N Korean missile fear spurs pre-emptive strike debate in Japan

It is better to have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them.

To me it doesn't matter what anathema or reluctance elder people here may have. They are from another generation firstly, and secondly the whole concept Japan has of being a "peaceful nation" is enabled by it hosting (not by choice) US bases.

If Japan didn't have those bases all the peace talk would be completely different. Being a pacifist nation was the reality between 1950s - 2015.

With the USA more unstable and literally telling Japan to arm up and help them patrol the sea, the ugly reality is beginning to surface.

Cruise missiles please.

Japan has a compressive security treaty with the US .......

So why would there be any need to buy a  pre-emptive strike capability? 

Before a single yen of tax payers money is committed  all aspects of the existing Japan US Security Treaty need to be reviewed and if necessary challenged....... .

http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/q&a/ref/1.html

That's comprehensive. 

The currant budget request for defence spending is at a record level.

If the Government of Japan is considering a first strike capability, this would bring into question current policies that advocate the presence of US forwards bases and there value.

Start handing out the pilot goggles, 1 hour of training should do it. Offence if nothing else Shinzo and crew certainly meet the bar of being offensive on so many levels.

Let's celebrate the death of young people in planes that cost more than an individual earns in a short lifetime.

Abe will have his remilitarisation of Japan! Maybe he slipped Kim a few crates of caviare. No. Surely not!

Already forgot September 1st 1939? Germany "stroke back" ....

I've always felt that having a nation that resides thousands of miles away you from being in charge of your safety seemed a bit naive, especially when all of your neighbors don't like you.

i mean, China is building islands in "your" sea, NK is launching missiles over your country, and SKorea won't drop that time you occupied them. So decide what you want to do, push back or turn the other cheek.

What's the difference between a "preemptive strike" and a "sneak attack?"

A preemptive strike is what I do.

A sneak attack is what you do.

"Japan is debating...."

I somewhat doubt that the whole nation is debating whether or not to have 'first strike' capabilities. It seems that the headlines reflect the views of one man's wet dream, echoed by the cabal he presides over.

The photo accompanying this article is more than a hint at whom I'm referring to.

Personally I think it was only a matter of time: generational change and receding public memory of the mid-20th century near-annihilation.

I suppose North Korea's playing with dangerous toys has achieved one objective: giving Japan an excuse for a more aggressive stance.

Meanwhile debate will go on, and still meanwhile things will quietly be going on not getting much attention in the media.

Does anyone really think that Japan would remain pacifist if it were strongly against its interests not to be.

Publicly announcing plans for a Pre-emptive strike?

Now, Kim is salivating so profusely like a lion on the verge of pouncing its clearly targeted prey!

If Japan were to launch a pre-emptive strike, and in particular without changing the Constitution (which is going to happen, since no one in Japan gives one wit about getting rid of Abe now matter WHAT he does), I think that anything can be interpreted in any way anyone wants, and China would reserve the right to launch a nuclear attack on Japan because it once again posed a threat to the rest of Asia (and we know what happened last time!). Also, Japan would own ANYTHING and everything that came after their attack, including the mass exodus of refugees if the regime fell, full out war on the peninsula and possibly the world, and any thereafter attack on it by North Korea or others.

They sound positively gleeful. No one is preemptively doing anything. Waste of money and meaningless. NK is a big pain the arse. But they're not going to initiate their own annhiliation. This is a chance for these boys in the LDP to play with some toys. And Japan wants bigger a cut of the lucrative weapons market I'm sure. No?

Japan has shown extraordinary restraint and control over North Korean provocations through the years. Incredible restraint. Japanese restrain has saved many, many lives.

But NK would be foolish to confuse this for weakness. The Japanese military will lay their a** out if push comes to shove.

I think pre-emptive strike is unnecessary. I cannot see NK firing at Japan. Just like they won't fire at the US. It's just noise for the domestic audience.

If they do, it's the end for them. Kim must know that.

Japan can be a pacifist country because it has a well armed body guard in the US. The relationship has worked out for both sides for decades. But does it really make sense for one nation to rely on the whims of another?

I don't think so. I'm no hawk but I am a realist.

"Japan has shown extraordinary restraint and control over North Korean provocations through the years. Incredible restraint. Japanese restrain has saved many, many lives."

Shouldn't you say US restraint? By relying on the US Japan has largely given over the defensive decision making to the US. Till now the countries seem to have worked in lockstep. But what if Trump decides he has had enough? And starts a war. Against Japan's wishes.

This is the downside of a hired gun. They may get you into a gun fight you don't want.

Tamarama: "Japanese restrain has saved many, many lives."

Ummm... whose, unless you're admitting that Japan acting would be the end of many of its peoples? Can't prove it's saved even one. You CAN probably prove that the sanctions and bombast have ended lives, though. And you can DEFINITELY prove that the "touch talk" and pressure Japan has sought and used over diplomacy have seen relations drop to the lowest they have ever been with NK since Japan was cut down and sent out of its colonies back to an annihilated home (the last time they got uppity).

Abe and people like him have longed to see war with its neighbors, and "make Japan great again" for a very long time. The man in the picture is smiling for a reason, and it is because he sees flags, soldiers, and possible war looming on the horizon, and thinks it's all a game.

Seriously, that flag makes me feel uncomfortable...

Defensive armaments in the circumstances are both reasonable and necessary. A first strike capability is unlikely to be effective and very expensive. Unless you spend a huge sum on information gathering to determine on an ongoing basis the location of every launch vehicle any strike (especially a limited first strike capability) will mearly engender a massive retaliation. To be effective it has to be very far from limited and take out the entire launch capability, and even on that scale it would be questionable if it could be successful against a country with such mountainous terrain, an existing mobile launch capability and able to hide assets in caves or tunnels.

A more extensive layered missile defence combined with extensive shelter/warning/preparations, are the only practical response open to Japan. Unfortunately the threat is not of Japans making and they can't ,make it go away in which case defense is the only option.

was the motorcade car a Mitsubishi? Asking for a friend

Maybe what Japan needs is to start talking to China about a mutual policy on North Korea, rather than rely entirely on a volatile Trump-driven US ally.

Pacifists are amazing. Always the peace-loving doves advocating dialog and restraint....until they feel threatened. Then they hoist the "Jolly Roger" flag and now talk pre-emptive strikes. 

Read from another news source that NK now has "missile-ready hydrogen bomb" capability.....if that's to be believed.  Also read that NK may have just detonated its 6th nuclear test.

Will we see a combined US, SK, Japan pre-emptive "surgical" strike on NK's nuclear sites soon to prevent the thermonuclear warhead equipped ICBM from being operational?

As a pacifist I have seen war 1st-hand as well as ageism, sexism, anti-Semitism (against my aunt), racism, anti-this and anti-this, etc.

None of which made the world a better place, time to stop being anti-...

Yes I served and as a young man was easily influenced, being older I just see pain and suffering caused by ideolistic fools.

This would only be credible if it were nukes that formed Japan's preemptive strike doctrine. Anything else lacks credibility. Unfortunately in this disastrously dangerous world, nukes are the only option for Japan to ensure national safety

Shouldn't you say US restraint? By relying on the US Japan has largely given over the defensive decision making to the US.

No. I don't associate the US with restraint at all. Had North Korea large reserves of oil, the US would have taken direct action for the democratic liberation of North Korean people long ago. North Korea aren't shooting missiles over the US. They are over Japan though - an incredibly provocative act which Japan is well within their rights to react strongly to. But they have shown great restraint in the face of such provocation.

This is the downside of a hired gun. They may get you into a gun fight you don't want.

The US bases aren't there because Japan hired them. They are the residue of the US's occupation of Japan WW2. As is the current Japanese constitution. 'You are never allowed to wage war again, but to help you with that we will set up bases all over Japan. For your own good.' But don't mention China, Russia et, al.

Ummm... whose, unless you're admitting that Japan acting would be the end of many of its peoples

North Korean, South Korean, United States and Japanese.

Can't prove it's saved even one. You CAN probably prove that the sanctions and bombast have ended lives, though. And you can DEFINITELY prove that the "touch talk" and pressure Japan has sought and used over diplomacy have seen relations drop to the lowest they have ever been with NK since Japan was cut down and sent out of its colonies back to an annihilated home (the last time they got uppity).

Soooo, you're suggesting that the current situation between North Korea and the rest of the world, including specifically Japan, is mostly Japan's fault? They pushing NK too hard, you'd say?

Interesting logic, Smith.

Tamarama: Oh, and you didn't tell us all the lives Japan has saved, as you stated it has.

If Japan, does drop it's Pacifist stance, and opt to have the ability to make preemptive strikes, then this would inevitably lead to more conflict within the region. For starters, the island disputes would become the immediate flash points. Russia would probably feel obliged to Militarize its own disputed islands too. Japan would then need to go Nuclear (no not TEPCO) in order to have it's own "Defense" of last resort, and down the slippery slope we all slide.

Tamarama: Oh, and you didn't tell us all the lives Japan has saved, as you stated it has.

Yep, saving lives every day Smith. Perhaps even yours? You should head down to your local shrine and give thanks. Right now.

Who is going to enforce Article 9 by the way? Even if Japan strikes first, the world can only comment that it went against its own laws. What would happen? Sanctions against Japan? What would the US do? There is no enforcement of Article 9.