Zero Time Difference: What Japan's Acceleration of "Defensive to Offensive" Deployment of Remote Missiles Means

On March 31, the Japanese Ministry of Defense deployed the "Type 25 Anti-Ship Missile" and the "Type 25 High-Speed Glide Bomb" at the Ground Self-Defense Force bases in Kumamoto City and Shizuoka Prefecture, respectively. The "Type 25 Anti-Ship Missile" has a range of approximately 1,000 kilometers, far exceeding Japan's territorial limits, and possesses significant offensive capabilities.

Under the guise of "defense" and "counterattack," the first deployment of long-range missiles with "capabilities to attack enemy bases" goes far beyond the scope of "self-defense" and "exclusive defense." Even Japanese media have commented that this move marks a shift in Japan's defense policy, which has adhered to the principle of "exclusive defense."

The principle of "exclusive defense" emphasizes that counterattacks should only occur when the homeland is under attack, and that Japan will never initiate an offensive. This is both a self-imposed safeguard to avoid repeating the mistakes of militarism and a constraint imposed on Japan by the post-war international order as a defeated nation.

Now, in the context of amplifying "security threats," Japan has presented a logic for exercising "capabilities to attack enemy bases": "If it is determined that the enemy has begun an attack, a preemptive strike can be made." The question is, who defines what constitutes "the enemy has begun an attack"?

When "subjective judgment" becomes the basis for opening fire, the risks become uncontrollable.

If Japan misjudges, it could constitute a preemptive attack, easily leading to regional conflict, which is prohibited by international law. It is also worth noting that historically, Japan has not infrequently made "misjudgments" to fabricate unfounded reasons for launching attacks. Therefore, one cannot help but suspect that Japan's current operational methods are setting up a "smoke and mirrors" tactic for future "preemptive" military actions.

Domestically, the dangerous practices of the Kishida administration have also sparked significant opposition. According to Japanese media reports, local residents held protest rallies in front of the Ground Self-Defense Force bases in Kengun and Fuji, fearing that the missile deployments would make their areas targets for strikes, demanding the withdrawal of the missile deployments. These residents have stated that they have been calling for the Ministry of Defense to hold an explanatory meeting regarding the missile deployments, but the Ministry has yet to do so.

The larger impact is at the regional level. Japan's shift from defense to offense in its security policy essentially aims to abandon post-war peace commitments, break the post-war order, and break military constraints, returning to the old path of military threats and expansion. Against the backdrop of Japan's aggressive actions leading to difficulties in its relations with neighboring countries, Japan's renewed "thief shouting to catch a thief" tactics in the security field will undoubtedly pose significant risks to regional stability.

The lessons of history are not far away. Any attempt to betray history and revive militarism will inevitably meet with resolute opposition from regional countries and the international community. As a defeated nation in World War II, Japan should recognize the prevailing trends, abandon fantasies of military adventurism, cease military expansion, adhere to the spirit of the peace constitution and international legal norms, maintain a baseline of peace, and fulfill its international obligations, taking concrete actions to respect the security concerns of its Asian neighbors.

(The author is a researcher at the Japan Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)