politics

Abe says Japan must strengthen ballistic missile defense

53 Comments
By CHARLY TRIBALLEAU

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

© 2020 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

53 Comments
Login to comment

Yes Japan is a country that has had ballistic missile shot over it more than once. As a country that is restrained from starting a war per the first paragraph of Article 9 the only method left to protect itself from neighboring countries which have no such restrictions, is a strong ballistic missile defense.

2 ( +20 / -18 )

Where's the money come from? More debt? Oh not that one, just make another tax increas.

0 ( +19 / -19 )

Creating fear, great excuse for further putting more financial pressure on tax payers. But Abe an Co really feel the need to have big shiny toys in their pockets.

-5 ( +14 / -19 )

I agree, need protection from NK and Chinese aggression.

5 ( +21 / -16 )

NK ignored Japan and was trying to get the USA's attention, not Japan's. Japan is not a threat to anyone thanks to Article 9. All the taunting by imbecile nations wastes their money not Japan's.

11 ( +13 / -2 )

If he feels he is not Healthy enough to make decisions and resigns . He certainly is not healthy enough to make any comment. To the couch with your dog and a cup of tea your imput is not of a healthy nature.

-3 ( +14 / -17 )

I thought he quit.

2 ( +16 / -14 )

Abe says... what Abe says doesn’t matter any more, bye bye Shin Kuhn next....

-1 ( +16 / -17 )

There always seems to be some naive posters here who seem to think that China and NK have altruistic views of the world and would never do anything to harm it's neighbor, Japan.

Thankfully there are people here who know better as well!

It is prudent for Japan to have missile defenses, particularly with have experienced NK launching numerous missiles over the country, and into it's territorial waters as well.

The only problem, in my opinion, is in the details.

14 ( +22 / -8 )

You still here?? Go away!

0 ( +15 / -15 )

Like his grandfather, a US stooge only out to enhance the fortunes of himself and his colleagues by helping build the military industrial complex

-4 ( +12 / -16 )

Yes Sir, PM Abe is absolutely correct. Japan must have Missiles to protect itself and citizens from external adversaries. Japan like all countries in East Asia must not only be dependent on the U.S. for its security. The saying goes “The Almighty helps those who help themselves” .... this is true for Japan. My late Obasan is Japanese & so are my brother-in-law & nephew. Kenji, my nephew and his family lives in Tokyo. Like all Japanese citizens he must protect himself & family from future potential attacks by adversaries. I am familiar with hostilities as I was a mobilised Naval Volunteer Officers who served with the British, Malaysian & Commonwealth Forces in the 1960s. Always be PREPARED or be declared a FOOL.

10 ( +18 / -8 )

They have basically rolled over the EU-Japan deal the used to be part of. It is being presented as a triumph, in some reports with a number of 15 billion pounds, but that is compared to the hypothetical case of no deal. This is not an example of an independent UK achieving anything new.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Wise words from PM Abe. There has never been a more dangerous time to be in Japan for 75 years. Its a no-brainer to beef up the missile defense of Japan to deal with the clear and present threats Japan faces.

It is to be hoped PM Suga is as tough as PM Abe when it comes to the defense of Japan and standing up to her many bullies.

9 ( +19 / -10 )

For a nation-wide missile defense system, there are three options.

1) US THAAD

2) Korean KAMD

3) Russian S-400

Choose one of three. Preemptive Strike Ballistic Missiles is not an option against enemies with 100 times the number of ballistic missiles.

-14 ( +4 / -18 )

Korea and China are gonna go ballistic, having heard these news.

9 ( +14 / -5 )

Oh I see so the tax hikes are to buy weapons etc from the USA!( not for welfare) Why didn't Abe & Co just say so!

-8 ( +8 / -16 )

Preemptive strike is necessary if your enemies are firing missiles heading towards Japan.

Missiles are the weakest before they are fired,before they are in the air heading towards Japan at many times the speed of sound.

What Abe is proposing is the minimum to protect Japan. His promises of reform won't happened, he failed. Japan will still be crippled by Article 9. Germany never had such restrictions, only Japan is weak enough to sign and agree to such a weakness.

Our neighbors have ballistic missiles with multiple warheads, cruise missiles, Hypersonic glide missiles, they are working on railgun technology, working on EMP technology, UAVs,Laser weapons,Biological weapons, Space weapons, experts at hacking and cybersecuirty.

12 ( +18 / -6 )

Abe talks. Why’s the media treating someone who stepped down as if he’s still important? What if the former emperor also spoke?

-9 ( +5 / -14 )

the only method left to protect itself from neighboring countries which have no such restrictions, is a strong ballistic missile defense.

and the ability to take the fight to the enemy.

8 ( +14 / -6 )

While I agree that protection (to the extent that it is possible) from ballistic missiles is needed, it seems that nobody has explained the concept of Launch On Warning to Abe. Any pre-emotive strike on an adversary would likely result in Japan attacking a bunch of empty silos.

Add mobile launchers and the difficulty multiplies.

It seems that a combination of Aegis ashore and a limited F-35 strike capacity via the converted carriers would be a better, less destabilizing option.

14 ( +14 / -0 )

Just go already.

-4 ( +10 / -14 )

Abe is right! the next PM must keep this promise to the people.

7 ( +15 / -8 )

The capability to strike missile bases need not be used strictly preemptively. When one missile is already launched then it becomes of utmost importance to prevent more from being launched.

It actually becomes more necessary when enemies have a lot more missiles.

Intercept defence can only handle so much when missiles are already raining on you.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Of course acquiring a missile base striking capability would be greatly destabilizing as it is also an offensive capability. A preemptive strike is just another term for a first strike.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

This is what China wants for Japan; to become stronger militarily and eventually become independent of the US. Better fighting one versus two. The Security Alliance with the US is at equilibrium and there has been peace for decades. Japan should be content with the alliance as long as the US doesn’t gouge Japan.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Abe says Japan must strengthen its ballistic missile defense. To defend itself against an imaginary enemy? Or to form a buffer region for US? This is 'a potentially controversial proposition given the country's pacifist constitution' laid out after WWII. Please take note of this seriously..

4 ( +7 / -3 )

We are NOT allowed to buy one from Russia. Just be warned, otherwise Trump will sanction us or remove us from key technology projects like he did to Turkey. That said, I think the best defence systems in the world at the moment are made by the Palestinian kids. Their slingshot defence system and flying balloons are very effective according to the Israili gov.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This is where historical understanding (or the lack thereof) is necessary.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

You all want to pay more taxes that lawmakers make fortunes via kickbacks etc from keep buying the nonsense put out there by the military industrial complex.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Ballistic missiles are for attack, not for defense, which is in breach of the constitution. This is why Abe has been pushing so hard to get it changed. He wants to be able to launch missiles whenever he gets peeved at North Korea, South Korea and China. However, if he does launch a missive at China, Japan will be flattened before his tea gets cold.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

To defend itself against an imaginary enemy? Or to form a buffer region for US? 

Yes, would China attack Japan if there are no US bases here?

The country itself has no significant offensive capabilities right?

This missile base strike capability would be the biggest reason for Japan to be attacked if it pushes thru

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

I didn’t know we had any enemies about to lob ballistic missiles at us? Unless we prepare to attack them first.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

   Yes, would China attack Japan if there are no US bases here?

china will attack anyone because they are plain greedy. There are no missiles in Tibet, Ladak or Hong Kong either. That didn't stop the china-nese from invading them.

However, if he does launch a missive at China, Japan will be flattened before his tea gets cold.

China actually has more to lose. And it WILL lose.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Tough choice:

An external force perhaps attacking Japan and it's people,

or, the internal one, set to bleed its people dry with more taxes, to pay for this.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

china will attack anyone because they are plain greedy. 

ok let's say they are plain greedy. But they are doing well economically, no need for invasions that will just turn the whole world against them n

noneed to do it like the US did to Iraq.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

This is utter crap aimed solely at putting more taxpayer money in the pockets of the military-industrial-surveillance complex. If either the DPRK or China launched missiles at Japan, the US would come down on them like a 16 ton weight. They know this, and that knowledge keeps them in their boxes. An unproven missile defense system, like Reagan's "Star Wars", is a bad joke that will lead to nothing but a false sense of security and more money poured down the defense industry rathole.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

It has also been learned that Sawada was placed on probation after being convicted of having unlawful sexual intercourse with an elementary school girl......

What? He had a previous conviction and slap on the wrist sentence for intercourse with a child?

This defies belief. Something is wrong here.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Us parents must activitely educate and supervise our kids. And we have to develop very close and strong relationships with them. Children in dysfunctional homes are the most vulnerable.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The more options you have at your disposal for defense, the better off you are. Anyone that can not strike back after being attacked, will be attacked again. Sooner or later you would need to hit them at their home to discourage further attacks on you. You can call it "first strike" capability or you can call it "retaliate" capability.

If you cant retaliate, you are at their mercy as they whittle your forces down through attrition. Long range missiles can retaliate without the risking of personnel or the need to fly or sail close to an adversary so they can eliminate your assets.

The old saying remains true. The best defense is a good offense. Having the ability to retaliate does not mean it will be used for a first strike. Just like having nuclear bombs dont mean you would use them first, or even at all in a conflict. But it does deter an enemy from starting something. After all they only winning situation is to deter war in the first place. Negotiation can then be applied until a resolution or compromise is found.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

How about instead of missiles, strengthening social security, minimum wages , working conditions for the army of part timers living on the borderline, ridiculously low pensions etc etc...

Guess that wouldn't make any dough for the LDP donors in the defense industry ey?

It was just yesterday Suga was bleating about Japan not having enough money in the near future and the shoohizei tax will have to rise again. Yet they always seem to have enough money to spend on their friends whether they are running weapons companies or making useless masks. LDP crooked to the core.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

What Abe is proposing is the minimum to protect Japan. His promises of reform won't happened, he failed. Japan will still be crippled by Article 9. Germany never had such restrictions, only Japan is weak enough to sign and agree to such a weakness.

How much did Germany spend on their weapons and how many times were they attacked by their neighbors since you use them as an example? Maybe actually improving relationships with your neighbors works out way cheaper and more effective...somehow Japan is unable to do that. Abe talked a lot of hot air in his 8 years in power and at the end of it Japan,s relationship with the neighborhood is as low as it gets ( with the exception of Taiwan ).

Well done Abe.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

There's always the need to create an enemy and the fear of that enemy.

No one is interested to attack Japan.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Abe says Japan must strengthen ballistic missile defense

So...........do it. Or you should have done it. Or, you can say what ever it is that you want, but nothing ever gets done, so what's the difference?

Have fun on the golf courses Shinzi. The rest of us still live in reality.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

In other words more fear-mongering, increasing China &NK Phobia so Japan can move more money out of the working peoples pockets into the US military complex. And in the near future and the tax will have to rise again, ( and the actual prices of potatos for 150 Yen/pcs will be a bargain in the future.

So stop squirming people they keep us in fear + squeeze us dry even more.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Won't do much to protect people from earthquakes or tsunamis, and they will definitely happen at some point.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The comments here just show how threatened people are when someone stands up to a big bully. If the Philipines had ballistic missiles, china would have thought twice before building their fake islands in their waters.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

WesleyToday  05:12 pm JST

The comments here just show how threatened people are when someone stands up to a big bully. If the Philipines had ballistic missiles, china would have thought twice before building their fake islands in their waters.

I disagree. I think it only shows how heavily populated this board is with those who support the CCP dictatorship, the resident wumaos.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

For a nation-wide missile defense system, there are three options.

1) US THAAD

2) Korean KAMD

3) Russian S-400

Choose one of three. Preemptive Strike Ballistic Missiles is not an option against enemies with 100 times the number of ballistic missiles.

None of the above are even close to the capabilities of SM-3, especially SM-3 Block II.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Won't do much to protect people from earthquakes or tsunamis, and they will definitely happen at some point.

I disagree. Only Chile and California have earthquake standards comparable to those of Japan. Neither have any sort of tsunami protection. Japan does and while those big sea walls were overwhelmed by a tsunami larger than the engineers imagined possible it does not take away from the Japanese planned ahead and built them. California is equally vulnerable to tsunamis and has lost half a town once to one (Crescent City in 1964) however you will not see any sort of tsunami fortifications in California or Chile or anywhere else as one finds in Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How much did Germany spend on their weapons and how many times were they attacked by their neighbors since you use them as an example? Maybe actually improving relationships with your neighbors works out way cheaper and more effective...somehow Japan is unable to do that. Abe talked a lot of hot air in his 8 years in power and at the end of it Japan,s relationship with the neighborhood is as low as it gets ( with the exception of Taiwan ).

In proportion to its GDP, Germany spends almost as little on defense as Japan, 1.2% of GDP vs Japan's 0.9%of GDP. As a NATO member an attack on Germany would have led to defensive responses and immediate retaliatory strikes by the US, UK, France, and the rest of the NATO membership. The old saying when I served in the 1980s was NATO was designed to keep the Americans in, the Soviets out and the Germans down. Like Japan Germany's old enemies still didn't trust her to be a fully armed "normal" nation. She was needed in NATO since Germany was the front line of any Soviet invasion of the west but beyond that lingering distrust affected her relations with her neighbors. Much the same is true of Japan in the Pacific. Few nations feel comfortable with the idea of Japan possessing offensive capabilities. The aggressive policies of Xi Jinping has changed this however and now many nations are looking to Japan for both leadership and military muscle to confront Chinese aggression. Germany has not faced a similar challenge since the end of the Cold War. In fact since the borders of NATO have moved east Germany feels even less necessity to maintain a strong military and has let her equipment and training slide.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

IMO it would be foolhardy for Japan to not be able to respond to a first attack. A first attack is probably unlikely from China or Russia, although not entirely out of the question, but the unstable leadership of North Korea is capable of just about anything.

Not discussed on this thread are Trump's attempts to make our defensive allies pay a profit to the USA for participating with them in our mutual defense. For many decades the costs to the USA of bases on the foreign soil of Japan, Germany, and South Korea have been paid for 50/50. Trump's attempts to not only make those countries pay all the costs, but to make a profit from them, is disgraceful. We are cooperating democracies; they are not client states paying for mercenaries, or hostages paying ransom.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

US keeps destabilizing nations by spewing anti-China or whatever propaganda so nations will continue to buy arms and military service from them.

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