Japan's military power is restricted in Article 9 of the Constitution, and the government's interpretation must be the minimum necessary for self -defense.For this reason, the holding of "aggressive weapons" is prohibited, but the drawing is ambiguous, and there are three specific examples, but not all.
The interpretation is in the interpretation that the government was deliberately muddy and did not specify.
上記の政府見解「相手国国土の壊滅的な破壊のためにのみ用いられる攻撃的兵器の保有は許されない」は一つの文として意味を成します。つまり「攻撃的兵器」だけでは意味が通らないのです。そして前置きである「壊滅的な破壊のためにのみ用いられる」という異様なまでに苛烈な表現が意味するところは一つしかありません。
It is a nuclear weapon.The three specific examples are the means of transporting nuclear weapons.
Under the restrictions of Article 9 of the Constitution, "prohibiting nuclear weapons that attack the other country and the possession of transportation means", but "nuclear weapons that detonate in Japan are constitutional as self -defense for defense for defense."Therefore, he did not list nuclear weapons as specific examples of aggressive weapons that could not be held by the Constitution.I can guess this is the true meaning of government interpretation.
The idea of a nuclear weapon for intercepted in Japan was the NATO -type nuclear weapon sharing itself, and at the time of the Cold War it was temporarily considered in Switzerland and Sweden other than NATO, and it was not ridiculous.[Reference] Misunderstanding and illusion of nuclear weapons sharing
And there are actually two movements that support this.Consideration to hold Japan a nuclear force for self -defense was present as different movements in the late 1950s and late 1960s during the Cold War.
The NATO -style nuclear weapon sharing concept in the late 1950s attacks the Soviet ground ground unit that has invaded landing in Japan with a nuclear rocket "Onest John".Onest John's range is short and cannot be aimed at distant enemy countries.
The introduction of ABM to Japan in the late 1960s is a nuclear warhead -type ballistic interceptor that was nominally targeted by China, which had just armed nuclear weapons (although the actual target was the Soviet Union)This is a NATO nuclear weapon sharing concept.The United States ABM (Nike Zeus, Sprint) was not provided to other countries as a result, but in the past, the nuclear anti -aircraft missile "Bomark" and the nuclear -air rocket bullets "Jinny" in the past.It has been deployed by the Canadian army.This is the invasion of enemy aircraft into its own territory, and it intercepts just before it, and the enemy country cannot attack.
In other words, in the government response in 1978, "nuclear weapons for the minimum necessary self -defense could exist" was based on the above two movements, and Japan may adopt nuclear weapons sharing in the future.You can see the intention of leaving the buds of.The fact that we did not specifically explain the "nuclear weapons for interceptors that detonated in Japan" was to avoid explaining to the people before starting a concrete plan as a specific plan.I guess.
And the government's response, "It is not allowed to hold aggressive weapons used only for the catastrophic destruction of the other country's land," is the meaning of a nuclear weapon for the opponent's attack, which is for intercept.If a nuclear weapon is true, constitutional is true, there is no restriction on normal weapons in the interpretation of successive governments.However, excluding dedicated means of transporting nuclear weapons to the other country.
In this way, the Japanese government did not want to list nuclear weapons specifically to the country of the other country because the Japanese government said, "It is not allowed to hold aggressive weapons used only for the catastrophic destruction of the partner country."I decided to list only three types.
Among these three types, ICBM and strategic bombers are easy to understand if they are for nuclear attacks, but aircraft carriers are often used for normal attacks, so they have a weak impression of nuclear attacks and feel a little out of place.This is probably because nuclear bombs were unable to miniaturize and could only prepare large ones, and only large aircraft carriers could operate large aircraft, which had to be a large aircraft that could operate on the ship with aircraft carriers.Did you drag the way of thinking when you didn't have the attack ability?
The U.S. Navy divided the aircraft carrier in 1952 into an attack aircraft carrier (CVA) and anti -submarine carrier (CVS).The attack -type aircraft carrier in the past of the Japanese government is an expression that is conscious of this attack aircraft carrier, and it would have been constitutional even if the anti -submarine carrier was owned.The A-2 Savage, a large ship's nucleus attack aircraft at that time, is not installed in anti-submarine aircraft carriers.
The U.S. Navy attack aircraft carrier started operating the A-3 Skywarrior in 1956, and launched the A-5 Vidiulanti in 1961.However, the miniaturization of nuclear bombs has progressed rapidly, and nuclear bombs that can be mounted on the A-4 Skyhawk, a small ship attack aircraft that can be operated by anti-submarine aircraft carriers, have already appeared at this time.The A-5 Vidulanti was solved in nuclear attack missions in 1967.If you want to attack the deep back of the enemy country, you can use submarine -fired ballistic missiles, and if you want to aim for a close distance, a small nuclear bomb mounted on a small ship is fine.In 1975, the classification of attack aircraft carriers (CVA) and anti -submarine aircraft carriers (CVS) was gone.
Attack carrier = nuclear attack aircraft carrier has already collapsed around 1960.However, it is speculated that the Japanese government did not change this idea even after the 1970s.It is considered that the Secretary of Defense Agency, Secretary of the Defense Agency (at that time) did not have an "aggressive aircraft carrier" at the 1970 House of Representatives Cabinet Committee, was considered as it was.