Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Japan Considers Strike Against N. Korea

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,749

    Japan Considers Strike Against N. Korea

    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."
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  2. #2
    beltman713 Guest
    How is a country, that supposedly has no offensive weaponry, going to launch a pre-emptive strike against NK?

  3. #3
    PhilosophyGenius Guest
    Just look at the bright side...we won't have to pay for it!

    Holla!


  4. #4
    YouCrazyDiamond Guest
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...ution_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.

  5. #5
    PhilosophyGenius Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by YouCrazyDiamond
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...ution_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.

  6. #6
    beltman713 Guest
    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.

  7. #7
    PhilosophyGenius Guest
    Shit, since you put it like that I change my mind.

  8. #8
    YouCrazyDiamond Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by PhilosophyGenius
    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.

  9. #9
    PhilosophyGenius Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by YouCrazyDiamond
    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.

  10. #10
    YouCrazyDiamond Guest
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-31-2006, 07:15 PM
  2. N. Korea Threatens Japan Over Sanctions
    By Gold9472 in forum The New News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-12-2006, 10:15 AM
  3. Japan Pushes For Sanctions On N. Korea
    By Gold9472 in forum The New News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-08-2006, 09:31 AM
  4. North Korea Threatens Japan
    By Gold9472 in forum The New News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-07-2006, 03:38 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-18-2006, 03:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •