Yasuhiro Nakasone called the Japanese archipelago an unsinkable aircraft carrier - Japan's topography gave the US military an advantage.
2021-07-16
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
The Cold War began during World War II
Former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone referred to former President Ronald Reagan as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier." This is a metaphor for the strategic significance of Japan's topography and the presence of U.S. forces within the Cold War structure. Japan once fought a fierce war with the United States, but after the war it became a democratic nation. Conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union had already begun during World War II. It is said that the United States participated in the war in part to secure its voice within the framework of the postwar world. Both the Korean War and the Vietnam War occurred amid conflicts between the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States did not want Soviet power to reach the southern tip of the Korean peninsula. It is said that an agreement on the ３８th parallel was reached as a secret agreement at the Yalta Conference. In this context, Japan became a base for the US military to defend East Asia.
The Japanese archipelago has an attractive topography
Japan is actually a neighboring country to the United States in the sense that there are no countries separating them geographically. It takes about ３ hours to get to Guam by air. The Japanese archipelago has a unique topography, stretching from north to south, bordering Russia to the north, Kyushu to the Korean Peninsula, China, and the islands south of Okinawa to Taiwan. For the United States, the terrain that covered the Japanese continent was attractive for the defense of Asia, and this was completely consistent with Japan's understanding of national defense. Conversely, it may be said that if the US-Soviet Cold War had not occurred, Japan-US relations would not have been able to recover to this extent.
Korea without independence
There was a Korean leftist presidential candidate who said that the Korean peninsula was divided by the occupation forces (GHQ), but in essence, South Korea is a country born within the Cold War structure. There was no way to stop the Cold War structure, neither in Japan nor, of course, in South Korea. I can't believe my ears when I hear statements that deny this very upbringing. In fact, if South Korea had not come under GHQ's trusteeship, it would have simply been unified with North Korea.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
The sealed Greater East Asia War, what is the original meaning of the word Hakko Ichiu?
There are some words that were banned by GHQ after the war. Typical examples include the words Greater East Asia War and Hakko Kazuu.
The Greater East Asia War became known as the Pacific War, or World War II, and many Japanese people have probably never heard of Kazuu Hakko. What exactly was the Greater East Asia War? It would be best to think of it as a war based on Japan's Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere concept.
Starting with India, Asian countries were colonized by the West one after another over hundreds of years. The countries that were invading these countries were mainly Western maritime nations: Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain. In fact, not a single country in Asia was able to resist this and surrendered its country. In the end, almost all of the vast Asian region became a Western colony, and even China, which was once called a great power, went through the Opium War and the Arrow War, and its major cities were leased out one after another, resulting in a state of divide-and-rule.
It was clear that the opening of the Suez Canal would greatly shorten the sea route that had previously reached Asia via the southernmost tip of Africa, accelerating the division of Asia.
Russia was lagging behind in colonial policy in Europe. The Russian coast freezes over in winter, making it impossible to navigate. Even if sailing is possible during the season, they will have to pass through the narrow strait between present-day Denmark and Sweden, enter the North Sea, and then travel through the English Channel. Even going out into the Atlantic Ocean was influenced by other countries, and Russia was only able to acquire some areas such as Alaska regarding its colonial policy in the Americas.
Russia planned to colonize Asia by land. This is the Trans-Siberian Railway. They used this railway to send soldiers and weapons, colonize Northeast Asia, and transport the supplies they obtained to St. Petersburg. With the completion of this colonial infrastructure, it was clear that colonial policy in Northeast Asia would accelerate. The Trans-Siberian Railway was opened in 1904, and at the same time information was received that the Baltic Fleet, said to be the strongest fleet at the time, was heading for Vladivostok, the terminal station of the Trans-Siberian Railway.
What was the Baltic Fleet planning to do now that it was able to receive supplies from Vladivostok? China? Korea? Of course, it is natural to acquire those areas, but if it is a continent, it will be a land strategy, so do we need a fleet for land routes? In other words, it is clear that the purpose of these ships was to subdue Japan. The Baltic Fleet sank the ship in the Sea of Japan before entering Vladivostok during the Russo-Japanese War and the Battle of the Sea of Japan. In the end, Japan won, and Russia's plans suffered a major setback. The Russo-Japanese War was from 1904 to 1905, and the Trans-Siberian Railway was completed during this war.
Even among Japanese people, there are many who say that Japan waged a reckless war. Is it really reckless? In fact, Japan has defeated all European countries such as Britain, France, and the Netherlands, including in Southeast Asia. If anything was reckless, it could be said that it was the start of war with the United States. Next, there are those who say that Japan invaded Asia. Now let's think about where we invaded. Thailand was the only independent nation in Asia west of China. In other words, the Asian countries that Japan invaded no longer existed in Asia at the time, in the sense that they were self-governing. They were Western colonies, so Japan invaded Britain and the Netherlands. If I had to say it, if we think of the Sino-Japanese War as an invasion of China, then we can say of the Asian countries that they invaded China.
So why is it said that Japan invaded Asian countries? That's probably why the term Greater East Asia War was banned. At that time, the world was about to be divided into European maritime nations. All of the Americas are colonies. What about Australia? What about the African continent? Europe's maritime nations will acquire all of this. Is Asia different? There's no reason for that. Japan is the only Asian nation that has resisted this global colonial policy.
The Greater East Asia Conference was held in 1943. Participants included representatives from Burma, Manchukuo, the Republic of China, Japan, the Kingdom of Thailand, the Philippines, and India. I would like to introduce the Greater East Asia Joint Declaration that was adopted here.
The countries of Greater East Asia will work together to ensure stability in Greater East Asia and build an order of coexistence and mutual prosperity based on morality. The countries of Greater East Asia will respect each other's independence and independence, bear the fruits of mutual aid and harmony, and establish affinity in Greater East Asia. The countries of Greater East Asia will mutually respect their traditions, develop the creativity of each ethnic group, and enhance the culture of Greater East Asia. The countries of Greater East Asia will cooperate closely with each other on a basis of mutual benefit, plan their economic development, and increase the prosperity of Greater East Asia. The countries of Greater East Asia will deepen relations with all countries, eliminate racial discrimination, widely exchange cultures, and contribute to the advancement of the world by willingly opening up their resources.
This is a declaration issued by representatives from various regions of Asia. The ideas common to each statement are the coexistence and co-prosperity of Asian countries, mutual respect, and the elimination of racial discrimination. Was there ever an example of such an agreement between countries in that era? Britain and other countries gained wealth through the slave trade from Africa, which was reflected in the industrial form of producing goods in the Americas using cheap labor and exporting them to Europe. In Manchukuo, the Five Tribes of Harmony was actually sung, and the idea was that all ethnic groups living in Manchuria would build a nation on an equal footing. In other words, Manchukuo advocated the most advanced ideology in the world at the time, and the Greater East Asia Joint Declaration was pioneering in its content, calling for Asian countries to coexist and prosper together and eliminate discrimination. This underlying idea is the spirit of Kazuu Hakko. Hakko Ichiu is the idea of living in peace with the world as one home, centered on His Majesty the Emperor, without discrimination of race, ethnicity, religion, etc. It may seem unreasonable based on current values for countries other than Japan to have the Emperor at the center, but although there are 56 member countries in the British Commonwealth of Nations, the so-called Commonwealth is made up of 56 countries. is the current King of England, Charles III. The original meaning of Hakko Ichiu is found in the latter part, and it can be said that it is also expressed in the Greater East Asia Joint Declaration.
So, where in Asia did Japan invade? In order to cover up all of this, the words Greater East Asia War and Hakko Ichiu were banned. The purpose, of course, was to justify war and colonial policies for the West, and the story was changed to one in which Japan suddenly went crazy and invaded Asian countries.
Japan's struggle against Western colonial policy is a well-known hist
Untimely protests against state funerals - Media incitement that is getting worse - The media is not representative of the people.
The size of the opposition that makes you laugh
What is the argument that divided the nation into two?
What is the content of the poll?
I don't understand the difference from sports newspapers
Mass media turning into sports newspaper due to slump in sales
The process of dividing national opinion into two
The media does not represent the people
Report only the facts, not opinions
On the day of the demonstration by opponents of former Prime Minister Abe's state funeral, it is said that there were around 100 to 200 people, based on a partial count. Police said there were 500 people. It is said that 4,183 people attended the state funeral, and approximately 23,000 people donated flowers (as announced on the 27th).
What exactly was the debate that reportedly divided the nation into two? Kudanshita, where the state funeral was held, is close to Meiji University's Surugadai campus. The university has traditionally had a strong left-wing student movement. Of course, ordinary students have nothing to do with it, but even if left-wing activists in Tokyo gathered together, it gives the impression that there were too few of them.
What is the content of public opinion polls conducted by the media? The problem is the questions. Depending on how the question is asked, it is possible to lead the data to the result intended by the questioner. I would like all public opinion poll data to be disclosed.
It seems like all mass media are now doing what sports newspapers and other media were doing before the decline of major mass media due to the spread of SNS.
In order to sell articles with headlines, sports newspapers publish speculative information in the headlines that have not been fact-checked, and sell them at station kiosks even though they say that the information is unconfirmed by adding a question mark at the end. It will be done. The "?" part is hidden from view due to the way it is displayed.
Many people were surprised and tolerated it, saying, ``It can't be helped because it's a sports newspaper,'' but no one believed it and it was just a form of entertainment. That's what all the media are doing now.
The underlying issue is sales. Sports newspapers used to take desperate measures to increase circulation, but I wonder if many media outlets now think of this as the right way to go. What is more troubling than sports newspapers is that the major media barely have the power to stir up public opinion.
Using the current issue of state funerals as an example, when the opposition party first objects to a state funeral, the media immediately jumps in and reports on it. At this stage, the ruling party and the opposition party are in conflict, so in that sense they are theoretically divided into two parties. However, this does not mean that national opinion is divided into two.
Then, the media outlets loudly convey the opinions of the opposition parties, and the process of dividing national opinion into two begins. It is incitement. First of all, there is a process in which the media themselves agitate and increase the number of opposition parties, and then they cultivate them as if it were a big problem divided into two.
They increase sales by raising the grade of articles based on irrelevant opinions and information by several levels. The more confrontational the structure, the more sensational it is. This is a common method that the media has used in the past on various issues.
The media sometimes uses expressions such as ``representing the people,'' but it feels very strange and even unpleasant. They are just office workers, not representatives of the people. When did they receive the mandate of the people? When did he run for election and when was he elected to the Diet?
If you're an average office worker, you might go to a yakitori restaurant for a drink with your colleagues on the way home from work and talk about politics. The media are just office workers, so that should be fine. You should not express your opinion to the people as if you were a representative of the people. We need to stop privatizing public airwaves and simply collect and report the facts.
Whether the debate on the ability to attack enemy bases is a matter of propriety, possession is an issue, or start is an issue - possession is an issue.
What is the point of the ability to attack enemy bases
1956 Ichiro Hatoyama
1999 Yoshinari Norota
2003 Shigeru Ishiba
1969 Cabinet decision
The debate over the ability to attack enemy bases has led to confusion in public opinion regarding whether it is permissible to attack enemy bases, whether it is permissible to possess such weapons, and what stage refers to the initiation of an enemy attack. appear. Looking at the government's views so far, it has consistently been stated that the ability to attack enemy bases falls within the scope of defense, and the government has also made clear its views on launching such attacks. The question is whether or not to actually own it.
Issues regarding the ability to attack enemy bases
[Possibility] Is it okay to attack enemy bases (enemy territory)?
[Initiation] What is the initiation of an attack by an enemy country (activation conditions)?
[Holding] When and what to hold
Regarding the ability to attack enemy bases, Prime Minister Ichiro Hatoyama already answered in 1956 that in the event of a missile attack, ``It is inconceivable that the purpose of the Constitution is to sit back and wait for self-destruction.'' Since then, the Japanese government has continued to interpret it as constitutionally permissible.
1956 Ichiro Hatoyama
The purpose of the Constitution is that if an imminent illegal violation is committed against our country, and if a guided missile or other attack is carried out on our land as a means of such violation, we should sit back and wait for our own destruction. I don't think I can think of it that way. In such cases, take the minimum necessary measures to prevent such attacks, for example, as long as it is recognized that there is no other way to defend against attacks by guided missiles, etc. I believe that hitting bases with guided missiles is legally within the scope of self-defense and should be possible.
In 1999, Defense Agency Director General Norota responded that the Self-Defense Forces would use the necessary force if there was a threat of an armed attack.
1999 Yoshinari Norota
In situations that do not result in an armed attack against our country, police agencies are primarily responsible for dealing with the situation, but in cases where the general police force cannot respond, the Self-Defense Forces respond by dispatching public order, and are not responsible for suppressing the situation. It's possible. Then, if a certain situation corresponds to an armed attack against our country or the possibility of such attack, a defense operation is ordered, and the Self-Defense Forces will use the necessary force to defend our country. That's why .
In 2003, regarding the launch of an attack on Japan, Director-General of the Defense Agency Ishiba announced that he would turn Tokyo into a sea of fire, and stated that if Japan began injecting fuel, this would be considered the start.
2003 Shigeru Ishiba
Now, I have a question from the committee members: There has been a statement that Tokyo will be reduced to a sea of fire, that it will be reduced to ashes, and for that purpose, in order to accomplish that, in order to make it come true. If they started injecting fuel or did something like that, then their intentions would be clear. This is a case where someone says, "I'm going to shoot this thing and reduce Tokyo to ashes," and then they just start pumping fuel, or they start making preparations, and they start taking action. Well, if you do that, wouldn't that be called a start?. That's true, because the intention is clear and that's what it is. Therefore, what I am saying is no different from what the Minister of Foreign Affairs is saying.
On February 16, 2022, Defense Minister Nobuo Kishi spoke at a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Budget Committee regarding the "capability to attack enemy bases" that the government is considering possessing. , stated that they would not rule out the option of bombing military bases, and acknowledged that it falls within the scope of self-defense.
As stated above, the government has already stated that the ability to attack enemy bases is within the scope of the right of self-defense. Regarding the next issue, ``retention'', there was a Cabinet decision in 1969.
1969 Cabinet decision
Possessing so-called offensive weapons, whose performance is exclusively used for catastrophic destruction of the enemy country's homeland, immediately goes beyond the minimum necessary range for self-defense. Therefore, it is not allowed under any circumstances. For example, the possession of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), long-range strategic bombers, and attack aircraft carriers is not allowed.
This is the current argument for ``possession'' of the ability to attack enemy bases. In other words, the debate is whether it is a minimal weapon for self-defense or whether it exceeds it.
Since the current government opinion has interpreted it as falling within the scope of the right of self-defense, it does not fall under "offensive weapons used only for catastrophic destruction" and can be interpreted as something that can be possessed. . Until now, the government's position has consistently been that possessing the ability to attack enemy bases is within the scope of the right of self-defense, but it has not actually possessed it and has kept it ambiguous. All that's happening now is an effort to actually own it. Possession of the ability to attack enemy bases has already been deemed constitutional, and the launch of an attack by the enemy has been defined, so it would be unreasonable to now say that we are opposed to actually having the ability to attack enemy bases. The premise of the argument seems to be different.
The cabinet decision defines weapons as those used only for the catastrophic destruction of the enemy's homeland, so it is clear that this does not apply to weapons used within the scope of the right of self-defense.
Korea is opposed to Sado Kanayama's application for registration as a World Heritage site.Japan have evidence that it was not forced labor.
The Cabinet's decision in April 2021 and the inclusion of warship islands as UNESCO World Heritage sites are posted on the grounds that the recruitment at that time was not a forced labor.Forced Labour Convention in 1930.
When registering as a warship island, South Korea strongly opposes it, and Japan has even proposed a draft of the plan, saying that it will support it if it writes forcedlabor.Japan refused, and at the Japan-South Korea Foreign Ministers' Meeting, South Korea finally agreed to write forcedtowork.The Korean side was particular about the description because it knew that forced labor would be described as forced labor in the Forced Labor Convention at that time.Recruitment is not included in forced labor.It is stated in Article 2-2.The recruitment of the General Mobilization Order falls under paragraph (b).
South Korea opposes Japan's move to apply for the registration of Sado Kanayama as a World Heritage Site, saying it will not allow forced labor to be designated as a World Heritage Site.This is just the same view as it was on Gunkanjima.
C029 - Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
ARTICLE 1
1. Each Member of the International Labour Organisation which ratifies this Convention undertakes to suppress the use of forced or compulsory labour in all its forms within the shortest possible period.
ARTICLE 2
1. For the purposes of this Convention the term forced or compulsory labour shall mean all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily.
2. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this Convention, the term forced or compulsory labour shall not include--
(a) any work or service exacted in virtue of compulsory military service laws for work of a purely military character;
(b) any work or service which forms part of the normal civic obligations of the citizens of a fully self-governing country;
(c) any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, provided that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations;
(d) any work or service exacted in cases of emergency, that is to say, in the event of war or of a calamity or threatened calamity, such as fire, flood, famine, earthquake, violent epidemic or epizootic diseases, invasion by animal, insect or vegetable pests, and in general any circumstance that would endanger the existence or the well-being of the whole or part of the population;
(e) minor communal services of a kind which, being performed by the members of the community in the direct interest of the said community, can therefore be considered as normal civic obligations incumbent upon the members of the community, provided that the members of the community or their direct representatives shall have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such services.
Britain and Italy begin joint development of next - generation fighter jet - Will Japan's next - generation fighter jet be a game changer? It has been announced that the UK and Italy will jointly develop Japan's next-generation fighter aircraft. It had already been announced that Japan would develop a successor to the F-2, but now Japan has agreed to jointly participate with the UK and Italy. Prime Minister Sunak said the joint venture would create thousands of jobs in the UK and strengthen security ties.
It has advanced stealth characteristics, and AI functions support humans when the pilot is under extreme stress or unable to respond to a situation. If necessary, it can be operated without pilot instructions and can fire supersonic missiles.
Since the 1990s, the Ministry of Defense's Technical Research Headquarters (currently the Defense Equipment Agency) has developed the advanced technology demonstration aircraft X-2 to explore the possibility of developing a future stealth fighter F-3 (tentative name) using Japanese technology.
The X-2 aircraft underwent a total of 32 flight tests until October 31, 2017, verifying its stealth and maneuverability. This demonstrated that Japan has the ability to produce the F-3 domestically.
Among the 6th generation fighter jets currently being developed by various countries, the F-3 will have the highest performance. This is a fighter jet that truly represents the evolution of Made in Japan technology.
It is clear that the F-3 fighter will play an important role in NATO's strategy in the future, and it will be a game changer in China policy due to its clear performance differences. The future of Japan joining NATO has become a reality.
