Concerning the "counterattack capability" to hit the enemy's missile launch bases, the LDP and Komeito held working-level talks to organize points of contention, such as targets for counterattacks. At today's meeting, we confirmed that we would aim to reach an agreement on the possession of counterattack capabilities.
I will explain in detail the "counterattack ability" that is the focus of this discussion.
What is "counterattack ability"?
If a ballistic missile is launched, it is currently set up in two stages: an Aegis ship on the sea and an interceptor missile PAC3 on land.
However, there is a limit to the amount of ballistic missiles that can be fired at the launch site.
The "counterattack ability" to hit the opponent's missile launch base is also called "enemy base attack ability".
Until now, the government has shown the view that attacking enemy bases is possible only when it is recognized that there are no other means to prevent attacks such as missiles.
In 1956, then-Prime Minister Hatoyama said, ``We should sit down and wait for self-destruction. I don't think it's intentional," he said.
However, under the Japan-U.S. Security Arrangements, the U.S. consistently assumes the role of the "spear" and Japan the "shield," repeatedly explaining that it does not consider possessing equipment for the purpose of attacking the other's bases. I've been
In March 2017, then Prime Minister Abe said, ``We are dependent on the United States for our ability to attack enemy bases, and we have no plans to possess an equipment system aimed at attacking enemy bases.''
The turning point was two years ago, when the deployment of the interceptor missile system "Aegis Ashore" was abandoned. I urged the government to consider and come to a conclusion as soon as possible.
In April this year, the Liberal Democratic Party's Security Research Committee compiled a proposal to the government that included changing the name of `` enemy base attack capability '' to `` counterattack capability '' and holding it.
The government's expert panel for strengthening defense capabilities compiled a report on November 22, stating that possession of "counterattack capability" is essential, calling for the deployment of a sufficient number of missiles as soon as possible. .
"Counterattack ability" focus
[Activation Timing]
One of the focal points regarding the "counterattack capability", also known as the "enemy base attack capability", is the requirements for activation.
Regarding this, the government says that it meets the three requirements for exercising the right of self-defense.
The three requirements for exercising the right of self-defense are:
▽If an armed attack occurs,
▽If there are no other suitable means to eliminate it , ▽The use of force
should be limited to the minimum necessary.
Regarding the occurrence of an armed attack, it is explained that it is not necessary to wait for the actual damage caused by the armed attack when the opponent "starts" the armed attack.
On the other hand, some security experts have pointed out that it is difficult to accurately grasp the start of an armed attack.
Ballistic missiles can be launched not only from fixed launchers, but also from vehicles and submarines. is difficult.”
Attacking enemy bases before the other side launches an armed attack could constitute a "preemptive strike," which is prohibited by international law.
In 2003, then-Director General Ishiba of the Defense Agency said, ``It is said that Tokyo will be turned into a sea of fire, and the missiles will be set up and fuel will be injected, and it will be irreversible. It's a kind of undertaking," he explains.
In addition, Defense Minister Hamada said at a press conference in October, ``As to when it should be considered that an armed attack has been launched, it depends on the international situation at that time, the clearly stated intentions of the other party, the means of the attack, and the manner of the attack. It should be decided according to the specific situation."
[Target of counterattack]
The government's draft policy on "counterattack capability" states that the target of counterattack will be limited to "military targets" based on international humanitarian law.
The International Committee of the Red Cross describes a ``military objective'' as ``a facility that, by virtue of its nature, location, purpose or use, actually contributes to military operations''.
"All military personnel must identify the nature of the target and must not attack anything other than a military target," it said.
Why is the “counterattack ability” a debate?
Regarding the need for a "counterattack capability," the government cites the difficulty and limitations of Japan's current missile defense system in intercepting a "saturation attack" in which a large number of ballistic missiles are fired. increase.
If Japan launches a ballistic missile, it will take a two-stage stance to intercept it with the Maritime Self-Defense Force's Aegis ship and the Air Self-Defense Force's land-based interceptor missile, PAC3.
Currently, 8 Aegis ships and PAC3 are deployed in 28 units nationwide.
According to the Ministry of Defense, in addition to these equipment, the total cost for ballistic missile defense, such as radar and interceptor missiles, has reached 2,782.9 billion yen from fiscal 2004, when the development began, to the initial budget for this fiscal year.
In addition, the Ministry of Defense has decided to build two "Aegis-equipped ships" in order to respond to various missiles such as ballistic missiles. We include design and other costs in the budget request.
Expert "Judged that there is a deterrent effect on the other party"
Heigo Sato, a professor at Takushoku University who is well versed in security, commented on the government's proposal for a policy requiring ``counterattack capability,'' saying, ``By having Japan's ``counterattack capability,'' Even when conducting preliminary work to exercise the I guess they decided that there was."
On the other hand, ``I think the opponent will try to get us to get false information in various ways, and I think they may use decoys to provoke them, so it is difficult to determine 100% whether the opponent has started an attack. It's the worst thing you can do to automatically launch an attack just because you've learned from satellite information that you're potentially dangerous, because it's going to be a careless act of war." He points out that the activation of the "counterattack ability" requires careful handling.
In addition, regarding whether to allow the exercise of "counterattack capability" as an exercise of the right of collective self-defense, he said, "There is a possibility that the situation may worsen further and the military threat to Japan may increase. I would like to have a thorough discussion on whether we can utilize the 'enemy base attack capability' while complying with the law."
Regarding the target of the counterattack, ``Even if it is a civilian facility, if it is used for military purposes, attacking it may be a legal act under international law, so even if you say that you will attack a military target. In addition, in situations where both military and civilian facilities coexist, the question of whether or not it is possible to distinguish and attack only military targets There is also.It is not a problem for which a conclusion can be reached quickly, but more information must be collected," he said, pointing out that sufficient discussion is necessary.
Expert ``The very nature of the country will change''
Professor Hideki Uemura of Ryutsu Keizai University, who is well versed in security, commented on the government's proposal for a policy that required a "counterattack capability," saying, "Japan has strengthened its defense based on the concept of 'exclusive defense,' Even if the name is changed to "counterattack capability," what we actually do is to introduce what we have called "enemy base attack capability" so far, so we have a policy of "exclusive defense". "It's a big shift away from the basics. While making it look like a defense to the domestic audience, it's like threatening to attack the other side, and I think the very nature of the country will change."
He added, "It's very difficult to determine whether the other party has launched an attack. It's not enough to counterattack just because the other party fired missiles. No. Intelligence is not something that can be acquired overnight and in a few years, so unless it can do that, it will not be a deterrent for Japan."
On top of that, ``If you don't change the policy of 'exclusive defense,' you have to explain properly whether consistency can be really taken, and whether it can be said that it is a policy that is an extension of 'exclusive defense.' I want you to discuss calmly and carefully whether you can get it."
Prime Minister Kishida ``Create a system and system that can clarify that it is not a ``preemptive attack''''
The Budget Committee of the House of Councilors deliberated on the second supplementary budget bill for this fiscal year. He expressed his desire to build a system.
Iwao Horii of the Liberal Democratic Party commented on the "counterattack capability" of hitting enemy missile launch sites, saying, "The current state of missile defense is like shooting down pistol bullets with pistol bullets. The opponent repeatedly fires missiles. I would like to ask about the necessity of having the ability to reach the other party's missile bases properly so that there is no such thing."
In response, Prime Minister Kishida said, ``Are we sufficiently prepared to protect the lives and livelihoods of the people against technologies such as missiles that are changing and evolving at a rapid speed? Of course, we will make efforts, but we must realistically consider all options, including the ability to counterattack.We will reach a conclusion by the end of the year based on the report of the panel of experts and consultations between the ruling parties. I want to continue."
Also, at the committee meeting on the 30th, Prime Minister Kishida pointed out that "the boundary between whether it is a preemptive attack or not" is difficult, regarding the "counterattack capability", but "in international law, theories on preemptive attacks are divided, and the scale varies depending on the country. "Our country must create a system and a system to make it clear that this is not a preemptive attack. We will do our best to explain to the Diet and the public," he said.