Japan to intercept any North Korea missile deemed a threat.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://news.yahoo.com/japan-orders-military-strike-north-korea-missile-launches-035401914--sector.html;_ylt=AwrBJSCofj9TaTQAkX_QtDMD

Japan to intercept any North Korea missile deemed a threat.
By Nobuhiro Kubo
April 5, 2014 9:56 AM
0 shares
.

...Content preferences ....Done ..
.
.View photo
Japan's Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera (C) reviews troops from the Japanese Ground Self-Defense ….By Nobuhiro Kubo

Related Stories
U.S., in nod to Tokyo, to send more ships to Japan, prods China Reuters South Korea extending ballistic missile range to counter North's threat Reuters North Korea fires 2 missiles as its rivals meet Associated Press North Korea tells world 'wait and see' on new nuclear test Reuters N. Korea test-fires missiles as Obama hosts summit AFP TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan will strike any North Korean ballistic missile that threatens to hit Japan in the coming weeks after Pyongyang recently fired medium-range missiles, a government source said on Saturday.

Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera issued the order, which took effect on Thursday and runs through April 25, the day that marks the founding of North Korea's army, the source told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

Following the order, meant "to prepare for any additional missile launches," a destroyer was dispatched to the Sea of Japan and will fire if North Korea launches a missile that Tokyo deems in danger of striking or falling on Japanese territory, the source said.

Tensions have been building between North Korea and its neighbors since Pyongyang - in an apparent show of defiance - fired two Rodong missiles on March 26, just as the leaders of Japan, South Korea and the United States were sitting down to discuss containing the North Korean nuclear threat.

That first firing in four years of mid-range missiles that can hit Japan followed a series of short-range rocket launches over the past two months. The Rodong ballistic missiles fell into the sea after flying 650 km (400 miles), short of a maximum range thought to be some 1,300 km, Japan said.

Since then, North Korea has rattled sabres by firing artillery rounds into South Korean waters, prompting the South to fire back; South Korea has test-fired a new ballistic missile with a range of 500 km; and Pyongyang has threatened an unspecified "new form" of nuclear test.

At the same time, Japan and North Korea resumed talks - suspended since Pyongyang test-launched a long-range missile more than a year ago - over the North's nuclear and missile programs, as well as the fate of Japanese abducted in the 1970s and 1980s to help train North Korean spies.

Onodera has avoided publicly announcing the new missile-intercept order so as not to put a chill on those talks, Japanese media said.

He also did not deploy Patriot missile batteries that would be the last line of Defense against incoming warheads, the source told Reuters.

Japanese Aegis destroyers in the Sea of Japan are equipped with advanced radar equipment able to track multiple targets and carry missiles designed to take out targets at the edge of space.

(Writing by Tim Kelly and William Mallard; Editing by Raissa Kasolowsky)

**Ouze**

Can't blame them one bit. Frankly, they've been a lot less aggressive then I would have lobbied for were I them, but they are pacifists and I am not so, there you go.

I rather suspect their intercepts will have a substantially better success rate then the actual launches.

**Fafnir**

So long as there's no mention of Minovsky particles, I think we'll be okay.

**Dreadclaw69**

Can they treat it like mail? Any intercepts get a "return to sender"?

**Frazzled**

Dangit! I want to see Veritechs in Guardian Mode, hovering off Hokkaido, just...waiting.

Alternatively some nice Zentraedi battlepods rising from ocean onto NK beaches, with cool paniclike music going of course. No one expects Zentraedi in the morning!

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Ouze wrote:
Frankly, they've been a lot less aggressive then I would have lobbied for were I them, but they are pacifists and I am not so, there you go.

Well, do you forget that the US had them a new constitution, and that said US are also one of their best ally and commercial partner ?
This constitution states :
“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. (2) 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.”
Yeah, what you are advocating would be unconstitutional.

**tau tse tung**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Frankly, they've been a lot less aggressive then I would have lobbied for were I them, but they are pacifists and I am not so, there you go.

Well, do you forget that the US had them a new constitution, and that said US are also one of their best ally and commercial partner ?
This constitution states :
“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. (2) 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.”
Yeah, what you are advocating would be unconstitutional.

True, also Japan now export guns.

#Pacifists

**Ouze**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Frankly, they've been a lot less aggressive then I would have lobbied for were I them, but they are pacifists and I am not so, there you go.

Well, do you forget that the US had them a new constitution, and that said US are also one of their best ally and commercial partner ?
This constitution states :
“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. (2) 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.”
Yeah, what you are advocating would be unconstitutional.

.... yes? I uh am pretty clearly aware of that? I mean, did you actually read what I wrote?

**LordofHats**

That clause has laxed increasingly over the years. Japan deployed troops to Iraq which under the strictist wording of their constitution they aren't even suppose to have in the first place. For a long time the JSDF was operated as an extentsion of the police but now they are headed by the Minister of Defense (since 2006). Calling the JSDF anything other than a military force is kind of hollow at this point.

The issue of Japan's rearmament is likely to pass us by withi the next decade imo. The domestic situation is such that no one is really that against the full establishment of a military and the US would likely support such a change now that Japan is once again an ally. Really baring a brief period in time, there might have been a war or something, the US and Japan have traditionally enjoyed close political relations. Especially with the mounting tensions in Asia that will likely become a major focus of international politics this century, I'd propose Japan's full rearmament in the near future is inevitable.

**Ouze**

I also thought that the Iraq deployment was problematic, constitutionally, when it happened, but eh.

North Korea is substantially less so of course.

So far as re-armament, ultimately I am sure it chafes mightily in some quarters of Japan's government that they're a rich country but they have limited access to rich country toys and games, like ill-planned foreign adventures.

**Kilkrazy**

The Japanese people themselves are still remarkably pacifistic, for the most part.

**LordofHats**

Ouze wrote:
I also thought that the Iraq deployment was problematic, constitutionally, when it happened, but eh.

It should have been, but really the US went to Japan and asked for some support for its international coalition and Japan was just "cool bro" more or less about it. The controversy blew over pretty quick. Ever since the 80's the SDF has faced increasing support from the general public and has been slowly expanding on its own (their boss got promoted to full cabinet member in 2006). The Diet likes to complain, but in politics if there's something to complain about someone will do the complaining.

At this point its obvious the US is no longer that concerned about an armed Japan, so the question is does Japan want to rearm itself, and I think previous 30 years have shown things are blowing that way. EDIT: Though rearmament does not mean they want to go trapezing around invading again. A poll 2011(?) showed wide spread support for an expansion of the SDF's peace keeping roll and sizeable support for expansion of its humanitarian aid capabilities (which necessitates building its ability to mobilize force).

**tau tse tung**

LordofHats wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I also thought that the Iraq deployment was problematic, constitutionally, when it happened, but eh.

It should have been, but really the US went to Japan and asked for some support for its international coalition and Japan was just "cool bro" more or less about it. The controversy blew over pretty quick. Ever since the 80's the SDF has faced increasing support from the general public and has been slowly expanding on its own (their boss got promoted to full cabinet member in 2006). The Diet likes to complain, but in politics if there's something to complain about someone will do the complaining.

At this point its obvious the US is no longer that concerned about an armed Japan, so the question is does Japan want to rearm itself, and I think previous 30 years have shown things are blowing that way. EDIT: Though rearmament does not mean they want to go trapezing around invading again. A poll 2011(?) showed wide spread support for an expansion of the SDF's peace keeping roll and sizeable support for expansion of its humanitarian aid capabilities (which necessitates building its ability to mobilize force).

The USA may not be but from what what i can see the rest of Asia is.

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The Japanese people themselves are still remarkably pacifistic, for the most part.

Good sake, good food, pretty wimminz, life is good.

**LordofHats**

We're America, we don't care what the rest of Asia thinks (or anyone else for that matter)

Joking aside, the US set that provision in Japan's consitution. Once the US stops caring about it, the door kind of starts to open for rearmament, especially with tensions between Japan and her neighbors rising and the US desperate for regional allies that aren't named 'South.'* I doubt those islands are going to become such an issue that Japan and China would come to blows. More likely I think that fight is libel to start with India and China over geo-political hegemony, but any war that involves India and China will drag in the rest of Asia and possibly Japan and the US depending on their moods at the time.

Asia is the Balklands of the 21st century.

*No offense South Korea, but you don't have the best track record, historically speaking, with being invaded. Japan on the other hand...

**tau tse tung**

LordofHats wrote:
We're America, we don't care what the rest of Asia thinks (or anyone else for that matter)

You aware of why they are angry? I'm not trying to argue but denying the Rape of Nanjing is a pretty huge issue to not only China but both Koreas, malaysia and many other lands occupied by Japan, i'm sure kilkrazy is right and the population are pacifist but the fact remains that this is rearming a country that's leaders claim huge historical issues never happened. America getting into this would distable politics hugely.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
*Posted after you finished, sorry*

**whembly**

I'm not trying to be crass... but...

Are there still enough people who were alive during those times?

**tau tse tung**

whembly wrote:
I'm not trying to be crass... but...

Are there still enough people who were alive during those times?

Many, and saying that is almost the same as defending Germany re-arming after the Holocaust. If you go to Nanjing you will see why i'm defending the issue, the mass graves are pretty hard to look at.

**Soladrin**

Fafnir wrote:
So long as there's no mention of Minovsky particles, I think we'll be okay.

**LordofHats**

tau tse tung wrote:

You aware of why they are angry?

Yeah, but it kind of rings false when North Korea and China complain about the possibility of Japan rearming, while they themselves are arming to the teeth despite none of their immediate neighbors posing credible military threats (mostly I mean China here). Even if Japan rearmed, I doubt they could challenge China (hell they couldn't beat China at their peak and China's low).

I doubt Japan will ever look like Imperial Japan again. They're never going to have a navy of that quality ever again for one. Imperial Japan bankrupted itself on its navy, and I doubt modern Japan wants to repeat that mess (the whole war thing kind of saved them from having to deal with it).

America getting into this would distable politics hugely.

We're already in. Question is are we going to stick around.

**Co'tor Shas**

Doesn't America have treaty with Japan saying that they will defend them in case of attack? Or am I remembering this wrong?

**tau tse tung**

LordofHats wrote:
tau tse tung wrote:

You aware of why they are angry?

Yeah, but it kind of rings false when North Korea and China complain about the possibility of Japan rearming, while they themselves are arming to the teeth despite none of their immediate neighbors posing credible military threats (mostly I mean China here). Even if Japan rearmed, I doubt they could challenge China (hell they couldn't beat China at their peak and China's low).

I doubt Japan will ever look like Imperial Japan again. They're never going to have a navy of that quality ever again for one. Imperial Japan bankrupted itself on its navy, and I doubt modern Japan wants to repeat that mess (the whole war thing kind of saved them from having to deal with it).

America getting into this would distable politics hugely.

We're already in. Question is are we going to stick around.

China spends little to what America does and the DPRK's tech...is IG standard to say the least. America is involved on all sides of the globe but must realise if they can't back a Japan which defends such acts. Think about the USA defendng a new racist UK which wanted part of the empire back and denyed the slave trade.

**LordofHats**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Doesn't America have treaty with Japan saying that they will defend them in case of attack? Or am I remembering this wrong?

We do. But nothing really stops us from just putting our hands up and bowing out of that if we really want to. Given the past decades, our habit for butting our heads into the affairs of other countries has understandibly dimished. In 20, 30 years when these theoretical conflict might actually happen, who knows if we'll even be in a position to care let alone want to care.

America is involved on all sides of the globe but must realise if they can't back a Japan which defends such acts.

Turkey still denies the Armenia Genocide (and they're way more fanatical about that than Japan is about Nanking). It's poor taste and not very classy, but it's kind of an absurdist position to treat modern Japan as the same country that fouth WWII 70 years ago. Not just that, it's infeasible to make it a major issue in foreign relations.

All countries have dark history. The US has a lot of them. Genocide of native Americans being one of the most obvious, but also slavery, profound racism, etc. Britain has the slave trade. Germany has the Holocaust. Turkey has Armenia. Japan has Nanking. China has Tibet. No one ever gets anywhere hounding after eachother's skeletons. No one likes talking about them, and no one makes much head way constantly pointing them out in politics.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Ouze wrote:
.... yes? I uh am pretty clearly aware of that? I mean, did you actually read what I wrote?

I guess I misunderstood you saying “They are pacifists” as “They are pacifists by choice/philosophy” rather than “They are pacifists because it was enforced on them/for political reasons”. Sorry about that.

tau tse tung wrote:
the DPRK's tech...is IG standard to say the least.

What ? They have highly efficient laser technology, tanks that run without oil, and armor capable of sustaining bolter fire ? We are just so screwed !

I, for one, welcome our somehow communists, somehow capitalists overlords !

**tau tse tung**

LordofHats wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Doesn't America have treaty with Japan saying that they will defend them in case of attack? Or am I remembering this wrong?

We do. But nothing really stops us from just putting our hands up and bowing out of that if we really want to. Given the past decades, our habit for butting our heads into the affairs of other countries has understandibly dimished. In 20, 30 years when these theoretical conflict might actually happen, who knows if we'll even be in a position to care let alone want to care.

America is involved on all sides of the globe but must realise if they can't back a Japan which defends such acts.

Turkey still denies the Armenia Genocide (and they're way more fanatical about that than Japan is about Nanking). It's poor taste and not very classy, but it's kind of an absurdist position to treat modern Japan as the same country that fouth WWII 70 years ago. Not just that, it's infeasible to make it a major issue in foreign relations.

All countries have dark history. The US has a lot of them. Genocide of native Americans being one of the most obvious, but also slavery, profound racism, etc. Britain has the slave trade. Germany has the Holocaust. Turkey has Armenia. Japan has Nanking. China has Tibet. No one ever gets anywhere hounding after eachother's skeletons. No one likes talking about them, and no one makes much head way constantly pointing them out in politics.

Your right, i'm just giving the other side of the coin. Its good too see people on the forums aware of thats how the world works i guess, thank you, you restored my airth in humanity and internet forums a little. Its more Abe's personal denal that grinds my gears, i disagree with the "T" issue but as you said, so would Japan, Turkey and pretty much every place you listed.

*I don't want to derail the thread either*

**Kilkrazy**

It isn't the official position of the Japanese Government to deny Nanking, the Comfort Women, or the POW situation. The government has issued several official apologies over the years, and paid financial compensation.

Some right wing nationalists deny the things happened.

It isn't covered in much detail in school history books, which I think is a bit of a problem, because the general population don't know why the Koreans and Chinese have such a downer on Japan.

The real reason the Koreans and Chinese have the attitude they do, is because the Korean and Chinese governments have deliberately fomented public animosity towards the Japanese by propaganda, in order to cover up internal social discord.

That said, there are examples of good relations between the Koreans and Japanese, and between Chinese and Japanese, so it isn't all bad.

**tau tse tung**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Ouze wrote:
.... yes? I uh am pretty clearly aware of that? I mean, did you actually read what I wrote?

I guess I misunderstood you saying “They are pacifists” as “They are pacifists by choice/philosophy” rather than “They are pacifists because it was enforced on them/for political reasons”. Sorry about that.

tau tse tung wrote:
the DPRK's tech...is IG standard to say the least.

What ? They have highly efficient laser technology, tanks that run without oil, and armor capable of sustaining bolter fire ? We are just so screwed !

I, for one, welcome our somehow communists, somehow capitalists overlords !

It's well known DPRK tanks only need the juche idea to keep on driving.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
What ? They have highly efficient laser technology, tanks that run without oil, and armor capable of sustaining bolter fire ? We are just so screwed !

Thinking again… that was stupid, they already have NUKES, why care about carapace armor and laser rifles !
The tanks engine are still very interesting for the geopolitical implication of reliable engines that works without oil.

**tau tse tung**

Kilkrazy wrote:
It isn't the official position of the Japanese Government to deny Nanking, the Comfort Women, or the POW situation. The government has issued several official apologies over the years, and paid financial compensation.

Some right wing nationalists deny the things happened.

It isn't covered in much detail in school history books, which I think is a bit of a problem, because the general population don't know why the Koreans and Chinese have such a downer on Japan.

The real reason the Koreans and Chinese have the attitude they do, is because the Korean and Chinese governments have deliberately fomented public animosity towards the Japanese by propaganda, in order to cover up internal social discord.

That said, there are examples of good relations between the Koreans and Japanese, and between Chinese and Japanese, so it isn't all bad.

Again i agree on the most part. Me and my girlfriend were very toutched seeing a Japanese primary school and send a huge basket for the victims. There must be education about it still, just i worry about the future generations. My grandad fought in Burma and a boy in my FGLS claimed Japan was'nt even in WW2...he even claimed my grandad was a lair. This i'm starting too see a little too often in the UK.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
What ? They have highly efficient laser technology, tanks that run without oil, and armor capable of sustaining bolter fire ? We are just so screwed !

Thinking again… that was stupid, they already have NUKES, why care about carapace armor and laser rifles !
The tanks engine are still very interesting for the geopolitical implication of reliable engines that works without oil.

Its true

plus the DPRK really did fire a laser at a chopper once in the 90s i think.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Kilkrazy wrote:
That said, there are examples of good relations between the Koreans and Japanese, and between Chinese and Japanese, so it isn't all bad.

As long as you do not mention the Liancourt rocks. Actually, if there was a war between Japan and China, I wonder which side would South Korean choose. I have absolutely no doubt about which side North Korea would, though.