Ukraine's military assistance has made a significant contribution to the military expansion of North Korea and China - Is Japan just providing support by paying?
2022-04-12
Category:military I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Ukraine asked China to participate in security conference
China is invited to participate in a multilateral conference on a new framework for Ukraine's security. As a result, Ukraine is in the process of drinking the demand for neutralization. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian economy, which was part of the Soviet Union, collapsed as well. After that, the arms dealer was one of the ways to rebuild the Ukrainian economy. With the rise of China, its customers will be China. China got aircraft carriers, fighters, missiles, submarines, and everything else from Ukraine. China is not the only customer. It's North Korea.
Is this all right for Japan's support diplomacy?
It was Europe, the United States and Japan that made the Chinese economy fat, and Ukraine that made China's military bloated. How good for Japanese people? The Kishida administration is supporting Ukraine and implementing various Russian sanctions, and although it is clear that they are in step with each other as long as they are members of the G7, Europe and Japan have different location and security issues. Japan should provide support after clarifying Japan's position. In other words, Japan has to say to Ukraine to stop providing weapons to China and North Korea and force Ukrainian nuclear researchers in North Korea to return home.
The relationship between China and Ukraine gets closer
I get money from Japan, but I will continue to sell weapons to kill Japanese people to China and North Korea. Is such a stupid story a pacifist support? It will be a flower field that will spread forever. What if China plays a part in Ukraine's security in a ceasefire? There is no need to explain. Weapons provided by Western Europe this time may even reach China after the war. Ukraine is guaranteed security and no weapons are needed. On the contrary, providing military services to members who guarantee security is a perfectly reasonable story. China may disassemble them to produce imitations and increase the number of items invading Taiwan.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
What is the ``definition of national defense''? - Japan's national defense consciousness remained ambiguous even before the constitutional amendment.
Definition of national defense by former Minister of Defense
Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Definition
Surrender peace theory without even the concept of national defense
Think about what might happen after surrender
Surrender means giving up your country
When considering Japan's national defense, it is necessary to define what Japan means to protect. Is there a common understanding among the people on this matter? In the first place, the government's views are needed in order to be shared. Former Minister of Defense Ishiba said that national defense is the spatial area of territory and territorial waters, and the lives and property of the people living there. He explained that it was to protect national sovereignty. National sovereignty refers to the mechanisms for managing a country, such as the judiciary, legislation, and executive power.
Regarding national defense, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Kono has stated that the ``country'' that must be protected includes everything such as language, history, and culture, in addition to its territory, territorial waters, people, and sovereignty. If history and culture are protected under national sovereignty, it is possible to think that they are included, but this would be a clearer and more specific expression.
Mr. Hashimoto caused a huge uproar over his statement that Ukraine should surrender, but there was no concept of national defense at all, perhaps because he was putting human life first. In response, there were many counter-arguments, such as that even though Ukrainians say they are fighting to protect their country, Japanese people from third countries have no right to stop them, and that they will be slaughtered if they surrender. However, there was no discussion on what national defense was.
If Ukraine becomes Russia, Ukrainian laws will no longer be respected. Because sovereignty will be taken away. Will that protect Ukraine's language and culture? I have no idea. If Japan were to be invaded by China and become China, it would be unable to resist, even if tens of thousands of shrines and temples would be destroyed. Even if the Japanese language were to be abolished and Chinese made the official language, there would be no resistance. Japan's history will be freely rewritten, and there is a high possibility that the imperial family will be abolished.
As a result of putting human life first, we end up dedicating everything that makes us Japan to the invaders. On the contrary, national defense should be defined as protecting everything that makes Japan a nation. In that sense, I believe that former Joint Chiefs of Staff Kono's opinion represents a shared sense of national defense. The reason why there are some stupid Japanese people who think, ``I don't mind giving up one of my islands,'' is because the idea of protecting the country itself is ambiguous, or because there is no sense of independence in protecting the country. Probably because there isn't one. People who make such statements are members of the Diet.
North Korea's missile test - Japan's nuclear weapons will determine a game change in Asia.
It appears that North Korea launched a rocket on the 18th, but if the purpose is to attack Japan, Taepodong 1 already has a range of 1,500 km, and Taepodong 2 has a range of 6,000 km, so it is not Japan that is currently developing it. It's coming to America.
On top of that, Japan must take advantage of North Korea's foolish missile tests to strengthen its defense capabilities and revise its constitution. Prime Minister Kishida seems to have sent encouragement to the local community like a messenger of peace by appealing to the G7 countries for the abolition of nuclear weapons, but what really needs to be considered is Japan's nuclear shelling.
If nuclear missiles were placed in Japan, North Korea's current attempts would have little meaning. In shogi terms, this is a situation where you are stuck. Just as they desperately try to develop a missile with a range that can reach the United States, a nuclear missile launched from Japan is dropped. The same will apply to China. In nuclear sharing, the launch button is ultimately held by the United States.
Unless North Korea launches a satellite, it will be unable to detect missile launches from Japan and will not have an interception system. This would also be beneficial for the United States, as it would increase its negotiating power. Even if Japan threatened Taiwan or the Senkaku Islands with missiles, China would be unable to do anything if Japan were to immediately launch missiles at China.
Before nuclear sharing can occur, it is necessary to join NATO, but at a NATO meeting immediately after the G7, President Macron, who had met face-to-face and ate okonomiyaki in Hiroshima, made a side-note, and talk of a Tokyo liaison office was shelved. It's really lacking in roots. On the contrary, since Japan is calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons, it was announced in Hiroshima that there was no need for nuclear sharing. NATO is ultimately protected by nuclear weapons. So what was 2% of GDP at the NATO level without cooperation with NATO?
Prime Minister Kishida strongly condemned North Korea's latest missile launch. The enemy will attack you and throw missiles at you.
Threat assessment and security structure for intermediate-range ballistic missiles - Views of former Joint Chiefs of Staff Katsutoshi Kono.
Katsutoshi Kono, former Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Self-Defense Forces, questioned former Indo-Pacific Commander Davidson's statement that ``China will invade Taiwan within six years'' after Xi Jinping took office for his third term. He said this meant that his term of office would expire in six years, and confirmed this directly with Mr. Davidson when he met with him. He explained that he meant that China would seek a fourth term by annexing Taiwan.
China currently has the military advantage in the Taiwan Strait issue. Taiwan is too close to China. And although China has intermediate-range ballistic missiles within the range of Taiwan and the Japanese archipelago, Japan and Taiwan do not have intermediate-range ballistic missiles. These missiles have no choice but to depend on the United States, and this missile is currently said to be a long-range ballistic missile aimed at the American continent.
If the United States proposes to Japan the deployment of intermediate-range ballistic missiles, will Japan accept this as a joint operation? This would mean that intermediate-range ballistic missiles would be facing each other at the same distance, and Chinese missiles would not be able to be deployed near the U.S. mainland. A short-range missile is fired.
If intermediate-range ballistic missiles are deployed in Japan, there will be two firewalls. No matter how desperately North Korea tries to develop ICBMs that can reach the United States, it would be worthless if a missile were launched from Japan. If that happens, you might hear voices of alarm as Japan becomes the main battlefield, but behind the scenes the world's most powerful missiles are aiming at the continent from the Americas. Japan's defense capabilities appear to be increasing tremendously, and the threat may decrease but not increase.
South Korea's position on Japan's announcement one minute earlier than North Korea's missile launch ...
The South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff announced on the 11th that "North Korea has launched a US projectile over the East Sea." The joint visitor said in a text message sent to the entry and exit reporters around 7:30 am on that day. The Japan Coast Guard announced at around 7:29 am that day, "launched from North Korea with a projectile that could be a ballistic missile." Requested attention to vessels in transit. An emergency convocation team consisting of officials from relevant ministries and agencies was convened in the official residence countermeasures office set up at the Prime Minister's Office Crisis Management Center. The announcement in Japan was one minute earlier.
There was a debate about whether Japan and South Korea GSOMIA are necessary for Japan, but there is also talk that it is necessary to share information on North Korea's movements from land and spies, but in reality the United States has separate information from Japan and South Korea. The view is that it is necessary for the United States to receive information after ensuring information consistency between Japan and South Korea, rather than the role of collecting and organizing information. In other words, America needs Japan-Korea GSOMIA .
Even in the examples so far, South Korea made a mistake in the landing point of the missile , and it seems that Japan does not need Japan-Korea GSOMIA for missiles.
Korea has no artificial satellites and cannot detect missile launches. Japan accurately announces the launch and expected landing points, and the actual landing points.
Comparison of US military stationing costs in Japan and South Korea. Is it acceptable to use Okinawa in an emergency on the Korean Peninsula?
Japan pays 86% of the cost of US forces in Japan. The cost burden for US forces stationed in South Korea has not been made public, but under the Trump administration, the cost of stationing US forces in South Korea for four years was made public, and South Korea's share of the cost was 30%. In the event of an emergency on the Korean Peninsula, the United States says that operations can be carried out with the support of U.S. forces stationed in Japan. However, losing a front-line base is expected to result in many casualties on the South Korean side.
In effect, Japan is also indirectly bearing the cost of South Korea's defense. During the Korean War, the U.S. military conducted operations based in Japan, and Japan provided logistics support such as providing supplies. Even now, in terms of both practical and cost considerations, the US Forces in Japan is the base of the US 7th Fleet for the purpose of defending the liberal camp in Asia. In other words, Japan is bearing the cost of stationing US forces in Japan, including South Korea's defense costs.
In the past, in Japan-Korea relations, no Japanese person objected to the idea that an emergency on the Korean Peninsula was the same as an emergency in Japan, but the situation is changing with the arrival of Moon Jae-in. For example, if Japan and South Korea were to sever diplomatic relations, there would likely be voices in Japan against the use of Japanese tax dollars for the defense of South Korea. Ultimately, the United States views this imbalance in the burden of stationing costs as a problem.
Japan and South Korea do not have a military alliance. In the event of an emergency on the Korean Peninsula, if Japan's ally the United States is in danger and Japan is expected to suffer damage, Japan will exercise its right of collective self-defense, but there is no doubt that South Korea will help Japan in the future as well. I don't think that will happen. Moon Jae-in simply said that he would abolish GSOMIA. The more rifts arise in Japan-South Korea relations, the more likely the US military will demand that South Korea bear the costs.
