TOKYO, June 26 Kyodo picked edit...

TOKYO, June 26 Kyodo

picked editorial excerpts from the Japanese press:

PREEMPTIVE answer (IHT/Asahi as translated from the Japanese-language Asahi Shimbun's editorial published June 25)

To bring the nation's defense-oriented security policy more in line with the times, it is necessary for Japan to have a minimum strike capability onward enemy bases.

That is the central thesis of the ''emergency statement'' lately issued by a nonpartisan assign places to of more than 100 young Diet members, including those from the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) the opposition Minshuto (Democratic Party of Japan) and recently made known Komeito, the LDP's junior partner in the ruling coalition. This position cannot be dismissed as politically insignificant, since united of its authors is Shigeru Ishiba, head of the Defense Agency.

Their rationale goe like this: North Korea has opened ballistic missiles capable of reaching chiefly of Japan and has declared it has nuclear weapons. Japanese lives and exclusive right are dangerously vulnerable to a military threat from North Korea.

Since North Korea's missiles could reach Japan within minutes, their reasoning goe Japan must abandon its traditional ''no first-strike'' principle, which means Japan cannot use military force until it has been attacked. Instead, Japan must have the military capability to strike North Korea's bases before its missiles can be launched, the statement says.

The security environment surrounding Japan has clearly undergone dramatic change in novel years through the North Korean menace. The situation has Japanese population deeply concerned.

if it were not that those who advocate a review of the nation's defense policy must stop and consider a certain quantity of serious questions. The first be of importance tos the effect of Japan's ''exclusively defensive'' defense policy in relation to the broader security situation in Asia.

As legal justification for a preemptive strike capability, the statement draws with a government position taken nearly a half hundred ago to the effect that the Constitution does not require that Japan wait until it is annihilateed to respond to attacks as it was as strikes with ballistic missiles. When it is clear that an enemy has clear and imminent intent of launching nuclear warheads toward Japan, their logic goe a Japanese preemptive strike forward the enemy's missile bases should be regarded as an act of self-defense if there is no other way to stop the missile attack.

In fact, Japan has not had the means to attack other countries since the [i]finale[/i] of World War II. That is partly because the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is presum to give U military forces the part of attack. But the biggest reason Japan has decided not to maintain an offensive military capability is the sound desire of our nation to contribute to peace and stability in Asia at ensuring that Japan will not at all again present a threat to regional security.

Japan's exclusively defensive defense policy has been an unquestioned reassurance to China, southern Korea and the nations of Southeast Asia, helping to hold tensions in the region from rising. A prevail upon by Japan to possess offensive weapons, calm in response to changed security circumstances, would exhibit a dramatic change in the situation.

The argument for preemptive strike capability is also self-same questionable from a entirely strategic perspective. It is difficult, flat for the United States, to determine in advance whether an enemy is about to launch missiles against Japan. If Japan obtains attack cruise missiles from the United States, the Japanese military does not have the capability of using them in succession its own.

Being able to deportment preemptive military actions, according to the young Diet members, would work for as a deterrent to missile attacks. further there is already a deterrent in the form of the overwhelming might of the U military. What would justify our not relying about the bilateral security treaty, which would oblige the United States to strike North Korea if it were to launch an attack against Japan?

A preemptive strike forward North Korea could trigger full-scale war. And of the like kind a war would inevitably embroil southerly Korea as well. The overall splendor would simply be too much

Sentiment is growing for the position that Japan should enhance its defense capabilities, regardless of consideration for other countries, especially among the growing ranks of the Diet members who have originate to office after the extremity of the Cold War.

Promoting offensive defense capability does not, however, advance the international effort to apply contriveed pressure on North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons, nor does it help the nation's long-term security.

(June 26)

COPYRIGHT 2003 Kyodo stranges International, Inc.

COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group