It would not be a violation of Japan's pacifist Constitution to mount a defensive first strike against an enemy launch pad or base preparing a missile attack against Japanese territory.

You can try to twist the definition all you want, but a first strike is not defense, it's offense. He knows it, and so he starts by stating clearly that he will be twisting the definition of things to fit in with the Constitution, in his mind.

Here we go with the preemptive strike for defense crazy crap. Dick Cheney anyone? We're still looking for those WMD's in Iraq....

Error a first strike is not defence, it's offence. It does seem the defence minister is woefully unqualified for his position, it's like having a minister for cyber security not knowing what a thumb drive is....oh it's Japans high level decision makers.

Walk soft and carry a big stick.

Proactive self-defence is a tricky subject, because without it basically you need to get a bloody nose or see the fist flying toward your face before you can counter-attack. So I think Japan needs its own publicly acknowledged nuclear deterrent. It may already have nuclear weapons, but they're not much good unless your enemy knows you have them - the whole point of a deterrent. That would help ward off all but the most insane country launching a first strike on Japan.

I think this is mostly aimed at China and NK so given what we know about what they're like then they're really inviting pain onto themselves if they declare war

I remember when not so long a go a NK ship started shooting at the Japan Coast Guard ship and also rammed it, the only thing that the sailors on the JCG ship did was to use the water canon and to take photographs and video of the atack. They did not shoot back because guns on the ship are locked and can only be unlocked by a code from Abe. I have never heard of anything so stupid in my life as having locked guns on a Coast Guard ship that can only be activated by a code from a prime minister!!! And now they are talking about first strike????!!!!! Whose are they going to ask for permission??? Trump???

You can try to twist the definition all you want, but a first strike is not defense, it's offense.

At some times you or an ally can break potential adversaries military and or diplomatic codes.

This was done by America to some Japanese codes before and during WWII.

If you have broken codes and your reading messages of an intended strike and a date for attack, any move you make to defend yourself, including a strike against your enemy before they launch their attack, is in fact defensive in nature.

Should Japan ignore such intelligence and allow itself to be attacked before taking actions? That's closing the barn door after the horse has already bolted. Such a situation would test any nation with any constitution.

They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Failure to stop a first strike against you could cripple your military for months depending on what is hit and how. You could very well lose, or be placed in a losing position, before you even get to defend anything.

More discussion is needed in Japan to answer such questions and determine if changes in the constitution are needed in these very uncertain times. Doing so does not mean that it is certain that Japan will start another war. What it does do is give it options to defend itself it may not currently legally have.

The Japanese constitution was written with the help of the countries who first occupied Japan after the war. Naturally, it was in their best interest to have a pacifistic Japan. It has also been a convenience when it comes to defense spending.

If faced with certain annihilation, wouldn't it be a good idea to defend yourselves?

And this nonsense about weapons locked and only used under the sole direction of Abe is laughable. I recall during the Cold War when the Russians were making stacked Badger bombing simulation runs against Japan and coming too close (they turned around while intruding into Japanese airspace)... a Japanese SDF pilot told one of the Bear pilots to change course and he refused. The Japanese pilot fired 20 mm rounds in front of him and he got the message and changed his course.

Japan has a fine military... soon to have F-35's and already have their very own stealth fighter. Great seaman, soldiers, and airmen... You should be proud. No need to fully depend on the USA. But, of course, we are a good team.

Preemptive strike is well-established under criminal law as justified in certain circumstances of reasonable belief of imminent attack. However, the preemptive strike must be proportionate.

Under international law, it is legal as you say, but must be approved by the UN.

They did not shoot back because guns on the ship are locked and can only be unlocked by a code from Abe.

That sounds unlikely to me. Do you have any more information? I recall an incident from 2001 when a Japanese coastguard ship returned fire on ship that had attacked it. It didn't seem they hesitated long.

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/25/world/japan-says-a-mystery-boat-fired-rockets-at-its-ships.html

Defense has always been used to rationalize starting a war.

But I don't see why only Japan has a pacifist constitution; I can think of many other countries that are much more deserving of one.