Subject: EEE会議（Re: 日本は北朝鮮に先制攻撃を行えるか？）
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 07:56:08 +0900
From: "kkaneko" <kkaneko@eagle.ocn.ne.jp>

各位

日本は北朝鮮に対して先制攻撃を行う国際法上の権利を有しているとして、実際に北
朝鮮に対して有効な先制攻撃(pre-emptive strikes)を行う能力があるかどうか、に
ついて、小生が参加しているある米国のＥメール会議で盛んに議論が行われておりま
す。　発言者の中にはかつて在日米軍司令部で勤務し、日本の自衛隊の攻撃能力につ
いて専門的な知識や情報をもっている人も多く、大部分の意見は、自衛隊には現在か
かる能力はないという結論ですが、米軍とうまく連繋すれば不可能ではないという意
見もあります。　また、米国が、現在イラク攻撃問題で国連安保理でも孤立しかかっ
ているとき、日本が自らの安全保障上の理由で北朝鮮に先制攻撃を加える必要がある
ということになれば、それに米軍が協力することは大いに可能、という穿った意見も
あります。　ご参考までに、いくつかの意見をご紹介します。
金子熊夫
*******************************************************

JDA DG Ishiba has been talking about "pre-emptive strikes" against
a North Korean missile; does Japan have the capability to deliver
such a strike?

Brad Glosserman,
Pacific Forum
-----------------------------------------

In response to Brad Glosserman's question about Japan have pre-
emptive strike capability the answer is "no." During the recent Diet
deliberations, Defense Minister Ishiba Stated that Japan can
(legally) make a preemptive strike but that the Japan Self-Defense
Forces do not have such a capability. He also stated that it was
necessary for Japan to expedite missile defense.

Jim Auer
---------------------------------------------

Can Japan take out a North Korean target? Definitely with
American help.
Then why not just have US pilots do it? Politics. With the US
taking a huge hit in world opinion over Iraq (with a lot of help from
France, Russia, and China) does it want to take military action
against NK right now? No.
Letting Japan do it for its own security needs lets the US sit back
and applaud another nation taking responsibility for "world security
and enforcement of international law" (loosely defined). The US
also gains a more aggressive Japan (something it does not fear)
willing to step up to the line militarily.
More importantly however to this forum would be the question of
how would NK react to Japanese preemption? NK has stated how
it would react to the US but coming from Japan would a pre-emptive
attack elicit the same response? Would it make them more or less
aggressive?
We could even go further and ask why would it have to be the US
or Japan? How would NK react to either China or Russia destroying
North Korea's nuclear capacity? A nuclear armed NK dilutes
China's political clout as a nuclear power thus giving them realist
reasons to "enforce" nuclear arms control. NK sits surrounded by
four of the biggest players in international politics (US, Japan,
China, and Russia) it wont be easy for them if the region acts as a
unit diplomatically or pre-emptively.

Kevin J. Cooney, Ph.D.
Arizona State University
-----------------------------------------------

This is not correct. The JSDF "cruise missile" capability is limited
to the anti-ship Harpoon missile, which has a range of about 90
miles. As configured, Japan's AEGIS destroyers have a
magnificent air defense capability, and a very limited anti-ship
capability that is not relevant to land attack missions.

JASDF fighter aircraft have neither the weapons configuration nor
the munitions suitable for such a mission. This is not an
inconvenience -- it is a showstopper.

Even if they did, I'm pretty sure that even with multiple fuel drop
tanks the JASDF's inventory of fighter aircraft would not have
sufficient combat radius for the mission.

Paul Giarra
--------------------------------------

Thanks to Brad Glosserman of the Pacific Forum for starting this
very important thread...

Several points:

1) The Ishiba statements are not new. Other JDA chiefs have made
the same point: Japan has a legal right, under its doctrine of self-
defense, to launch a pre-emptive strike against North Korea in the
event that the North Koreans arm their ballistic missiles with
nuclear warheads with the intention of shooting at Japan. The
principle here is that it Japan would not have time to defend itself if
NK were to launch a ballistic missile at Japan. Pre-emptive
amounts to self-defense.

2) But this raises a key question:

As long as the US-Japan security alliance is alive and
kicking, the US would surely assume that an attack on Japan would
be an attack on the US, even if the launched missile(s) were not
directly aimed at US bases in Japan. So what need would there be
for Japan to engage in a preemptive mission.

3) Still, it is a fair question: Does Japan have the independent ability
to identify a NK threat, and to effectively eliminate the threat before
launch?

4) The answer now is probably "no". Why?:

a) Intelligence: To locate missile launching sites and
detect the arming of ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads
requires top-notch satellite intelligence, which Japan does not have.
The satellites to be launched by Japan later this year may help, but
don't hold your breath; it takes a long time to get these systems in
place, and to train the photo analysts to decipher the real meaning.

b) Range of aircraft: Japan lacks the necessary in-air
refueling capabilities that would be needed by the jet fighters that
presumably would undertake an attack. Fitting jet fighters with drop
tanks inhibits their capabilities. Japan's air force has not trained for
a scenario in which drop tanks and rockets of the sort needed to
attack NK's nuclear facilities are used simultaneously. That is a lot
of work to do in a short time.

c) As for cruise missiles launched from Japanese naval
vessels: again, don't hold your breath. The targeting requirements
are huge. Japan's naval forces have not trained for this type of
mission.

5) Having said all of this: why did Ishiba restate the Japanese
position? At least three reasons:

a) assert Japan's right to make a preemptive attack;
b) remind Washington that Japan is very concerned
about the situation, and that US forces should be ready to go if the
alliance is to mean anything;
c) keep open the option that Japan might seek to
develop the independent capability.

Peter Ennis
-----------------------------------------------