International News
See other International News Articles
Title: NKorea missile fear sets pre-emptive strike debate in Japan
Source:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_JAPAN_NKOREA_PREEM
URL Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie ... AULT&CTIME=2017-09-01-23-30-16
Published: Sep 1, 2017
Author: NA
Post Date: 2017-09-03 07:30:05 by XDMAR
Keywords: None
Views: 3511
Comments: 23
TOKYO (AP) -- Japan is debating whether to develop a limited pre-emptive strike capability and buy cruise missiles - ideas that were anathema in the pacifist country before the North Korea missile threat. With revisions to Japan's defense plans underway, ruling party hawks are accelerating the moves, and some defense experts say Japan should at least consider them. Japan has a two-step missile defense system, including interceptors on destroyers in the Sea of Japan that would shoot down projectiles mid-flight and if that fails, surface-to-air PAC-3s on land. In a pre-emptive strike, by Japanese definition, cruise missiles, such as Tomahawk, fired from destroyers or fighter jets would get the enemy missile clearly waiting to be fired, or just after blastoff from a North Korean launch site, before it approaches Japan.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: XDMAR (#0)
A violation of US treaty.
Japan should scrap any such foolish treaty. It is outdated.
The USA controls Japan's military capabilities. They can not scrap anything but a rice bowl and some chop stix.
You are full of it.
The USA blew the living HELL out of Japan, from WW2. They can not have offensive weapons. That is why the USA continuously has military stationed in Japan since the end of the war.
World war 2 is over. They can scrap those agreements anytime they chose to. Trump would support it as he already said they should nuke up.
Treaties are a function of the US Senate, not Trump.
Listen up dumb ass. We van withdraw from any treaty we want to. Japan can also abandon any treaty their government decides it doesn't want to be part of any longer. Are you really so stupid that you didn't know that?
Escalating the NK issue with offensive weapons is not in cards. The USA already has the ME to contend with because of stOOpid crackpots like you. We should never have been there in the first place.
You arent to bright.
When you deny history in the face of contemporary challenges while clinging on to your TRUMP doll, you have failed not just for your family but yourself and the world around us. As always, Stone, you are a loser.
Which history am I ignoring in your mind. I think it is you who have your head in sand. You would appease North Korea again like your hero Obama and Bill Clinton. Get your head out if your ass buckeroo.
Oh sure, TRUMP is drawing attention with his minuscule tweets suggesting war. Are you humping your TRUMP doll with every tweet he makes?
Please tell us about the N. Korea attacks on your house, and what you were drinking at the time. The US sold Tomahawk cruise missile to japan. The Tomahawk is an offensive weapon system.
BAH! They just want the stuff. The USA has not delivered anything.
What treaty is that? Japan had a prohibition of their own not to have nukes, out of acknowledgment of the terrible nature of them after WWII, but that was not part of any treaty I know of. Japan most certainly has it's own military forces, and cruise missiles are a normal part of any military arsenal these days.
It is all defensive. There are no offensive weapons in their arsenal. The USA defends Japan; that is why the USA has military might in Japan.
However true that may be, a cruise missile in this case could be considered defensive. And there's a reason the US has a "Defense Department" and yet to counterpart called "Offense Department".
To answer your question:
BFD, the USA Department of Defense used to be called, the Department of War. Names are changed to ensure pablum feeds the masses.
Point is, what qualifies as "defense" and "offense" is not clear. I've never heard of any treaty binding Japan from having "offensive" weapons, and would be curious what Japan would receive in exchange for agreeing to it. I suspect that no such treaty exists.
In 1952 the United States Congress ratified the peace treaty that formally ended the American occupation of Japan. Simultaneously it ratified the "U.S.-Japan Security Treaty." This treaty allowed the American military to continue to use important bases in Japan for the defense of the Far East and to intervene in Japan to put down internal disturbances should the Japanese government request such assistance. While the Japanese government and a majority of the public supported the ratification of the new treaty, a sizable portion of the public did not. Even many pro-American conservative Japanese felt that the treaty compromised Japan's independence. Having negotiated this security treaty while under American occupation, however, Japan had little influence over its terms.
Japan is debating whether to develop a limited pre-emptive strike capability and buy cruise missiles ...
#2. To: buckeroo (#1)
#3. To: A K A Stone (#2)
#4. To: buckeroo (#3)
#5. To: A K A Stone (#4)
#6. To: buckeroo (#5)
#7. To: A K A Stone (#6)
#8. To: buckeroo (#7)
#9. To: A K A Stone (#8)
#10. To: buckeroo (#9)
#11. To: A K A Stone (#10)
(Edited)
#12. To: buckeroo (#11)
#13. To: A K A Stone (#12)
#14. To: A K A Stone, buckeroo, *Neo-Lib Chickenhawk Wars* (#12)
(Edited)
You would appease North Korea again like your hero Obama and Bill Clinton
#15. To: buckeroo (#13)
#16. To: XDMAR (#15)
#17. To: buckeroo (#1)
A violation of US treaty.
#18. To: Pinguinite (#17)
#19. To: buckeroo (#18)
It is all defensive. There are no offensive weapons in their arsenal.
#20. To: Pinguinite (#17)
"Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on 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. 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." — Article 9, The Constitution of Japan (1947)
#21. To: Pinguinite (#19)
And there's a reason the US has a "Defense Department" and yet to counterpart called "Offense Department".
#22. To: buckeroo (#21)
#23. To: Pinguinite (#22)
I've never heard of any treaty binding Japan from having "offensive" weapons ...
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]