Inconsistent policy on the national security

Our government would renew ABM to guard our country, as they say. The former model of ABM, that is, PAC3 has turned out not to be effective  enough. It would cost more than one trillion USD. Since the treaty to ban development of ABM has been abandoned, there have been the endless expansion of armaments going on in the world. Our government would take the side of armament industries.

The reason why our government should introduce the new model of PAC3, as the former Minister of Self Defence, Shigeru Ishiba said, is that we should deal with the missles of north Korea attacking the US Military Base in Guam Island. If the Military base in Guam most likelily equipped with the same ABM is so fragile against North Korean missiles, how could the same system in Japan deal with them?

Another point is that North Korea would attack with their missles to the nuclear power plants in our country, most of which are placed along the Japan Sea facing to North Korea before attacking to the US. PAC3 has not been placed at the nuclear power plants here. If North Korea should start attacking the US, it means they were committing suicide lost common sense. It is most probable such a country could raid the nuclear power plants in our country at first. One of two missiles are good enough to collapse our country if the target is nuclear power plant in operation. Yes, despite of the hypothesizing the attack by North Korea with missiles as a real possibility, our government is going to restart some of the nuclear power plants. We haven't heard of the security policy for them at all. Isn't it an inconsistent policy?

No comments:

Post a Comment