I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
![鳩山一郎は敵基地攻撃]()
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.
![特攻前に書かれた婚約]()
The letter he wrote to his fiancée before the suicide attack contained nothing but compassion for the people left behind.This is a letter that Captain Toshio Anazawa sent to his fiancée before the suicide attack (partial excerpt). Chieko received the letter four days after Captain Anazawa passed away. The true state of mind of a man who goes into battle is not filled with any grudge against the enemy, but only consideration for those left behind.
-----
~I have nothing but to wish for your happiness.
Don't get hung up on the small principles of the past. you don't live in the past
Have the courage to forget the past and find new opportunities in the future
You live in the reality of the coming moments. Anazawa no longer exists in the real world.
It may have been extremely abstract, but I hope that it will be useful in various concrete situations that will occur in the future, and that it is not a selfish or one-sided statement. I am speaking from a purely objective standpoint. The cherry blossoms in this area have already fallen. I'm sure my favorite maiden will be visiting here soon. I'm not sure what to say at this point, but I'd like to express my feelings a little.
●Easy to read book
``Manyo'', ``haiku collection'', ``dōjō'', ``one-point bell'', ``hometown''
●Pictures I want to see
Raphael “Virgin and Child” Hogai “Sad Mother Kannon”
●Chieko: We meet often, talk often, and have no sex.
The future will be bright and cheerful. Not giving up on herself, she cheerfully smiles and marches on.
Toshio
Chieko-sama
![岸田総理は参拝見送り]()
Prime Minister Kishida sends off his visit to Yasukuni Shrine - a place beyond Japan's sovereignty.
I will not visit Yasukuni again this year
Current Prime Minister visited Yasukuni Shrine after the war
Where no incumbent national leader can step foot?
Yasukuni Shrine is not a border issue
Violation of national sovereignty, not historical issues
Historical issues cannot be resolved without sovereignty
Prime Minister Kishida refrained from visiting Yasukuni Shrine and paid the tamagushi fee with his own funds. Some people in other countries even think that Yasukuni Shrine is located outside of Japan. This is because the leaders of a country cannot imagine that there are public places within their country that they cannot set foot in.
[Current Prime Minister who visited Yasukuni Shrine after the war]
The 43rd King Higashikuninomiya Toshihiko
The 44th Kijuro Shidehara
45th, 48th-51st Shigeru Yoshida
56th-57th Nobusuke Kishi
58th-60th Hayato Ikeda
61st-63rd Eisaku Sato
64th-65th Kakuei Tanaka
66th Takeo Miki
The 67th Takeo Fukuda
68th-69th Masayoshi Ohira
70th Yoshiyuki Suzuki
71st-73rd Yasuhiro Nakasone
82nd-83rd Ryutaro Hashimoto
87th-89th Junichiro Koizumi
90th and 96th Shinzo Abe
Will President Xi Jinping be able to visit Taiwan? I wonder if it can't be done? People from outside would normally think that if it can't be done in the first place, then it's not China. A sitting president cannot set foot in certain parts of the United States. Everyone would think that this is an area beyond the reach of American sovereignty.
In areas and islands with territorial disputes near borders, there are places where national leaders cannot set foot. In Japan, these include Takeshima, the Senkaku Islands, and the Northern Territories. However, former South Korean President Lee Myung-bak has landed on Takeshima, and former Russian Prime Minister Medvedev has visited Etorofu Island. Their only purpose is to assert national sovereignty.
Let's say that the reason the Japanese prime minister does not visit these areas is to avoid border disputes. But Yasukuni Shrine is located in Tokyo, the capital of Japan.
Before discussing what the Yasukuni issue is, the problem is that it obscures the fact that it is under the sovereignty of the Japanese state. In other words, other countries are restricting Japan's sovereignty by giving orders to the current leader, the prime minister, to visit public facilities in the capital of Japan. Yasukuni Shrine is originally a Japanese religious facility within Japan, and anyone is welcome to visit it.
Whether or not it is a problem because it enshrines a class A war criminal is not for other countries to decide in the first place. This can also be said to be Japan's decision under its sovereignty as a nation. It would be different if Yasukuni Shrine was located in China or South Korea.
![日本が戦略的に行う川]()
Upstream business strategically conducted by Japan.A form of processing trade in which Asian countries, including Korea, assemble and export them.
upstream business used to be a common practice.At that time, supply was scarce in the balance between supply and demand and supply were in short supply.The raw material is the most upstream and the final product is the downstream.Considering distribution, retailers sell to final consumers are the most downstream.If water doesn't flow, you can't do business, but in the age of oversupply, the story will change.The downstream retail stores are more powerful than the upstream manufacturing industry.Japan's 7-Eleven is a symbolic example of this, and OEMs want large companies to build private brands, and manufacturers want 7-Eleven to sell their products.
Japan has developed its upstream business.The strategy is to start with basic research, develop industrial machinery, and manufacture things require Japanese basic technology.Regarding the revision of export conditions for three strategic substances, including hydrogen fluoride, the South Korean government's insistence on supply chain integration means downstream integration, which is intended to put pressure on upstream manufacturing.
Lawmaker Matsukawa of the Liberal Democratic Party affirmed to the world that the global supply chain will not be in trouble.As they say, The world's supply chain never collapsed .
Almost all manufacturing industries in Korea are operated by Japanese industrial machinery and chemicals and parts manufactured in Japan.Currently, They are manufacturing by the basic parts imported from Japan.
![直接選挙ではない日本]()
South Korean say Japan is a democratic backward country without direct election of leader.Don't you know the parliamentary cabinet system?
Some Koreans say that Japan, which does not elect a leader in direct elections, is a backward democratic country.Japan has a parliamentary cabinet system.The choice of leaders is similar to that of Britain.Britain's ruling party leader is a candidate for prime minister and is elected prime minister by a majority of the House of Representatives.
UK adopts the same parliamentary cabinet system as Japan.The prime minister, not the president, is elected from Parliament.
Some Japanese misunderstand this, but it is only an internal election to select a leader when the LDP presidential election is held.If elected here, he will be elected prime minister with a majority vote in the Diet.The disclosure of the party's election is only due to the high demand.There is no obligation to disclose it.It is unclear how the leaders of the Constitutional Democratic Party or the Communist Party of Japan became leaders.
Considering how Moon Jae In was elected party leader in Korea, the same can be said.Democrats, who saw Sanders' superiority in the 2020 U.S. presidential election as a failure to beat Trump, persuaded two other candidates to withdraw their candidates and unify them with Biden.It's not about factionalism, but it's about doing the same thing .The Republican Party unifies Trump, but the cause is unclear.In any case, this is just a matter for parties to decide.
This has nothing to do with direct elections, whether they are democratic or not.Both the presidential system and the parliamentary cabinet system are forms of democracy.The essential point is the difference about votes.Lawmakers are elected from one district and the prime minister is one of them.The president is elected by the vote of the whole people.In other words, the content of the vote is different.Based on this, the president has the power to make decisions without the approval of Congress, which is different from lawmakers.On the other hand, we can think of the need for a referendum to give the president privileged power.
To concentrate one's power is to give one certain dictatorship.Whether this is necessary or not is a choice in the form of national democracy.In countries where war and civil war are expected, radical power is often entrusted to the leader.
The presidential system is given great authority for direct elections.The parliamentary cabinet system is selected by parliamentary approval, so the authority is limited.
