North Korea threatens to shoot down Japanese spy planes

Sunday 28th June, 09:37 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 77 Total Comments Show All

OssanAmerica at 02:03 AM JST - 1st July

I've never run across anyone who knew what they were talking about in >terms of Japan and military equipment but failed to refer to the JGSDF >by their correct name Their correct but supiciously misleading name.

Why misleading Nessie? Can you name one JSDF action or deployment that was "offensive or aggressive" since their inception? And I trust you are aware of the wording in the J-constitution which grossly limits the use of military force.
OssanAmerica at 02:09 AM JST - 1st July

Who said anything about the Navy?

You did: "They do not pay for the Aegis carriers, the subs,..."

Japan only spends 2 billion every year, a very small fraction of the >amount it costs to defend this country.

That's because you're lumping our military operating costs together with the cost of the bases. WE, as in the United States, decide on the operations, not Japan. So why in the world should they pay for it?

As far as protecting our interests is concerned, SK should do nicely for >that purpose AND they actually appreciate our military being there.

You're on a different planet than the rest of us. Anti-US feelings are far far more rampant in Skorea than in Japan. If you really are unaware of this I suggest you speak to a few of our men in uniform who have experience in both host countries.

Honestly? I wish my country's military would leave Japan, then I >wouldn't have to read the nasty anti-U.S rants posted here

The nasty anti-US rants posted here are, for the most part, not comming from J-posters. In fact I really think there are very few J-posters here to start with.
flatearther at 07:04 AM JST - 1st July

OssanAmerica- I also mentioned planes as well as personnel, funny that you only saw Navy. Why, yes, I am lumping together all of the costs. That only makes sense, you can't pick and choose what you pay for. However, Japan can, and does, and they complain about our presence here while they do so. That offends me. I don't need to speak to military personnel in SK, I've been to SK, spoken to SKoreans, spoken to military personnel there, etc. If you had a bad experience there, I'm truly sorry. However, mine was entirely positive, and I was there this year.Perhaps my experience is simply more current than yours.
You may be right that many of the offensive posts may not be from Japanese people, I will grant you that. In a face to face conversation, many Japanese people shy away from discussing this topic. The word Anno is usually the most you will hear in real life.
jhk at 10:47 AM JST - 1st July

Real Estate agents need to sell mortgages to pay their rent, recruiters need turnover, soldiers need war machine. Its a big policy machine we live in run by psychopaths. "Just doing your job" within the machine just doesn't justify anything or make you feel proud of yourself anymore.

Tough and understandable call, but sell out and pretend to deny it, or stop fooling yourself.

Its not how tough, proud, or face-to-face you are, its what you are selling out to. It doesn't matter if the old man or old lady is saying "anno", maybe they think you're prone to violence.
flatearther at 11:22 AM JST - 1st July

jhk- Huh?
IvanCoughalot at 02:13 PM JST - 1st July

“will not tolerate even a bit the aerial espionage by the warmongers of the Japanese aggression forces"

That's a real quote? Was it followed by "times one million no come-backs"?
Nessie at 07:17 PM JST - 1st July

Why misleading Nessie? Can you name one JSDF action or deployment that was "offensive or aggressive" since their inception? And I trust you are aware of the wording in the J-constitution which grossly limits the use of military force.

I’m not aware of that wording. I am aware of the wording that WISELY limits use of military force.

Japan's lower house just passed a bill - it will take effect in late July - which allows Japan's 'self-defense forces' (SDF) to open fire on pirates operating off the coast of Somalia not only if a Japanese vessel is under attack but also if the vessel is sailing under another country's flag.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/japans-antipiracy-law-authorizes-use-weapons
OssanAmerica at 05:36 AM JST - 2nd July

OssanAmerica- I also mentioned planes as well as personnel, funny that >you only saw Navy. Why, yes, I am lumping together all of the costs. >That only makes sense, you can't pick and choose what you pay for. >However, Japan can, and does,

No , you're flat out wrong. Do you honestly believe that Japan, or any other host nation for US forces has the right to pick and choose what US assets are to be placed there? WE do the choosing, not anyone else.

and they complain about our presence here while they do so. That offends >me.

One; Far less than South Korea.Two; anti-US base protests are limited to areas where they are located. Three; anti-US base protests exist practically every country in the world. We can leave Japan any time we want. It's just that Japan is the most reliable ally we have in the region and geographically serves as a gateway for oerations in Asia. Alot of my friends who were in Vietnam got there by way of Okinawa. Seriously, there's alot more to be offended by elsewhere.
OssanAmerica at 05:41 AM JST - 2nd July

I’m not aware of that wording. I am aware of the wording that WISELY limits use of military force.

Article 9. 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.

I consider terms such as "forever renounce" and "the threat or use of force" to grossly limit the use of military force. Ad of course the Somali Pirates, that's a police action against criminals, not a military action against a soverign state.
flatearther at 06:04 AM JST - 2nd July

OssanAmerica- Yes, we choose which assets to place in Japan much as your landlord would "choose" to fix your leaky plumbing, because we have to. We don't have a choice to leave this country, please. If your most current military experience is via your friends who were in Okinawa during Vietnam, I can certainly understand your confusion over our current relationship with SK. Japan played a huge role in past wars, but what does that have to do with the present? Not much.
OssanAmerica at 03:54 AM JST - 3rd July

flatearther - You've been wrong on nearly all of your statements and you've topped it with this "we don't have a choice to leave this country". Why do we not have a choice? Who is FORCING us to maintain troops in Japan or anywhere else? And no, my relationship with military friends go back to Vietnam and end up at Camp Casey ROK in the 1990s. You have absolutely no idea about how SKoreans, especially the young, feel about the US MIlitary presence, or did you happen to miss every SKorean administration prior Lee Myung Bak? Do the words Tank and school girls mean anything to you? Anyway, kamsamnida for a nice chat, I'll go look for a discussion partner who actually knows what they're talking about.
SebastianFlyte at 12:45 PM JST - 3rd July

Go ahead Jong, it'll be the last thing you do.
Nessie at 04:51 PM JST - 3rd July

I consider terms such as "forever renounce" and "the threat or use of force" to grossly limit the use of military force. Ad of course the Somali Pirates, that's a police action against criminals, not a military action against a soverign state.

Intelligent people may disagree honestly on whether the constitution is overly constraining (I tend to agree that it is), but that’s a completely different issue. Whether the pirate ships are directed by a foreign state or acting independently is also beside the point. The fact is that approval for actions by Japanese military vessels halfway across the world in defense of non-Japanese vessels clearly contravenes the constitution. That’s why the “JSDF” is a silly name. A better name would be the Japan Not Really Self-Defense Forces because We Are Contravening the Constitution. Or if you prefer, the Japan Not Really Self-Defense Forces because We Are Contravening a Constitution We Feel Is Too Constraining but That No-one Has the Will or Guts to Change.
OssanAmerica at 02:15 AM JST - 5th July

Whether the pirate ships are directed by a foreign state or acting >independently is also beside the point. The fact is that approval for >actions by Japanese military vessels halfway across the world in defense >of non-Japanese vessels clearly contravenes the constitution.

Disagree entirely with the above. Nothing contained in the J-constitution makes reference to physical location or distance from Japan as a standard for self defense. Japanese flag commercial ships are the equivalent of Japanese property in Japan, a maritime concept accepted by all nations of the world for over a century. Therefore the JSDF has a right, perhaps an obligation, to protect Japanese interests. Expecially since the Somali Pirates are not representing any sovereign state and the JSDF action would have no bearing on settling "international disputes". Furthermore a call for action against the pirates has been sanctioned by the UN.

A better name would be the Japan Not Really Self-Defense Forces because >We Are Contravening the Constitution.

Agree completely with the above, the very existence of a military force, no matter how defense oriented it may be, of the size and capability of the JSDF is in direct contradiction to Article 9. So either they ought to terminate the SDF or call it the Japanese Armed Forces. Of course one could reasonablr argue that even as a normal non-restrained military a name is just a name, after all both Israel and Australia have "Self Defense Forces" in name alone.
Nessie at 04:08 PM JST - 7th July

Disagree entirely with the above. Nothing contained in the J-constitution makes reference to physical location or distance from Japan as a standard for self defense.

I guess you didn't notice that the Japanese military would be able to engage pirates even when no Japanese flagged ships were involved. In other words, patently not self defense. And it seems that you're arguing that if a Japanese national was mugged in Mexico, the Japanese military would not be constitutionally prevented from becoming involved there. Distance is one factor in defining self-defense.