Japan: Considering a Strike to N.K.

[Josh]

Article here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060710/ap_on_re_as/nkorea_missiles;_ylt=ApwkOjBPhRgYI0NcLdwjidas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--).

Interesting way things might unfold.

TOKYO - Japan said Monday it was considering whether a pre-emptive strike on
North Korea'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.

[zimv20]

from the article:
A Defense Agency spokeswoman, however, said Japan has no offensive 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 because of official policy.

Japanese fighter jets and pilots are not capable of carrying out such an attack, a military analyst said.

"Japan's air force is top class in defending the nation's airspace, but attacking another country is almost impossible," said analyst Kazuhisa Ogawa.
so if this vote passes, what would it mean? would japan ask the US to do the dirty work?

[Josh]

so if this vote passes, what would it mean? would japan ask the US to do the dirty work?

Or would the US cut in line and do it for their own means?

[jelloshotsrule]

Or would the US cut in line and do it for their own means?

at this point, it'd be smarter to wait and let japan ask/beg the US to help (not that they will necessarily) and then strike, that way we get to play the good samaritan helping out our ally role. :rolleyes:

[scem0]

Or would a large force comprised of multiple countries do it in a well planned out way, to ensure the least amount of casualties?

e

[Josh]

at this point, it'd be smarter to wait and let japan ask/beg the US to help (not that they will necessarily) and then strike, that way we get to play the good samaritan helping out our ally role. :rolleyes:

You're expecting the US to do something 'smart'?

*snickers*

[jelloshotsrule]

You're expecting the US to do something 'smart'?

*snickers*

doh!

[Dont Hurt Me]

The Russian & Chineese are still helping N.Korea. The question is what will these two do if Japan goes in. The U.N. is it good for anything if it cant even stop the likes of Iran and N.Korea going Nuclear? whats the point of having a U.N. if nations have to take it upon themselves like Japan & U.S. to stop the proliferation of Nukes while the likes of Russia & China do nothing to stop the spread of these weapons. Maybe we should give the finger to China and say we are giving Japan Nukes to counter N.Korea. That would teach those bastards.:D

[adroit]

Monkey see, monkey do. American has set a bad precedent (pre-emptive aggression) that all other jumpy countries will be quick to follow.

Boo-urns to the whole situation.

[Black&Tan]

I'm beginning to think its all political posturing. Neither side has the resources and manpower to follow through on their threats.

[freeny]

Never happen. Just trying to rattle the NK's

[adroit]

I can't quite remember what happened the last time Japan made a first strike in a conflict. Can anyone remind me how that turned out? ;)

[mactastic]

Never happen. Just trying to rattle the NK's
Kind of like how "the NK's" are trying to rattle us with missle tests?

[zimv20]

I can't quite remember what happened the last time Japan made a first strike in a conflict. Can anyone remind me how that turned out? ;)
i believe some americans still harbor resentment.

[Dont Hurt Me]

i believe some americans still harbor resentment.Maybe they can make up for it by destroying those Missiles:)

[Black&Tan]

Maybe they can make up for it by destroying those Missiles:)

...or Mr Kim.

[yg17]

Maybe they can make up for it by destroying those Missiles:)

Some people will never forgive them. My grandpa's that way with the Germans, he still hates them for the holocaust. Obviously, the Nazis have been out of power for 60 years and the current German government isn't anti-semetic, and in Austria, it's illegal to deny the holocaust. The one thing he said to me when I was car shopping a couple years ago was "Don't you dare buy a German car!" (I didn't, becuase I was interested in something else which I got, but my next car will be an Audi :D) But, nonetheless, he still hates Germans, even though the only two connections they have to the Nazis are that they were born in the same area and speak the same language. I'm sure it's that way in the US with the Japanese. Obviously, there's a huge difference between 1940s Japan and 2006 Japan, but some people will never see that. The Japanese military could take out Kim Jong Il and Osama Bin Laden, and there will still be some people (most likely the older ones who lived through, and maybe fought in WWII) who will hate them, nothing's going to make them change it now.

[Queso]

My guess is the Chinese Government are waiting for international opposition to them walking in and taking over North Korea to diminish. Then they'll cut the fuel supplies to cripple the North Korean military and walk in as heroes a month later spreading food, fuel and luxuries to the population. As Kim Jong-Il gets closer to his goals, US and Japanese opposition to this turn of events would crumble as China effectively annexing the North becomes the lesser of two evils.

The poor old South Koreans will lose the most. If the above happens, there will never be a reunification of the peninsula.

[Thanatoast]

Now that we've opened pandora's box and given any and every country the political tools to start wars, it should come as no surprise that they are using them.

So what if DPRK decides that in order to keep Japan from pre-emptively striking them they have to pre-emptively strike Japan first?

Mister Smarty-Pants Rummy didn't think of that, did he?

Jackasses.

[Tanglewood]

Some people will never forgive them. My grandpa's that way with the Germans, he still hates them for the holocaust. Obviously, the Nazis have been out of power for 60 years and the current German government isn't anti-semetic, and in Austria, it's illegal to deny the holocaust. The one thing he said to me when I was car shopping a couple years ago was "Don't you dare buy a German car!"

Both of my grandpas were Pearl Harbor survivors (USS Widgeon, Kane'ohe NAS) and I remember that my mom told that her dad (the one on the USS Widgeon) would not buy a Japanese car no matter what. Though I believe his stance softened over the last 20 years of his life when he went to the 40th and 50th anniversaries out in Oahu and met fellow Japanese WWII veterans.

---

I wonder how the Japanese public is reacting to this seeing they just lobbied to get their troops back from Iraq because they felt that it valiated their constitution to be over there even though they were not involved in combat but rather the rebuilding of the infastructure of Iraq.

[yg17]

Both of my grandpas were Pearl Harbor survivors (USS Widgeon, Kane'ohe NAS) and I remember that my mom told that her dad (the one on the USS Widgeon) would not buy a Japanese car no matter what. Though I believe his stance softened over the last 20 years of his life when he went to the 40th and 50th anniversaries out in Oahu and met fellow Japanese WWII veterans.


Yeah, I can't say I quite understand why they still hold a grudge against the country when the government and people are completely different and now one of our best allies, plus, their cars are built here anyways.

[solvs]

Or would a large force comprised of multiple countries do it in a well planned out way, to ensure the least amount of casualties?
At this point, even half of us are giving NK and Iran the benefit of the doubt. No one wants to help us. Well, Japan. And maybe Poland. I always forget about Poland.

[MACDRIVE]

At this point the only ones taking the NK's seriously are the Japanese. Perhaps it's because the are the easiest target. :p

[Queso]

At this point the only ones taking the NK's seriously are the Japanese. Perhaps it's because the are the easiest target. :p
Or the only target considering that display of long range missiles last week. Even if North Korea get that long range missile working, they would have to vaguely aim it at Hawaii or Alaska and hope it hits something, all the time knowing that a Tomahawk Cruise can see right up their left nostril from six hundred miles away. There's no way they'd risk that confrontation unless the USA had already landed troops and were marching on Pyongyang.

[Black&Tan]

At this point the only ones taking the NK's seriously are the Japanese. Perhaps it's because the are the easiest target. :p

Perhaps because the last missile test (before this current barrage) overflew Japan's territory???

[Dont Hurt Me]

Perhaps because the last missile test (before this current barrage) overflew Japan's territory???Hello:D

[Tanglewood]

At this point the only ones taking the NK's seriously are the Japanese. Perhaps it's because the are the easiest target. :p


Of course they are going to take this very seriously. I'm sure Japan feels the same way the US did during the Cuban Missile Crisis. When you are within striking distance of a person that has no qualms about using WMDs, NK testing them is not going to make you rest easy.

[Black&Tan]

...and the fact that NK has admitted to kidnapping Japanese nationals and really hasn't apologised, nor accounted for all the victims. They delivered some bodies they claimed were kidnapped, but DNA testing proved that they weren't related, and if I remember correctly, not even Japanese. So yes, the Japanese have a right to be pissed. If NK tried that with the current administration in the US, where would we be right now?

[Tanglewood]

...and the fact that NK has admitted to kidnapping Japanese nationals and really hasn't apologised, nor accounted for all the victims. They delivered some bodies they claimed were kidnapped, but DNA testing proved that they weren't related, and if I remember correctly, not even Japanese. So yes, the Japanese have a right to be pissed. If NK tried that with the current administration in the US, where would we be right now?

M*A*S*H* theme song running through my head

[Josh]

M*A*S*H* theme song running through my head
:D

I was thinking more along the lines of the A-Team's (http://www.barbneal.com/wav/tvthemes/ateam.wav) theme song.

[Blue Velvet]

Here's a selected quote from a report in today's Guardian.

...its (North Korea's) statement of aggressive intent has sown seeds of dissent among the fragile coalition of nations dealing with the regime.
In particular, an increasingly ebullient stance by Japan has soured already difficult relations between Tokyo and South Korea, which favours a more conciliatory approach to the Pyongyang regime.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,,1817996,00.html

Who's chuckling now?

[zimv20]

Who's chuckling now?
no kidding. the entire world has underestimated the political skills of KJI.

[mactastic]

no kidding. the entire world has underestimated the political skills of KJI.
Easy enough to do when the conventional wisdom, repeated often in our media and by our politicians, is that KJI is simply a crazy dictator.

Just look and see how often that assertion is made in this forum alone.

[IJ Reilly]

Easy enough to do when the conventional wisdom, repeated often in our media and by our politicians, is that KJI is simply a crazy dictator.

Just look and see how often that assertion is made in this forum alone.

Crazy like fox... As I mentioned earlier, Kim like his father before him, is a master at manufacturing a crisis. He may even succeed in driving a wedge between regional allies by exploiting nationalism and cultural issues. So far at least I think the Bush administration is following essentially the right course, by insisting on five-party talks, instead of the one-on-one Kim is demanding. We'll see if they can reign in Japan and point China in the right direction.

[Thanatoast]

Why are five-party talks the right thing?

I remember in the 2004 debates when Kerry ragged on Bush that we went into Iraq basically unilaterally that Bush would turn around and say "we're insisting on six-party talks with DPRK and you don't like that either!"

Different tactics for different situations. I'm just wondering why not talk to them?

[MACDRIVE]

I never could understand what is so terrible about talking one on one with the NK's either. At least that way we could figure out what the hell it is they want. :confused:

[solvs]

Why are five-party talks the right thing?
If we call in other countries to deal with them, we are seen as weak. If we go it alone, we're pulling another unilateral Iraq-like stunt and not considering the other countries involved. It's pretty much a lose-lose situation and Kimmy knows it. He's watched a lot of American movies. He is crazy, but also apparently pretty smart. He seems to know exactly what he's doing and we're playing right into it. I just wonder if he realizes just how crazy we are and how far we're willing to take things, no matter how bad it could get for us. Our gov doesn't exactly seem to think about consequences.

Now if he were smarter than he is crazy, he'd begin talks and pretty much get whatever he wants, but I just keep seeing this going bad.

[IJ Reilly]

Why are five-party talks the right thing?

I remember in the 2004 debates when Kerry ragged on Bush that we went into Iraq basically unilaterally that Bush would turn around and say "we're insisting on six-party talks with DPRK and you don't like that either!"

Different tactics for different situations. I'm just wondering why not talk to them?

North Korea wants one-on-one talks with the U.S. because they think they can get a better deal that way, and a deal they can more easily weasel out of when it suits their interests. This has already happened recently. I don't find much common ground with the Bush administration, but in this case I think it's the better part of wisdom to not fall for that trick again. The regional powers, particularly China (which keeps North Korea afloat) need to be invested in a solution. You can see how desperately Kim is trying to keep the nations in the region from working together. That is why he tested those missiles, to enflame old regional enmities, and to keep the countries in the region from agreeing on a plan for dealing with him. It's worked like a charm so far.

I don't know if the U.S. can keep these cats herded (especially given the Bush administration's all thumbs approach to diplomacy), but I think it needs to be attempted. The alternative is probably the U.S. striking another bargain with Kim that he will promptly ignore.

[Black&Tan]

Another way to look at it, is he weasels out of a deal between the US and him, he's only pissing off one country. If he does weasels out of the same deal between all 6 countries, then he's thumbing his nose at ALL of them.

[Josh]

Another way to look at it, is he weasels out of a deal between the US and him, he's only pissing off one country. If he does weasels out of the same deal between all 6 countries, then he's thumbing his nose at ALL of them.

Which is more apt to fight and be dangerous - the one country, or the other 6?

[benthewraith]

If we go it alone, we're pulling another unilateral Iraq-like stunt and not considering the other countries involved.

We went alone? :confused:

Actually, I think we went with 40 countries. Though we did almost all the fighting. Britain and Poland included.

[scem0]

oh benthewraith, you make me giggle :).

e

[zimv20]

We went alone? :confused:

well, there was eritrea.

[adroit]

We went alone? :confused:

Actually, I think we went with 40 countries.

Good greif :rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/565000/images/_566045_good_grief.gif

[solvs]

We went alone? :confused:

Actually, I think we went with 40 countries. Though we did almost all the fighting. Britain and Poland included.
I always forget Poland. :rolleyes:

Um, actually, I was talking about NK. ;) If we go it alone (go, not went) there, it will wind up as bad as Iraq. Or worse. We can't afford to go without a consensus against an actual threat. And no one wants to fight. We don't even want to fight anymore.

Kim seems to know that, I just wonder if Bush does.

[MACDRIVE]

What I've been wondering lately is if Japan attacks NK, and then China goes in to defend NK, will the U.S. jump in to defend Japan?

[DZ/015]

China would never defend NK. The US is too important economically to them. If anything, China would be an ally. You have to realize that Kim Jong Il is a loose cannon. He cannot be relied on.

Russia is the wild card in this. I am not sure where they will side.

[sushi]

Yeah, I can't say I quite understand why they still hold a grudge against the country when the government and people are completely different and now one of our best allies, plus, their cars are built here anyways.
Maybe it is because what they saw was first hand.

It is hard to forget those memories.

[solvs]

China would never defend NK. The US is too important economically to them. If anything, China would be an ally. You have to realize that Kim Jong Il is a loose cannon. He cannot be relied on.

Russia is the wild card in this. I am not sure where they will side.
I think Russia would side with us and China against NK if they attacked Japan. No one wants to go to war, I doubt even NK. But if they started attacking other countries, all bets are off. It's just that none of the other countries (and most of us) don't want another poorly planned, preemptive war. We do that, we become "the bad guy" again, justifiable or not.

It's just that no one knows how far Kim and Bush are willing to take things.

[MACDRIVE]

Well it seems to me that as long as NK's missiles are less than accurate, we have nothing to fear. I can't say the same for Japan though.

[Mechcozmo]

Different tactics for different situations. I'm just wondering why not talk to them?
I never could understand what is so terrible about talking one on one with the NK's either. At least that way we could figure out what the hell it is they want. :confused:


Because they don't want to talk. They want to use the talks as excuses for something. If it is 1-on-1 then N.K. can just start to jump around and yell, "They're going to pull another Iraq!", thereby forcing the U.S. to give in. If there are 6 countries, N.K. cannot start to single any one of them out.

If the U.S. can get them to talk with a bunch of other nations, it iwll mean that N.K. has lost round one.

Well it seems to me that as long as NK's missiles are less than accurate, we have nothing to fear. I can't say the same for Japan though.
You don't have to be accurate if you have 10 million tons of TNT on your side. Even if it lands in the ocean off-shore it can still cause tsunamis and earthquakes, plus the radioactivity will be inside the ocean killing thousands of fish around the world.

[Thanatoast]

It seems to me we're going to have to give in on most of their demands anyway - why not talk and declare a victory?

We've come to the point in world affairs where no one is willing to perform the wholesale slaughter that total warfare requires. Since NK has nukes and a crazy leader and we have neither the will nor the means to deal effectively with them on a military level - talking is our only option.

I think Bush et al are just trying to string out the problem until '08 so they can hand it to the hapless Democrat who wins and then blame them when it explodes or we give in and talk.

[insert Bush rant here]

[solvs]

why not talk and declare a victory?
Um, hi... have you met us?