Japan panel wants 'first strikes' against enemies

reply to post by Dorfl

If you take on NK, then you take on China.

I thought China was *condemning* Korea North for their actions at this moment in time? (It’s what I heard on the news here a moment ago).

So, is China verbally hand slapping N.Korea, but, would still take their side in a war?

I need that spoon feeding in smaller bites, lol, and I'm not too proud to say so!

Thanks for a great post!

peace

reply to post by SLAYER69


But can they even afford to rebuild a real military at the moment?
They are being hit hard by the global crisis bat.

All this talk about first strike capability could just be rhetoric aimed at their own people. To test if people would support more money flowing to the military.

Are there any Japanese ATS members that can shed a light on this issue?

Originally posted by sy.gunson
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.

YES actually my grandfather was present at the signing of the agreement. He even helped with the wording! IF they are bombed it is our responsibility to defend them. They are NOT allowed to leave the Japanese mainland to defend themselves in any act of war/fighting of any kind. IF someone was to step foot on the Japanese mainland then they could legally defend themselves; until then they sit on their hands and wait for US.
Yes they can change their constitution all they want. BUT they still can not step foot off of or fire from anywhere to anywhere other than the mainland. The wording of the agreement may be long and tiresome but the gist of it is plain. They aren't allowed to be at war/fight with anyone for 100 years. They still have around 40 or so to go.

North Korea is China's Guard Dog.

The guard dog has been challenging it's master's authority by acting independantly without communications of it's intents.

The guard dog has many sharp teeth, and China is as much in proximity to the dogs bite as South Korea.

One has only to turn the Tanks and missiles around and the question of who is master becomes one answered by physical contest.

N Korea has little to loose, everything to gain, and a mad man god king.

I hope that answers your questions.


It would be a very interesting day if China turned and said the dog has gone mad, it is alright to shoot it! I wonder would the rest of the world wait to see which way the dog was facing before it chose to act?

[edit on 26-5-2009 by Cyberbian]

reply to post by xoxo stacie

IF they are bombed it is our responsibility to defend them. They are NOT allowed to leave the Japanese mainland to defend themselves in any act of war/fighting of any kind. IF someone was to step foot on the Japanese mainland then they could legally defend themselves; until then they sit on their hands and wait for US.
Yes they can change their constitution all they want. BUT they still can not step foot off of or fire from anywhere to anywhere other than the mainland. The wording of the agreement may be long and tiresome but the gist of it is plain. They aren't allowed to be at war/fight with anyone for 100 years. They still have around 40 or so to go.

Really fascinating info thank you.

So how does this tie in with their asking for *First Strike* options?

If they get *permission* from the UN then the *agreement* signed is voided?

reply to post by silo13


China considers NK to be their unruly little brother. They don't always agree, but they will not leave them hanging either.

And be honest...would you want another super power invading a country next to you? Just compare it with China invading Mexico. The US hates their guts some times, but they sure would be helping them kick the invaders out.

reply to post by Cyberbian

It would be a very interesting day if China turned and said the dog has gone mad, it is alright to shoot it!

That's the impression I got from Italian TV news this morning...

reply to post by xoxo stacie


Stacie, Stacie, Stracie... so what are you saying ?

You honestly think USA is about to declare war on Japan.

Have you not thought it through. This is a challenge to USA. Not to North Korea. This is Japan saying to USA if you don't defend us like you promised to do in the Treaty of San Francisco then maybe we will just do it ourselves ?

Have you not figured it out yet Stacie that Japan is in effect accusing USA of breaching the Treaty of San Francisco ?

reply to post by Dorfl


OH...

Contrary to popular beliefs Japan has a pretty modern and powerful military. Remember they had lots of money in the past and they are allied with the US they have been able to buy some of the best American hardware. What they don't have is a large enough force to be a real threat like they once were.

isn't that the whole reason USA got the OK to to go into Iraq?
Seems the threat is more prominent with NK and everyone is on the fence about it.
Do they have an natural resources to plunder?

reply to post by xoxo stacie


Your not exactly right japan does have a defense force and and airforce and a navy and are quite capable of defending themselves from anyone in asia with the exception of maybe china. what there talking about is changing there charter which after ww 2 there defense force isn't allowed to attack unless fired upon. Which means that n korea could technically land troops in japan and as long as they dont shoot japan would have to sit there.Granted this is an over dramatization because of course they would say they were under attack by the act of them coming to shore but you kinda get the idea.

Originally posted by silo13

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?

So, if Japan had the early warning system and the go ahead to *strike* does that mean N.Korea would be nothing but a big glowing dot on the map today?

1) I'm willing to chalk it up to coincidence. It's a sub-committee making non-binding recommendations, and nothing in it is really very controversial or earthshaking. If anything, it's a bit on the weak side. It's proposing something that is considered a right by every other country in the world - the right to attack someone when they say "the missiles are on the pad and will launch in 20 minutes". At the moment, I don't think Japan has the legal right to respond, even in that situation. (To put it into perspective: the JSDF is currently on Pirate Patrol near Somalia. There was actually public debate over whether or not they were allowed to bring guns with them. No Joke.)

2) This report is pretty normal fare, and represents one of the underlying currents in Japanese politics. Article 9 of the constitution, which governs all of these things, has been in need of renewal for quite a while (IMO) BUT - the Japanese are not willing to give their government the power to potentially lead them into another war. Even the mention of re-examining Article 9 by anyone in government leads to protests here in Japan, to say nothing of South Korea. Which happens every 6 or 7 months, give or take. In other words - the timing isn't suspicious. It's perennial.

3) No. Can't see it. IF - big IF - it was known for certain that the bomb was a warhead, and it was aimed and ready to launch, you would see a pinpoint strike, and that would be it. Japan - and more importantly the Japanese - have no desire to get back into the empire business.

And that's the difficult part of all of this. SOMEONE is going to have to decide they want to take over North Korea. That's the only way out of this. You can't just pull down the razor wire and dig up the landmines and expect everything will be OK. Someone is going to have to take this country under their wing and nurse them back to health over the next 50-75 years. It's going to take that long. It won't be Japan - even if they could, and even if they wanted to, no one else would accept it. It won't be the USA, because China wouldn't accept that. Can't be China or Russia for the same reasons. And South Korea - the most likely nation - is also the most problematic. There are deep ideological divides, the economy of SK can't support both, and no one in the region would feel very comfortable about SK suddenly gaining control of a lot of land and a massive military. The Chinese don't trust them, the Russians don't trust them, Taiwan doesn't, and Japan doesn't - all to varying degrees.

That's the core of all of this. No one likes NK, but - what's the solution? Hand NK over to the UN for a generation or two for re-education? I don't know.

Sorry, ranting a bit.

Originally posted by sy.gunson
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.

Funny how some forget history. seeing as how the Korean war ended in an armistice and not a peace treaty the U.S. is still at war with NK and so are all of the allies that fought along side of the U.S. during the Korean war. So since technically the war is still legal under the U.N and International law and under U.S. law since congress never revoked the declaration of war that was given to Truman to aid SK.

the U.S. or one of the allies of the U.S. during the Korean war could launch a First strike against NK to re-ignite the war and claim that the nuke, and missile tests violated the terms of the 1953 armistice, and violated the U.N. sanctions imposed after the first NK nuke test.

The U.N would be powerless to stop any country from attacking NK for those reasons. and under international law every country has a right to defend themselves in any manner they see fit! the only thing that limits Japan in their options is the surrender they signed after defeat during WWII which said they could have defense force of no more than 100,000 members.

If Japan truly wanted to be able to have a first strike option they would have to renegotiate their surrender with the U.S. or break the surrender and risk going to war with the U.S.

Also Japan doesn't have to wait for the U.N. to do anything. why do you think the U.N. has any authority to tell any country what they can or can't do. You apparently have NO CLUE what the purpose of the U.N. is! the U.N. Is not a world governing body the U.N. is a place to discuss disputs to try and prevent war. People like yourself have perverted the true nature of the U.N. in thinking they truly have any say in what a country does.

Also those thinking that China would kick Japans arse out of Korea if they decided to invade NK. Korea was Japanese territory way back when. the Japanese defeated China to get that land, and they might be out numbered today by the Chinese but it wouldn't be an easy fight for China if Japan decided to reclaim their land!





[edit on 5/26/2009 by Mercenary2007]

reply to post by SLAYER69


I know they have a modern force. They even improved on some of the US hardware I believe.

The real problem will be financing for the 'new task'. They spend 0.8% of GDP (2006) for their military (according to the CIA world fact book ).
And they have a huge government debt, which totals 170% of GDP.

They would need a lot of popular support to get this past the bean counters in their government.

reply to post by Dorfl


Oh I hear ya

That's why the economic gods created deficit spending.

Originally posted by Dorfl
reply to post by silo13

 

China considers NK to be their unruly little brother. They don't always agree, but they will not leave them hanging either.

And be honest...would you want another super power invading a country next to you? Just compare it with China invading Mexico. The US hates their guts some times, but they sure would be helping them kick the invaders out.

I can guarantee you it would not be the United States invading Did you know Japan and South Korea have a defense pact? if one or the other goes to war there is excellent odds they would both attack. Both hate North Korea.And as for china North Korea is a thorn in there side they backed them just to bloody the nose of the Americans,And have been trying to pull away ever since.If china truly cared about them they wouldn't be testing missiles China would have gave them missiles.Most new military hardware is purchased through Iran because Russia and China wont sell to them anymore been that way for at least a decade.

reply to post by Mercenary2007

If Japan truly wanted to be able to have a first strike option they would have to renegotiate their surrender with the U.S. or break the surrender and risk going to war with the U.S.

Sorry, I don't undertand this part - it seems at odd ends...

reply to post by Darth Lumina


Japan was only nuked because they attacked Pearl Harbour first.

Do not trust the Japanese - never trust them.

They are inscrutible, and anyone who is inscrutible is a liar -make no mistake.

Let's face it, Japan intends to take over the Pacific, and then the world.

I have noticed that a lot of Japanese have moved into New Zealand, the better to take it over.

Hi Silo, thanks for the U2U. Stacie probably knows more about this than I do.

General Douglas McArthur forced the Emperor of Japan to accept retirement to being simply a constitutional monarch.

Previously during WW2 the Japanese royal family ruled totally and the parliament was more of an appointed council.

Incidentally much of the British Empire a hundred years ago was ruled in the colonies by appointed councils.

During WW2 and even earlier in the rape of Nanking, several of the royal Princes were involved in horrific massacres. It was a country with no conscience because the royal family was not accountable.

Gen McArthur as I understand it confronted the Emperor with a choice of either accepting a constitution, or being tried for war crimes.

After the Emperor agreed to a constitution, McArthur oversaw rebuilding of the nation and democratic elections. The treaty of San Francisco essentially let Japan off the hook in 1952 for being a "good boy"

Japan could change it's constitution if it really wished. It would require a national consensus, but an event like this would provide the necessary consensus.

The issue is how other countries in Asia would feel about abandonment of the self defence policy. I still dispute that a pre-emptive strike against NK would be in contravention of self defence policies.

There are risks for Japan in trashing the Treaty of San Francisco too.

USA might react by trashing it's obligation to protect Japan. Currently Japan feels USA is not living up to the treaty and protecting Japan.

There had already been talk in recent years about abandoning the Constitutional prohibition on it's military. These were all provoked by NK's missile tests.

Does that help Silo ?

Originally posted by spellbound

Let's face it, Japan intends to take over the Pacific, and then the world.

I have noticed that a lot of Japanese have moved into New Zealand, the better to take it over.

Calm down you! Get out much?

Never mind!

I wont post what I typed. It's not worth receiving a warning over.