http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapc....ap/index.html

I would like to initiate a discussion on the feasability of such an attack, not political value etc.

Japan lacks stratotankers, long-range bombers and (AFAIK) cruise missiles. So they would have to engage in an operation similar to the one in which the Israelis destroyed the Osirak reactor. I doubt South Korea would allow them to land after the mission, to not provoke the Democratic Republic. The Japanese would also need their Kongo class AEGIS Destroyers on full alert to intercept any retaliatory North Korean strikes, which could be nuclear-tipped!

Armchair Generals, ATTACK!

I don't see that they are logistically capable of waging war, no matter how justified they think they are. After the first 48-72 hours, they would be begging for help.

i'm gonna have to agree with Maytime, the Japanese military isn't designed for attack, but for defence (unless it has changed and I don't know it). I could see Japan launching a small special operations raid, but a full-blown all out attack would require the backing of at least one, maybe two powerful nations.

The difference between attack and defense is in the eye of the beholder.

I would not see why Japan can't wage war with the JSDF.

They got my vote for a preemptive strike.

North Korea,s dictator Kim is completely crazy.
He nuclear capable even A lot of people have been starved to death these several years.
If japan give NK JDAM and chocker,that autocratic regime will be broken by people.

Originally Posted by bigcanada813

i'm gonna have to agree with Maytime, the Japanese military isn't designed for attack, but for defence (unless it has changed and I don't know it). I could see Japan launching a small special operations raid, but a full-blown all out attack would require the backing of at least one, maybe two powerful nations.

Israel managed to do the Osirak reactor with F-16s only....Japan has F-16s...

Did Israel sustain a conflict after the Osirak bombings? No, but they took the first shot, and even if Iraq shot back, they had the means to defend itself. That was simplified by the proximity of the two nations, where DPRK and Japan are separated by water.

So, I say if Japan decides to strike first, we let them, then we go in to help the JSDF protect the islands, and wait for Lil' Kim give us a reason to annihiliate the DPRK once and for all.

you guys do realize that north korea could kill thousands of people in the south with artillery barrages alone. That's why no one is even hinting at a strike in washington, lots of people could die in a counterattack. Forget what the insurgents in iraq are capable of, this could lead to many thousands of civilians and military personnel dead if a war breaks out, that's pretty much guarenteed. Even airstrikes won't take out all the artillery and border weapons, there's too many of them. Japan is puffing hot air, think about if we could have done an airstrike in the past we probably would have.

There's pretty much a consensus that kim jong il is nuts, so why would you agitate a crazy dictator in such a way. His response could be comlpetely random and everything could hit the fan.

Quote:MohmarDeathstrike
Originally Posted by bigcanada813
i'm gonna have to agree with Maytime, the Japanese military isn't designed for attack, but for defence (unless it has changed and I don't know it). I could see Japan launching a small special operations raid, but a full-blown all out attack would require the backing of at least one, maybe two powerful nations.

Israel managed to do the Osirak reactor with F-16s only....Japan has F-16s...

Yeah Mohmar, you're right on that, the Japanese could launch an attack, but they would need help from outside countries if they were to enter a prolonged conflict with the North Koreans. That is what I was trying to get at.

Originally Posted by bigcanada813

Yeah Mohmar, you're right on that, the Japanese could launch an attack, but they would need help from outside countries if they were to enter a prolonged conflict with the North Koreans. That is what I was trying to get at.

True, but that's a big IF, because neither country has the capability to deploy ground troops in the other. The only type of conflict that could ensue would be North Korean BMs beimg launched toward Japan with Japan trying to knock them out and continuing low-intensity aerial bombing raid (I don't see how North Korea could send fighter-bombers to Japan)

Originally Posted by WarMachine

you guys do realize that north korea could kill thousands of people in the south with artillery barrages alone. That's why no one is even hinting at a strike in washington, lots of people could die in a counterattack. Forget what the insurgents in iraq are capable of, this could lead to many thousands of civilians and military personnel dead if a war breaks out, that's pretty much guarenteed. Even airstrikes won't take out all the artillery and border weapons, there's too many of them. Japan is puffing hot air, think about if we could have done an airstrike in the past we probably would have.

But South Korea is unrelated to Japan. From what I've heard, their relations are kinda stained too (yet far from actually hostile) because of some shrine that serves a memorial for troops fallen in WW2.

Originally Posted by WarMachine

There's pretty much a consensus that kim jong il is nuts, so why would you agitate a crazy dictator in such a way. His response could be comlpetely random and everything could hit the fan.

I disagree. I think Kim Jong Il is quite of the calculating kind. He'll use some sort of flexible response strategy: Japan bombs NK missile sites, so NK launches HE BMs at Japanese urban centers...Then again, if the Japanese miss even one North Korean missile, it could mean the death of thousands of Japanese in the densely populated megalopolis's.

Originally Posted by Maytime

...wait for Lil' Kim give us a reason to annihiliate the DPRK once and for all.

That's slightly exaggerated saber-rattling IMO. Would you actually like to kill dozens of millions?