Japan warns that it will attack if North Korea aims missile

[Newsjock]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/story.jsp?story=443447

Japan's Defence Minister has stressed his country's right to strike North Korean missile sites if an attack is thought imminent.

In an exclusive interview, Shigeru Ishiba told The Independent: "The Japanese constitution permits my position. Attacking North Korea after a missile attack on Japan is too late. If North Korea orders its military to send a missile to attack Japan and the missile is raised to vertical in preparation for launch, then Japan will assume that an attack has begun and has the right to attack that particular missile launch site. What else can the missile be used for but to attack us?"

Intelligence officials estimate that North Korea has at least 100 Rodong ballistic missiles capable of striking Japan.

... The hawkish Mr Ishiba ... believes that President George Bush's strategy is closer to his own approach, than the strategy of Bill Clinton. "Clinton's policy toward North Korea was based on two false premises: one, that Pyongyang would keep its promises (regarding the 1994 agreement to abandon its nuclear programme); and two, that North Korea would collapse," he said.

more

[hadrons]

1. Bush won't like that ....

he's expecting those Japanese soldiers to die in Iraq, not Japan

[alphafemale]

2. The only country ever attacked with nukes shows some restraint.

We still wait for WMD evidence in Iraq.

Korea clearly has WMD's. Those in harm's way are calling Korea's bluff rather than pre-emptively striking a smaller, poorer country.

[tlb]

4. I think his point was Japan cannot strike Korea pre-emptively

and this deficiency will be corrected in the near future.

Nor can I really blame a state that has lost cities to nuke attack for letting it be known they won't take such losses again.

[The Zanti Regent]

3. Yeah, but Korea has no oil

So it has no value according to President Halliburton!

[KharmaTrain]

5. New World Order...

Now that Whistleass has "legitimized" the concept of a pre-emptive strike, why shouldn't Japan do the same. Or South Korea or Taiwan?
Aren't these nations under the imminent threat, since we already know North Korea has missiles that will reach these countries and taut that they have the nuclear warheads as well.

This is a far cry from the Iraq scenario where we launched an invasion on "evidence" that was far from solid and getting more liquid every day.

The danger here is that any nation that feels a threat can act unilaterally...thumbing not only its nose at the U.N. but the U.S. as well. Why should the Japanese rely on us for protection from a threat a couple hundred miles from their shores? They know, as the rest of the world does, that the U.S., especially this regime, is only out for its own self interest. Decades of delicate diplomacy and alliances are all but history thanks to this rouge regime!

[teryang]

6. This has more to do with defense contracts

...than reality. N.Korea has no deliverable nuclear warheads. Putting a missile on a launchpad has nothing to do with where it is targeted. It is very unlikely N.Korea would launch an attack on Japan for any reason. However, the National Missile Defense contract is likely to be very lucrative to its supporters.

[pw]

7. Under this logic

Doesn't Japan pose a threat to North Korea, thus justifying a pre-emptive strike...

[KharmaTrain]

16. Isn't That One Of Korea's Fears?

The North views every nation in that area as a threat...especially the Japanese. I've met Koreans who hate the Japanese more than any other group...the venom of decades of occupation are still felt. Surely, any Japanese military action would be viewed either as a direct theat or one in concert with the U.S...thus a double threat.

[teryang]

21. The japanese are hated in N.Korea

...and S.Korea for that matter because of the cruel annexation and colonialization that lasted until 1945.

Japan is not a military threat to N.Korea unless it becomes a staging area for an American force buildup. Scarce N.Korean resources would be reserved for threats on the peninsula. The military threat posed by N.Korea to other countries is highly exaggerated. The only country threatened is S.Korea, particularly Seoul. The threat is somewhat feeble one.

War is about logistics. N.Korea doesn't have any logistics. Without food and fuel what can its armed forces do? Not much. The worst case is shelling cities near the DMZ. Seoul is the most vulnerable. My estimate of N.Korean missiles is that they would be as effective as Saddams missile's in any war. After an artillery bombardment of Seoul, which of course would be diastrous, then what? The systematic destruction of N.Korea. What's in it for them to attack anyone? Nothing. In a real war the North would fold quickly. The issue is really China. China would not tolerate a Japanese attack on N.Korea on any basis. Nor will they tolerate an American attack without a payoff. They will enforce the armistice of 1953.

People are forgetting that this crisis was precipitated by the neocons who breached the agreed framework. The nuclear issue is more about N.Korean economic development than it is about weapons. We have interfered with their development of nuclear power (and their economy) and then failed to deliver on our obligations under the agreed framework. These are the facts that are known. The rest is a combination of bluster, bigotry, chauvinism, posturing, disinformation and propaganda.

Anyone without background in Korean history, language, and culture can't even imagine how far off base they likely are when they offer opinions on the Korean situation. The cultural, political, and communications barriers are so huge, they naturally have the potential for leading to violence by us against them. But you know what they say everyone's got one, an opinion that is.

[KharmaTrain]

24. Thank You

You offer a far better assessment than I've heard on this topic in a long, long time.

North Korea's army is no match for our military sophistication. The only direct threat I see is to the industial infrastructure of South Korea and their large number of artillery pieces within range of Seoul.

Now the question is the sincerity of the North Koreans to fight for their leadership (if given a choice between which Korea to fight for). Also, can Sunshine diplomacy work like the glastnost/perestroika policies that helped to topple the Soviet bloc?

There's too much distrust between the U.S. and North Korea for any seriously negotiated agreements (especially under this U.S. regime), can Japan or Russia play an honest broker?

[teryang]

28. The Sunshine Policy could work

...if the Americans would stop interfering. If increased commerce with the South and the west, starting with international aid, and joint development projects were introduced to the north, I don't think the communist regime there would last 24 months. N.Korean officials observing S.Korean business techniques would quickly question the wisdom of perservering in their current ways and want to "defect to capitalism" early to ensure their position in the new consolidated regime.

One has to keep in mind that the great powers who kept Korea divided in the 19th and 20th Centuries, with the exception of the Japanese colonial period, do not want Korea unified. A unified Korea presents three possible threats. The first is the obvious economic threat which would emerge a few years after unification. Korea is a powerful rival in international markets. The second is the military threat. Traditionally, Korea has presented a military threat to China, (even though this may seem absurd to us now).

The political threat is that a unified Korea presents the prospect of one great power, China, emerging as the dominant influence in the area with increasing political pressure to get the American quasi-colonial presence out of the peninsula once the military threat of N.Korea is gone. Both China and Korea have historical grudges against Japan. Japan is not likely to welcome unification with China emerging in the drivers seat.

The constellation of political relations in northeast Asia is based upon the old shopworn N.Korean threat. This defines our relations with Japan and S.Korea and provides a foothold on the strategic peninsula. Once again, the neocons are unable to formulate a plan for something other than war.

[KharmaTrain]

31. East German Effect

From what I've seen the South Korean economy still hasn't recovered fom the swoon it took in the 90's and Japan still hasn't figured out how to really allow free enterprise and markets to work without someone getting a pay-off.

Nonetheless, wouldn't it take at least a decade or longer to integrate North Korea into the South (assuming this will eventually happen) and cost a fortune in treasure and national resources? Unlike a Japan that just had to re-tool or China that just had to be stable, Korea will have to merge an industrialized/Western society with an agriarian one. I'm certain our current regime has no tolerance for this scenario and thus little patience with the Sunshine Policy.

It's obvious the Chinese are determined to be the military/economic power of the region, and with their population, so be it. The global economy will ebb and flow that have already transformed most of Asia and shows no signs of lessening.

[Bandit]

8. Japan is starting to think Empire again it sounds like

They claim the right to attack first if they even think N. Korea is a threat. Claiming a similar thought process to Bush* of Pre-Emptive strikes. What the hell is this world coming to? I'm almost ready to Pre-emptivly strike one of my enemies. It must be the water.

[LeftistGorilla]

9. we all know...

how much Koreans love Japan's former empire....

[Nottingham]

10. Japan knows it better protect itself cause it can't trust Bush

:bounce: And I wouldn't trust him either

[slackmaster]

11. It's all the Truman Administration's fault for dropping those two A-bombs

Japan was always such a peaceful, non-violent country before we attacked them.

[TSElliott]

12. Your Joking Right?

Japan peaceful please, even our Buddhist monks were warmongers.

[slackmaster]

13. Yes, I'm responding to the "we didn't need to bomb Japan" thread

And I think Japan has a right to defend itself, but once people start talking about bombing another country because you THINK they are about to attack we're all in a world of shit.

[Trek234]

26. Curious

In your opinion, is Japan peaceful today?

[LeftistGorilla]

17. pure BS....

go to your local Korean Community centre...and ask anyone who is over 50 what it was like under Japanese occupation... don't forget to ask them about forced SEX SLAVERY ... going to the olympics under the Japanese flag... the freedom demonstrations where Koreans were gunned down .... then look into Asian history books and look up China and read about the slaughters there....

[slackmaster]

18. So you think it's OK that we dropped atomic bombs on them?

Just kidding. Sorry my sarcasm went over your head, eh?

[LeftistGorilla]

20. no...

your stupid statement hit me right in the face....

[Art_from_Ark]

22. Japan WAS a non-violent country before we attacked them

Before 1853, Japan was content just to let the world go by. Then Matthew Perry came and forced Japan open by bombing the coast of Yokohama. After that, it was either prepare for war, or be subdued by imperialists, like China was. Japan chose the path of resistance.

[TSElliott]

23. I grew up in Yokohama and must have missed the part

in history class about Matthew Perry bombing us to force us into a trade agreement. I think it more likely happened along the lines of he showed up one year we told him to take a hike, he came back the next year with steam powered warships and that’s when the Japanese government saw the future of industrialization.

[Art_from_Ark]

25. Not surprising

Japanese history as it is taught today is watered down from the history that was discussed in my 30-year-old Japanese history text. And I'm sure that history taught in Yokohama as it pertains to American-Japanese releations in the early days, is particularly delicate. Perry's bombardment was not really an act of aggression, but more of a show of force, a display of gunboat diplomacy to get the reluctant bakufu to open up. And while the bakufu did open up, they did not particularly embrace industrialization-- that was left to the winners of the civil war, the "modernist/militarist" faction ("restorationists", if you will), who did not want Japan to become subservient to Western powers like China was.

[chenGOD]

29. Umm what about the varied attempts to annex Korea?

Does the name Toyotomi Hideyoshi perchance ring a bell? The years 1592-1598?

I agree that Perry probably bombed the coast of Yokohama, then the Japanese started to modernize, with the idea of driving out the foreigners and keeping Japan closed and pure.

But to say that they were non-violent is a BIT of a stretch of the imagination.


Edit for spelling.

[Art_from_Ark]

32. I'm not saying that Japan was ALWAYS peaceful

Far from it. Toyotomi was a ruthless leader, and he is well known for his persecution of Catholics in Japan. His incursions into Korea were just before Sekigahara (1600), the battle that cost his family its dynasty and led to the establishment of the Tokugawa dynasty and a long period of peace sometimes referred to as "Pax Tokugawana" (http://www.geocities.jp/tiarashore/kaikoku5.htm). Thirty years later, Japan entered its self-imposed period of more-or-less seclusion from the rest of the world, the so-called "sakoku jidai", which would last from 1630 to 1854. This is the period I am referring to.

[chenGOD]

33. yes they were much constrained in those times.

But your original post did say "Japan WAS a peaceful nation before...."

implying they were always peaceful....just a nit-pick I suppose one my part, but there's a reason for that big statue of Yi Sun Shin in Kwanghwamun.

[symbolman]

14. What are they gonna do,

break out Godzilla or Mothra?

[TSElliott]

15. Japan ranks 3rd in military spending.

Not sure what they spend all their money on but whatever it is I am sure it can hit North Korea.

http://www.rodapeldoorn.net/countries/top10/military.html

[Art_from_Ark]

27. I would suspect that a lot of that goes to defray the costs of the

US military presence in Japan. A lot of it also goes to buy fighter jets and, (coming soon to a theater near you) star wars technology. I would also imagine that some of that money is earmarked for Japan's space program.

[Rose Siding]

19. If only we could ALL just attack each other

get it OVER with. All in the name of peace, of course. Take out all the guesswork, remove the costly frustration of endless post first strike intellegence investigations.

Don't you LOVE the preemption fallacy...er, policy?

[Whoa_Nelly]

30. Pay no attention to that country behind the curtain

The Great RoverShrub has spoken!

No,ToTo! No! Bad dog, ToTo!

If I only had a brain, a heart, a home, the noive!
(RoverShrub's evil self-destructive daily inner dialogue)