Japan Debates Pre-Emptive Strike on N. Korea (716 hits)
Category: NewsRating: -0.27 on 39 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by The Known Unknown (View user info) at 2006-07-10 12:10:26 EDT
Regarding - Japan debates pre-emptive strike on N. Korea
http://us.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/10/us.nkorea.ap/index.html
This article was very interesting to me when I read it today. I'm amazed to the fact that Japan would take matters into there own hands. They seem to be trying to adopt the gun ho method that George Bush has be using, the famous pre-emptive strike! If you actually take the time to read the actually article on CNN you'll notice how they our trying to figure out if there constitution would validate there pre-emptive strike as self defense, as there constitution states they can do. The real question is will China just sit back and watch this happen? I'm sure if the US has more advantage over China to get away with it then Japan. Who knows, a real world war 3 could break out in Asia. North Korea and China, against South Korea and Japan, and of course all the other countries would start choosing sides, Russia, Frances, Britain, USA, etc. I highly doubt this will ever happen though. I'm curious on all your opinions on this subject. Should Japan be allowed to defend it's self against North Korea's "missile testing"? Does the constitution consider a pre-emptive strike as a defense act? Do you think this is even worth getting there panties in a twist over? Speak out, lets hear your apples and oranges on this.
Current Post WW2 Japan Constitution - http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Japan/English/english-Constitution.html
My other N. Korea posts: http://www.ubersite.com/m/89990 & http://www.ubersite.com/m/90041
User Reviews
Submitted by GDR (user info) at 2006-07-13 14:00:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Darth_Famine (user info) at 2006-07-11 00:14:49 (#)
Ranking: 2
The difference is, the Japanese Constitution outlawed war. Thank you Doug MacArthur
my point exactly
------------------------
They still use the same constitution since post world war 2, isn't that just funny.
Submitted by Darth_Famine (user info) at 2006-07-11 00:14:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The difference is, the Japanese Constitution outlawed war. Thank you Doug MacArthur
my point exactly
Submitted by Dead_0hi0_Sky (user info) at 2006-07-10 22:41:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
you know what would solve all this NK missle testing bullshit?
have the NSA drop Sam Fisher into North Korea.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-07-10 21:22:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-10 20:48:05 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Darth_Famine (user info) at 2006-07-10 20:31:00 (#)
Ranking: 2
after reading the constitution I belive that the japanese government would have to make an amendment to that document in order to conduct such an attack against north korea
-------------------
No they don't. If we could do it to Iraq, they can do it. According to our Constitution, we're not even supposed to be conducting wars unless we're attacked first or an attack is imminent. I think no one can argue that was the case, or even seemed like the case. Bottom line, they lied to us, and they violated the Constitution of the United States as a result.
That is treason.
________________________________________
The difference is, the Japanese Constitution outlawed war. Thank you Doug MacArthur.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-10 20:48:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Darth_Famine (user info) at 2006-07-10 20:31:00 (#)
Ranking: 2
after reading the constitution I belive that the japanese government would have to make an amendment to that document in order to conduct such an attack against north korea
-------------------
No they don't. If we could do it to Iraq, they can do it. According to our Constitution, we're not even supposed to be conducting wars unless we're attacked first or an attack is imminent. I think no one can argue that was the case, or even seemed like the case. Bottom line, they lied to us, and they violated the Constitution of the United States as a result.
That is treason.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-07-10 20:39:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Why would I possibly give any credence to the opinion of someone who cannot write above
a third grade level? If you cannot express yourself in your native tongue you cannot be
trusted in higher thought planes.
Submitted by Darth_Famine (user info) at 2006-07-10 20:31:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
after reading the constitution I belive that the japanese government would have to make an amendment to that document in order to conduct such an attack against north korea
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-10 19:37:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-07-10 19:10:49 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-10 13:18:27 (#)
Ranking: -2
This is all just political posturing. Lots of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Preemption against a nuclear-armed state is not an option.
------
Sure it is, we did it in 1962 against Cuba - well, that was a 'blockade', but still the same thing.
If your preemption destroys 100 of their missile sites, what are they going to launch?
The Scud-C missles aren't accurate enough.
------------------
A blockade is not a preemptive strike. It's just a passive aggressive tactic to avoid making the first move.
But if you're talking about trying to bomb North Korea, just better hope they don't have their finger on a button while you're doing your 'preempting', that's all I've got to say.
Good luck. I'll be watching safely from my bunker.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-07-10 19:10:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-10 13:18:27 (#)
Ranking: -2
This is all just political posturing. Lots of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Preemption against a nuclear-armed state is not an option.
------
Sure it is, we did it in 1962 against Cuba - well, that was a 'blockade', but still the same thing.
If your preemption destroys 100 of their missile sites, what are they going to launch?
The Scud-C missles aren't accurate enough.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-10 15:06:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2006-07-10 13:52:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-10 13:18:27 (#)
Ranking: -2
This is all just political posturing. Lots of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Preemption against a nuclear-armed state is not an option.
North Korea tested the missiles as much to gather data as to show other countries, "We have a way of delivering a nuclear weapon to your cities now. DON'T FUCK WITH US!"
----------
What method is that? The missile failed, hence they don't have a method. True, it could be something that they could fix, but a true nuclear power must have both a tested, proven nuclear device and a proven, tested method of delivery. North Korea has neither. The typical response would be that they are hiding it, but that's the thing with nukes - if you're going to even pretend taht you would deploy them, you must know they work. North Korea doesn't know this.
-------------------
They shot 7 missiles, only a couple of those failed. The others succeeded.
Not knowing whether they have nukes is almost just as powerful as knowing for sure. Diplomatically speaking, they're in the same ball-park.
Submitted by GDR (user info) at 2006-07-10 14:54:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-10 14:41:26 (#)
Ranking: -1
I'm really glad tha none of you lot will ever be in positions of power.
---------------------
Nations weren't built by hugs and kisses
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-07-10 14:41:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
I'm really glad tha none of you lot will ever be in positions of power.
Submitted by GDR (user info) at 2006-07-10 14:40:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by karates_badboy (user info) at 2006-07-10 14:38:56 (#)
Ranking: 0
Who knew that the plot from the upcoming "Last Samurai 2: Toms Bordello of Blood" would actually happen in real life?
---------------------------
When is the release date?
Submitted by karates_badboy (user info) at 2006-07-10 14:38:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Who knew that the plot from the upcoming "Last Samurai 2: Toms Bordello of Blood" would actually happen in real life?
Submitted by gonefiguring (user info) at 2006-07-10 14:20:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Japan should state the intent and then follow through in actively shooting down any missile launched by NK over the Sea of Japan.
The US should help, if necessary. http://www.ubersite.com/m/90041#2048105
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2006-07-10 13:52:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-10 13:18:27 (#)
Ranking: -2
This is all just political posturing. Lots of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Preemption against a nuclear-armed state is not an option.
North Korea tested the missiles as much to gather data as to show other countries, "We have a way of delivering a nuclear weapon to your cities now. DON'T FUCK WITH US!"
----------
What method is that? The missile failed, hence they don't have a method. True, it could be something that they could fix, but a true nuclear power must have both a tested, proven nuclear device and a proven, tested method of delivery. North Korea has neither. The typical response would be that they are hiding it, but that's the thing with nukes - if you're going to even pretend taht you would deploy them, you must know they work. North Korea doesn't know this.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-07-10 13:48:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-10 13:18:27 (#)
Ranking: -2
This is all just political posturing. Lots of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Preemption against a nuclear-armed state is not an option.
North Korea tested the missiles as much to gather data as to show other countries, "We have a way of delivering a nuclear weapon to your cities now. DON'T FUCK WITH US!"
Ask yourself when was the last time two nuclear powers met directly on a battle field... Think about it.
--------------------
I don't think N Korea has nukes. Otherwise they would be taken a lot more seriously.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-07-10 13:41:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
If you actually take the time to read the actually article on CNN you'll notice how they our trying to figure out if there constitution would validate there pre-emptive strike as self defense, as there constitution states they can do
--------------------
Sorry bud...I couldn't even read this.
I'm minus -2'ing on tha alone. I think if you want to have a political debate about the state of the world we live in at least take the effort ETS does in making it coherent otherwise people will just get pissed off before they reach the end.
Like I did.
Submitted by GDR (user info) at 2006-07-10 13:29:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-10 13:26:40 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by BobLobla (user info) at 2006-07-10 12:25:15 (#)
Ranking: -2
You think that if it was Venezuala landing missles just off the coast of Florida the US would wait for UN approval?
--------------------
If Venezuela had confirmed nuclear weapons we wouldn't do a fucking thing.
That's the point here. Mutually assured destruction assures a level of immunity and equality, which is why it's such a guarded status. To launch a nuclear weapon in this day and age on a battlefield would be suicide...for everyone.
No matter how much 'madman' rhetoric someone spews, even madmen know this course of action will bring about their own demise and the death of their country.
The bottom line is, this buys them a seat at a bargaining table, which is what all disenfranchised countries desire.
-------------------
Anyway they can get more aid, thats what i always say!
Submitted by GDR (user info) at 2006-07-10 13:28:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-07-10 13:25:28 (#)
Ranking: 2
yeah, the Japs should do it - they did a great job from 1910-1945...
-----------------------
Yes sir, if they didn't do insane charges and lose tons of soliders every battle they could have won in the pacific.
Submitted by GDR (user info) at 2006-07-10 13:28:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-10 13:20:05 (#)
Ranking: 2
This deserves to be read, but the grammar was horrible. Proofread a little more next time, k?
------------------
Ya sorry, I did this in msword to, my mistakes are just wrong use of words sounding the same, what can I say when I'm in a hurry at work!
Submitted by GDR (user info) at 2006-07-10 13:27:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This is all just political posturing. Lots of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Preemption against a nuclear-armed state is not an option.
North Korea tested the missiles as much to gather data as to show other countries, "We have a way of delivering a nuclear weapon to your cities now. DON'T FUCK WITH US!"
Ask yourself when was the last time two nuclear powers met directly on a battle field... Think about it.
This will not happen until the oil is nearly gone, and when it does, you'll know that the end of this way of life we've created is near
-----------------------
If it does happen, global warming will be the cause of nuclear war when resources become hard to come by.
Submitted by GDR (user info) at 2006-07-10 13:26:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Everything you ever wanted to know about v8lover
User id: 25278
Registered on or around: 2006-02-15 15:25:17
# Messages posted: 10
# Reviews written: 116
# Times these posts have been reviewed : 154
# Hits: 3578
Average rating of all messages: -0.80
Your opinion is so highly requested.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-10 13:26:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by BobLobla (user info) at 2006-07-10 12:25:15 (#)
Ranking: -2
You think that if it was Venezuala landing missles just off the coast of Florida the US would wait for UN approval?
--------------------
If Venezuela had confirmed nuclear weapons we wouldn't do a fucking thing.
That's the point here. Mutually assured destruction assures a level of immunity and equality, which is why it's such a guarded status. To launch a nuclear weapon in this day and age on a battlefield would be suicide...for everyone.
No matter how much 'madman' rhetoric someone spews, even madmen know this course of action will bring about their own demise and the death of their country.
The bottom line is, this buys them a seat at a bargaining table, which is what all disenfranchised countries desire.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-07-10 13:25:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
yeah, the Japs should do it - they did a great job from 1910-1945...
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-10 13:20:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This deserves to be read, but the grammar was horrible. Proofread a little more next time, k?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-10 13:18:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
This is all just political posturing. Lots of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Preemption against a nuclear-armed state is not an option.
North Korea tested the missiles as much to gather data as to show other countries, "We have a way of delivering a nuclear weapon to your cities now. DON'T FUCK WITH US!"
Ask yourself when was the last time two nuclear powers met directly on a battle field... Think about it.
This will not happen until the oil is nearly gone, and when it does, you'll know that the end of this way of life we've created is near.
Submitted by v8lover (user info) at 2006-07-10 13:10:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Learn to use "their" and "there" properly.
... and it's not "Frances", it's France.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-07-10 12:59:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by GDR (user info) at 2006-07-10 12:50:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
Ahh, but I take they have no actually air force or navy anymore.
-------------------------
They do, but I have no idea how strong it is. It falls under the umbrella of the quarter million "troops".
Submitted by GDR (user info) at 2006-07-10 12:51:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-07-10 12:40:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-07-10 12:30:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
China and North Korea? N Korea is pretty much on its own for this one, and it's just all talk anyway
---------------------------
Then why will Korea block any UN motions on N Korea (last I heard Russia was too, or at least abstaining from voting).
---------------------------
I think China is the only real veto threat if they try to pass anything, but it will only hurt the people of N. Korea
Submitted by GDR (user info) at 2006-07-10 12:50:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-07-10 12:39:28 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by GDR (user info) at 2006-07-10 12:23:42 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-07-10 12:21:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
I think you mean "gung ho" not gun ho.
Anyway What japan is doing is different than what the US did. We have never had something in our constitution against a premptive strike.
I could totally see why Japan would talk about this, although I see it as more as posturing than a threat. They want Korea to know they will strike, that it can't have free reign to threaten them with airstrikes. Their actions are far less "gung ho" than the norht koreans.
----------------------------------
I thought Japan didn't even really have a standing army any more? Isn't the USA there main defense? I think we technically still occupy them in a sense.
--------------------------
The Japanese "defense force" is in essence an army, they have about a quarter million troops and advanced ground to air missile capabilities.
----------------------------------
Ahh, but I take they have no actually air force or navy anymore.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-07-10 12:40:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-07-10 12:30:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
China and North Korea? N Korea is pretty much on its own for this one, and it's just all talk anyway
---------------------------
Then why will Korea block any UN motions on N Korea (last I heard Russia was too, or at least abstaining from voting).
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-07-10 12:39:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by GDR (user info) at 2006-07-10 12:23:42 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-07-10 12:21:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
I think you mean "gung ho" not gun ho.
Anyway What japan is doing is different than what the US did. We have never had something in our constitution against a premptive strike.
I could totally see why Japan would talk about this, although I see it as more as posturing than a threat. They want Korea to know they will strike, that it can't have free reign to threaten them with airstrikes. Their actions are far less "gung ho" than the norht koreans.
----------------------------------
I thought Japan didn't even really have a standing army any more? Isn't the USA there main defense? I think we technically still occupy them in a sense.
--------------------------
The Japanese "defense force" is in essence an army, they have about a quarter million troops and advanced ground to air missile capabilities.
Submitted by GDR (user info) at 2006-07-10 12:32:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-07-10 12:30:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
China and North Korea? N Korea is pretty much on its own for this one, and it's just all talk anyway
------------------
All those commies stick together, trust me!
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-07-10 12:30:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
China and North Korea? N Korea is pretty much on its own for this one, and it's just all talk anyway
Submitted by BobLobla (user info) at 2006-07-10 12:26:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Have a zero, my -2 was premature.
Submitted by BobLobla (user info) at 2006-07-10 12:25:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You think that if it was Venezuala landing missles just off the coast of Florida the US would wait for UN approval?
Submitted by GDR (user info) at 2006-07-10 12:23:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-07-10 12:21:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
I think you mean "gung ho" not gun ho.
Anyway What japan is doing is different than what the US did. We have never had something in our constitution against a premptive strike.
I could totally see why Japan would talk about this, although I see it as more as posturing than a threat. They want Korea to know they will strike, that it can't have free reign to threaten them with airstrikes. Their actions are far less "gung ho" than the norht koreans.
----------------------------------
I thought Japan didn't even really have a standing army any more? Isn't the USA there main defense? I think we technically still occupy them in a sense.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-07-10 12:21:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think you mean "gung ho" not gun ho.
Anyway What japan is doing is different than what the US did. We have never had something in our constitution against a premptive strike.
I could totally see why Japan would talk about this, although I see it as more as posturing than a threat. They want Korea to know they will strike, that it can't have free reign to threaten them with airstrikes. Their actions are far less "gung ho" than the norht koreans.