I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
![次世代戦闘機の共同開]()
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.
![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.
![植民地支配や国際法の]()
Before colonial rule or international law, bilateral commitments must be fulfilled.This is international common sense.
Was colonial rule legal or illegal at that time?History shows that.This is because there was no law or concept to ban colonies.Although not well known, Japan was the first country in the world to submit a bill to abolish racism in 1919.The attempt failed just before it was passed, and the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racism in 1965 had to wait.
There is a saying that the origin of international law is Hugo Grotius' Law of War and Peace, but he is a playwright and poet.It would be impossible to establish international law without international organizations.In a country governed by law, how does international law work now that police power can be controlled?What is the International Court of Justice?It is only after the two countries with disputes appear in court.If the other country does not appear in court, it will not work at all.
There is no police in the United Nations to crack down on the world, and the International Court of Justice will be held with the consent of both countries.
What the United Nations can do now is limited, saying it violates international law.Sanctions cannot be imposed without unanimous agreement among permanent members.The only thing that can be done is economic sanctions.How, then, can the two countries keep their promises?It is written in a treaty between the two countries, and if the treaty is deemed invalid, one country can unilaterally impose sanctions.
The South Korean government is clamoring for Japan's violation of international law and international law, but let's take a look at the Japan-South Korea Basic Treaty.The Japan-South Korea dispute resolution exchange document states, "The dispute between Japan and South Korea will be resolved through mediation in accordance with the procedures agreed upon by the two governments."What is mediation?It will now be the International Court of Justice.Even if the Japanese government invites them to the International Court of Justice, the Korean government will not respond.It remains the same as before and now that bilateral treaties should be observed before international law.
In principle, the commitments between the two countries are fulfilled by the two countries.It is clearly stated that the dispute resolution between Japan and South Korea should be resolved through mediation.
![ワクチン集団訴訟が遺]()
Vaccine class action lawsuit initiated by bereaved families - Causal relationship between vaccines and tragedy to be explored on a global scale.
Families of people who died in Japan due to the coronavirus vaccine have started a class action lawsuit. It seems like it has finally begun. As the coronavirus spread throughout the world as a pandemic, vaccines spread as if to follow it. Used by almost all countries.
The dangers of the vaccine, which had a significantly shortened testing period, have been known from the beginning. In Japan, a research team at Kyoto University discovered the phenomenon of vaccine fragments remaining in the blood and presented the findings at an academic conference. It can be said that the harmful effects of residual vaccine fragments on all immune-related reactions are unknown. However, its harmful effects have not been scientifically verified.
The vaccine itself has not been tested or scientifically proven. It is a matter of course that the harmful effects have not been scientifically proven. Even if the plaintiff files a lawsuit, it is likely that the conclusion will be that the causal relationship cannot be determined. However, once this vaccine undergoes formal testing, the causal relationship may become clearer. It will take more than 10 years.
This problem is similar to war in some respects. It is a collective truth that we turn a blind eye to the sacrifices of a few people in order to protect the majority of society. The world is enveloped in this collective truth, and it is also true that tragedies that appear to be caused by vaccines are occurring in every country. The WHO is also silent on this matter. Interpretations and solutions to this worldwide choice of life will probably be completely different depending on the country.
![日本初の女性総理候補]()
Who is Japan's first female prime minister candidate?A rival candidate who is being dragged out as an attempt to disperse women's votes.
The moment Makiko Tanaka comes up as the next prime minister, Japanese public opinion feels hopeless. He inherited the position of former Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka, and became popular in the media for his oratory skills, and became the Minister of Foreign Affairs under the Koizumi administration, but his actual political beliefs are unclear and he is no longer just making political jokes. People in the audience began to notice that this was the case, and the audience grew tired of his speech, which was filled with repeated slander against Liberal Democratic Party members.
As a result, she lost the election in Niigata's 5th ward, which was her father's seat, and was not elected even after a proportional restoration. This is a loss for a second-generation lawmaker with experience as prime minister. In other words, she was out of favor with both the Liberal Democratic Party and her local constituency. Personally, I think that she will run as a candidate for the Democratic Party if she thinks it is impossible for her to run for the Liberal Democratic Party, and that it is completely unclear where her political beliefs lie.
It is surprising that the media is once again elevating this person. I wonder if it's the media that's lifting it or the audience that's lifting it. It seems like she could be a candidate for the next president if she talks about politics and money issues in a fun way. In the first place, she probably won't even be able to return to the Liberal Democratic Party. How can she become the president of the Liberal Democratic Party without becoming a member of the Liberal Democratic Party?
Another female member of the Diet who has been nominated is Tokyo Governor Koike. She seems to be working hard to talk to Tokyo Governor Koike about whether or not she will run in the general election, but Mr. Koike seems to have clearly denied her candidacy. In the first place, how will she become a member of the Diet if there is no dissolution before the presidential election, and will she become the president of the Liberal Democratic Party?
Looking at it this way, it appears that what some media outlets are trying to do is divide the vote for a female president. Perhaps it would be better if she were well-known and a woman, but her purpose was to suppress candidate Takaichi. In the ranking of women's politicians who they would like to see become Japan's first female prime minister, Yuriko Koike came first, Makiko Tanaka came second, and Sanae Takaichi came third. The first and second place candidates are not even Liberal Democratic Party members.
