Japan eyes introduction of cruise missiles amid N Korea threat


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


©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

If they are serious about these missiles, remember that they spoke about amending the Constitution and putting it into force by 2020 just earlier in the week.

If they install offensively oriented missiles it may be around that time.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

A guy in Australia made a cruise missile in his garage a few years ago. Japan has the technology. It could build them in a heartbeat. The only news here is that someone is talking about it.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Of the 59 tomahawk missiles that US fired at the sovereign state of Syria, only one third hit their intended targets and a bunch of civilians were murdered. The cost over one million each and this money's goes to US arms dealers. How will this help Japan?

2 ( +7 / -5 )

GGoodlucktoyouToday  09:29 am JST-Of the 59 tomahawk missiles that US fired at the sovereign state of Syria, only one third hit their intended targets and a bunch of civilians were murdered. The cost over one million each and this money's goes to US arms dealers. How will this help Japan?

Are you serious? All missiles hit their target except for 1. This is confirmed by the US.

Russia is currently protecting the Syrian tryant leader with their new so called anti-air defense system.... the same system which failed to intercept the cruise missles launched from the US ships.

Cruise missiles are a deadly weapon when used in the right circumstances. Japan could have a use for them, but they are purely agressive weapons....

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Cruise missiles do border the offensive/defensive line. Should Japan have the capability? I think yes. Even if politically Japan is unable or unwilling to carry out a first strike on a missile launch facility, it would certainly allow them to carry out a retaliatory strike to ensure that more missiles will not be launched from that same site. In addition, Japan now is able to come to the aid of allies under attack, so Japanese cruise missile capability would simply enhance the defense of U.S. assets.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Under the present constitution "retaliatory strike" on another nation's soils is not allowed no matter how you interpret.

The present type 10 anti ship missiles can be reprogrammed to hit ground targets since it utilizes GPS targeting.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Its easier to stop a Ballistic missile before Being launched, Cruise missiles are expensive and provide surgical attacks, Japan should develop their own cruise missiles.

Cruise missiles are just like Kamikazes but without the human factor.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If Japan carries this out, China will obviously go, uh - ballistic. Still, just the talk might nudge them towards taking a harder line on NK. Remove that problem, and Japan's excuse for such weaponry vanishes (at least in the short term).

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The chap that built his own missiles and sold on the ease and blueprints happened in 2016 in Australia . That is not long ago and yes a school kid could make one from scratch with what electronic control motherboards available today due to miniaturization of components that can be posted anywhere in the world with any notice taken. Any government could operate this way with suppliers unknowing what the end use will be for.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You don't need to build it from scratch, you can use a lot of readily made components of the shelf like GPS and map on your smart phone, small size jet engine sold to radio controlled plane enthusiasts.

The only component not sold on the open market is the explosives.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

So Japan wants to fight ?

They did not learn their lesson during WWII?

There is no preventive war outside USA, Europe or Russia. Or else it goes havoc.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

To defend or not to defend is the question, I would support Japan on this and they need to defend them self against the nut job in NK, lets face it he's not listening to the USA or any one else, also trade sanctions are not stopping him, it only seems to hurt the local population, he persists in nuclear bomb testings, he keeps antagonising Japan with "test launches" even after the USA drop a bunch of cruise missiles on his bases he still persists, when will he stop? I don't think that he cares to be honest with you, KJU will do what he wants, when he wants, that is the way dictators work.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The problem is, that even a weapon that has been designed as a purely defensive device has the potential to be used in an offensive manner!

This once again will expose the age old argument in Japan that has been propagating for some time now!

On the one side of the argument is the group, usually made up of more left leaning liberal persons who argue that the very presence or suggestion of ownership of such weapons is counter to the constitution and is the first step to a renewed militaristic agenda reminiscent of past military transgressions! They also argue that the cost of such a system would be better speak on other much more urgent social schemes, such as the Fukushima clean up or education. These are perfectly valid and sensible arguments, however, history shows and by tradition it is this group that is then the first to complain when an attack actually comes about and they bemoan that not more was done, therefore the classic hypocritic dilemma!

On the other side is the more right wind conservative groups who argue that the defence of the nation and its people should bear no cost and that it is perfectly justifiable to have such weapons under this pretext! They argue that the very existence of the SDF is proof perfect of this argument and is therefore in keeping with the spirit of the constitution! They say that the very deployment of a deterrent is enough to stop or deter a potential attack of similar means! Again a valid argument but it's flaw comes when it's costs over a period of time of exposed. The problem with defences are that they are expensive to keep and maintain in terms of monetary amounts spent and also manpower to keep them in a workable order. Although not it the same league but in a similar vein, the UKs nuclear deterrent cost about 60billion to develop but continues to cost billions a year to sustain under the pretence that one day it may have to be used! Is it justifiable to spend money on a system that may never get used.

Both argument have have merit and flaws but I suppose in this case it boils down to the following:

Does it infringe article 9?

Does the cost justify the outcome or means in the long term?

Is it better to prepare for the worst hoping that it will never come?

In the very end public opinion will be the real winner and it will be a brave move by any Japanese government to act in the later argument, but we shall see. Something tells me it will happen anyway!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Triring Today 11:08 am JST

Under the present constitution "retaliatory strike" on another nation's soils is not allowed no matter how you interpret.

If so, it clearly needs to be amended. A retailatory strike, despite it's name is not a tit-for-tat act of violence. It is to stop a second, third, or more further launches from a site. When carried out AFTER the first launch, ie; being attacked clearly it is defensive.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"The best defense is a good offense" Clausewitz.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

when there is a bully in the school and you only block his fists and never strike back he will always hit you becausr you only block his fists, but if he tries to hit you and you hit him then you are defending yourself

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Cortes although there was no doubt the strike took place, 23 out of 59 is not good value for money, civilians or stated goals.

Only 23 missiles flew to the Syrian air base and just 6 MiG-23s were destroyed there along with a radar station, spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry, Major-General Igor Konashenkov, said at a briefing. Where the remaining 36 cruise missiles have landed is “unknown,” he said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Better safe than sorry; build them! The focus should be to destroy naval targets therefore serving a purely defensive purpose. Attacking land based targets may be a bit much but shouldn't be ruled out, the purpose is deterrence

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