Continuing attacks on the Gaza Strip - What is the definition of a civilian? | The atomic bomb was dropped without any warning.
2023-12-12
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
attack on the Gaza Strip
Regarding the conflict in the Gaza Strip and the invasion of Ukraine, I understand that the concept of war criminals under international law is extremely weak, but I would like to ask about the definitions of civilians, civilian facilities, military personnel, and military facilities. After these wars are over, the international community will need to be redefined.
What is the definition of a civilian?
According to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Americans are members of the National Guard and are allowed to own firearms according to the Constitution's interpretation. Are they civilians or soldiers? For example, in South Korea, where a conscription system is in place, those who have completed their conscription period are registered as reservists. Are they civilians or soldiers?
Soldiers and civilians mix in Nanjing
In the Nanjing Incident, the commander of the Kuomintang army fled, and the Kuomintang army changed into civilian clothes and fled into a private house, where they fought using civilians as shields, but were they civilians or soldiers? I wonder if the private house they barricaded themselves in had become a military facility at that point. Or will it still be a private house?
Japan did not attack Nanjing Safety Zone
At the Tokyo Trials, Rabe testified that the Japanese military did not fire on the Nanjing Safety Zone, calling the Japanese invasion a massacre. Civilians in Nanjing were able to escape to the Nanjing Safety Zone, which was demarcated by international law. The Gaza Strip is approximately ５０km from north to south, and evacuation to the south would take up to ２５km, making it possible to evacuate in one day.
Is the human shield a civilian or a soldier?
Is the human shield a civilian or a soldier? At the very least, are they risking their lives to protect their homes? Are they civilians or soldiers?
In other words, the international law that judged Japan in the past is weak to this extent, and even today it criticizes the killing of civilians based on this idea, but does not deny wars based on the exercise of the right of self-defense. I'm watching this battle in it. What should be answered is a clear division between civilians and soldiers.
The atomic bomb was dropped without any advance notice.
It is said that there were １２２ air raids on Tokyo, but each time did the US military notify Japanese civilians that they were about to carry out an air raid? Or, before the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a bomb of another dimension will be dropped that will cause damage over a wide area. Did Truman tell them that it would be difficult to survive there? If it had been done, would Japanese civilians at the time have been evacuated or would they have remained to fight?
Such international laws only have a deterrent effect and have no meaning in actual war.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Public opinion without examining Abenomics - there is no point in criticizing it based on contradictory premises.
There are some surveys and opinions in public opinion that Abenomics has ruined Japan, but is that true? First of all, what is Abenomics? Were you asking people who answered the same question as in the poll, or were you asking people you didn't know? I wonder if asking someone I don't know will give me the results I expected. First, let's review the three arrows of Abenomics.
Three arrows of Abenomics
Bold monetary policyFlexible fiscal policyGrowth strategy to stimulate private investment
Monetary policy is still ongoing, but former Prime Minister Abe has said that the consumption tax increase was decided in advance and was carried out at a time when it could not be postponed, so he was unable to fire a second arrow. In other words, Abenomics is actually the first arrow in a variety of environments. In other words, I would understand if there was an evaluation of the fact that it did not advance to the second stage, but I have doubts about evaluating Abenomics itself.
Next, I will list some of the achievements of Abenomics.
Main achievements of Abenomics
The total national and local tax revenue will reach a record high of 107 trillion yen in fiscal 2019, up from 78.7 trillion yen in fiscal 2012. The stock price, which was around 8,000 yen, rose to over 24,000 yen under the Abe administration. Public pension investment profits increased by 57.6 trillion yen in seven and a half years. The effective job opening ratio was 83 job openings for every 100 people in 2012, and 164 job openings for every 100 people in 2019. Business operators improved their treatment due to the labor shortage. The minimum hourly wage rose from 749 yen in 2012 to 901 yen in 2019. The rate of children from single-parent households going on to university increased significantly from 23.9% to 41.9%.
Sanaenomics (Japanese Economic Resilience Plan) will be published. Representative Sanae Takaichi announced a policy to carry on Abenomics during the last presidential election.
Sanaenomics three arrows
Financial easingFlexible fiscal stimulus in times of emergencyBold crisis management investment/growth investment
What they have in common is that monetary easing policy will continue, and if the Takauchi Cabinet is elected, the government will implement aggressive fiscal policy.
The fact that the Japanese government's balance sheet was introduced for the first time in 1995 means that the Japanese government did not have the concept of strategic investment, which companies take for granted. How can you invest without a balance sheet or cash flow statement? It was only a matter of being able to compare the income and expenditure for a single year, or the previous year. The term "primary balance" has come to be used like crazy. At that time, Japan believed that deregulation would revive the economy, and the government repeatedly took the approach of relaxing regulations through legal revisions.
As a result, the Japanese government was unable to rebuild the national economy or make strategic investments for economic growth after the collapse of the bubble, which was an unprecedented economic crisis. More than 30 years have passed since we stubbornly closed the doors. Then, companies moved their manufacturing sectors to emerging countries, and GDP and tax revenues mainly went to neighboring countries such as China, creating a dual wage structure of dispatched labor in order to prevent an increase in the number of unemployed people in Japan. . The economic disparity that arose from this process is said to be one of the causes of the current declining birthrate.
So, has Abenomics ruined Japan? Would that also mean denying Sanaenomics? Or will we continue to turn down investments from the government as we have been doing, paying close attention to the primary balance under the guidance of the Ministry of Finance and listening to the beautiful words of fiscal consolidation? The point of contention should be to gather opinions on whether or not bold fiscal spending by the government is necessary. In any case, regardless of whether the policy is better or not, there are parts where it seems like the point at issue is not policy at all, but just an extension of a personal attack, which is unfortunate.
Former Prime Minister Noda's memorial speech, which maintained his dignity - How did the opposition party members who continued to spit on the deceased listen to it?
Speech by opposition party adviser who attended state funeral
High praise for maintaining dignity
How do future generations view it?
Listening to former Prime Minister Noda's memorial speech, I felt that he had put a little too much into it, but I got the impression that there was no lie in his words. He also said, ``Not attending a state funeral goes against my outlook on life.'' Mr. Noda may have to leave the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan. Other party members are engaging in political activities that are truly vile and the complete opposite of a mourning contest, blaspheming and spitting on the victims who have been left speechless due to their selfish crimes.
Former Prime Minister Noda seemed to be trying to stop this kind of outrageous behavior by party members, but I would like to hear the opinions of Renho and Tsujimoto, who are trying to climb to the lowest level of vulgarity, regarding the speech by the top advisor of the Constitutional Democratic Party. I wanted to see it. In his speech, Mr. Noda stated that his political orientation was different from Mr. Abe, but he praised the character and achievements of the deceased to the fullest and fulfilled the role of a memorial speech.
Japanese children must have been deeply shocked by the unreasonable murder of their country's most important person. On top of that, it is easy to imagine that the members of the Diet who are riding high on the victims and claiming victory will be shocked. As a former prime minister, Mr. Noda deserves praise for at least trying to convey that this is not the case in Japan.
Whether the debate on the ability to attack enemy bases is a matter of propriety, possession is an issue, or start is an issue - possession is an issue.
What is the point of the ability to attack enemy bases
1956 Ichiro Hatoyama
1999 Yoshinari Norota
2003 Shigeru Ishiba
1969 Cabinet decision
The debate over the ability to attack enemy bases has led to confusion in public opinion regarding whether it is permissible to attack enemy bases, whether it is permissible to possess such weapons, and what stage refers to the initiation of an enemy attack. appear. Looking at the government's views so far, it has consistently been stated that the ability to attack enemy bases falls within the scope of defense, and the government has also made clear its views on launching such attacks. The question is whether or not to actually own it.
Issues regarding the ability to attack enemy bases
[Possibility] Is it okay to attack enemy bases (enemy territory)?
[Initiation] What is the initiation of an attack by an enemy country (activation conditions)?
[Holding] When and what to hold
Regarding the ability to attack enemy bases, Prime Minister Ichiro Hatoyama already answered in 1956 that in the event of a missile attack, ``It is inconceivable that the purpose of the Constitution is to sit back and wait for self-destruction.'' Since then, the Japanese government has continued to interpret it as constitutionally permissible.
1956 Ichiro Hatoyama
The purpose of the Constitution is that if an imminent illegal violation is committed against our country, and if a guided missile or other attack is carried out on our land as a means of such violation, we should sit back and wait for our own destruction. I don't think I can think of it that way. In such cases, take the minimum necessary measures to prevent such attacks, for example, as long as it is recognized that there is no other way to defend against attacks by guided missiles, etc. I believe that hitting bases with guided missiles is legally within the scope of self-defense and should be possible.
In 1999, Defense Agency Director General Norota responded that the Self-Defense Forces would use the necessary force if there was a threat of an armed attack.
1999 Yoshinari Norota
In situations that do not result in an armed attack against our country, police agencies are primarily responsible for dealing with the situation, but in cases where the general police force cannot respond, the Self-Defense Forces respond by dispatching public order, and are not responsible for suppressing the situation. It's possible. Then, if a certain situation corresponds to an armed attack against our country or the possibility of such attack, a defense operation is ordered, and the Self-Defense Forces will use the necessary force to defend our country. That's why .
In 2003, regarding the launch of an attack on Japan, Director-General of the Defense Agency Ishiba announced that he would turn Tokyo into a sea of fire, and stated that if Japan began injecting fuel, this would be considered the start.
2003 Shigeru Ishiba
Now, I have a question from the committee members: There has been a statement that Tokyo will be reduced to a sea of fire, that it will be reduced to ashes, and for that purpose, in order to accomplish that, in order to make it come true. If they started injecting fuel or did something like that, then their intentions would be clear. This is a case where someone says, "I'm going to shoot this thing and reduce Tokyo to ashes," and then they just start pumping fuel, or they start making preparations, and they start taking action. Well, if you do that, wouldn't that be called a start?. That's true, because the intention is clear and that's what it is. Therefore, what I am saying is no different from what the Minister of Foreign Affairs is saying.
On February 16, 2022, Defense Minister Nobuo Kishi spoke at a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Budget Committee regarding the "capability to attack enemy bases" that the government is considering possessing. , stated that they would not rule out the option of bombing military bases, and acknowledged that it falls within the scope of self-defense.
As stated above, the government has already stated that the ability to attack enemy bases is within the scope of the right of self-defense. Regarding the next issue, ``retention'', there was a Cabinet decision in 1969.
1969 Cabinet decision
Possessing so-called offensive weapons, whose performance is exclusively used for catastrophic destruction of the enemy country's homeland, immediately goes beyond the minimum necessary range for self-defense. Therefore, it is not allowed under any circumstances. For example, the possession of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), long-range strategic bombers, and attack aircraft carriers is not allowed.
This is the current argument for ``possession'' of the ability to attack enemy bases. In other words, the debate is whether it is a minimal weapon for self-defense or whether it exceeds it.
Since the current government opinion has interpreted it as falling within the scope of the right of self-defense, it does not fall under "offensive weapons used only for catastrophic destruction" and can be interpreted as something that can be possessed. . Until now, the government's position has consistently been that possessing the ability to attack enemy bases is within the scope of the right of self-defense, but it has not actually possessed it and has kept it ambiguous. All that's happening now is an effort to actually own it. Possession of the ability to attack enemy bases has already been deemed constitutional, and the launch of an attack by the enemy has been defined, so it would be unreasonable to now say that we are opposed to actually having the ability to attack enemy bases. The premise of the argument seems to be different.
The cabinet decision defines weapons as those used only for the catastrophic destruction of the enemy's homeland, so it is clear that this does not apply to weapons used within the scope of the right of self-defense.
Who is Japan's first female prime minister candidate?A rival candidate who is being dragged out as an attempt to disperse women's votes.
The moment Makiko Tanaka comes up as the next prime minister, Japanese public opinion feels hopeless. He inherited the position of former Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka, and became popular in the media for his oratory skills, and became the Minister of Foreign Affairs under the Koizumi administration, but his actual political beliefs are unclear and he is no longer just making political jokes. People in the audience began to notice that this was the case, and the audience grew tired of his speech, which was filled with repeated slander against Liberal Democratic Party members.
As a result, she lost the election in Niigata's 5th ward, which was her father's seat, and was not elected even after a proportional restoration. This is a loss for a second-generation lawmaker with experience as prime minister. In other words, she was out of favor with both the Liberal Democratic Party and her local constituency. Personally, I think that she will run as a candidate for the Democratic Party if she thinks it is impossible for her to run for the Liberal Democratic Party, and that it is completely unclear where her political beliefs lie.
It is surprising that the media is once again elevating this person. I wonder if it's the media that's lifting it or the audience that's lifting it. It seems like she could be a candidate for the next president if she talks about politics and money issues in a fun way. In the first place, she probably won't even be able to return to the Liberal Democratic Party. How can she become the president of the Liberal Democratic Party without becoming a member of the Liberal Democratic Party?
Another female member of the Diet who has been nominated is Tokyo Governor Koike. She seems to be working hard to talk to Tokyo Governor Koike about whether or not she will run in the general election, but Mr. Koike seems to have clearly denied her candidacy. In the first place, how will she become a member of the Diet if there is no dissolution before the presidential election, and will she become the president of the Liberal Democratic Party?
Looking at it this way, it appears that what some media outlets are trying to do is divide the vote for a female president. Perhaps it would be better if she were well-known and a woman, but her purpose was to suppress candidate Takaichi. In the ranking of women's politicians who they would like to see become Japan's first female prime minister, Yuriko Koike came first, Makiko Tanaka came second, and Sanae Takaichi came third. The first and second place candidates are not even Liberal Democratic Party members.
Is the Unification Church issue a problem of separation of church and state? - Abnormal public opinion that condemns people just by saying hello.
The problem started with the murder of the former prime minister
There is no law that says no to politicians getting involved in religion
What are the benefits of specific religions from the country
Incoherent media tone
The issue of the Unification Church has become somewhat incomprehensible in Japan. It is said that the mother of the person responsible for the incident in which former Prime Minister Abe was shot and killed was a member of the Unification Church, and that her past misfortunes related to this were the motive behind the incident. Former Prime Minister Abe reportedly gave a speech at the Unification Church. However, this is still just a statement before the trial. I don't even know if that's the real motive.
Politicians are often asked to attend and give speeches at meetings of various organizations. It can also be said that this is part of political activity. Some people refer to the constitutional principle of separation of church and state, but when interpreted as a law that prohibits the state from providing benefits to specific religious groups, it can be interpreted as a law that prohibits individual politicians from drinking alcohol, regardless of which religious group they greet at. It's not something I already know.
Facilitation by the state refers to the provision of advantageous systems and benefits to specific religious groups by law. Even if they say hello at the Unification Church, they will probably also visit Yasukuni Shrine, and if the Dalai Lama of Tibetan Buddhism visits Japan, will the Japanese Prime Minister meet him? He will probably meet the Pope when he visits Japan. Does this violate the principle of separation of church and state? We just met.
The problem with the Unification Church is simply a question of how to regulate large donations to religious organizations that violate public order and morals, as well as forced requests, and is far from an issue of the separation of church and state.
