*Sources: DTN News / Reuters By Kiyoshi Takenaka
(NSI News Source Info) TOKYO, Japan - June 22, 2009: A draft of Japan's new mid-term defense policy guidelines is calling for the reinforcement of military personn
el and equipment in the face of growing regional tensions, Kyodo news agency said.
The draft, obtained by Kyodo, says Japan needs to reverse its policy of reducing its defense budgets in light of North Korea's missile launches and nuclear tests, as well as China's rise to a major military power, the news agency said.
The document urges the government to raise the number of Ground Self-Defense Forces troops by 5,000 to 160,000, Kyodo said.
The new National Defense Program Guidelines, covering five years to March 2015, are scheduled to be adopted by the government by the end of the year.
The draft also says there is a need to "secure options responsive to changing situations" of international security, indicating Tokyo's intention of considering if it should be capable of striking enemy bases, Kyodo said.
Japan's pacifist constitution has been interpreted as allowing a military only for self-defense and some experts say a pre-emptive strike doctrine would stretch that too far.
el and equipment in the face of growing regional tensions, Kyodo news agency said.
The draft, obtained by Kyodo, says Japan needs to reverse its policy of reducing its defense budgets in light of North Korea's missile launches and nuclear tests, as well as China's rise to a major military power, the news agency said.
The document urges the government to raise the number of Ground Self-Defense Forces troops by 5,000 to 160,000, Kyodo said.
The new National Defense Program Guidelines, covering five years to March 2015, are scheduled to be adopted by the government by the end of the year.
The draft also says there is a need to "secure options responsive to changing situations" of international security, indicating Tokyo's intention of considering if it should be capable of striking enemy bases, Kyodo said.
Japan's pacifist constitution has been interpreted as allowing a military only for self-defense and some experts say a pre-emptive strike doctrine would stretch that too far. 
No comments:
Post a Comment