Ohhhhh Swerve, you crack me up mate- Article 10 of the Surrender stated that Japan will give up all forms of agression and renounce all weapons that can be viewed as agressive. The weapons you call “Strike weapons” are used in a defencive posture only. ASM’s are not only a strike weapon but can also be employed to stop ships getting close to the Island Nation.
…..
I agree, what I could read mentioned no government source thus someone has a great dream- besides, Japan wont have carriers again as these are recognised as Strike weapons and thus fall under the terms of Article 10.
The Surrender document was only in effect until Japan placed in effect a Constitution of which the US approved.
That Constitution has been in place for many, many decades now, so what the surrender document said is no longer applicable. (On May 3, 1947, Japan’s postwar constitution went into effect.)
THE CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN
CHAPTER II: RENUNCIATION OF WAR
Article 9:
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. 2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
The official interpretation of the constitution (which overrides the surrender document) is that the only weapons which are forbidden are those with no defensive purpose, & that anything which can be used defensively is acceptable. The important point is the intention: does Japan intend to use the weapon for defence or aggression?
Aircraft carriers are specifically mentioned in the official interpretation. It states that Japan will not acquire “offensive” aircraft carriers. Note the implication that “defensive” carriers are OK, although it’d be very hard to tell them apart.
The red letters are my emphasis of the text.
Japanese Ministry of Defense website discussing the Constitution of Japan and Right of Self-Defense
The Government’s View on Article 9 of the Constitution
A. Self-Defense Capability to Be Possessed and Maintained.
The self-defense capability to be possessed and maintained by Japan under the Constitution is limited to the minimum necessary for self-defense.
The specific limit has a relative aspect of varying with the international situation, the level of military technology and various other conditions. It is defined in the Diet, the representatives of the people through deliberations about each fiscal year budget etc. However, whether or not the said armed strength corresponds to “war potential” prohibited under paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Constitution is an issue regarding the total strength that Japan possesses and maintains. Accordingly, whether or not the SDF are allowed to possess some specific armaments is decided by whether the total strength will or will not exceed the constitutional limit by possessing such armaments.
But in any case in Japan, it is unconstitutional to possess what is referred to as offensive weapons that, from their performance, are to be used exclusively for total destruction of other countries, since it immediately exceeds the minimum level necessary for self-defense. For instance, the SDF is not allowed to possess ICBMs, long-range strategic bombers or offensive aircraft carriers.
B. Requisites for Exercise of Right of Self-Defense.
The use of armed force for the exercise of the right of self-defense under Article 9 of the Constitution is confined to corresponding to the following three requisites:
(i) there is an imminent and illegitimate act of aggression against Japan;
(ii) there is no appropriate means to repel this aggression other than the use of the right of self-defense; and
(iii) the use of armed strength is confined to the minimum level necessary for repelling.
C. Geographical Scope of Exercise of Right of Self-Defense.
The geographical scope of use of the minimum force necessary to defend Japan as the use of self-defense right is not necessarily confined to the Japanese territorial land, sea and airspace. Generally speaking, however, there is no specific definition of how far this geographic area stretches, since it would vary with each individual situation.
It is, however, not permissible constitutionally to dispatch armed troops to foreign territorial land, sea and airspace for the purpose of using military power, as a so-called overseas deployment of troops, since it generally exceeds the minimum level necessary for self-defense.
D. Right of Collective Self-Defense.
Under international law, there is recognition that a state has the right of collective self-defense, that is, the right to use armed strength to stop armed attack on a foreign country with which it has close relations, although the state is not under direct attack. It is beyond doubt that as a sovereign state, Japan has the right of collective self-defense under international law. It is, however, not permissible to use the right, that is, to stop armed attack on another country with armed strength, although Japan is not under direct attack, since it exceeds the limit of use of armed strength as permitted under Article 9 of the Constitution.
E. Right of Belligerency.
Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Constitution provides that “the right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.”
As already mentioned, it is, however, recognized as a matter of course that Japan can make use of the minimum force necessary for self-defense. It is a quite different conception from exercising the right of belligerency
Sign In
