NKorea missile fear sets pre-emptive strike debate in Japan

Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_JAPAN_NKOREA_PREEM
Published: Sep 1, 2017
Author: NA
Post Date: 2017-09-03 07:30:05 by XDMAR
Views: 5768

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

#1: buckeroo    To: XDMAR (#0)

Japan is debating whether to develop a limited pre-emptive strike capability and buy cruise missiles ...

A violation of US treaty.

buckeroo posted on 2017-09-03 11:08:37   Reply   Private Reply

#2: A K A Stone    To: buckeroo (#1)

Japan should scrap any such foolish treaty. It is outdated.

A K A Stone posted on 2017-09-03 11:20:01   Reply   Private Reply

#3: buckeroo    To: A K A Stone (#2)

The USA controls Japan's military capabilities. They can not scrap anything but a rice bowl and some chop stix.

buckeroo posted on 2017-09-03 11:21:58   Reply   Private Reply

#4: A K A Stone    To: buckeroo (#3)

You are full of it.

A K A Stone posted on 2017-09-03 11:22:46   Reply   Private Reply

#5: buckeroo    To: A K A Stone (#4)

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.

buckeroo posted on 2017-09-03 11:25:35   Reply   Private Reply

#6: A K A Stone    To: buckeroo (#5)

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.

A K A Stone posted on 2017-09-03 11:30:15   Reply   Private Reply

#7: buckeroo    To: A K A Stone (#6)

Treaties are a function of the US Senate, not Trump.

buckeroo posted on 2017-09-03 11:32:23   Reply   Private Reply

#8: A K A Stone    To: buckeroo (#7)

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?

A K A Stone posted on 2017-09-03 11:48:41   Reply   Private Reply

#9: buckeroo    To: A K A Stone (#8)

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.

buckeroo posted on 2017-09-03 11:58:09   Reply   Private Reply

#10: A K A Stone    To: buckeroo (#9)

You arent to bright.

A K A Stone posted on 2017-09-03 12:01:37   Reply   Private Reply

#11: buckeroo    To: A K A Stone (#10)

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.

buckeroo posted on 2017-09-03 12:06:51   Reply   Private Reply

#12: A K A Stone    To: buckeroo (#11)

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.

A K A Stone posted on 2017-09-03 12:11:39   Reply   Private Reply

#13: buckeroo    To: A K A Stone (#12)

Oh sure, TRUMP is drawing attention with his minuscule tweets suggesting war. Are you humping your TRUMP doll with every tweet he makes?

buckeroo posted on 2017-09-03 12:22:07   Reply   Private Reply

#14: Hondo68    To: A K A Stone, buckeroo, *Neo-Lib Chickenhawk Wars* (#12)

You would appease North Korea again like your hero Obama and Bill Clinton

Please tell us about the N. Korea attacks on your house, and what you were drinking at the time.

Hondo68 posted on 2017-09-03 13:06:31   Reply   Private Reply

#15: XDMAR    To: buckeroo (#13)

The US sold Tomahawk cruise missile to japan. The Tomahawk is an offensive weapon system.

XDMAR posted on 2017-09-03 13:12:11   Reply   Private Reply

#16: buckeroo    To: XDMAR (#15)

BAH! They just want the stuff. The USA has not delivered anything.

buckeroo posted on 2017-09-03 13:26:04   Reply   Private Reply

#17: Pinguinite    To: buckeroo (#1)

A violation of US treaty.

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.

Pinguinite posted on 2017-09-03 13:38:20   Reply   Private Reply

#18: buckeroo    To: Pinguinite (#17)

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.

buckeroo posted on 2017-09-03 13:55:09   Reply   Private Reply

#19: Pinguinite    To: buckeroo (#18)

It is all defensive. There are no offensive weapons in their arsenal.

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".

Pinguinite posted on 2017-09-03 13:59:37   Reply   Private Reply

#20: buckeroo    To: Pinguinite (#17)

To answer your question:

"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)

buckeroo posted on 2017-09-03 14:00:01   Reply   Private Reply

#21: buckeroo    To: Pinguinite (#19)

And there's a reason the US has a "Defense Department" and yet to counterpart called "Offense Department".

BFD, the USA Department of Defense used to be called, the Department of War. Names are changed to ensure pablum feeds the masses.

buckeroo posted on 2017-09-03 14:14:21   Reply   Private Reply

#22: Pinguinite    To: buckeroo (#21)

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.

Pinguinite posted on 2017-09-03 14:19:15   Reply   Private Reply

#23: buckeroo    To: Pinguinite (#22)

I've never heard of any treaty binding Japan from having "offensive" weapons ...

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.

buckeroo posted on 2017-09-03 14:32:54   Reply   Private Reply