Japan considers pre-emptive strike against North Korea

[jerry611]

TOKYO (AP) - Japan said Monday it was considering whether a pre-emptive strike on the North's missile bases would violate its constitution, signaling a hardening stance ahead of a possible U.N. Security Council vote on Tokyo's proposal for sanctions against the regime.

Japan was badly rattled by North Korea's missile tests last week and several government officials openly discussed whether the country ought to take steps to better defend itself, including setting up the legal framework to allow Tokyo to launch a pre-emptive strike against Northern missile sites.

"If we accept that there is no other option to prevent an attack ... there is the view that attacking the launch base of the guided missiles is within the constitutional right of self-defense. We need to deepen discussion," Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said.

Japan's constitution currently bars the use of military force in settling international disputes and prohibits Japan from maintaining a military for warfare. Tokyo has interpreted that to mean it can have armed troops to protect itself, allowing the existence of its 240,000-strong Self-Defense Forces.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060710/D8IP4UC81.html

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

1. Hmmm. Didn't they do that in, oh, like 1935 or so

it worked out so well for them that time.

[Art_from_Ark]

3. Well, the pre-emptive strike by Japan that was really disastrous

(from the Japanese militarists' point of view) was the one made in 1941.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

4. Good point. But they were already in deep

kimshiee with their little adventures on the continent.

[Art_from_Ark]

9. And you have a point there

The Japanese militarists thought they could divvy up a little more of China (they had already taken Taiwan in 1895) while the Communists and Nationalists were dividing and conquering each other. Although the Japanese were able to endear themselves to the Taiwanese, they didn't take the lessons learned there to Manchuria, Korea, or for that matter, the Philippines, which had originally largely supported the Japanese invasion because they were getting tired of the 40+-year American occupation (which they had viewed originally as helping to get the Spanish out.)

[David in Canada]

7. Actually...

Actually, it was in 1910 when the Japanese took over Korea, an occupation that lasted until 1945.

[still_one]

2. let them try. Remember north Korea does have nukes

remember they have tested missles that can reach Japan

...wait a minute, I got it, this is bush's plan to create jobs here, cause North Korea to nuke South Korea and Japan, then we will take back the car market

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

5. I think if anyplace remembers something about nukes,

it would be Japan, don;t you?

[jerry611]

6. But Japan has a mutual defense treaty. And guess who the treaty is with??

US!

Japan and the US signed a mutual defense pact after world war 2. We promised to protect Japan should they ever come under attack. Same with South Korea.

Now we can break that treaty, but remember that Japan is holding 40% of our debt. We piss them off and they can put us into a depression overnight.

According to the treaty, if North Korea were to attack Japan, we have no choice but to declare war on Kim Jong Ill.

[pitohui]

8. it is our duty to protect and defend japan

under the terms of the treaty we have largely prevented them from having a powerful defense of their own and it is only right for us to uphold our end of the bargain if japan is attacked

we have no moral grounds to break the treaty, if japan is attacked, they should be defended and vigorously by usa

[TankLV]

10. But if Japan INITIATES the attack, then all bets are off, no?

That would be supporting a fellow war monger - just like bunkerboy!

Staging a "preemptive" attack is not "self defense" - it is an INITIATING ATTACK. Period. Just like in December 7th, 1941. NO DIFFERENCE.

[jerry611]

11. After WW2, it's all the same

There has been no "offensive war" since WW2.

There has been roughly 150 conflicts around the world the past 60 years. Each one was started by one side claiming "self-defense."

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

15. Uh huh. Or March 19, 2003 another date witch will

live in infamy.

[Sherman A1]

12. And they will do it with what?

Japan has almost zeor offensive capability. Lots of defensive stuff, but no ability to project power.

[Solo_in_MD]

14. Hmmm, I would not be so sure about that...

They have a lot of modern systems that could easily be used for offensive purposes. They could readily strike an NK missile sitting on a pad. The real restraint on Japan is the politcal will, coupled with the limits and indoctrination imposed upon them by McArthur post WWII.

Their capability for 24/7 SCUD hunting is questionable, but with support from the US (Global Hawk, sattelite) it could be done as well.

[readmoreoften]

13. Any chance we're putting Japan up to this?

Could we be asking them to wage the strike, to be the face of the military action? Then we'll fund it and reap the benefits (what benefits I do not know...)

Just a thought.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

16. Interesting thought. Think Koizumi and Elvis last week

perhaps they cooked up something at Graceland.