Here
and
Now

kuchikomi

Japan suddenly finds itself on the 'nuclear missile Ginza'

14 Comments

On August 2, U.S. President Trump notified Russia that it would withdraw from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) -- initially signed between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, which had expired earlier this year. This set the stage for development of new intermediate range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles by both countries. 

But while the Americans square off against the Russians, how did East Asia become such a dangerous place -- or as Weekly Playboy (Oct 14) puts it, a "nuclear missile Ginza" -- so suddenly?

Journalist Ryuichi Tejima tells Weekly Playboy believes one of the factors that moved the U.S. to withdraw from the INF was China's development of intermediate range missiles -- which China insists are entirely defensive in nature. Ending the treaty may be a gambit to get the Chinese to negotiate on controls, but there's nothing in it for them. 

"The U.S. at present has no missiles to counter them," says China affairs specialist Atsumori Ueda. "Which means right now, the U.S. military bases in South Korea and Japan, as well as in Guam, are unable to defend themselves from Chinese missiles." 

"While their overall volume is less than that stocks held by the U.S. or Russia, China's missile force boasts enormous destructive capability, Ueda points out. 

"A single nuclear warhead has over tenfold the power of the Hiroshima bomb, capable of destroying an area with three times the radius," he pointed out. "In the case of a concentrated attack, defensive measures would be difficult," he said, adding "Simulations conducted by the U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force and various think tanks indicate that in a clash between the U.S. and China, all U.S. Air Force, Naval and Marine Air facilities in Japan would be flattened within 30 minutes; and naval vessels would be sunk before they could leave port." 

After U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper remarked that the U.S. was "considering deploying missiles in East Asia," China's belligerent newspaper Global Times stated, "Should Japan or South Korea agree to station these on their soil, these would only serve as America's bulletproof shields." 

For the missile batteries to survive an attack, Ueda explains, they would, in principle, need to be widely dispersed. 

"So I think they would be situated on the U.S. bases and U.S. naval ships around Japan." 

But Jun Kitamura, a Seattle-based defense policy adviser, warns that Japan's ability to defend against incoming missiles is likely to be insufficient. 

"In addition to as many as 4,000 missiles launched from China, North Korea possesses some 300 missiles capable of use against Japan, and it's possible a portion of them will be nuclear armed," Kitamura says. "To defend against these, Japan has ships armed with Aegis missiles and the land-based Aegis Ashore system. But if the number of incoming missiles exceed the number that Japan can fire to intercept them, then detection alone won't do any good. And we can't rule out that China would launch a preemptive strike against the Aegis ships and land batteries." 

"The Japanese media has not been thoroughly considering what the withdrawal of the INF treaty means for Japan's security," says the aforementioned Tejima. "Some of the missiles tested by North Korea appear to be new types capable of evading U.S. detection technology. So the efforts by America's rivals at 'decoupling' the U.S. from its alliances, the process of which has been continuing in Southeast Asia lately, has me very concerned." 

Whatever Japan hopes for, or doesn't hope for, the rules of the game have changed. And it looks like the players have started making their moves.

© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

14 Comments
Login to comment

It's well established that absolutely nothing he says should be believed. 13,000 lies and counting in the past 3 years.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

How about not causing a war?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are all going to need to develop a triumvirate of capabilities, the way that the US previously did: land based missiles, aircraft continuously in the air, and missile armed submarines.....all capable of delivering nuclear weapons. Putin's Puppet can no longer be relied on to abide by long-standing treaties to defend the region.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Nobody is going to launch a nuclear or non nuclear attack against these countries, this is pure fantasy to sell more weapons to japan s.korea and taiwan.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

@Mauro Mdns = yes i think you are right on. Alot of money to made (stolen from the sheeple) making weapons chasing boogymen

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The thousands of medium range missiles made and installed by PRC and North Korea are a threat to their neighbors. Wishful thinking will not make them go away. Trump has shown that the interests of Russia are more important to him than the interests of our treaty partners.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It's time Japan defends itself instead of relying on other countries. The only viable defense to nuclear attack, is the possibility of nuclear retaliation. Japan is capable. In fact, it probably produced a nuke at the end of World War II. But too late. The war ended and the Russians took it's plants in Occupied Korea. The little-known story, fully documented, is in Japan's Secret War, 3rd Edition, published in Japan by Bensei this past August and to be published in the U.S. this coming December. https://tinyurl.com/y4rtczay

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Nobody is going to launch a nuclear or non nuclear attack against these countries, this is pure fantasy to sell more weapons to japan s.korea and taiwan.

I think the fantasy is yours @Mauro. Did you even read the whole story?

There is no defence against Chinese missiles. China continuing to develop missiles whilst Russia and US sitting like lame ducks is a recipe for tension and instability.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

This is to increase fear I order to milk more money from Japan.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

No one wants war, but pretending that one's nuclear armed neighbors are not a threat is probably a bad idea. The U.S., Russia, China, India, France and the United Kingdom have submarines carrying nuclear armed missiles, and one can make the argument that they are less likely to suffer a preemptive attack because they have the submarines. Argentina and Brazil are currently building nuclear submarines. In the past, Japan and South Korea could depend on the nuclear shield of the United States, but with Putin pulling The Donald's puppet strings, does anyone want to rely solely on the U.S. for their safety?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The best way to protect Japan from Chinese missiles would be to remove their targets, the American bases, from Japan. The worst way is to rely on a country with a leader like Trump. Look at how he treats allies like the Kurds. He is not to be trusted or relied upon.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Trump will betray Japan, eventually. It's as inevitable as night follows day.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Rather than buy more missiles surely it would be better to improve relations with one's neighbors.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Since you ask: Trump took a situation that had been stabilized - the US had eliminated ISIS, bringing stability to the region. Then for no benefit to the US, he gave everything away:

Turkey: the US stepped out, and their presence was what had been keeping Turkey from invading, killing all the Kurds - a people with no state and nowhere to go, and taking the land. They now have most of that land (see Russia below).

Russia: Putin stepped in and brokered a peace agreement, making himself look like a benefactor, then divvied up the chunk of Syria in which the Kurds were living between himself and Turkey.

Syria (Bashar Al Assad): The Kurds, facing genocide, aligned with Assad - another dictator, strengthening his position.

ISIS: More than 100 ISIS fighters escaped, and their whereabouts are entirely unknown.

These four groups are now more powerful, but even more than this, the entire region is now united in hatred against the US.

The question is why he did this. On the surface, it looks as if he did it for a talking point against impeachment: "I got us out of the Middle East" (ignoring that US troop deployments have actually increased, as they are rented out as missionaries to Saudi Arabia).

If we were Republicans, I'm sure we could find all sorts of conspiracy theories reasoning why he may have done it, like say for example that Putin's orders were relayed to Trump through Erdawan in their phone call.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites