Japan Rises to its Defense, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government continues its examination of the military threats facing Japan.

RUSSIA

James D.J. Brown, writing for the National Interest reports that “Between June 19 and 21, 2018, Russia conducted missile-firing drills on Iturup, one of the four disputed Southern Kuril islands that are claimed by Japan as its Northern Territories…In the last fiscal year, Japan scrambled jets 390 times to intercept approaching Russian aircraft. This figure was up by eighty-nine from fiscal 2016 and was only exceeded by the 500 scrambles provoked by China. Russia’s military presence on the Kuril chain, which Japan controlled until 1945, has also increased. In November 2016, just ahead of President Putin’s visit to Japan, Russia announced the deployment of new anti-ship missiles to Iturup and Kunashir. At the start of 2018, Moscow ruled that combat jets could be deployed to Iturup. Construction is also beginning on a naval facility on Matua in the Northern Kurils, at the site of an old Japanese base.

This is how the Japanese government summarizes the threat from Russia:

President Putin, who has called for Russia to become a strong and influential nation, was re-elected in March 2018. With regards to Russia’s future, he emphasized to further bolster its defense capability, while stating his commitment to pursue constructive relations with other countries without the intention of starting an arms race. With regards to Europe, Russia is negative about the expansion of NATO, and has deployed three divisions near the border with Ukraine etc, and conducted the large-scale training exercise Zapad-2017 in September last year. As for Syria, Russia announced naval and air bases in Syria will continue to operate on a permanent basis. Attention will continue to be paid to Russia’s moves to expand its influence in the Middle East. In the Far East, Russia has been developing its newest class of frigate (Steregushchiy class) and fighter jets (Su-35 and Su-34). In 2018, Russia also plans on holding a large-scale military exercise called Vostok-2018. Russia announced deployment of surface-to-ship missiles in the Northern Territories (Etorofu and Kunashiri islands), and it is also intensifying activities in Etorofu island, including designation of a civilian airport to both civilian and military use and deployment of fighters. Russia tends to increase its military activities, including in areas near Japan, and it is necessary to closely observe this trend.

NORTH KOREA

This is how the Japanese government summarizes the threat from North Korea:
To save money on your hair care drugs, make discount priced viagra sure you talk to your doctor about your condition. cheap viagra no prescription It contains hypertension, heart failure, hyperlipidaemial and so on. Confidentiality is important to the field of psychology purchase generic viagra http://deeprootsmag.org/2014/10/27/empress-forgotten-paths-russian-song/ because it is related to trust, openness and professionalism. A third model consist of balloon-like cylinders buy viagra prescription implanted in the corpora cavernosa – erectile parts of the penis.
“Since 2016, North Korea has willfully conducted three nuclear tests and launched as many as 40 ballistic missiles. These military trends in North Korea pose an unprecedentedly serious and imminent threat to Japan’s security, and significantly damage the peace and security of the region and the international community.

“In the joint declaration at the first-ever U.S.-North Korea Summit Meeting in June 2018, North Korea gave a commitment to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and confirmed that it plans to continue the negotiations between the two sides. It is highly significant that Chairman Kim Jong-un reiterated his intension for the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and made a clear promise to do so in a written document. It is important to closely monitor specific actions by North Korea to eliminate nuclear and missile capabilities. Taking into consideration the fact that North Korea appears to possess and deploy several hundred Nodong missiles capable of reaching almost every part of Japan as well as advancements in the development and operational capabilities of nuclear weapons and missiles through repeated nuclear tests and ballistic missile launches to date, there is no change in our basic recognition concerning the threat of North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missiles. 1 2 3 4 North Korea willfully conducted its sixth nuclear test in September 2017. The yield of the weapon is estimated at around 160kt, making it the largest yielding test to date. It is difficult to deny the possibility that it was a hydrogen bomb test.

Considering the technological maturity estimated to have been achieved through these six nuclear tests, it is possible that North Korea has already achieved the miniaturization of nuclear weapons and has developed nuclear warheads so that nuclear weapons can be loaded into ballistic missiles. As for whether North Korea has demonstrated warhead reentry technologies, while detailed analysis is necessary, North Korea can be accumulating related technologies through its repeated missile launches. North Korea is suspected to have several facilities capable of producing chemical agents and already a substantial stockpile of such agents. North Korea is also thought to have some infrastructure for the production of biological weapons. The possibility cannot be denied that North Korea is able to load biological and/or chemical weapons on ballistic missiles. … In terms of ballistic missiles, North Korea appears to be aiming to (1) advance long-range ballistic missiles’ technological reliability, (2) enhance the accuracy and operational capabilities necessary for saturation attacks, (3) improve its ability to conduct surprise attacks, and (4) diversify the forms of launches. If North Korea advances further in development of ballistic missiles and other activities and overconfidently and wrongly believes that it has obtained strategic deterrence against the United States, there is possibility of increased and more serious military provocations in the region and could lead to circumstances that raise strong concerns for Japan.”

The Report Concludes Monday

Photo: Japanese Forces engage in disaster relief (JSDF photo)

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]