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by NathanNewZealand
 

I agree countries have a right to protect themselves, but *first Strike* sounds to me like an excuse to *legally* getting away with bombing those you hate - and not suffer the sanctions of the UN.

I could be wrong - I'm learning - one reason for the thread.

thanks

[edit on 26-5-2009 by silo13]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 





So the emergency UN meeting going on now - might grant these *powers* to Japan?


Not to Japan specifically. Under International law every nation is entitled to use military force in self defence. If the UN passes resolutions outlawing NK's behaviour and actions, then NK continues and makes specific threats to Japan then Japan could not be sanctioned for war crimes if it attacked military targets.

Those would have to be things like air bases, nuclear facilities, rocket stockpiles, naval bases etc.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


Wake up son, you're making the same mistakes as past *cats* who let these people get away with acts of war.
Look at Nev Chamberlain, if he wasn't such a *cat* then 60 million people wouldnt have died in world war 2. But he was a *cat* and those people did die.
Winston Churchill said "the only thing that evil men need to succeed is for good men to do nothing" and the good men are doing nothing. NOTHING.

If something had been done last time they fired a nuke then they wouldnt be doing it again now would they?

Kim Jng Il knows full well that almost every other leader in the world is GUTLESS and they'll do NOTHING.

*cats*



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by NathanNewZealand
 





BOMB North Korea, assassinate Robert Mugabe, invade Sudan and crush the genocide, execute every suspected terrorist, murderer, rapist and here's a message for anyONE who disagrees: YOU are the reason why the world is becoming the way it is.


Nathan mate... You're one scary dude. I thought they only let you out on weekends :?)





[edit on 26-5-2009 by sy.gunson]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Japan signed an agreement after the last war preventing them from even being able to defend themselves in anyway.Upon signing the agreement the USA became their guardian so to say. Up until now it has been the responsibility of the USA to defend Japan in every way.(we have like 40 or less years to go before the agreement expires.)
Japan is asking for this because they don't feel that we are able to readily defend them at a moments notice. We have two war fronts right now and it may expand into three to include Pakistan. Frankly they are right to a point about that side of it ;we may have our satellites on them etc. But we haven't had as many people over there lately. We do have base's there and have naval ships in and out all the time. But with all the war crap going on we kind of have our hands tied at the moment.
I think that what they are really asking for is permission to defend themselves. Asking for a first strike is really "heavy" and will be down played to being allowed to defend themselves.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by NathanNewZealand
 

(I'm no ones son, I'm not a man...)

Anyway, I'm asking for opinions from people - I'm making no judgments myself until I have a much better scope of this *First Strike* situation.

I do agree with the Churchill quote - but - I’ll add another of his quotes:

He said (to this effect) “I am ready to meet my maker - whether my maker is ready for the experience or not is another matter”...

Sorry, I don’t want to see millions of souls go up in a puff of a mushroom cloud - because someone, anyone is given the *First Strike* A-O-K.

But, on the other hand, yes, something needs to be done...

What? That’s what I’m trying to find out.


[edit on 26-5-2009 by silo13]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by xoxo stacie
 


Stacie - Thank you!
Fantastic reply.


I think that what they are really asking for is permission to defend themselves. Asking for a first strike is really "heavy" and will be down played to being allowed to defend themselves.


peace



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Excellent post Silo.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The problem isn't that Japan wants to consider having a first strike policy...

It's that Japan wants to have a first strike policy. Not trying to be cute here. Let me explain....

Since the end of WWII Japan has pretty much relied on the US for it's protection and supplies Japan with many of it's weapons systems. Their neighbors have been happy with that arrangement.

Unfortunately many in the region still remember a Japan of another era. Japan has become a technological and economic power in the region and many may still fear another rise of Japanese imperialism.

I highly doubt it.

But many in the region may start to look over their shoulders at Japan if they move out from underneath their American Umbrella. They do have a right to defend themselves but this will become a bigger international political football.

Stay tuned.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by xoxo stacie
 


Nope Stacie,

Under the treaty of San Francisco, Japan was allowed to maintain a Self Defence Force and in this circumstance it could well be an act of self defence.

Even before this event, there was nothing except perhaps Japan's own constitution preventing Japan limiting it's own military.

Japan is a sovereign nation and can choose to change it's constitution at any time. It is not at all clear that attacking NK would breach the constitution.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by NathanNewZealand

 


They want first strikes? Why do they even have to ask? Why would ANYONE complain if Japan launched a full scale invasion of DPRK and conquered and colonised the country?


Believe it or not, but most Asian countries have a thing against the Japanese invading other countries. It's a history thing.
If Japan would invade North Korea, the Japanese would be learning Chinese the day after.




I wouldn't complain, but then I'm not a politically correct left-wing do-gooder. Which brings me to this: the only reason that these 'dangerous' countries are blatantly 'spitting in the face' of the rest of us is because the rest of us are controlled by politically correct left-wing do-gooders who won't ever take any sort of action to actually stop them, and they know it too.


Remind me please? What strong actions did the right-wing leaders undertake against NK?
If you take on NK, then you take on China. You will not win...more likely, you will be a smear on the ground in the wake of their advancing army.
And don't forget. We need a crackpot in that area to remind the Japanese that they need US-protection...it's good for business.




If the countries of the world were being run by real leaders (not gutless ones) the actions of 'dangerous' countries would not be tolerated. Lets think of great leaders of the past.
What would Alexander do? What would Julius Ceasar do? What would Ghengis do? Even Hitler, what would he do?


Funny...they were all leaders of 'dangerous' nations that were always attacking their neighbors in self interest. And calling Hitler a great leader? You really need to brush up on history. He was a narrow minded fanatical war-scarred man with a huge inferiority complex. His greatest accomplishment was not getting killed in WW1.



BOMB North Korea, assassinate Robert Mugabe, invade Sudan and crush the genocide, execute every suspected terrorist, murderer, rapist and here's a message for anyONE who disagrees: YOU are the reason why the world is becoming the way it is.


Thank you. Because it is my firm believe people like you are the reason the world is the way it is.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
No one can really blame Japan for being worried and as someone else had said, they know first hand what it is like to be nuked, and when you got some lunatic neighbor developing such weapons that is crazy enough to use them, then of course they would want this. With N.Korea testing openly testing nukes now, things are bound to heat up (hopefully not literally) on that part of the globe. I doubt NK would actually attack SK, because that would literally be the trigger of WWIII. All hell would break out. Korea would be at war again, a war weary U.S would join in, China would step in, Japn, probably Russia and the rest of Asia, and not long after, Europe would be involved. If tensions go overboard in Asia, it will get ugly.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



But many in the region may start to look over their shoulders at Japan if they move out from underneath their American Umbrella. They do have a right to defend themselves but this will become a bigger international political football.


Well dang - and to think I could have saved the band width and just asked you in a U2U!


No, thank you Slayer - this is what I was looking for - among the other informative posts here!

So, when Japan pokes it's head out from under the umbrella of the USA and stands on it's own again - (in the guise of *protecting* itself), it's legs also grow stronger to take steps forward to doing, *more*.

Gotcha!

Thanks!



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


Not necessarily there may be "fears" of that in the region.
I'm not saying that modern Japan would ever do that.




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join