Japan Debates Pre-emptive Strike Ability, Missile Defense Upgrade

[TomSea]

Japan Debates Pre-emptive Strike Ability, Missile Defense Upgrade

FILE - Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, center standing, reviews members of Japan Self-Defense Forces (SDF) during the Self-Defense Forces Day at Asaka Base, north of Tokyo, Oct. 23, 2016. Japan is debating whether to develop limited pre-emptive strike capability and buy cruise missiles.

TOKYO —

Japan is debating whether to develop a limited pre-emptive strike capability and buy cruise missiles — ideas that were anathema in the pacifist country before the North Korea missile threat. With revisions to Japan’s defense plans underway, ruling party hawks are accelerating the moves, and some defense experts say Japan should at least consider them.

After being on the backburner in the ruling party for decades, a possibility of pre-emptive strike was formally proposed to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe by his party’s missile defense panel in March, prompting parliamentary debate. But it somewhat lost steam as Abe seemed to avoid the divisive topic after seeing ratings for his scandal-laden government plunge.

North Korea’s test-firing Tuesday of a missile, which flew over Japan and landed in the northern Pacific Ocean, has intensified fear and reignited the debate.

Continued: https://www.voanews.com/a/japan-pre-emptive-strike-missile-defense-upgrade/4012385.html

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Both North Korea and China will rue the day the woke the Rising Sun once again.

[edpc]

Both North Korea and China will rue the day the woke the Rising Sun once again.

Maybe not. Japan has 125M people and 25% of them are over age 65. Demographically, they're becoming less of a threat economically and militarily.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Maybe not. Japan has 125M people and 25% of them are over age 65. Demographically, they're becoming less of a threat economically and militarily.

So they have more people than back in the 30s that can arm themselves and have a whole lot more vibrant economy than the 30s.

Exactly how do those two not equate to providing for a great deal more militarily?

The only thing they have not had since the end of WWII is the incentive to do so, which is currently being provided by both the NK and the China threat.

[edpc]

So they have more people than back in the 30s that can arm themselves and have a whole lot more vibrant economy than the 30s.

Exactly how do those two not equate to providing for a great deal more militarily?

The only thing they have not had since the end of WWII is the incentive to do so, which is currently being provided by both the NK and the China threat.

Except they have a completely different mindset among the population, non-military economic focus, and pesky Article 9 of their constitution.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Except they have a completely different mindset among the population, non-military economic focus, and pesky Article 9 of their constitution.

Like I said, they now have an incentive and the ability economically, which for some reason you do not think they do.

You may wish to recall that during the late 30s and early 40s that the US also had a robust economy and no incentive to engage in war, yet became the pre-eminent military power in a very short time.

Why? Incentive.

[Ghost Bear]

Just a matter of time before they develop giant robots and wave motion guns. Or even better, giant robots with wave motion guns!

[edpc]

Like I said, they now have an incentive and the ability economically, which for some reason you do not think they do.

You may wish to recall that during the late 30s and early 40s that the US also had a robust economy and no incentive to engage in war, yet became the pre-eminent military power in a very short time.

Why? Incentive.

I can see them upping their defensive capability, but one of the main points of the article is preemption. Until their parliament convenes and repeals article 9, that's off the table.

[anubias]

Like I said, they now have an incentive and the ability economically, which for some reason you do not think they do.

You may wish to recall that during the late 30s and early 40s that the US also had a robust economy and no incentive to engage in war, yet became the pre-eminent military power in a very short time.

Why? Incentive.

I'd say they have one helluva incentive. Maybe they'll eventually do what the US has been too squeamish to do.

[NavyCanDo]

With breaking news of a H-bomb test a day after some were questioning the peanut shaped bomb shown in a photo was even real has me believing this ends no other way but war, with a pre-emptive strike being the only way to have hopes of success.

[edpc]

With breaking news of a H-bomb test a day after some were questioning the peanut shaped bomb shown in a photo was even real......

Probably because they have an immense track record of provable fakery.  Whatever they tested, I'm betting it wasn't a device like the one pictured.

[Suppressed]

Probably because they have an immense track record of provable fakery.  Whatever they tested, I'm betting it wasn't a device like the one pictured.

Still, nuking of Seoul is well within their current capabilities.

[Wingnut]

Still, nuking of Seoul is well within their current capabilities.

For accuracy... Only If they drove it over the 38th Parallel.

[edpc]

For accuracy... Only If they drove it over the 38th Parallel.

Maybe with an IL-28, but I doubt any aircraft from NK gets more than 1 mile into SK airspace before being engaged.

[Wingnut]

Maybe with an IL-28, but I doubt any aircraft from NK gets more than 1 mile into SK airspace before being engaged.

Suppressed think the NOKO's are the shits.  Poor demented fear mongering bastard.

[Ghost Bear]

For accuracy... Only If they drove it over the 38th Parallel.

Or they could put it on a disguised ship and sneak it into the Port of Inchon.  Why do people always seem to overlook that possibility?   

[Wingnut]

Or they could put it on a disguised ship and sneak it into the Port of Inchon.  Why do people always seem to overlook that possibility?   

Did they ever return the Pueblo?   They could use that.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I can see them upping their defensive capability, but one of the main points of the article is preemption. Until their parliament convenes and repeals article 9, that's off the table.

I don't know how to tell you any other way but to just say it:  That shit doesn't matter if the choice is to die or to fight.

That is what we did in WWII and that is what a proven fighting country like Japan will do when they need to, any type of Constitution be damned to stay in the way of preserving their lives.

It is called INCENTIVE.

[edpc]

I don't know how to tell you any other way but to just say it:  That shit doesn't matter if the choice is to die or to fight.

That is what we did in WWII and that is what a proven fighting country like Japan will do when they need to, any type of Constitution be damned to stay in the way of preserving their lives.

It is called INCENTIVE.

Oddly enough, WWII was our last constitutionally declared war. Incidentally, we conquered Japan and forced them into unconditional surrender. They are three generations removed from that era.   You can drone on all you like about INCENTIVE,  but it doesn't change history or fact. 

They have less than 250K active personnel in their armed forces.  They're woefully unprepared to do anything unilaterally for the foreseeable future.  Your wet dreams of Imperial Japan aside, they have much to do before they're capable of doing anything independently.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Oddly enough, WWII was our last constitutionally declared war. Incidentally, we conquered Japan and forced them into unconditional surrender. They are three generations removed from that era.   You can drone on all you like about INCENTIVE,  but it doesn't change history or fact. 

They have less than 250K active personnel in their armed forces.  They're woefully unprepared to do anything unilaterally for the foreseeable future.  Your wet dreams of Imperial Japan aside, they have much to do before they're capable of doing anything independently.

You are the one ignoring history.

Never in the history of this world has an educated, wealthy country chosen submission rather than fighting for survival when faced with extinction.

I have no idea why you believe human nature will be any different than what history and common sense tells one.

And the US, a much much larger country, had only 358k active military in 1940, yet we won a war. http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Stats/US_Mil_Manpower_1789-1997.htm

It is called INCENTIVE, and the survival instinct is one of the most powerful of human instincts.

[edpc]

You are the one ignoring history.

Never in the history of this world has an educated, wealthy country chosen submission rather than fighting for survival when faced with extinction.

I have no idea why you believe human nature will be any different than what history and common sense tells one.

And the US, a much much larger country, had only 358k active military in 1940, yet we won a war. http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Stats/US_Mil_Manpower_1789-1997.htm

It is called INCENTIVE, and the survival instinct is one of the most powerful of human instincts.

Never in the history of this world has an educated, wealthy country chosen submission rather than fighting for survival when faced with extinction.

Yeah – except maybe for that time the Senones sacked Rome and were paid off to leave.   It also might've been the time when Rotterdam was bombed in 1940 and the Dutch surrendered without a fight days later.

It is called INCENTIVE


What is it called again? You keep beating around the bush.   

My gift to you......

http://www.thesaurus.com

[GtHawk]

Oddly enough, WWII was our last constitutionally declared war. Incidentally, we conquered Japan and forced them into unconditional surrender. They are three generations removed from that era.   You can drone on all you like about INCENTIVE,  but it doesn't change history or fact. 

They have less than 250K active personnel in their armed forces.  They're woefully unprepared to do anything unilaterally for the foreseeable future.  Your wet dreams of Imperial Japan aside, they have much to do before they're capable of doing anything independently.

It's a little disconcerting, the seeming desire of some for a full blown war, haven't we sacrificed enough American lives to insane despots?

I think it's time for Japan to play their trump card!

Sorry, a small attempt at levity in a very serious situation.