Japan Considers Strike Against N. Korea

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
i'm not surprised by this. i believe that if nothing is done with nk, japan will look into developing nukes also...which imo will force china to take a harder stance on this issue.

By MARI YAMAGUCHI

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.

A Defense Agency spokeswoman, however, said Japan has no attacking weapons such as ballistic missiles that could reach North Korea. Its forces only have ground-to-air missiles and ground-to-vessel missiles, she said on condition of anonymity due to official policy.

Despite resistance from China and Russia, Japan has pushed for a U.N. Security Council resolution that would prohibit nations from procuring missiles or missile-related "items, materials goods and technology" from North Korea. A vote was possible in New York later Monday, but Japan said it would not insist on one.

"It's important for the international community to express a strong will in response to the North Korean missile launches," Abe said. "This resolution is an effective way of expressing that."

China and Russia, both nations with veto power on the council, have voiced opposition to the measure. Kyodo News agency reported Monday, citing unnamed Chinese diplomatic sources, that China may use its veto on the Security Council to block the resolution.

The United States, Britain and France have expressed support for the proposal, while Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso has said there is a possibility that Russia will abstain.

South Korea, not a council member, has not publicly taken a position on the resolution, but on Sunday Seoul rebuked Japan for its outspoken criticism of the tests.

"There is no reason to fuss over this from the break of dawn like Japan, but every reason to do the opposite," a statement from President Roh Moo-hyun's office said, suggesting that Tokyo was contributing to tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

Abe said Monday it was "regrettable" that South Korea had accused Japan of overreacting.

"There is no mistake that the missile launch ... is a threat to Japan and the region. It is only natural for Japan to take measures of risk management against such a threat," Abe said.

Meanwhile, a Chinese delegation including the country's top nuclear envoy - Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei - arrived in North Korea on Monday, officially to attend celebrations marking the 45th anniversary of a friendship treaty between the North and China.

The U.S. is urging Beijing to push its communist ally back into six-party nuclear disarmament talks, but the Chinese government has not said whether Wu would bring up the negotiations. A ministry spokeswoman said last week that China was "making assiduous efforts" in pushing for the talks to resume.

Talks have been deadlocked since November because of a boycott by Pyongyang in protest of a crackdown by Washington on the regime's alleged money-laundering and other financial crimes.

Beijing has suggested an informal gathering of the six nations, which could allow the North to technically stand by its boycott, but at the same time meet with the other five parties - South Korea, China, the U.S., Japan and Russia. The U.S. has backed the idea and said Washington could meet with the North on the sidelines of such a meeting.

Still, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill questioned just how influential Beijing was with the enigmatic regime.

"I must say the issue of China's influence on DPRK is one that concerns us," Hill told reporters in Tokyo. "China said to the DPRK, 'Don't fire those missiles,' but the DPRK fired them. So I think everybody, especially the Chinese, are a little bit worried about it."

The DPRK refers to the North's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Hill is touring the region to coordinate strategy on North Korea. He has emphasized the need for countries involved to present a united front.

"We want to make it very clear that we all speak in one voice on this provocative action by the North Koreans to launch missiles in all shapes and sizes," Hill said. "We want to make it clear to North Korea that what it did was really unacceptable."
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
i was gonna say,how the hell does japan plan on pulling this off?....

japan's entire military or "self-defense" force consists of 240,000 people.....kim has over 1,000,000 under arms.....

and china would definitely not be pleased with any japanese surprise attack....

the chinese baffle me..and the s.koreans disappoint me.....i know that china can control this midget mofo is they choose to...i can`t believe that they really want the japanese to start arming up...and i think that`s what`s inevitably going to happen...

the s. koreans are ridiculous...i`d say pull our 35,000 troops the hell out....that way the n.k.`s will be able to eat for a couple of weeks, and the s.k.`s will get the communist dictatorship they obviously crave......

it would be just like the reunification of germany, only in reverse....

but,the s.koreans are a crucial cog in international capitalism.....that`s the rub.....

so weird...
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
gw..

i don't think we should pull troops out of s.k. i think they're there to be close to china as much as n.k.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
GW,

I'm not sure why you're surprised and/or disappointed with the stance of South Korea. It's easy for us to talk tough from 10,000 miles away and no threat of our homeland being invaded.

As far as 'reverse re-unification', that will never happen, but it will take tens of thousands of our soldiers lives, probably three times the amount of ROK soldiers lives, and millions of civilian casualties to prevent it.

Maybe, just MAYBE, South Korea has the most to lose in this. As in, their way of life as they know it and the threat of years of a bloody war playing out on their soil. It's hard to blame them for wanting to settle this diplomatically, isn't it?

And there's another aspect that further complicates it for them. The family aspect. Many, if not most Koreans have family on both sides of the border. That's not a small thing to consider for SK when a large part of Koreans hold out hope for a peaceful re-unification. Granted, that's not going to happen during Jong-Il's stint, but the hope and great desire is there and it still complicates the political realities.

This Japan threat threw me for a loop. I'm not sure exactly what the NK reaction would be, if any, beyond firing missles back at Japan. I don't think they would try to make their way across the Sea of Japan and invade. I don't think they could do that sucessfully. Then we have the little fact that Japan has no weapons that can reach NK. Sure, they can make some, after they debate for who knows how long about changing their constitution, etc...etc...

I mean, how long would/will it be before they are ready to fire?

Then what? Our airbases in Japan are targeted and we get drawn in? What do we have then? There are so many different scenarios that could play out if Japan starts firing missles into NK, with many scenarios including China. And all the above assumes NK just doesn't invade SK, which is certainly not a given.

I guess I think that when their entire country is at stake, SK's stance is eminently reasonable.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
kosar...

do you feel that s.k. feels safer with a nuclear n.k. than a n.k. that's not nuclear ?

because if the s.k. gov't. says nothing about this...then they are quilty of appeasing this madman ?....which imo is the wrong position to take.

in other words the japanese & s.k. gov't. can't sit by & watch n.k. practice their missle launches.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
AR182 said:
kosar...

do you feel that s.k. feels safer with a nuclear n.k. than a n.k. that's not nuclear ?

because if the s.k. gov't. says nothing about this...then they are quilty of appeasing this madman ?....which imo is the wrong position to take.

in other words the japanese & s.k. gov't. can't sit by & watch n.k. practice their missle launches.


Of course they would prefer a nuke-free peninsula, but they have to weigh all of their options and consequences of their options and approach it extremely carefully.

And yes, they have made statements etc..but nowhere near the harshness of our comments and other countries statements.

I understand what you're saying, but try to understand what's at stake for them if they pre-emtively strike, as you seem to be suggesting.

I look at it like this:

Our biggest threat/concern is that North Korea actually has a deliverable nuke or a small suitcase nuke/dirty bomb and exports it to a rogue nation who successfully detonates it here or against our interests abroad.

All that crap that was on TV last week about them having a missle that can hit the states with a nuclear payload is a bunch of crap. So our problem is NK exporting some sort of suitcase nuke or something. Them exporting an actual deliverable missle with a nuke tip to a rogue nation close enough physically to us that has the hardware and knowledge to accurately hit us is pretty remote, IMO.

On the other hand, SK's biggest concern is not our biggest concern. NK exporting something doesn't affect them directly, as bad as that sounds.

They will do(or not do)/say what it takes to avoid an NK invasion and another war.

Their biggest fear is not getting nuked by NK and there is no proof that they even have one weapon, much less 6 deliverable nuke missles, even just to fire over the border.

So our agenda and their agenda is clearly divergent. Each is just doing what they think is right for their country. Honestly, I can't get too worked up about that.

I'm not necessarily saying that I agree with SK's 'soft' position, for Americas sake, but if I was living there, I would hope for and expect nothing different.

Jingoistic 'patriots' like GWeasel just can't understand why every other country in the world doesn't just flop on the bed with their legs open when we 'request' they act a certain way on vote with us on everything.

What a moonbat. (yes!)
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
I understand what you're saying, but try to understand what's at stake for them if they pre-emtively strike, as you seem to be suggesting.



i don't know if i'm suggesting that. i am saying that there should not be any incentives given to n. korea, or iran for that matter to behave themselves.

it's a very tough situation. don't understand why anybody would want to become president with these type of problems.
 
Last edited:

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
AR182 said:
i don't know if i'm suggesting that. i am saying that there should mnot be any incentives given to n. korea, or iran for that matter to behave themselves.

I don't think that anybody is talking about incentives without them showing transparency regarding their nuke program. The difference in the various countries stances is how hard to push for UN sanctions.

And of course also we have Japans somewhat bizarre threat.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
Is quite interesting--one thing it is accomplishing is adding another tangent for both NK and China to consider--especially China.
It accomplishes 2 things--It keeps the U.S. from looking like the aggressor on this issue--but gives us green light to do whats necessary per our treay to be protect Japan from agression per their non-aggressive treaty--a little complicated but the end justifies the means. The way I see it Japan could send a few planes with traditional bombs to attack NK missles with our cruisers setting in sea of Japan--once NK strikes the planes--here comes the Judge :)

GW You are so correct about Chinas distain for Japan--they have long unpleasant memories.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
GW You are so correct about Chinas distain for Japan--they have long unpleasant memories.

i believe japan was absolutely brutal towards china during the war in the pacific. that definitely seems to have left a mark.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
""As far as 'reverse re-unification', that will never happen""...

why?

kosar...i read that you have experience with korea and koreans......

then you know that many s.koreans want us to leave....

from what i`ve read, the majority of those people are idiots( within a particular demographic - say 40 and under)....

some of this is driven by the 'family reunification' stuff...you know, if the u.s. would just get out of the way blah blah blah.....

and as for us actually getting out of the way, well that's another "nervous japan" scenario....

i don`t know what "they`d" expect to happen if we walked.....

you know the terrain....what happens if the hated yanks leave?

all i`m saying is that if the s.k.`s think that life would be more pleasant under kim jung "ill",then the hell with them....

`cause,he`ll move on them if we`re not there to stop him...

and even though relations are strained with south korea,losing a fellow democracy in the region won`t make the japanese very happy...
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
gardenweasel said:
""As far as 'reverse re-unification', that will never happen""...

why?

Maybe I wasn't precise in the implied definition of my made up term 'reverse re-unification.' What I mean is that the peninsula will never be run by Jong-Il or any other communist dictator. My point was basically that the north would/will never totally win any war.

kosar...i read that you have experience with korea and koreans......

then you know that many s.koreans want us to leave....

from what i`ve read, the majority of those people are idiots( within a particular demographic - say 40 and under)....

Right. It's not an extremely intense sentiment, but there are peaceful demonstrations from time to time. And you're right, it's typically the younger demographic that feels this way. However, there are plenty of older folks that want us to go and plenty of younger kids that want us to stay. But overall, your characterization is correct.




some of this is driven by the 'family reunification' stuff...you know, if the u.s. would just get out of the way blah blah blah.....

Yes, for sure. There are elements of delusional thoughts there that think we are standing in the way, whether we are doing so intentionally or not(in their minds). But it is real and it's the genesis of my point above. Where I spoke of how their political leaders have to consider this. They HAVE to. It's really hard to convey the desire of the people in the south to reunite with their families, however unfamilar and distant they might be after 50 years. It's kind of hard to understand, but it's there in a big way.


and as for us actually getting out of the way, well that's another "nervous japan" scenario....

i don`t know what "they`d" expect to happen if we walked.....

you know the terrain....what happens if the hated yanks leave?

Put it this way. Our 35-37,000 troops there are no deterrent whatsoever. It is symbolic and nothing more. As close as 80-85% of our troops are to the DMZ, our casualty rate in the first 48 hours would be staggering. We would be nothing but a speedbump. The ROK(SK) army is about 800k active strong with another million or so subject to a 'draft' if something happens.

The deterrent is that we're obligated to protect SK. That means bringing in troops from anywhere and everywhere until there's victory. The north would virtually be assured victory, or at least another stalemate, if they invaded and we only had those 35,000 troops to 'help out.' We have 5 or so major army posts within 15 miles of the DMZ who would be decimated within hours of an initial artillery barrage.

We would get quick air support from the Air Force down south in Osan and Pusan, but it would be too little too late during the initial days.



all i`m saying is that if the s.k.`s think that life would be more pleasant under kim jung "ill",then the hell with them....

Nobody there thinks that. Nobody. I have no idea where you could possibly get that idea. You are misunderstanding why a small/medium contingency of SK citizens want us to leave. They desperately want re-unification and some think that the reason that it can't happen is because we're there. Even though they have a totally free press/internet/whatever and know, or can know everything about the north, their dream of re-unification trumps all.

And while Jong-Il is what he is, they naively see him as the judge and jury on if and when this would or could ever happen. They aren't much different than the Japanese in that they are nationalistic, homogenic and they see Jong-Il as a 'countryman', in some sense. They don't like him or trust him, but he's Korean. Ya know?


`cause,he`ll move on them if we`re not there to stop him...

As mentioned above, if our pledge to protect SK stays intact, removing our smattering of 35k troops won't make any difference in what Jong-Il would do. IOW, what we have there would not 'stop him.'

and even though relations are strained with south korea,losing a fellow democracy in the region won`t make the japanese very happy...

We aren't going to 'lose' SK and i'm not sure how strained things are. And how would we lose a democracy in the region? Communism will never run the whole peninsula. Ever. Even if we have to go toe to toe with China out there.

That said, and I know i'm a broken record, a war in Korea will totally and utterly decimate SK and that thriving democracy that you speak of would likely take decades to recover to 'pre-war' standards, as they say. Probably longer.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Well unless Japan has secret no one knows about there attacking no one. Just listening to some of Bushs speeches and news conferences about N Korea last few years. Wow has it changed. Were talking now. No ones evil anymore. And it's more China's problem and S Korea then ours. Mr Pres remember Iran is watching us. China loves our dance were caught in. Remember Taiwan. N Korea fades in next 30 days. Then it's back to Iran again. Looks like we could use some new thinkers. Or at least one or two new ideas.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
djv said:
Well unless Japan has secret no one knows about there attacking no one.

Yeah, that's really weird how they came out today like that. I just can't see it, unless we already have plans with Japan to go to war with NK. That shit makes no sense.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
the 35 k troops do have an effect....

you have to understand that it would be much easier for kim to move on s. korea if there were no american presence in s.korea.....

if there had been a troop deployment of around 35 k in kuwiat,i doubt that saddam would have invaded...

that presence,in essence says,"you`ll have to kill americans to take south korea"....and that means the gloves would have to come off....

but,i`m not basing my statements on the 35 k being any real physical deterrent...they`re symbolic....no doubt...

human shields,per se...

they say,"don`t even think about it"...

btw... i don`t think we can underestimate how skitish japan is about kim....they are really worried...
while the s. koreans may be laissez faire....the japanese are pissing blood...

i wouldn`t be surprised to see that constitution changed in the near future...

great conversation...good stuff kosar...
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
kosar said:
Yeah, that's really weird how they came out today like that. I just can't see it, unless we already have plans with Japan to go to war with NK. That shit makes no sense.


eventhough their military is small, i have seen people today say that japan has the capability to shoot down any nk missle. they have some u.s. fighter jets & u.s. battle ships that can do the job.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
i just heard from neil cavuto's interview with olliver north that in japan's constitution they have the right to attack nk's missiles if they feel that they are threatened.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
AR182 said:
eventhough their military is small, i have seen people today say that japan has the capability to shoot down any nk missle. they have some u.s. fighter jets & u.s. battle ships that can do the job.

Do you mean incoming missles, or missle sites in North Korea?

Yes, we have helped them with a missle defense system to try to shoot down incoming missles, but it is far from foolproof or guaranteed. I'm sure you remember how our famed Patriot defense system worked in the first Iraq war.

Sure, we have jets and ships that can knock out known missle sites. And then we declare war and the carnage starts with 150k tired troops over in Iraq.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
AR182 said:
i just heard from neil cavuto's interview with olliver north that in japan's constitution they have the right to attack nk's missiles if they feel that they are threatened.

Well of course they have the right to try to shoot down incoming missles. That's a defensive action.

They don't even have any weapons capable of attacking NK missle sites though, if that's what you meant.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top