Japan has right to develop pre-emptive strike capability: defense chief

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 1

    TumbleDry

    Hasn't that been used in the past by Japan? New term but aggression is still the appropriate term. If that makes you feel better with that 'new' term... Easier to sell at least...

  • 2

    Elvensilvan

    The problem with this "preemptive strike" plan is that the revolving door spins a bit too fast for proper training and planning.

    “We have irrefutable data. But disclosure would also reveal our various capabilities. We would like to discuss possible disclosure within the government, while watching China’s future steps.”

    There are equipment out there to tell you when you have been targeted, radar-locked or even fired at ... I think the Chinese are just probing to test whether or not the ships are equipped or not.

  • 2

    Iowan

    Damn right.

  • 0

    some14some

    “Given Japan’s political environment and the peace-oriented diplomacy it has observed,

    is it true? yes for primary school boys.

  • -10

    nigelboy

    Any sign that Japan was moving to develop such a capability in response to North Korea’s nuclear program could upset neighbors China and South Korea, which have reacted strongly in the past to suggestions it might do so.

    South Korea, still acting and behaving like the tributary state of China. It's hard to let go of your master even after thousands of years.

  • 4

    ChibaChick

    When are governments going to realise economic sanctions don't work against NK? While the people starve and die in the streets I notice the glorious leaders look remarkably well fed.

  • -1

    Droll Quarry

    When are governments going to realise economic sanctions don't work against NK?

    Oh, sanctions will work. A hungry person is not a happy person, the hungrier the more unhappier.... just ask Marie about cake....

  • 0

    Schopenhauer

    It is a right move. We realized we are helpless in dealing with rogue nations. We suffered a lot of "melanchory of impotents." Our peace constitutuion which was designed by America apparently aimed to make Japan an impotent country. We found U.S. Forces in Japan is not very useful despite we spend a lot for them. America did not take a strong stance to China over the Senkaku issue. It is miserable and a wrong idea that a nation depend its defense on other country.

  • -1

    tokyo-star

    When are governments going to realise economic sanctions don't work against NK?

    So what do you propose?

  • 1

    smithinjapan

    Sorry, but that would still be 'attack' any way you slice the term, and therefore not 'defense' and against the constitution as it stands currently.

  • 0

    sfjp330

    Schopenhauer Feb. 15, 2013 - 08:37AM JST America did not take a strong stance to China over the Senkaku issue.

    Why don't you define strong stance. What do you want the U.S. to do? Is it worth creating more friction with China over a small piece of rock in the middle of nowhere? You have to remember that U.S. and China is the largest trading partner, and you want to minimize any tension between the two countries.

  • 5

    zxcvb

    China is bluffing. If shit starts to get serious it won't commit to it's own metastasis - NK. The strike, if imminent, HAS to be pre-emptive. As for "innocent", "non-innocent", "good", "bad" - there is no such a thing. It's "I die or you die". And the winner will write the history.

  • 7

    Speed

    Japan (and any country) should have the right to pre-emptively attack any country they feel is on the verge of attacking them.

    I don't feel China nor N. Korea have been doing anything recently to make Japan feel otherwise. They've only themselves to blame for Japan's move toward more aggressive military policies.

  • -3

    Shumatsu_Samurai

    Oh, sanctions will work.

    When - 2113?

    Sorry, but that would still be 'attack' any way you slice the term, and therefore not 'defense' and against the constitution as it stands currently.

    Sometimes the only way to defend yourself is to attack the aggressor. For example, if a country declares war on you, do you wait for its submarines to start launching cruise missiles (or worse), or do you attack the submarines when they're at dock?

    I would also add that if you start trying to restrict Japanese defence policy by using the constitution as an excuse, you're just strengthening the hand of those people that want to change it. No reasonable person would suggest that Japan hamstring itself.

  • -2

    FPSRussia

    I believe this article is full of lies. It is definitely war posturing but without the action. I don't believe China has agreed to any such thing as a hotline. Furthermore, I believe that NK is China's ally instead of this rhetoric that China and Japan agree that NK is a threat.

    Japan would love to have a wedge between NK and China so that they are facing one enemy and not two. There's no better situation than a house divided for an invading nation.

    I've lived in Japan almost 20 years +. This is the worst I've ever seen it.

    It's just as an opinion like any one else's here on JT but I believe the stage is set for war.

  • 3

    Iowan

    Armed Japan: Strong Japan.

  • -1

    Probie

    When are governments going to realise economic sanctions don't work against NK?

    So what do you propose?

    I propose bombing the hell out of them, with cruise missile strikes on their missile lauch areas; followed by a land invasion.

    U.S. and SK troops from the South, Chinese troops from the North, and U.S., SK, and Chinese navies bombarding and launching air strikes from the seas on the East and West. China can hold the Yalu river, and the U.S. and SK troops can push North towards them. When it's over, the U.S. and China leaves, and Korea is reunited. The U.S. can also pull out most, if not all, of their troops from Korea that they have there now.

    All it needs is the U.S. and SK to convince China that it would be in their best interests. They could trade with the new Korea a lot more than they do with NK.

  • 3

    tokyo-star

    Probie: not sure if serious. China would never do that - they don't want a pro-US Korea right on their border.

  • -2

    Probie

    Probie: not sure if serious. China would never do that - they don't want a pro-US Korea right on their border.

    Oh, I'm serious. I think NK is more of a problem to China now. Trade with a re-unified Korea would boost the economy in the far East of China. Also, SK wouldn't be doing nuclear tests that have the potential to go wrong. And, they wouldn't be shooting misslies and rockets up that can veer off course and land on a Chinese town.

  • -4

    Scrote

    Mr Onodera, being obtuse, clearly doesn't understand the Japanese constitution. The Japanese government does not have the right to develop "pre-emptive" (i.e. aggressive) strike capability. The Japanese government may not use force to settle international disputes, nor may they maintain the weapons to do so.

    I know Abe wants to change all this in an attempt to finish off what his war-criminal relatives started, but until then Mr Onodera should respect the law, or resign.

  • 2

    tokyo-star

    I agree with your stated objectives, but there are a few problems with this scenario:

    1) China doesn't want the US on their border 2) NK will no doubt fight back to the best of their ability if there are any incursions into their territory 3) US public won't agree to spilling blood in Korea again 4) The war you suggest will devastate the SK economy 5) Major refugee crisis

    There's probably a myriad more issues, otherwise it would've been attempted already...

  • 4

    Jimizo

    According to leaks, China would have no problem in principal with a united Korea but would not accept US forces on the Korean/Chinese border. Only one other slight problem - it seems that while some South Korean politicians may put forward dreams of a United Korea, the majority of people are extremely worried about the enormous financial cost of unification and the majority are hardly clamoring for it.

  • 0

    Tiger_In_The_Hermitage

    This is a big mistake, we should not follow the US policy of pre-emptive strikes, if everyone did that we'll be at war for many years to come.

  • 0

    gogogo

    Not with morons like Ishihawa trying for office, he is likely just to press a launch button because he doesn't like someone and call it all fate.

  • 3

    AU_user_since_1998

    MAD or mutually-assure-destruction initiated by REAGAN is the best policy of survival and best deterence to attack.


    The futile French Maginot Line facing the German front built for several years at enormous capital PROVED TO THE WHOLE WORLD that DEFENSE IS NOT THE BEST DEFENSE. Offensive and possesing severe retaliatory Power is the best defense.


    So go on Japan, maintain a potent force that can have severe retaliatory power but instead of maintaining 3 million army (just like during WW2), maintain only about 350,000.

  • -2

    T_rexmaxytime

    Any sign that Japan was moving to develop such a capability in response to North Korea’s nuclear program could upset neighbors China and South Korea, which have reacted strongly in the past to suggestions it might do so.

    China and S.Korea are always upset with Japan over something so it would not change a thing. hehe

  • 2

    Yubaru

    And the more hungry, the more that die and the less mouths there are to feed, and that is how NK leaders think. They care nothing about the people of the country, just their own little corner of power.

    Japan should have the right to defend itself, but preemptive capabilities? I thought that was the job of the US in keeping Japan under it's defense umbrella? If Japan wants preemptive rights, then get the US military out of Japan and let them deal with it on their own.

  • 0

    Tom Webb

    Of course it does. Only an idiot will wait for the first nuke to hit and then try to defend itself. The NK nuke site should have been bombed after they first test.

  • -7

    Tony Ew

    Seriously who in the world want to attack Japan? For what purpose? Japan is not like Australia rich in natural resources, so what purpose to attack Japan? The only 'attack' may be on the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands itself and not on mainland Japan. For what? N. Korea attack Japan? What for? So all this talk of pre emptive attack sounds like an excuse to rearm, Imperial Japan rising! The N Korean nuke is just a bargaining chip of an extortionist government.

    All Japan really need is more ballistic missile defense. US obligation for Japan' security could also include pre emptive attack IF there is in fact imminent threat. This 'imminent threat' is a wild imagination of the nationalist LDP government. Sounds like Bush Pre Emptive Attack mentality which is a trait of a WARMONGER! Plus the US sea borne radar can detect incoming missiles for advanced warning. This is good enough defense without need to rearm to become a threat to other nations. Remember history!

  • 1

    tokyo-star

    Wonder why China would get upset if Japan installed a whole bunch of surface-to-air missile batteries along the Japan Sea coast? They obviously can't be used for offensive purposes, just to create a defense shield for any possible incoming rogue missiles from NK or China.

  • 0

    pointofview

    America and its friends can pretty much do anything they want. Its always everyone elses fault.

  • 5

    darknuts

    Sounds reasonable but don't forget, it was this same rationale that got the us into a war with Iraq.

  • -3

    Serrano

    If Japan waits until it is attacked, and Japanese people die and/or maimed, the victims' families will complain that the government failed to protect them.

  • -5

    Ewan Huzarmy

    If Japan waits until it is attacked, and Japanese people die and/or maimed, the victims' families will complain that the government failed to protect them

    The government wouldn't hear any complaints, they would be tucked away in their bunkers, probably dead too after the electricity generator fails and supplies run low.

  • 0

    yosun

    Japan has right to develop pre-emptive strike capability.

    JP could just do it, including research/ testing/ production... ,and no need to inform everyone because it didn't violate any agreement or rules or something like that if it doesn't include nuclear device. isn't it? So the words from the defence minister itself in a kind of political gesture in my opinion. Abe government seems want to stir up a kind of energy from japanese people to change consitution so as to set up his historical reputition which he missed during last term.

  • 0

    SamuraiBlue

    No Japan can not even develop any pre-emptive strike weapons without consulting the house of representatives and the budget utilization committee which is check and balance within a democracy.

    Japan has neither the right of pre-emptive strike nor retaliation to an enemy nation. Although I do nt believe Japan requires the right for pre-emptive stike since it becomes a doubled edged sword, I do believe Japan should regain the right for retaliation so to take out any missile launch sites before it stikes again.

  • 0

    Ichiro20

    Go JAPAN!.

    as for the 50cent army, if you ask who would dare attack Japan, you should answer your own question. :))

  • 1

    cabadaje

    Does Japan have the "right" of pre-emptive attack? No, no it does not. Those who practice self-defense waive the right of the first strike.

    Japan does have the right to amend its constitution and give itself the right to pre-emptive attack by revoking the self-defense force.

    However, doing so would be very much a disadvantage both politically and economically.

  • 0

    Xeno23

    So there's the constitutional thing, but I wonder what, beyond that, "develop" means... nukes? Cruise missiles? Long range air strikes? Does an aircraft carrier with actual attack fighters on it, rather than helos, become a preemptive launch platform? Because there're the JMSDF Hyuga and Ise DDHs, and a bigger one on the way - all supposedly F-35 capable.

  • 0

    ReformedBasher

    I really have to wonder at the logic of North Korea, assuming there is any. Their current course of actions can only end badly, with themselves the ones that will suffer the most. Very sad that their leader has turned out the way he has, despite exposure to a more peaceful and international environment.

    If there is any hard evidence that they are preparing for a nuclear strike, I'm guessing pre-emtive action will be taken by the US. Don't need nukes to do it. Conventional warhead on a Tomahawk missile launched offshore will do the job. Send a few just be sure. Surely their top brass know this?

  • 0

    cabadaje

    And, of course, there is the completely unsupported and utterly made up in my mind possibility that NK doesn't actually have nuke capability yet, and this explosion was carried out by parties who shall remain anonymous, Call of Duty-Modern Warfare style.

  • 0

    oberst

    pre-emptive strike against US was a big no no. pre-emptive strike against the Russian fleet during Russo-Japanese war was brilliant. pre-emptive strike against Commie China ........hell YES.

    What's wrong with this picture ?

  • 0

    SamuraiBlue

    Xeno23

    Any and all weapons system obtains some form of pre-emptive strike due to it's inherit nature of destruction but some weapons have more then others such as a long range curise missile or a strategic bomber and/or a ballistic missile none of which Japan owns.

    Beyond that it's self-constraint binding by the Constitution of a democratic state with civil control of the military that stops it.

  • 0

    cramp

    this is just to rile the sheeple

    it seems thats the mo of the new administration

  • 1

    Thunderbird2

    I don't see why this should upset Japan's neighbours: S Korea and China have larger military forces and are more capable of destroying Japan than Japan has of destroying them. Or is it the fact that the Koreans and Chinese believe once an aggressive power always an aggressive power?

    Personally I think it's a bad idea.

  • 2

    Kazuaki Shimazaki

    1) If one accepts the interpretations that Japan's Constitution allows a de facto armed force and self-defense, there is nothing in it that would bar limited offensive action - in fact, Japan will bump into a capability limit first.

    The vital phrase the one regarding not to using force to "settle" (kaiketsu) international disputes. But what is settle? You can read settle as process, in which case they can't even self-defend. The idea of using a mixture of "natural rights" and Article 51 as a partial blocker (essentially the official Japanese interpretation) is bull because if you can give up collective self-defense as per the constitution, in principle you can give up individual self-defense as well.

    If, however, you read "settle" as result, then what Japan can do expands enormously. For example, it can bomb North Korea's missile site. That is allowed because doing that won't actually settle the dispute about North Korea building more missiles. NK in principle can build another one. The SDF can take back Takeshima and South Korea challenged to settle it through the ICJ (which the SKs are much more likely to accept now they are not in control of the island). This will be permisible because what settled the Takeshima/Dokdo dispute is not military force, but the ICJ's judgement. And of course self-defense is allowed, because nothing can be settled by purely defensive action.

    2) The idea of 策源地攻撃 (attack of the source), presumably the issue this time, is nothing new. It has been floating around for awhile now and the media does Japan no favor by bringing it up each time.

    @Thunderbird I think it is more pragmatism. It is too good a card to put down. The Japanese left-wing lets them get away with it. The United States and other powers, to the extent they understand the game at all, are inconvenienced in responding because WWII America=Good, WWII Japan=Bad is a big part of America's self-image. Otherwise, they'll have to face up fully to such behavior as nuking, strategic firebombing ... etc.

  • 0

    Saul Schimek

    Congradulations, China and North Korea. You finally pushed hard enough and japan is re-arming.

  • 1

    badsey3

    Japan has Gundams to protect it. And being an Island Nation that is all it will ever need.

  • 0

    Kyle Alpert

    KAZUAKI is spot on. Japan has denounced violence, as a means for changing hearts & minds. Force or reason, both are useless when dealing with incorrigible savages. What has neither been denounced nor rejected, however, is the principle of 'preemptively moving to undermine an enemy's will/ability to act'. They denounced the right to treat others like petulant children, and instead maintain the right to treat then like feral beasts. I am almost certain any Japanese preemptive strike capability will be accompanied by an alarmingly potent 3rd strike capability as well: dont forget, Japan can go tier 1 nuclear at the flick of a switch. (read: 'take your licks and back off!')

  • 1

    OssanAmerica

    "Any sign that Japan was moving to develop such a capability in response to North Korea’s nuclear program could upset neighbors China and South Korea"

    Says two countries that have no constitutional restrictions on carrying out a pre-emptive attack. Therefore who cares what they say. Japan has the right to pre-emptive attack as that is the ultimate form of defense. It is not an unprovoked act of aggression. If China has any problems with it, they could stop it immediately by stepping on the lifeline to North Korea and making them behave. But they won't so they can live with whatever Japan is forced to do,

  • 2

    OssanAmerica

    SchopenhauerFeb. 15, 2013 - 08:37AM JST It is a right move. We realized we are helpless in dealing with rogue nations. We suffered a lot of "melanchory of >impotents." Our peace constitutuion which was designed by America apparently aimed to make Japan an impotent >country. We found U.S. Forces in Japan is not very useful despite we spend a lot for them. America did not take a >strong stance to China over the Senkaku issue. It is miserable and a wrong idea that a nation depend its defense on >other country.

    For one who uses "we" as in "Japanese" you certainly seem to be unaware of your own history. In fact it closely resembles the China supporters propaganda view. Article 9 was imposed on Japan because that satisfied the other allied nations who wanted to prosecute your Emperor as a war criminal. We (as in the United States) felt that doing so with draw Japan into a chaotic breakdown that would become an open door for the Soviets. But having accepted Article 9, Japan has adhered to it, and we literally had to "force" Japan to create a military in the face of the Korean War under the National Police force. This became to JSDF of today. Since then he US has continuously pressured Japan to revise it's constitution but Japan has resisted. Still, Japan did discreetly help the UN and South Korea against the North Koreans, Chinese and Soviets in the Korean War by dispatching for Imperial Navy Minesweepers under the command of the US Navy. Japan did the same on their own with JMSDF minesweepers in the first Persian Gulf War. Many J-bashers like to whine that "Japan hides behind the United States" when it comes to security issues. This is an uneducated comment usually coming from the very same people who who would be screaming about Japan returning to "militant imperialism" if they were not relying on the United States. The truth is that Japan has been hiding behind Article 9 for all these decades, and it took China's aspirations to take over the South ad East China Seas, and their unwillingness to pull on North Korea's leash to make Japan do what the United States has been unable to do for over 60 years.
    As for the United States "stance" on the Senkakus, we have told China several times now that if they try to take them with military force they will be starting a conflict with us. That was "strong" enough to cause sharp "whining" from China and an unwillingness to send PLAN warships to the Senkakus, relying instead on the Maritime Surveillance Agency ships. As for whether it s wrong for Japan to rely on the United States, a position that would very favorable to Chinese ambitions of expansion in Asia, I have little doubts that the JMSDF could more than handle the PLAN in a limited engagement. But the U.S. position will prevent any further escalation if China loses it's rationality and decides to start an all-out war. In fact nearly all US allies are in a similar position with regard to the U.S. and their security.

  • 0

    slowguy2

    nigelboy: "South Korea, still acting and behaving like the tributary state of China"

    That silly old story has no merit whatsoever. It's not like Japan would have been any different if it had been physically attached to China, like Korea is. It was the pragmatic option for a tiny, weak nation bordering an empire that absorbed peoples and nations all around it. Japan was spared China's imposition only because of the triple luck of distance, physical isolation by the sea and having Korea as a buffer zone, not because of anything the Japanese did themselves. Long after China became a mighty civilization, Japan remained a sparsely populated backwater whose natives were still living in the stone age. Do you really think those natives would have been a match for China's vast armies with metal weapons?

  • -2

    nigelboy

    slowguy2

    You basically argued that there is "merit" to my statement. Korea, in their minds, are still "tiny, weak nation bordering an empire" in China. Thanks for doing the leg work.

  • -6

    Tony Ew

    @cabadajeFeb. 15, 2013 - 04:14PM JST

    Does Japan have the "right" of pre-emptive attack? No, no it does not. Those who practice self-defense waive the right of the first strike.

    Japan does have the right to amend its constitution and give itself the right to pre-emptive attack by revoking the self-defense force.

    However, doing so would be very much a disadvantage both politically and economically.

    For once I agree with you! Pre emptive strike doctrine by Japan is a very very bad idea! First let's look at the real world. Spies everywhere! In order to conduct pre emptive strikes, the attacker usually have to have sufficient attacking forces to do the job properly but you cannot do so easily in an open society without being detected as suspicious activity! Spies everywhere in Okinawa, in mainland Japan. So for illustration if Japan want to do pre emptive strikes on N Korea, the spies may tip off the N Koreans AND THIS MAKES A REAL ATTACK ON JAPAN EVEN MORE PROBABLE! Remember computers can talk to each other instantly to detect abnomalies and the N Koreans may just itch to fire first out of fear their missiles may be destroyed first. Night time deliberate power shutoff all these are favorite tactics to make undercover attacks but will be monitored by spies. This is common knowledge, nothing classified. Don't bother with Pre Emptive Strike mentality. It will not work and actually invite a faster attack by the enemy to defeat this pre emptive nonsense!

    Seriously I don't know why people don't realise N Korea is just practising the Art Of War: Intimidation with nukes without actually using it! N Korea have zero reason to actually use it. That will be a disaster for them and they know it!

    I conclude all this talk of pre emptive attack as a diversion to actually rearm Japan to become a potentially aggressive nation again! We remember how history went!

  • 1

    orvillends

    It is time for Japan to abandon its suicidal, pacifist constitution. As the only leading economic power on the world stage that lacks offensive readiness, it is just a matter of time before Red China and N Korea become more than provocative.

  • 1

    badsey3

    Do you really think those natives (Japanese) would have been a match for China's vast armies with metal weapons?

    -It always has historically.

    People should not waste their time with all the fear-mongering and hate. These people want Japan to waste money on war munitions (and grow government) at a time when the populous is getting older and money tight. Money and labor can be better used on other things.

    Japan has/will deal with the Fukushima crisis which is way worse than any nuclear bomb could possibly be. Plus the mountains protect many from any nuclear blast. If anything I would worry about Japan protecting Japan from itself (inflation, suicides, future of young people, education, radiation, energy)

  • 0

    OssanAmerica

    Tony EwFeb. 16, 2013 - 05:35AM JST I conclude all this talk of pre emptive attack as a diversion to actually rearm Japan to become a potentially aggressive >nation again! We remember how history went!

    I totally disagree that Japan will ever become a nation like China is right now.

  • 1

    Elvensilvan

    I remember a quote I saw before:

    Confucius say: Wars do not prove who is right, but who will be left.

  • -4

    Tony Ew

    @OssanAmericaFeb. 16, 2013 - 07:51AM JST

    Tony EwFeb. 16, 2013 - 05:35AM JST I conclude all this talk of pre emptive attack as a diversion to actually rearm Japan to become a potentially aggressive >nation again! We remember how history went!

    I totally disagree that Japan will ever become a nation like China is right now.

    Long time ago I remove 'NEVER' from my dictionary! I am actually very symphatetic towards the Japanese because they go to war due to lack of resources but they are so good at making pretext to invade other countries! Anyway Japan will not arm to the teeth like China which have to do out of necessity ( threatened twice with nukes by US and once by USSR!, that's why the thousands of miles of hidden tunnels in China!)

    I don't care if Japan arm to the teeth with conventional weapons. It is the plutoniums I am worried about. Even a dirty bomb is just as good to intimidate the other country, like N Korea nuke program. So fine with me if Japan change the Constitution as long as the plutonium is audited and shipped out of Japan completely!

  • -3

    sfjp330

    SchopenhauerFeb. 15, 2013 - 08:37AM JST It is a right move. We realized we are helpless in dealing with rogue nations. We suffered a lot of "melanchory of impotents."

    Compared to what Japan? At least China let all the foreign companies including 20,000 Japanese companies to invest and manufacturer their products inside China. What did Japan do in the 80's and 90's? Put tons of barriers, restrictions, taxes etc. and kept all the foreign companies out. How many cars did U.S. sell to Japan in the 90's? Annually 10K and Japan shipped 2.3 million to U.S.?

  • 1

    nigelboy

    Compared to what Japan? At least China let all the foreign companies including 20,000 Japanese companies to invest and manufacturer their products inside China. What did Japan do in the 80's and 90's? Put tons of barriers, restrictions, taxes etc. and kept all the foreign companies out. How many cars did U.S. sell to Japan in the 90's? Annually 10K and Japan shipped 2.3 million to U.S.?

    What do you mean "let"? As if China had a choice???

    And please stop bringing up the incompetency of U.S. Automakers into this discussion.

  • -6

    Asianhometown

    Allowing Japan to rearm and preemptive strike is very dangerous. History always repeat itself. Throughout Korean Japanese and Chinese history, japan has always been the aggressor. The shoguns attacked Korea several times throughout history while Korea never attacked Japan. . During WWIi Japan believed the US was a threat so Japan made a preemptive strike on the US which eventually lead to Japan's defeat and deaths of millions of innocent Japanese. Japanese should never be allowed to rearm.

  • 3

    OssanAmerica

    Tony EwFeb. 16, 2013 - 08:28AM JST "@OssanAmericaFeb. 16, 2013 - 07:51AM JST Tony EwFeb. 16, 2013 - 05:35AM JST I conclude all this talk of pre emptive attack as a diversion to actually rearm >Japan to become a potentially aggressive >nation again! We remember how history went! "I totally disagree that Japan will ever become a nation like China is right now."

    long time ago I remove 'NEVER' from my dictionary! I am actually very symphatetic towards the Japanese because >they go to war due to lack of resources but they are so good at making pretext to invade other countries! Anyway >Japan will not arm to the teeth like China which have to do out of necessity ( threatened twice with nukes by US and >once by USSR!, that's why the thousands of miles of hidden tunnels in China!)

    Japanese imperialism is over by 70 years. The PRC does not have a history of peace as long as Japan does. Perpetually harping on WWII looks sillier and sillier as hina is seen more and moire of a threat by all of Asia and the world. You need to get over it because as I've said before, Japan's actions over 70 years ago do not justify China's behavior and attitudes today. This is what keeps China from ever becoming a "leader" in Asia.

    don't care if Japan arm to the teeth with conventional weapons. It is the plutoniums I am worried about. Even a dirty >bomb is just as good to intimidate the other country, like N Korea nuke program. So fine with me if Japan change the >constitution as long as the plutonium is audited and shipped out of Japan completely!

    You shouldn't care whether Japan is armed with conventional or nuclear weapons. If China wanted to have an honest friendly relationship with Japan as the Sino-Japanese Treaty of Friendship of 1972 and reaffirmed in 1978 make clear, Japan's military status is irrelevant to China. In fact a nuclear armed Japan would probably be less of a threat to China than the currently nuclear armed United States is.

  • -4

    Outta here

    OssanAmerica,

    It's amusing how you say Japan's 70 years of peace make up for decades of militarism and then try to throw some mud and call the Chinese aggressors by citing a conflict a mere 800+ years ago. Wow that's a stretch and a half

  • 1

    JoeBigs

    Article needs to go bye bye as soon as possible.

  • 0

    Kuribo1

    Every country has a right to defend itself. Everyone of them, America continually strikes first against enemies abroad. Japan has the right to protect its people and land against any aggressive nation.

  • 2

    OssanAmerica

    Outta hereFeb. 16, 2013 - 10:26PM JST "OssanAmerica, It's amusing how you say Japan's 70 years of peace make up for decades of militarism and then try to throw some >mud and call the Chinese aggressors by citing a conflict a mere 800+ years ago. Wow that's a stretch and a half

    No it's not amusing at all 70 year old history can't hurt us, but a war today can. The Chinese are aggressors just ask all of Asia, .China needs to co-exist peacefully with the world.

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in Politics

View all

View all