Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Japan's 'shield' against North Korean missiles would not have worked
Country lost three years preparing for unrealistic Aegis Ashore
TETSURO KOSAKA, Nikkei senior staff writer
July 18, 2020 05:13 JST
TOKYO -- When Japanese Defense Minister Taro Kono halted deployment of the land-based Aegis Ashore missile defense system a month ago, the public worried that the nation's defenses would be thrust into a vacuum.
This is wrong.
Not because Japan will be safe, but because it was already long exposed to North Korean missiles.
Japan's theory of missile defense had already collapsed around 2016 and 2017, when North Korea simulated a "saturation attack" -- where numerous ballistic missiles were fired -- and launched a lofted-trajectory missile, which is much harder to intercept.
Nevertheless, the Japanese government brushed off such doubts and continued to pursue Aegis Ashore, which it had promised the Americans it would buy.
This is wrong.
Not because Japan will be safe, but because it was already long exposed to North Korean missiles.
Japan's theory of missile defense had already collapsed around 2016 and 2017, when North Korea simulated a "saturation attack" -- where numerous ballistic missiles were fired -- and launched a lofted-trajectory missile, which is much harder to intercept.
Nevertheless, the Japanese government brushed off such doubts and continued to pursue Aegis Ashore, which it had promised the Americans it would buy.
more in this commentary worth considering.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Comment/Japan-s-shield-against-North-Korean-missiles-would-not-have-worked
Interesting that it even outlines an element of offensive missile strategy similar to that of the US and UK.
Much of the recent discussion within the ruling Liberal Democratic Party has tilted to enemy-base strike capability and steered away from important civil defense plans.