PDA

View Full Version : Japan Considers Strike Against N. Korea



Gold9472
07-10-2006, 06:09 PM
Japan Considers Strike Against N. Korea

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060710/D8IP3P804.html

By MARI YAMAGUCHI
Jul 10, 7:39 AM (ET)

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."

beltman713
07-10-2006, 07:09 PM
How is a country, that supposedly has no offensive weaponry, going to launch a pre-emptive strike against NK?

PhilosophyGenius
07-10-2006, 11:23 PM
Just look at the bright side...we won't have to pay for it!

Holla!

:acidd:

YouCrazyDiamond
07-11-2006, 04:24 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Constitution_of_Japan


Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan is a "No War" clause. It dates from 1947.

ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.


The Japanese are, however, allowed to maintain a de facto military force. If I recall correctly, it is fairly large.

This Article 9 is a first step toward disarming all nations and ending the military economy cycles.

If only we could get all nations to put this into their constitutions.

Instead, we find ourselves on the eve of the Japanese potentially removing this possible path to world peace from their constitution.

I 'd 'speculate' that NK was intentionally allowed to get this far in order to force Japan deeper into the military economy.

Sad, really. And we will all pay for it in the end, I fear, unless we are successful in the next couple of years in waking up from this nightmare.

PhilosophyGenius
07-11-2006, 03:30 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Constitution_of_Japan



The Japanese are, however, allowed to maintain a de facto military force. If I recall correctly, it is fairly large.

This Article 9 is a first step toward disarming all nations and ending the military economy cycles.

If only we could get all nations to put this into their constitutions.

Instead, we find ourselves on the eve of the Japanese potentially removing this possible path to world peace from their constitution.

I 'd 'speculate' that NK was intentionally allowed to get this far in order to force Japan deeper into the military economy.

Sad, really. And we will all pay for it in the end, I fear, unless we are successful in the next couple of years in waking up from this nightmare.

Personally I don't smell anything fishy with this whole situation. It's just one of those things where a mad man got into power, developed nukes, got em, and is actaully crazy enough to start test firing rockets aimed at Hawaii. You can really blame Japen for wanting to take them out because sooner or later someone's gonna have to do it. Il is obviously not like Hussien in which he was contained and chilled the fuck out for the last 10 years.

As far as us paying the price for it at the end goes, I think if Japan goes to war it'll be a hell of a lot cheaper than us having to pay for it. And the way I'm thinking, Japan would have more internaltional support both militaily and politically cuz they're credibility is intact and the whole world doesnt hate them.

beltman713
07-11-2006, 03:45 PM
North Korea would totally kick Japan's ass. The only way they could strike NK would be to drop their 240,000 man army off on NK's shores. I don't think they would stand a chance against NK's million man army.

PhilosophyGenius
07-11-2006, 04:17 PM
Shit, since you put it like that I change my mind.

YouCrazyDiamond
07-11-2006, 06:41 PM
Personally I don't smell anything fishy with this whole situation. It's just one of those things where a mad man got into power, developed nukes, got em, and is actaully crazy enough to start test firing rockets aimed at Hawaii. You can really blame Japen for wanting to take them out because sooner or later someone's gonna have to do it. Il is obviously not like Hussien in which he was contained and chilled the fuck out for the last 10 years.

As far as us paying the price for it at the end goes, I think if Japan goes to war it'll be a hell of a lot cheaper than us having to pay for it. And the way I'm thinking, Japan would have more internaltional support both militaily and politically cuz they're credibility is intact and the whole world doesnt hate them.

I suppose I see it a bit differently.

First of all, I doubt it was "just one of those things" that NK got this far in what they are doing.

Second, I see a bunch of dweebs playing nuclear brinksmanship since 1945, and eventually somebody will slip and actually use such WMDs...again.

All bets are off as to the outcome at the point.

We could pay a higher price than you care to recognize.

The only sane solution I can see is for the entire planet to be disarmed.

There are, after all, better ways to settle disputes, etc.

You might want to consider carefully if you wish to continue buying into these state sponsored terror tactics that keep you in a state of heightened paranoia.

Do you really think NK is going to make the first move without some sort of deep and possibly hidden provocation? I don't.

PhilosophyGenius
07-11-2006, 07:15 PM
I suppose I see it a bit differently.

First of all, I doubt it was "just one of those things" that NK got this far in what they are doing.

Second, I see a bunch of dweebs playing nuclear brinksmanship since 1945, and eventually somebody will slip and actually use such WMDs...again.

All bets are off as to the outcome at the point.

We could pay a higher price than you care to recognize.

The only sane solution I can see is for the entire planet to be disarmed.

There are, after all, better ways to settle disputes, etc.

You might want to consider carefully if you wish to continue buying into these state sponsored terror tactics that keep you in a state of heightened paranoia.

Do you really think NK is going to make the first move without some sort of deep and possibly hidden provocation? I don't.

1) Any proof of that?

2) I somewhat agree, and as I've said many many times in the past, if the big one gets used within the next few years, it's gonna have been used by Bush Admin.

And yeah I agree that there are better way to dispute settlements, obviously since I'm against the Iraq war but the NK dictator is just out of his mind. Fo realz man. Just look at the huminitarian crisis they've got and all this bullshit they're doing with theyre military shooting missles this and that.

Let me put it this way, no one supported Iraq and no one cared exept for the fact that our govnt made it the top issue in 2003. Everyone was dead agasint it as well obviously. With NK, the whole world knows this aint no joke, you dont see anybody around the world complaing about this.

YouCrazyDiamond
07-11-2006, 11:36 PM
There are plenty of ways to “normalize” relations between nation-states. However, there are many states that don’t get this consideration, for one reason or another. And then we are told by the msm that these are just ‘evil’ and/or ‘crazy’ people and so it is their fault that they are being treated like enemies, etc. I see this being done to NK, Iran, and Palestine just about every day for several years now.

Perhaps this is not proof in the legal sense, but then we don’t really have any laws to help mitigate such activity.

With regard to weapons testing, if NK is not allowed to do it, then shouldn’t the USA be required to stop such testing, as well? And keep in mind that we are not only talking about missiles, but also the actual weapons of mass destruction.

Yeah sure, the USA tests nuclear weapons through computer simulation. This still constitutes a test, as far as I’m concerned. And the continued development and proliferation of such weapons in the USA is a clear violation of the NPT, that lovely little treaty that the USA (and others) are trying to beat Iran over the head with.

You are also aware, I hope, that the USA (and Russia) has been threatening to use WMDs on various nation-states for many decades all the way up through the Clinton and Bush years to present day with Iran?

And the Bush crew has, by all accounts, begun designing and building a new generation of "tactical" nukes.

It seems reasonable then that some of these countries will do all they can to acquire such technology to push back against such tyranny.

Partridge
07-12-2006, 12:32 PM
Kim Jong Il is 'crazy'? Nah, I don't think so.

A ruthless tyrant who doesn't give a fuck about his people? Definitely!

But the two are not the same. I would be very skeptical about buying into all this 'he's a crazed lunatic who will stop at nothing to harm us, our allies, and the world!' - It's like the Team America version of history!

And it's the exact same rationale used to go after Iraq. In the case of Iraq, though rarely mentioned, the ally in 'danger' was Israel. But does anyone seriously think that had Hussein even got WMDs he would have used them against one of the US's client states/closest allies? It would have spelled certain doom, with total international approval.

Does anyone seriously think Kim is crazy enough to attack the US's closest ally in Asia (Japan), let alone the US itself?!? It would also spell his demise. He's a dictator, and he wants to stay in power. Attacking any US ally in the region would be entirely counter-productive. The man is not some psychopath intent on self destruction, he's a clever manipulator.

I see these tests as warnings, not that DPR Korea will attack any other nation - but that if DPR Korea is attacked by either the US or some US dominated force, THEY have the ability to strike back - which of course Saddam didn't. Which is why they spent 10 years bombing the shit out of Iraq, grinding down the people through sanctions, and then attacked the least armed nation in the Middle East in a display of 'military power'. And which is why, IMO, they WON'T attack DPR Korea. Plus, DPR Korea is kinda part of Russia's (ever dwindling) sphere of influence. War with Korea wouldn't go down too well in Moscow methinks.

And also, as a sidenote - the 'mad crazy lunatic that will destory himself in order to destroy America and our allies and peace and freedom and prosperity etc etc etc' line is the same one trotted out time and time again. People keep buying it. Ghaddifi, the Ayatollah, the Sandinistas, Castro, the USSR, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Hussein, Arafat , The Taliban and now its Chavez, Kim Jong-Il, and of course the 'mad mullahs' in Iran. It's bullshit. I've heard of suicide bombers, suicide pilots, suicide missions... but I've never come across a 'suicide regime' - for the simple reason that once in power, people generally want to stay there and not, y'know, get blown to pieces by the vastly superior firepower of the US regime.

PhilosophyGenius
07-13-2006, 01:19 AM
Il is both crazy and a ruthless tyrant. The guy is worse than Saddam Hussein cuz at least Saddam had common sence not to threaten us. Saddam is your typical bully, he picks on people/nations weaker than him, but if your stronger he either keeps his mouth shut or wants to be your friend. Il is just that crazy dude who wants to fight everyone. I'm not saying Il is looking for fight, but what he's doing is blackmail, thinking he deserves more- both from China and the U.S.

Do I think he's just gonna attack the U.S. outta the blue? Of course not, no ones that stupid unless they're waging some sort of Jihad or something. What's he seems to be doing is looking for a better deal through intimidation. His style of negotiation is old school where it's like each side gives the other a stare down until one side backs down- no give and take or comprosises.

This situation differers from Iraq cuz Iraq was a problem created by the U.S. govnt in which our govt put him in power, armed him, and when convienient set him up to be a global threat. The facts show the intel was fabricated so we can go to war so a handful of people can get rich. In the situation with NK, Il was never set up and even ADMITS to having nukes and would sell them to whomever he wants.

Now I'm not saying we should bomb the living crap out of them- that's the last thing I want to see happen, but I am saying if the situation gets worse and a coalition goes after him, I wouldn't be complaining.

YouCrazyDiamond
07-13-2006, 11:06 AM
NK is Crazy like a fox, perhaps.

And the USA is just flat out crazy too much of the time.

As for myself, I'm much more worried about the crazy people inside this society than I am of NK.

PhilosophyGenius
07-13-2006, 04:11 PM
NK is Crazy like a fox, perhaps.

And the USA is just flat out crazy too much of the time.

As for myself, I'm much more worried about the crazy people inside this society than I am of NK.

Agreed. The only people in the world who have there trigger finger on the red button are in the White House.