Japanese cameras sweeping the
2021-06-29
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
The reason why Japanese cameras are taking over the world market is because of their sensors and lenses.These are the two properties of digital cameras.Light must not be refracted or diffusely reflected inside the lens, and the surfaces must be uniform.This affects the amount of light taken into the camera.
A lens with a high F value is dark and cheap, and if the F value falls, it takes in light and becomes expensive.The sensor is the one that receives the light taken in to convert it into digital data.The smartphone lens is close to the sensor and doesn't seem to have much effect, but it still changes.A single-lens reflex camera used for TV reporting and News paper,Magazine and so on or a lens with a high F value is useless.
That's why the No Japan movement in Korea is filmed with a Japanese camera.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Former Prime Minister Aso plans to visit South Korea and meet with President Yoon - A person who has been monitoring Japan - Korea issues from within the Cabinet
Mr. Aso visits South Korea
Mr. Aso has been observing Japan-Korea relations for a long time from within the Cabinet
The handover on the Korean side is in disarray
What will Mr. Aso offer to the South Korean regime
Former Prime Minister Aso is visiting South Korea, but the Japanese government has said that it is part of parliamentary diplomacy and not as Prime Minister Kishida's special envoy. What did Mr. Aso come to Korea for?
Mr. Aso was the prime minister who concluded the Japan-Korea currency swap during the 2008 Korean currency crisis, which occurred during the Lehman shock in the United States. After rebuilding the economy, the Lee Myung-bak administration said that Japan's aid was unnecessary. Mr. Aso subsequently served as deputy prime minister from the second Abe administration to the Suga administration. During that time, he was involved in various Japan-Korea issues, including Lee Myung-bak's landing on Takeshima, the comfort women agreement, the suspension of the Japan-Korea currency swap, the radar irradiation incident, the forced labor judgment, the comfort women judgment, and the white country issue, in his capacity as vice prime minister. Become the person you were. Like former Prime Minister Abe, he will probably be the only person who has looked at a series of issues as a cabinet member.
Meanwhile, in South Korea, the government changed from Lee Myung-bak to Park Geun-hye, and after impeachment, came the Moon Jae-in government, which removed all people who were said to be pro-Japanese from diplomatic relations. After that, he launched a series of anti-Japanese movements, leading to the current Yun Seok-Yue administration. In other words, on the South Korean side, there is no continuity in Japan-Korea relations, the handover is probably fragmentary, and it is highly likely that they do not understand anything other than symbolic concerns.
It would not be surprising if Japan-Korea relations contain a variety of other problems in addition to those that have been made public. If the problems that have come to light are just the tip of the iceberg, Mr. Aso is probably the person who knows the various problems and background behind them. In other words, it is highly likely that the meaning and content of the comprehensive solution that South Korea calls and the comprehensive solution that Japan thinks of are different.
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.
Does Japan procure labor from anti - Japanese countries? - Are you not considering the issues of immigration policy?
It is said that Europe and the United States are reconsidering their immigration policies due to failures, but the United States views immigration from South America as a problem with guns and drugs, not immigration from Canada or Europe. When considered as a white group, they tend to have a lower birthrate, and it is predicted that white people will become a minority in the United States by 2060.
If Europe is facing social unrest due to immigration from Muslim countries, it is certain that this will happen if it accepts immigrants from countries that can be described as hostile religions. In Europe, the periphery means Islamic countries or Africa due to location. However, travel and work within the EU are basically free, so EU countries accept foreigners. The reality is that the West is trying to prevent immigration from dangerous countries.
What is fatal for Japan is that historically it has not been blessed with neighboring countries. If Japan had the issue of which country to procure labor from based on this kind of thinking, then it would be a crazy idea to bring labor from a country that routinely provides anti-Japanese education to its citizens. There are members of parliament.
In Asia, at least in terms of cultural background and religion, there are countries that believe in Buddhism, countries that have an affinity with the Japanese imperial family as a kingdom, have a good level of education, are pro-Japanese countries, and have a strong acceptance of Japan. It would be desirable if there could be collaboration that would allow Japan to be involved with educational institutions in partner countries.
In any case, Japan's efforts to combat the declining birthrate will be over once the second baby boom generation fails to have children. Even if the competitiveness of Japanese companies increases due to the weak yen, they will not be able to bring their production bases back to Japan, and on the other hand, if they continue to flow to other countries, their GDP and tax revenues will simply become income for other countries.
maritime defense Taiwan's defense is the defense of the Senkaku Islands and is synonymous with Japan's.If China maintains its maritime routes from Japan to Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam, it will not be able to enter the Pacific Ocean and will only be able to develop strategies from the west.
Moon Jae In Korea is pro-China.Even if Korea joins forces with China, China will not actually be able to enter the Pacific Ocean.In this sense, Korea and Taiwan have different strategic meanings on Quad.
With this in mind, Moon Jae In is not flying around like a bat, but is moving in a way that you don't really understand if you don't say you're going to be left behind unless you don't actively participate in Quad.
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.
