LDP proposes Japan obtain ability to hit enemy's missile launch sites

Wednesday 10th June, 05:31 AM JST

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

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 40 Total Comments Show All

notimpressed at 06:03 PM JST - 10th June

Both sides of this discussion have excellent and valid points. So mine is that this is a lose-lose situation. Pre-emptive strike ability gives the opponent more reason to want to strike you, among other drawbacks. Not having it leaves you in the hands of the ones who last defeated you.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
mareo2 at 06:32 PM JST - 10th June

mareo2, what if North Korea only used conventional weapons and the US said "nah, sorry we can't risk a nuclear war over this"? You can't rely on another country for your security forever. Eventually you have to step up to the plate and be responsible for yourself.

What NK is going to do? Swim 1 million soldiers to our shores and rolling 1000 tanks under the sea? Do their low quality aircrafts can beat our F-15 and anti-air missiles defense? Do their warships can beat our modern submarines and destroyers? No offense, but NK can be hard to crack in their bunkers, but they lack the transports for invade us or win a conventional war in the air or the sea. J lack the militar power for attack NK, but we can defend us agaist NK conventional weapons.
grafton at 08:26 PM JST - 10th June

Japan should have seen the writing on the wall when the Americans pulled out of Vietnam. America cannot be trusted to help defend anybody unless it is in their own interest. It is quite possible that Japan could be left to deal with NK unprepared.
toguro at 01:09 AM JST - 11th June

grafton: That was a weak comparison. If you would've maybe said the Bay of Pigs, or even when the US encouraged the Iraqis to try to topple Sadam Hussein, only to leave them to fend for themselves, then you would make sense. The US would have every reason to defend Japan if attacked by NK nukes, one of which being that US military, and civilian personnel would directly be affected as a result.
Shumatsu_Samurai at 03:30 AM JST - 11th June

What NK is going to do?

Launch its conventional missiles, such as the Nodong series. Japan's missile batteries can't cover every significant population centre (the missiles aren't accurate enough to be used against military targets). These could also be filled with chemical or biological agents.
mareo2 at 05:56 AM JST - 11th June

Launch its conventional missiles, such as the Nodong series. Japan's missile batteries can't cover every significant population centre (the missiles aren't accurate enough to be used against military targets). These could also be filled with chemical or biological agents.

1 - So you think that we are going to suffer like Britain under Hitler's V-1 and V-2 or Israel under Sadam's SCUDs? I think that the britons and jews endured pretty well until the USA leaded international alliances for take down the dictators, I dont see why can be different with J and Kim.

2 - Is commonly acepted by the international community that Chemical and Biological weapons are WMDs, not "conventional weapons" like you sugested in your first post. Is really very unlikely that the the USA and the international community sit on their hands if a peaceful country that dont fired first is under the attack of WMDs.

Now, can you please elaborate a plausible scenario, where NK fire missiles to J without any provocation from pacifist J and the USA do nothing for protect an ally that host and pay part of the cost of hosting 50k american soldiers, aircrafts and warships, when the entire excuse for all these bases is protect J, other asian allies like SK, Taiwan and keep the peace in Asia?
nigelboy at 06:07 AM JST - 11th June

Now, can you please elaborate a plausible scenario, where NK fire missiles to J without any provocation from pacifist J and the USA do nothing for protect an ally that host and pay part of the cost of hosting 50k american soldiers, aircrafts and warships, when the entire excuse for all these bases is protect J, other asian allies like SK, Taiwan and keep the peace in Asia?

I can see the possibility of USA doing nothing in the above case. Even if it's "small", I believe it merits the implementation of LDP proposal. European community with less neighbor tensions spends more money on defense (as a % of GDP) than Japan.
Tosaken at 07:01 AM JST - 11th June

mareo2 (at 05:56 AM JST)
Now, can you please elaborate a plausible scenario,

A plausible scenario is when China puts enough financial pressure on the US to do nothing. It’s possible that a nuclear attack would be too much for even the US to ignore, but a conventional attack, even one that tries to use chemical weapons might not be enough to get the US to engage. The US forces are not in Japan to protect/defend Japan, they are there to protect/defend the US. If the cost to the US is too great Japan will be left to sink or swim on its own. Can any one honestly see the people of America being willing (especially after Iraq & Afghanistan) to “sacrifice their American boys” for Japan? The history books, or more likely the distorted history films would be out within minutes to show how terrible the Japanese are. Support from the US is always & only conditional on the US getting something they want. Yes, all countries act on self interest, but the US has turned it into an act form.
grafton at 07:40 AM JST - 11th June

toguro at 01:09 AM JST - 11th June

“grafton: That was a weak comparison. If you would've maybe said the Bay of Pigs, or even when the US encouraged the Iraqis to try to topple Sadam Hussein, only to leave them to fend for themselves, then you would make sense.”

Thank you, you are right & I was being lazy in not detailing more of the history that proved my point about the US.

“The US would have every reason to defend Japan if attacked by NK nukes,”

Nukes yes, but what about conventional weapons? That’s far more of a grey area & would involve US public opinion. Would the American people back a messy war with NK that might also bring the US into conflict with China again so as to defend Japan? As unlikely as it is today that China would again go head to head with the US, it is still a possibility. Enough so that any anti-war group in the US would have a strong argument against supporting Japan if so doing brought the US into direct conflict with China. From a US financial perspective looking at Asia today it’s six of one & half a dozen of the other as to which country (Japan or China) is more important.

“one of which being that US military, and civilian personnel would directly be affected as a result.”

The US has sacrificed people before & I guarantee there is an evacuation plan already in place.
toguro at 07:45 AM JST - 11th June

Tosaken: That is a very likely scenario. A couple of things that I disagree with you on, is 1) As I stated before, Americans would be in imminent danger and couldn't igore it. 2) Countries acting in their own self interest has been an art form long before the US was even a country. I will say that the US has perfected it to a science.
toguro at 07:57 AM JST - 11th June

grafton: I have to be honest and say that I don't know the answer to your question. It is a very scare thought, and one that is very likely. I just pray and hope that we don't have to find out, because it would be ugly no matter the outcome.
mareo2 at 08:54 AM JST - 11th June

Hmm... In my humble opinion, still no one offered an logic explanation of why NK can attack J with out any provocation. What NK can get from attack J? Do anyone think that if japanese die we are going to pay more money to the cognac drinkers? People rather use the money for increase the militar budget and maybe build nukes, for security or even for get revenge.

Also no one explained why China risk a conflict with two trading partners, the USA and J for an empoverished country that cost a lot of economic help from C and keep embarrasing them from time to time.
toguro at 09:17 AM JST - 11th June

mareo2: I'll answer your question with a question. When has NK ever needed any provocation to do what it does. If/when they feel the time is right for them to do whatever hair brain scheme they have planned, all they need to do is say that the UN has slighted them somehow, and that it was an act of war, or aggression against them, or some other made up excuse. As far as China goes, I don't think they would risk going to war with two of it's biggest traiding partners for little piss ant NK.
Shumatsu_Samurai at 03:40 AM JST - 13th June

toguro is right on provocation. North Korea is run by crazy people. Although chances are they wouldn't do it, you don't bank on probability.
nadavaloryo at 06:55 PM JST - 14th June

japan must be pass a resolution to the UN to stablish its own army...not to rely only in US... i am willing to join as my grandfa done in www2,,,