Japan debates strikes on N. Korea

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
TOKYO, Japan (AP) -- Japan said Monday it was considering whether a pre-emptive strike on the North's missile bases would violate its constitution, signaling a hardening stance ahead of a possible U.N. Security Council vote on Tokyo's proposal for sanctions against the regime.

While Japan talked of sanctions, China -- North Korea's top ally and benefactor -- pressed ahead with its diplomatic efforts to draw North Korea back to stalled six-nation talks on its nuclear weapons program, dispatching a high-profile delegation to Pyongyang on Monday.

U.S. nuclear envoy Christopher Hill huddled with Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso and other officials in Tokyo on a tour of the region to coordinate a common strategy on the North's missile tests last week and urge Pyongyang to drop its months-long boycott of the nuclear talks.

North Korea's missile tests last week caused no injuries or damage, but they sparked international condemnation. Officials in Japan -- badly shaken by the tests -- said Monday they were mulling whether their pacifist constitution allowed pre-emptive strikes on North Korean missile targets.

"If we accept that there is no other option to prevent an attack ... there is the view that attacking the launch base of the guided missiles is within the constitutional right of self-defense. We need to deepen discussion," said Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe.

Japan's U.S.-drafted constitution, untouched since it was enacted after World War II, foreswears the use of war to settle international disputes, but the government has interpreted that to allow defensive forces. The question is whether such a pre-emptive strike could be defined as self-defense.

The discussions Monday came ahead of a possible vote Monday in the U.N. Security Council on Japan's U.S.-backed resolution to prohibit nations from procuring missiles or missile-related "items, materials goods and technology" from North Korea.

While the U.S., Britain and France were behind the measure, the other two veto-wielding members of the council, China and Russia, favor a softer approach. Speculation was high that Russia would abstain if it came to a vote, but a Chinese veto was still considered a possibility.

U.S. officials were calling for China to take a bolder stand with the North and to use its influence with Pyongyang to persuade it to return to the six-party talks, which are hosted by Beijing. Hill said Washington was working with both China and Russia to force a common approach.

Still, he raised a rare question about how influential Beijing really was with the enigmatic regime.

"I must say the issue of China's influence on DPRK is one that concerns us," Hill told reporters. "China said to the DPRK, `Don't fire those missiles,' but the DPRK fired them. So I think everybody, especially the Chinese, are a little bit worried about it."

The DPKR refers to the North's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Despite the opposition, Japan showed no signs of backing away from the U.N. resolution.

"It's important for the international community to express a strong will in response to the North Korean missile launches," Abe told reporters. "This resolution is an effective way of expressing that."

China was also active on the U.N. front.

Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing "exchanged views" by phone Sunday with his counterparts from 11 council members and South Korea, the Foreign Ministry said on its Web site. He "stressed that any action should be conducive to maintaining the peace and stability in the region and the unity of the Security Council," the two-sentence statement said without elaborating.

On Monday, Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei, China's chief nuclear negotiator, and Chinese Vice Premier Hui Liangyu arrived in Pyongyang for a six-day stay. The two governments exchanged congratulatory messages marking the 45th anniversary of a friendship treaty between the neighbors.

The Chinese government hasn't said whether Wu or Hui would bring up the six-nation nuclear talks. But a ministry spokeswoman said last week that China was "making assiduous efforts" in pushing for a resumption of the negotiations.

Talks have been deadlocked since November because of a boycott by Pyongyang in protest of a crackdown by Washington on the regime's alleged money-laundering and other financial crimes.

A North Korean delegation was expected in China on Tuesday to mark the treaty anniversary.

North Korea agreed in September 2005 to give up its nuclear ambitions in return for aid and energy, but no progress has been made to implement that accord.

As a way out of the impasse, China has suggested an informal gathering which could allow Pyongyang to technically stand by its boycott, but at the same time meet with the other five parties. Hill backed the proposal on Saturday, and said Washington could meet with the North on the sidelines of such a meeting.

Hill said he discussed the proposal with Japan's Aso, but he refused to provide any details.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/10/us.nkorea.ap/index.html
 

tamarin

House Member
Jun 12, 2006
3,197
22
38
Oshawa ON
North Korea needs a good spanking. China needs to be reminded forcefully that its economic revolution is underpinned by energy contracts world-wide that are subject to cancellation by any responsible western participant.
The tail's always wagging the dog. Time the dog bit back.
 

aeon

Council Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,348
0
36
I guess the fact that japan, was hit twice by nuclear weapons, made them paranoi at best.
 

JonB2004

Council Member
Mar 10, 2006
1,188
0
36
I think the best thing at this time is to invade North Korea, unless they immediately agree to resume six-party talks.
 

Mogz

Council Member
Jan 26, 2006
1,254
1
38
Edmonton
Re: RE: Japan debates strikes on N. Korea

JonB2004 said:
I think the best thing at this time is to invade North Korea, unless they immediately agree to resume six-party talks.

I'm not inclined to agree with you Jon. Invading North Korea would spakr a massive conflict in which thousands would perish. First and foremost however is my concern with the somewhat over-extended abilites of NATO Nations; chiefly the Untied States and Britain. Couple that with the fact that other key military Nations of the Alliance (France, Germany, Denmark, Canada, and Belgium) are also putting large amounts of manpower in to Afghanistan and it degrades the overal ability of NATO. Compare that to the military ability of North Korea. Currently North Korea has a military of just over 1.1 million men. While poorly trained by Western standards, that is still a massive force, especially one that would (in an invasion) be fighting on its own turf. One thing I will concede about North Korea is that they lack up to date aircraft and their Navy is small (40-50 warships), I forget the exact number. However couple their massive military with the 7.25 MILLION men in the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army (the Worlds largest military when factoring Reg Force, Reserve, and Paramilitary), and you can see where that would pose a problem. China (unlike North Korea) has a very sophisitcated military. Over 8,000 main battle tanks, as well as 2,000 or so light battle tanks. They also poses the Worlds largest Air Force. Keep in mind, China is nuclear. Those issues would be key to deciding the outcome of any land incursion by NATO and/or Japan. Just a quick side by side comparison of the two sides.

North Korea/China:

North Korea - 1.1 million men
China - 7.25 million men (Worlds largest Army and Air Force)
Total:8.35 million

NATO/Japan/Australia:

United States - 2.3 million (Excellent technology)
Britain - 350,000 (well trained)
France - 400,000
Germany - 250,000
Denmark - 81,750
The Netherlands - 68,000
Canada - 94,000 (including Rangers)
Belgium - 40,000
Australia - 80,000
Japan - 300,000
Total:3.96 million

Just some food for though
 

JonB2004

Council Member
Mar 10, 2006
1,188
0
36
8.3 million vs. 4.0 million.

That wouldn't turn out too well for us. But its making me nervous with North Korea firing all those missiles. They don't want to resume talks. But will China join North Korea in the event of a military intervention? Like it says in the article, the U.S. thinks even China is nervous about this whole situation. I guess we will have to wait and see what the official position of China is.
 

SaintLucifer

Electoral Member
Jul 10, 2006
324
0
16
Re: RE: Japan debates strikes on N. Korea

aeon said:
I guess the fact that japan, was hit twice by nuclear weapons, made them paranoi at best.

Pffft. Please. The nukes that were dropped on Japan are minor-leaguers compared to what Pynonyang is capable of hitting them with. Mere firecrackers by comparison.
 

SaintLucifer

Electoral Member
Jul 10, 2006
324
0
16
Re: RE: Japan debates strikes on N. Korea

JonB2004 said:
8.3 million vs. 4.0 million.

That wouldn't turn out too well for us. But its making me nervous with North Korea firing all those missiles. They don't want to resume talks. But will China join North Korea in the event of a military intervention? Like it says in the article, the U.S. thinks even China is nervous about this whole situation. I guess we will have to wait and see what the official position of China is.

There is no way North Korea is dumb enough to let loose a nuclear missile strike against anyone with a belligerent military monster like China for a neighbour. It is just not going to happen. China will never allow it because they know the consequences. I would suggest everyone remain calm.
 

SaintLucifer

Electoral Member
Jul 10, 2006
324
0
16
Re: RE: Japan debates strikes on N. Korea

Mogz said:
JonB2004 said:
I think the best thing at this time is to invade North Korea, unless they immediately agree to resume six-party talks.

I'm not inclined to agree with you Jon. Invading North Korea would spakr a massive conflict in which thousands would perish. First and foremost however is my concern with the somewhat over-extended abilites of NATO Nations; chiefly the Untied States and Britain. Couple that with the fact that other key military Nations of the Alliance (France, Germany, Denmark, Canada, and Belgium) are also putting large amounts of manpower in to Afghanistan and it degrades the overal ability of NATO. Compare that to the military ability of North Korea. Currently North Korea has a military of just over 1.1 million men. While poorly trained by Western standards, that is still a massive force, especially one that would (in an invasion) be fighting on its own turf. One thing I will concede about North Korea is that they lack up to date aircraft and their Navy is small (40-50 warships), I forget the exact number. However couple their massive military with the 7.25 MILLION men in the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army (the Worlds largest military when factoring Reg Force, Reserve, and Paramilitary), and you can see where that would pose a problem. China (unlike North Korea) has a very sophisitcated military. Over 8,000 main battle tanks, as well as 2,000 or so light battle tanks. They also poses the Worlds largest Air Force. Keep in mind, China is nuclear. Those issues would be key to deciding the outcome of any land incursion by NATO and/or Japan. Just a quick side by side comparison of the two sides.

North Korea/China:

North Korea - 1.1 million men
China - 7.25 million men (Worlds largest Army and Air Force)
Total:8.35 million

NATO/Japan/Australia:

United States - 2.3 million (Excellent technology)
Britain - 350,000 (well trained)
France - 400,000
Germany - 250,000
Denmark - 81,750
The Netherlands - 68,000
Canada - 94,000 (including Rangers)
Belgium - 40,000
Australia - 80,000
Japan - 300,000
Total:3.96 million

Just some food for though

WTF? MiG-29 Fulcrums are not up-to-date? True the majority of North Korean aircraft are obsolete but they are currently upgrading thanks to the Russians and Chinese. North Korea is in the midst of pursuing more MiG-29 Fulcrums. These Fulcrums are a match and more against any current Wester aircraft manufactured.

China's air force when considering its size is but a joke. By far the majority of its craft are very obsolete. The same goes for their main battle tanks. The USA's M1A1 Abrams are more than a match for any of China's MBTs. The only reason China's air force is even a minor consideration would be thanks to sheer numbers. The Soviet Union had a truly frightening air force. It was for many, many years by far the largest in the world and would still be today if they were not selling it piece by piece for access to cold hard cash. China's military is not sophisticated as you claim. Their navy is a joke. Their airforce is made up of planes the Russians have already turned into slag for other purposes. Their main battle tanks are further antiquated Soviet castoffs. Their weapons are still Chinese-made AK-47s which even a child can manufacture.

Please recall China's sending a man into orbit. They are very proud of this feat. What people forget is the fact all of this was done with Russian technology. Russian rocket. Russian capsule. Russian spacesuit. They have absolutely nothing to be proud of. Any other nation could have done the very same with such equipment. I would suggest the U.S.A. and Russia were laughing at the Chinese for their attempts at bragging about having sent a man into orbit, a feat both nations managed almost 50 years ago. A little late don't you think? Been there done that kind of thing and the Chinese are bragging about it? Please. When they design and built their own rockets, capsules and spacesuits then perhaps I may believe they have something to be proud of. Until then they need to shut the fuck up.