Great Find Valkeryie

This may represent a signifigant change in Japanese policy. Japan has a very potent military force that is for defence based on thier laws. But turn them lose on offence and they can do some serious damage esp in long range strike. Thay have a robust space program that could easily make IRBM / ICBM's. Thier Navy is first rate and thier AF is top notch as well.

I find it reasonable, all things considered. Northeast asia is a simmering cauldron of craziness- North Korea waving missiles at everything, China licking is lips and looking menacingly at Taiwan, and terrorism in Indonesia. I'd want some offensive capabilities if I were them.

DE

I am all for it, The country is not run by an emperor anymore.

A Pacifist constitution made sense in the late 40's. The world has changed greatly in the last 60 years. If Japan, following the Bush example, would like to defend it's self before they are attacked... I've got no problem with it. Considering their neighbors, it's probably a very good idea.

Will we use Japan to go at North Korea?

It's pretty simple if you look at history.

First Strike = Bad Guys / Aggressors
Defenders = Good Guys / Righteous

First Strikes:

Germany on Czech, Poland, Denmark, Holland, Norway, Balkans, Greece, Russia

Japan on China, Philippines, USA

Commies in Afghanistan

China in Tibet

US in Iraq

Korea, Chinese

Defense:

US, Allies in WW2

US, Allies in Korea

First strike = Road to bad things. Pre-emptive warfare is bull#.

taibunsuu: that is a great point!! It's one of those things that make perfect sense when you hear it for the first time and go: "why didn't I think of that?"
Yeah, Japan seriously needs to re-do parts of their constitution; it's not an easy process, though. They're about as politcally divided as the U.S. is. As for their military ability, their Jieitai ("Gee-aye-tie" i.e. Self-defense force) has some good equipment, but even with all political issues aside (they have two pro-North Korea political parties), there's no way they could launch a serious attack at North Korea. North Korea may have the world's largest arsenal of missles and rockets. (We belive the shelf-life of their stockpiles of Soviet era weapons are falling apart, they have TONS and TONS of them. They invest pretty much ALL their resources into weapons and weapon-manufacturing facilities -while an estimated million or so starve every year!)
Japan actually relies on a mutual defense treaty they have with us (the U.S.) for most of their defense.
They are (very understandibly) quite bothered by the possibility of a Nuclear missle-capable North Korea, and want to avoid that if at all possible. That, I think, is why they are considering first-strike options.
Now enter local Asian politics into that, and it starts to get really messy...

Japan has a first strike capability - How you say, well the good old U S of A. Although i suppose it makes sense to be able to back up your war buddies.

You gotta try and talk NK around I think or 'things could get messy' does not describe what would happen adequately enough.

Originally posted by IntelRetard
I am all for it, The country is not run by an emperor anymore.

The emperor of japan is still in office. I'd say he has less power than the Prince of Leichtenstein, but he is still around. However, while the Emperor in WWII ultimately supported the move to attack the US, it was their generals that were all about the expansionism and imperialism.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
It's pretty simple if you look at history.

First Strike = Bad Guys / Aggressors
Defenders = Good Guys / Righteous

Germany never attacked the United States, neither did Italy. Sure, the Japanese did, and I'm not trying to nitpick.

But also, the Central Powers, none of them, ever attacked the United States, and there was a large pacifist anti-war movement active before that war also. Also, and I hate to use this example because its so overdone, wouldn't a first strike on weimar germany when chancellor hitler was re-arming it have been a good idea?

I think a good idea would have been to not allow US companies to fund Hitler, that way he would have never been able to attack anyone.

Barring that, never allowing the annexation of Czechoslovakia would have been a great move.

Barring that, attacking on the Western front when Poland was attacked, as per the agreement between France, Poland and Britain would have been good. Poland would have attacked Germany if Germany had gone West first. Hitler knew the Brits and French would sit on their asses and let the Poles down, and they did.

War is a failure of diplomacy. Pre-emptive attack is the alibi of aggressor states who are in the wrong.

Nygdan,
What you said is quite right. I wanted to make the point of the events that led up to WW2. And the lame duck Leag of Nations. The failer to act before things go so bad that the Nazis almost took over the world, excluding Japan. I dont like the idea of pre emptive strike, but in this sick messed up world, it might be necessary at some point. I am glad I am not the one who would half to make that decishen.

The Japanese Military is not too mighty at all. They do have advanced systems, but the military itself is not trained to the standards of the US.
This would cause ALOT of public debate and will spark years of debate as there are MANY that are against this type of action.

But, with NK becoming more dangerous, it would be terrible to leave themselves open. But, if they did approve it, I think it would only be lip service. There would not be anything to back it up.

But, this FIRST STRIKE precedent around the world is getting scary. Anyone will now use it to do anything that want to do.

What if Iran said they would do a first strike on Israel for them having Nuclear Weapons? What if North Korea did a first strike on South Korea or Japan for getting first strike options or having the US Military off the coast of both countries and now having forward deployed ships in the waters? What if China did a first strike on Taiwan for buying Military equipment from the US and said that they SUSPECTED they would be used against them? What if a country attacked Saudi Arabia, because they THOUGHT that the government supports terorists? These would not be out of the realm and should we condemn them for doing it? We would of course, but because the countries being attacked are our friends. But who is right or wrong when it comes to saying they SUSPECT someone will do something.

In many ways, the Iraq war was correct, but in many ways, just saying someone is better off not being in charge or the GUESS that they will do something bad is not a good precedence to set. The innocent civilians are the ones that pay the highest prices. The world is getting more dangerous every day. Something needs to be done in pursuit of REAL peace.

JCMinJapan,
some very good words. I hope some people in Gov. have your wisdom.

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution (imposed on them by their Shogun in 1946, a samurai named Douglas MacArthur), reads:

"Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. 2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized."

Junichiro Koizumi has intimated on occasion that he would like to see Article 9 of the Constitution "Addressed", and, last time I checked, the nation was pretty evenly divided on that. Of course, although there are no "land, sea, and air forces", there is a JASDF, JMSDF and JSDF Where the JSDF stands for 'Japan Self Defense Force', and A and M stand for Air and Maritime, respectively. The JMSDF is one of only two navies having Aegis missile defense capability.

Interestingly enough, the JASDF does not buy weapons from foreign countries, which is why Fuji Jukogyo (Subaru), not Boeing, builds the AH-64D Apache Longbow Helicopter (or will, starting in a couple of years); and Mitsubishi builds the F-15I, etc.

I don't think anyone knows what Japan is going to do. Koizumi might bet the government on getting Article 9 re-done, but it could cost the Liberal Democrats the Diet; they're already in deep kimchee for their efforts in trying to fix their economic system, especially the National Pension.

I personally would much rather see a nuclear Japan than a nuclear DPRK.

North Korea is simply a little stopgap between China and the West.

In some ways it's a handy thing. China doesn't want a Western nation right on its borders and South Korea may not want China right on its borders. But as China becomes a stronger nation and its economy becomes more Westernized, the mutual threat between the two societies diminishes, the possibility of unifying North and South Korea increases.

Kim Jong Il will then be out of a job. The guy is a delusional psychopath who thinks he and his progeny have their own kingdom. It's really crazy, but he's going to do everything he can to obtain independence and of course that means he needs nukes. Well only problem is he's got country without liberal economy and that makes it difficult to obtain nukes. So he starves whole country with 99% state effort in military and technology.

I think that the solution to North Korea isn't to do pre-emptive strikes on it because that will bring in China militarily. Solution is to meet mutual goals with China so that eventually North Korea will essentially be completely isolated, Kim will bow out with his little personal fortune, I'm sure he can move to Switzerland where he already spends lots of times at his estate anyway, and situation for North Korean people can be peacefully settled.

JCMinJapan, anata-wa nihon-jin deska, kudasai?

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
JCMinJapan, anata-wa nihon-jin deska, kudasai?

Nihonjin jarimasen. I am not Japanese. Off_the_street-san nihonjin desuka? Off_the_street, are you japanese?

I have lived here in Japan for the past 6 years and follow the Japanese news pretty closely as it all affects my life.

For once I totally disagree with you taibunsuu. Most who hold truly great power refuse to let go at almost any cost. Il would sooner watch ALL of his people starve before he was forced to stand down. You can have all the money in the world and it wouldn't compare to the kind of power that he possesses within the borders of his own little country. That kind of power drives a person mad after awhile. I imagine that to Il and others like him, the only thing more valuable than his power... is his life.

If war is always avoidable and diplomacy is always an option, then I imagine that the human race would have created a utopia of sorts by now... but we haven't. I mean, we've been at this for at least four or five thousand years and very little has changed... except the weapons.