politics

Nearly 40% of LDP candidates back U.S. military action against N Korea

43 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

43 Comments
Login to comment

As long as they can hide behind the US, why not send them off to war in your stead?

8 ( +15 / -7 )

Hope they realize that Japan will be the first nuked if the nukes fly.

18 ( +22 / -4 )

I have never heard a persuasive argument for striking DPRK. It horrifies me to hear Japanese politicians encouraging Trump at a time like this.

14 ( +17 / -3 )

A military action towards North Korea will go against UN-resolutions and will risk putting the world literally on fire!! China has said that they would defend North Korea, but only if North Korea is defending instead of attacking!

Come on LDP! You know better than this! Japan will forever be remembered as a main agressor if this were to become outcome, this is not what I want the country to be remebered for! Japan was called the Wa-country for a reason, China respected Japan and saw you as a peaceful-brother! I wish things were like as in the ancient age.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

"Among the Japan Innovation Party candidates, 77.5% said they back U.S. military action."

such a misnamed group. Another wonderful example of a Japanese party name being an monster oxymoron.

LDP? Hope? Sunshine?

just waiting for the 'Ulta-Cool Kawai Love thy Neighbor 2020' party to emerge.

maybe headed by that charismatic Duke of Cool, the young Mr Kozumi?

bleh!!!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Well this just proves that a lot of Japanese politicians are as stupid as Trump....

6 ( +10 / -4 )

Excellent by the LDP to finally be able to make a stand against a true and viable threat against Japan.  Japan has not made threats against any country since becoming a Pacifist state but like any one out there you don't just take the beating and then turn around for more beatings at some point something must be done and fight back.  NK has said and pursued from the beginning of the last two regimes and not faltered against taking such military action against Japan.  Well done LDP

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

The survey covered 1,028 candidates confirmed by last Thursday to stand in the election

finally a survey that is not 1028 respondents who nobody knows who the newspaper choose!

NK. recently been to Hiroshima peace thingy. they should all visit. bye-bye tokyo is not good for the economy.

39.6% of the LDP candidates said they support the use of military force and 20.5% were opposed.

not good at maths, but does this mean 40% just want a cruisey job?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@strikebuster...both russia and china said they will attack if usa attacked first,

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Strikebreaker555: "Come on LDP! You know better than this! Japan will forever be remembered as a main agressor if this were to become outcome, this is not what I want the country to be remebered for!"

I think the old politicians don't really care. Abe and his wife have no kids, and being a self-proclaimed hawk I think he honestly pines for war and the days of old, forgetting it's what destroyed Japan. Other politicians, like former Tokyo Governor Ishihara, have stated the one thing they want to see before they die is war with China, and while this is not China it is the same attitude. Even in Japanese movies, like "Japan is Sinking", politicians are portrayed as people who would rather all Japanese die "in glory" than have to face dealing with or being on equal terms with Asian neighbors they've raised their noses at since they were born. I honestly think many of them don't care if the outcome means Japan's destruction, so long as it means a few minutes of "superiority" (which of course means the US attacking, not them) before they are. As with Trump, they don't care if it means their end because they are completely and utterly self-absorbed.

And don't forget, Abe said that not voting for him would mean war.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

And that means 60% don't.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Good to know, seems like that number will grow, just a matter of time.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

I might have guessed JT posters would denounce Japan and the US.

After all, let’s all out the kettle on and wait for Kim Jong to follow through.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

bass4funk: "Good to know, seems like that number will grow, just a matter of time."

Yeah, until they learn it also means Japanese dying, which means their constituents will turn on them (the only thing they actually worry about).

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Here's another figure: 0% of Japanese politicians who support bombing North Korea would be willing to join up themselves (or be willing for their children to join up) and put their own lives at risk. Being turned into cannon fodder is for common people, not the LDP elitists.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

So if you vote for LDP your voting for war.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

America has found it quite easy to start wars but hard to end them and infinitely harder to win them.

America may be able to destroy North Korea, but it is unlikely they can do it without destroying South Korea as well. Bur perhaps that is what the LDP wants.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

If NK continues down their path and constantly threatens the destruction of Japan for the rest of history with test missiles flying over the country every few days without knowing if your kids will be hit and slaughtered, plus with added capabilities of nuking the country into extinction, then I too would support the complete destruction of the NK government. Spare the people as much as possible but would you expect NK to do the same for anyone else?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

If Japan had not been playing military games in the 20th century they wouldn't have had North Korea to deal with in the first place. Japan is solely to blame for the creation of that state - Japan must never be allowed to have a military again.

40% support. What has Japan learned from its history? Apparently nothing if the population is rushing to start another war.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Free nations absolutely must have military strength. If we didn't, we'd all be speaking fluent Japanese on USA west coast and fluent German on east coast. And be ruled by dictators.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Japan should work to create better relations and understanding with it's neighbor, North Korea.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

What is USA military action? Trump's daily tweet?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Russia has troops and equipment on the border of North Korea.... If the US attacks NK..

Russia may attack the US or Japan..

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/01/asia/russia-north-korea-analysis/index.html

2 ( +4 / -2 )

You can bet that it's not 40% of LDP candidates volunteering to lead the charge though. The same as the draft dodger in chief Trump.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Back in Sept 15/17 nearly a month ago, 60% of Americans backed military action if diplomacy fails. Of these, 82% of Republicans backed it. The figures are probably higher now. So these figures for the LPP are tame in comparison.

JtsnoseToday 09:01 pm JST Japan should work to create better relations and understanding with it's neighbor, North Korea.

They, along with others tried for 25 years without success.

paradoxboxToday 07:59 pm JSTIf Japan had not been playing military games in the 20th century they wouldn't have had North Korea to deal with in the first place. Japan is solely to blame for the creation of that state - Japan must never be allowed to have a military again.

You couldn't be more wrong. Japan had NOTHING to do with the creation of NK. The USSR and China created it. Ironically, if the entire Korean Peninsula had remained a part of the Japanese Empire, we wouldn't have a North Korea problem today.

40% support. What has Japan learned from its history? Apparently nothing if the population is rushing to start another war.

82% from US Republicans. Japan can not "start another war" because of the first paragraph of Article 9 of their constitution. China and North Korea are the countries that need to learn from history.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

UtrackToday 11:12 pm JSTRussia has troops and equipment on the border of North Korea.... If the US attacks NK..

Russia may attack the US or Japan..

LOL. As if the North Korean basketcase of a country is worth it for Russia. Russia has no defense agreement with NK. Even China, which has a defense agreement with NK from 1961 are wishy washy about it in the face of NK's position.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Just remember okay people? If the US (and Japan) attacks NK first, just remember that they attacked first. They attacked NK first. Remember that. Okay? Don't forget.

LOL. As if the North Korean basketcase of a country is worth it for Russia. Russia has no defense agreement with NK. Even China, which has a defense agreement with NK from 1961 are wishy washy about it in the face of NK's position.

The US under Trump is also a basket case. China and Russia wouldn't want the US on their borders. They even defended the North back when they were relatively weak in the 1950s.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@tina: He was living in an European country after his father became the head of the country. His father, his father's wife, their three children were living . It was his uncle's decision to send him out of NK. After his father died, USA arranged him to come back to NK. The woman and he entered USA but when he went San Francisco, he was alone. No trace of woman. He was 8 yrs old. Uba is interpreted as oba in USA. later, he. grew and persecuted his uncle.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The headline is very mis-leading. Are we talking about a pre-emptive strike by the United States on North Korea? If yes, this is not an option for the United States unless it is supported by the Security Council of the United Nations. Obviously, the Security Council will never approve this option with Russia and China sitting on the council.

However, if North Korea strikes the United States and/or any of its allies, the United States under the leadership of President Trump will respond. Whether or not Kim Jong Un believes this is anybody's guess. He never believed it with Obama and that's how and why we are in this grave situation.

He's already tested Japan and knows that Japan will do nothing about ICBM's flying over their country.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Lol

what happened to "peaceful Japan"? I guess it's ok if you

have somebody else fighting your battles for you.

welcome to Nippon world. Take a good look....

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

There are people who believe the country of Korea is poor. They don't know Kim's grandfather created pachinko business pay commissions to current regime. Trump has been irritating NK. Stay away from Trump scheme.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

 I honestly think many of them don't care if the outcome means Japan's destruction, so long as it means a few minutes of "superiority"

Setting aside Korean insecurities, the title basically says that 60% does not endorse military action against North Korea as of now. Many on here are commenting as if there was 100% support for a military strike.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

ThePBotOct. 9  11:42 pm JST

Just remember okay people? If the US (and Japan) attacks NK first, just remember that they attacked first. They attacked NK first. Remember that. Okay? Don't forget.

Article 9 first paragraph of the constitution prohibits Japan from "attacking". Okay? Don't forget.

LOL. As if the North Korean basketcase of a country is worth it for Russia. Russia has no defense agreement with NK. Even China, which has a defense agreement with NK from 1961 are wishy washy about it in the face of NK's position.

The US under Trump is also a basket case. China and Russia wouldn't want the US on their borders. They even defended the North back when they were relatively weak in the 1950s.

(1) We're talking economic basketcase. (2) This isn't 1950 anymore. The Cold War is long over and geopolitical situations are different.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Clayton K. CharToday  12:05 am JST

He's already tested Japan and knows that Japan will do nothing about ICBM's flying over their country.

He has tested whether Japan will shoot down their missile in a test flight OVER Japan. Clearly they will not unless it is going to fall on Japan. What he has not tested is whether Japan will shoot down a missile that is on a trajectory that will land on the United States.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Plausible non-nuclear scenario: A preemptive punishment strike by the US on NK nuclear weapon facilities - NK retaliates on SK in what they consider a limited way but is actually a massacre, and a wild week or two of tit for tat erupts with 100,000 casualties in SK and a trillion dollars in damages. The US engages in large scale bombing of NK but doesn't invade with troops - US bombing is stopped as China enters NK with troops as a peacemaker and replaces NK govt shutting down nuclear threat.

China uses soft power to strengthen ties with SK, including funds for rebuilding - while US demands SK pay for war costs. SK, today already in China's economic orbit, flips politically into China's political orbit; US troops are withdrawn.

Meanwhile during the Korean conflict, China's military, now on mental steroids, invades Taiwan and replaces that govt in a week, largely with known Taiwanese political figures who feel comfortable cooperating, and getting rich. Resistance is smothered with 50,000 deaths; the scenario largely follows the lines of the Japanese occupation of Taiwan in 1895, and Chang Kai Shek's Kuomintang occupation of Taiwan in 1947, with number of casualties adjusted for total population. The US, stretched to the limit as to what it can do halfway around the world, doesn't respond.

Japan remains unscathed militarily but is now, along with US troops stationed there, at a strategic disadvantage. Meanwhile, the US economy is hostage as China now directly controls %98 of all semiconducter production. Realizing that Hedge Funds are at risk, the US reaches a unspoken gentleman's agreement with China never to mention Taiwan or Korea again, so that markets can recover and once again rise to new highs never seen before.

No, I don't really think this exact scenario would likely unfold, but certainly some elements of this scenario could come into play if the US engages in a preemptive non-nuclear strike on NK. Positive ways to react to current crisis do exist - they just don't incorporate impulsive releases of emotion, or desperate attempts to manipulate domestic elections. Primarily, the US needs to consider long term planning of its network of manufactured imports. As a source of low cost labor and percentage of reciprocal trade, Mexico is an obvious ally in that regard. Such a strategy can be executed without insulting or declaring trade war on China, and leaving win-win elements of trade with China in place. A necessary change, however, is to stop relying on the stock market as the sole divining rod of US health and wealth - because it provides no feedback about long term strategic planning.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

OssanAmerica

(1) We're talking economic basketcase. (2) This isn't 1950 anymore. The Cold War is long over and geopolitical situations are different.

And I'm talking about basket case in the traditional sense. Both Trump and Kim are good examples of it. It might not be in the 1950s anymore, but as far as I'm aware, North Korea is still beside China and Russia. That's enough reason for them not wanting US presence there.

And yeah, maybe in this day and age, America wouldn't be able to just invade or attack North Korea willy nilly. The North Koreans have firepower now, as do the neighbors they trade with. This truly isn't the 1950s anymore.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

that means 60% don't

Actually the article says 40% do, 20% don't. Presumably the other 40% have no idea what they stand for until they know which opinion will get them more votes, typical politician.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Honestly, Cleo nailed it. It's all political posturing. But the idea that anybody would encourage what would end up a war is just irresponsible. Haven't the J-pols learned anything about the results of war? Maybe they should take a trip to Hiroshima.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The US has refrained from striking first against Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Britain, France, and Israel, all of whom have nuclear weapons. The principal of "mutually assured destruction" is recognized by all sides, and is the deterrent that has so far prevented another nuclear war. Why then, the idea that the West, or more specifically, the US, should pre-emptively attack North Korea? While any nuclear attack by North Korea would be terrible and unthinkable, they must know what the result would be - retaliation, and not even mutually assured destruction. We have the capacity for overwhelming military destruction, without even resorting to nuclear weapons.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

There's no way in Hades that China/Russia are going to sit back and let the USA and Japan tee off with a first strike on the Korean peninsula. Should anyone be actually insane enough to try it, we will be in a situation similar to that of August 1914, only this time with thermonuclear weapons.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

ThePBotToday 07:35 am JSTOssanAmerica

(1) We're talking economic basketcase. (2) This isn't 1950 anymore. The Cold War is long over and geopolitical situations are different.

And I'm talking about basket case in the traditional sense. Both Trump and Kim are good examples of it. It might not be in the 1950s anymore, but as far as I'm aware, North Korea is still beside China and Russia. That's enough reason for them not wanting US presence there.

Yes they don't want the US there. But they aren't about to confront the U.S. directly over it, it's just not worth it to them.

And yeah, maybe in this day and age, America wouldn't be able to just invade or attack North Korea willy nilly. The North Koreans have firepower now, as do the neighbors they trade with. This truly isn't the 1950s anymore.

The Korean War back in 1950 wasn't "willy nilly" either. And both sides have increased their firepower. The potential for high casualty numbers is much greater now.

Civitas Sine SuffragioToday 11:34 am JSTThere's no way in Hades that China/Russia are going to sit back and let the USA and Japan tee off with a first strike on the Korean peninsula.

Read Article 9 first paragraph. Japan can not "tee off with a first strike" on anything. Furthermore, there's no way in Hades that China/Russia are prepared to enter a direct conflict with the United States. Even in 1950, the Russians balked at sending troops and chose to send pilots and advisors to help North Korea. Even the Chinese did not want a direct conflict with the U.S. and transferred troops from the PLA to a "Volunteer Force" to fight for North Korea. The circumstances today offer even less gain for these two countries from direct intervention in protecting North Korea. They will avoid military engagement and focus on influencing the new replacement NK regime.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan

Furthermore, there's no way in Hades that China/Russia are prepared to enter a direct conflict with the United States. Even in 1950, the Russians balked at sending troops and chose to send pilots and advisors to help North Korea. Even the Chinese did not want a direct conflict with the U.S. and transferred troops from the PLA to a "Volunteer Force" to fight for North Korea. The circumstances today offer even less gain for these two countries from direct intervention in protecting North Korea. 

That's sounds like it's akin to the guys who said the Iraq War was going to be quick and swift and America will be greeted as heroes. Over a decade + ISIS later, here you are.

What's the difference between the PLA and the Volunteers? When they went in North Korea defending them, there's no difference. They were a ragtag army the was able to force a stalemate. Just think about that.

What circumstances? Geography alone makes them want to protect North Korea. Because if the US strikes NK, their neighbors would most likely get affected by it as well, while Americans will be sitting at the comfort of their own home watching it all on TV as if it was a movie.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ThePBotToday 05:40 am JSTOssan

Furthermore, there's no way in Hades that China/Russia are prepared to enter a direct conflict with the United States. Even in 1950, the Russians balked at sending troops and chose to send pilots and advisors to help North Korea. Even the Chinese did not want a direct conflict with the U.S. and transferred troops from the PLA to a "Volunteer Force" to fight for North Korea. The circumstances today offer even less gain for these two countries from direct intervention in protecting North Korea. 

That's sounds like it's akin to the guys who said the Iraq War was going to be quick and swift and America will be greeted as heroes. Over a decade + ISIS later, here you are.

LOL. The US did end the Iraq War (both of them) fast and quick with overwhelming force. The deterioration within Iraq occurred after the war.

What's the difference between the PLA and the Volunteers? When they went in North Korea defending them, there's no difference. They were a ragtag army the was able to force a stalemate. Just think about that.

The PLA are the Chinese Army. To have sent them into Korea would mean that PRC would be officially fighting the U.S. So instead they moved PLA troops into a separate group called "Volunteers" and officially denied that they were Chinese PLA. They were hardly "ragtag" they were regular PLA troops with a different label for political reasons.

What circumstances? Geography alone makes them want to protect North Korea. Because if the US strikes NK, their neighbors would most likely get affected by it as well, while Americans will be sitting at the comfort of their own home watching it all on TV as if it was a movie.

The circumstances in 1950 were that the USSR was creating a global network of Communist nations siding with the Soviet Union. The Chinese Communist Party, which has controlled China since 1949 was itself created as a branch of the Soviet Communist Party. Kim iL Sung was a Soviet Red Army soldier put into place as the head of the pro-USSR North Korea. Even when the Cold War was running at peak (remember Cuba, Vietnam hadn't even happened yet) both the USSR and PRC did not want to risk a war with the United States. Today, North Korea is a failed socialist experiment, not what Russia or China were expecting or hoped, as South Korea flourished in prosperity. The benefits of North Korea to China and Russia today are even less than back in 1950. So they certaibly aren't going to risk war with the U.S. over NK. They will of course do everything possible to ensure a new NK govt friendly to them, and keep US troops away from the northern border, possibly not north of he 38th parallel.

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