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.

2022-05-12 Category:Japan

鳩山一郎 Photo by Unknown author (licensed under CC0 1.0)

I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.

[Table of contents]

What is the point of the ability to attack enemy bases
1956 Ichiro Hatoyama
1999 Yoshinari Norota
2003 Shigeru Ishiba
1969 Cabinet decision

What is the issue regarding the ability to attack enemy bases

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.

Read it together

Geographically, the Korean Peninsula is covered by the Chinese continent, and successive Korean dynasties have become vassal states - What is Japan's position from the perspective of the continental p Geographically, the Korean Peninsula is covered by mainland China A vassal state of China since its founding Korea continues to be invaded by China China and Korea were ruled by different ethnic groups Seeing history from the perspective of northern peoples South Korea only denounces Japanese rule The Korean Peninsula has a history that is inseparable from China, as the peninsula's geographical characteristics make it look like it is completely covered by the Chinese continent. What exactly is this sense of victimhood and hostility toward Japan that Korean people have? The historical differences between China and Japan seen from South Korea are largely due to geopolitical reasons as seen from a map, but that is not the only reason. I would like to think about it in terms of the dominant ethnic group and the ruled ethnic group. Legend has it that there were countries called Dangun Joseon and Minojo Joseon, but archaeologically it is said that they existed from the later Eishi Joseon. The legendary Mino Korea is said to have been founded by the Mino of the Shang Dynasty in China, and the Wei Dynasty Joseon is said to have been founded by the Wei clan of the Yan Dynasty in China. Both were founded as vassal states of China. After that, Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla entered the Three Kingdoms period, and then the Sui Dynasty invaded Koguryo, and the Tang Dynasty invaded Koguryo. Although Goryeo established a unified dynasty, it was placed under the control of the Later Tang Dynasty shortly after its founding. During the Yuan Dynasty, China was invaded by the Mongol Empire and became a vassal state. The Allied Forces of Mongolia and Goryeo invaded Japan twice, but failed. Lee Seong-gye, who founded the Joseon Dynasty, is also known as the Jurchen people, and the Jurchen people were an ethnic group that lived in the Manchuria region, and later Hong Taiji founded the Qing Dynasty in China. From China's point of view, the Korean people are recognized as a different ethnic group living outside the Great Wall of China, and these ethnic groups lived primarily as nomadic peoples, but due to the geographical relationship of the peninsula, the Korean people have decided to settle down. It seems that it has become. Northern ethnic groups such as the Xiongnu, Xianbei, Khitan, Jurchen, Manchu, and Mongolians were a threat not only to the Han Chinese in China, but also to the Koreans. Looking at the history of China, there have been only a handful of unified dynasties founded by the Han Chinese, who make up the majority of the country, and for most of its history, different ethnic groups have ruled the Chinese mainland. When I look at world history, I have never seen a history centered on northern peoples, but if I dare to look at it from that perspective, both China and the Korean peninsula were invaded and dominated by northern peoples. The Sui, Tang, and Yuan dynasties that invaded the Korean Peninsula mentioned above are different ethnic states in China if you consider them centered on the Han people. It is also a country of different ethnic groups when viewed from the perspective of the Korean Peninsula. In addition to small-scale direct invasions by foreign ethnic groups, the majority of the history of the Korean peninsula is that they invaded the peninsula after taking control of mainland China. In this composition, Japan is classified as one of China's peripheral ethnic groups. Geographically speaking, Japan is called Toi in contrast to Northern Yi. They are a neighboring ethnic group common to China and the Korean Peninsula. If we look at the annexation of Japan and Korea in the above sense, it means that the Korean peninsula was ruled by a different ethnic nation that also shared China. It is also a foreign country to China. Some people point out the contradiction in that Koreans do not complain about the fact that they were ruled by China for over 1,000 years, but they hold a grudge against Japan for 1,000 years only for 35 years, but in reality, the country of China itself is the same. I wonder if there is a complicated background to the history of a controlled area. Historically, Japan may still be recognized as a common enemy of China and the Korean Peninsula. It is said that South Korea's sense of victimhood is something that has been cultivated historically, but if you look closer at the globe, you can see that mainland China has also had a history of being invaded. Based on this, Japan should resolutely clarify its position.

Read on>

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.

MEMO

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.

Read it together

Technology and knowledge of the Korean Peninsula at that time from pictures of unicycles on the Korean Peninsula. This photo is often introduced as an interesting ride on the Korean Peninsula, but how about comparing it to the second one in terms of efficiency and cost?The second one is a Japanese rickshaw, but neither is a modern vehicle.The difference is whether it is one wheel or two wheels. At that time, there was no technology to make wheels on the Korean Peninsula, so it was imported from China.The wheels were expensive, and even though they were aristocrats on the Korean Peninsula, they moved on one wheel.As a result, the biggest difference is the number of people driving the car.In the case of one wheel, it becomes unstable when people ride on top of it and requires two people in front and back.In the case of two wheels, it can be operated by one person for stability.It can be imagined that human costs were much lower than wheels.Or there was no concept of labor costs.If you think about transportation efficiency, you can say everything about agricultural work and transportation of goods.If you need twice as many people to transport things, production efficiency cannot be increased. It is said that nearly half of the people were slaves at the end of Joseon.If you just order the slaves, there will be no labor costs. According to Jeong Dong-yu, a Confucian scholar in the Joseon period, "The Sheep, the Car, and the Needle" is not available in Joseon.During the Joseon Dynasty, there was no technology to bend and round wood to make wheels, and there were no horse-drawn carts, cattle carts, rickshaws, or agricultural water wheels.Will this be effective in farming?The absence of needles indicates that metal processing techniques are extremely low.Needles must be made with the technique of sharpening metal and must not be broken.Also, it is necessary to make a hole in the rear part where the thread can be machined.During the Joseon Dynasty, wheels and needles were obtained from China. You can't make things without those tools.In order to make the tool, we need the tool to make it.Japan's industrial revolution was made possible based on craftsmanship handed down over 1,000 years.They made production facilities and railways that they learned from the West in imitation. In winter, the Korean Peninsula is cold and warm, but when Japan came to Korea, it was bare and bare.As soon as it rained on the bare mountains, a lot of water flooded the fields and destroyed the crops.Japan planted forests on the mountains of the Korean Peninsula.The number has reached 1 billion in 10 years since 1911.This is a problem unrelated to the Industrial Revolution.This is because it is a matter of improving the efficiency and planning of human resources.During the Joseon Dynasty, no progress was made due to the servitude of the people, and technology and knowledge were lost. Korea cries out that it was taken away by Japan due to the annexation of Japan and South Korea, but there was nothing on the Korean Peninsula when Japan went there.

Read on>

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.

POINT

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.