Originally posted by Zahlanzi
they can use it as a deterrent. they can preemptively strike launch sites.
it is insane to consider japan should stick to a promise they made 50 years ago.
also, one aircraft carrier doesn't mean japan is going to launch a campaign of conquest
"...they (Japan) an preemptively strike (missile) launch sites (in DPRK)."
That's absurd. Japanese helicopters don't have anything close to the
capability of destroying (hardened) fixed missile launch strikes in the DPRK
(North Korea), even if the Japanese could pinpoint their secret locations.
Even the US military would find it difficult, without using nuclear weapons,
to destroy the DPRK's fixed missile launch strikes. And what if the DPRK
has the capacity of launching missiles from (unpredictable) mobile sites?
Also, if Japan foolishly attempted such a 'preemptive strike' using
unescorted helicopters, they would be intercepted and destroyed by
the DPRK's MiG-29s and MiG-21s. While the MiG-21's obsolete when
compared to modern fighters, it's still deadly against helicopters.
And the DPRK's too far away for Japan to escort its (short-ranged)
helicopters with its land-based F-15 fighters without air-to-air refueling.
In short, any Japanese attempted 'preemptive strike' (which would violate
international law) using helicopters would hand the DPRK's regime an easy
victory, one that might be celebrated even by many South Koreans too.
Obviously, you (Zahlanzi) never have worked as a military analyst.
"it is insane to consider japan should stick to a promise they made
50 years ago."
Japan's constitution, which prohibits all offensive weapons systems, is still
supposed to be in legal effect today. If Japan would like to deploy more
offensive weapons systems, then the constitution should be amended.
My point is that governments should *not* feel free to disregard their
constitutions whenever it seems politically expedient.
By the way, I was not aware there was a 'statute of limitations' upon
constitutions. If you (Zahlanzi) believe it's 'insane' for Japan to 'stick to
a (allegedly 50 year old) promise' not to deploy offensive weapons systems,
then perhaps you would also believe it's 'insane' for the United States to
keep its (19th century) constitutional promise not to enslave people.
"...one aircraft carrier doesn't mean japan is going to launch a campaign
Obviously, none of Japan's neighbours are worried about being invaded.