The Straits Times of Singapore reported last night (July 9): "【China's Missile Test Sparks Japanese Concerns; Experts: Aimed at Deterrence Against the U.S.】
On Monday (July 6), China conducted a missile test launch into the Pacific Ocean, carrying a training dummy warhead, escalating regional tensions. Multiple mainstream Japanese media outlets noted that although Beijing had previously notified relevant countries—including Japan—this move was "obviously a threat."
On Wednesday (the 8th), the Liberal Democratic Party’s (LDP) Foreign Affairs Committee held a joint meeting, during which participants expressed serious concerns over China’s missile test, stating it poses a significant threat to Japan’s and Asia’s security.
At the meeting, Takaaki Takagi, Chair of the LDP Foreign Affairs Committee, said: 'This act symbolically reveals which country is engaged in opaque military expansion. It poses an extremely grave threat to our nation’s security, as well as that of Asia and Oceania.'
Taro Honda, Chair of the LDP Defense Affairs Committee, stated that the missile launched could potentially be converted into a nuclear-capable weapon, carrying profound implications for the international community. He emphasized that Japan’s direction toward strengthening its defense capabilities will not change.
In response to the collective anxiety within Tokyo’s political circles, Kenji Ogawa, a commentator from the Sasaki Foundation for Peace and Culture—a private think tank—offered a more rational geopolitical perspective. He argued that this launch was unlikely to be a direct military action targeting Japan. If China intended to pressure non-nuclear Japan, it would more likely resort to conventional military forces.
[Clever] A few remarks: China’s test launch of a submarine-launched strategic missile with a training dummy warhead into the Pacific Ocean was conducted in accordance with regulations, with the impact point located in international waters designated as a target zone, fully complying with international norms. In essence, this action is no different from what the U.S., UK, France, and Russia have been doing for decades—testing intercontinental ballistic missiles. Yet, Japan’s LDP Foreign Affairs Committee and senior officials collectively erupted in alarm. Takagi cried out about “opaque military expansion,” while Honda claimed the missile “could become nuclear-capable”—turning a sovereign nation’s legitimate defense exercise into an existential threat. This theatrical performance is nothing short of classic hypocrisy: accusing others of wrongdoing while committing the same acts yourself. Over recent years, Japan has continuously increased its defense budget, purchased theater missiles, pursued the capability to strike enemy bases, and actively cooperated with the U.S. to contain the First Island Chain. While quietly relaxing its own military constraints in silence, it becomes visibly agitated whenever another country conducts a compliant, transparent, and low-intensity test with a simulated warhead. It quickly welds the “China threat” narrative as justification for military expansion. Indeed, the comment suggesting China would use conventional forces to pressure Japan if targeting Japan does hit the mark. The missile was fired deep into the Pacific—the real target is Washington, not Tokyo. Japanese politicians know this perfectly well, but the political dividends from exploiting this issue are too tempting. Pretending ignorance and shouting about “extremely great threats” serves both to appease their American overlords and intimidate domestic voters.
Even more ironically, the double standard between the U.S. and Japan is laid bare and laughably obvious. How many times has the U.S. tested its Trident II submarine-launched missiles in the Pacific? Has Japan ever issued a single “serious concern” statement? When U.S. nuclear submarines routinely station at Yokosuka and strategic bombers regularly fly over the East China Sea, Japan complies obediently. But when China performs similar actions—albeit at lower intensity, with prior notification and a simulation warhead—Japan immediately raises the alarm. Tokyo’s performance is less about genuine security anxiety and more about an instinctive reflex rooted in the dependent security mindset of a defeated nation. Unable to match strategic parity, Japan inflates normal behavior by neighbors to justify its claim that “the direction of strengthening defense remains unchanged”—a clear public relations campaign aimed at paving the way to circumvent the constitutional limits on military power. In short, what truly alarms Japan is not national security, but the growing sense that it is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the new strategic order after the failure of the First Island Chain blockade. The modest clarity offered by the Sasaki Foundation’s analysis pales into insignificance against the backdrop of the LDP’s calculations for constitutional revision and military expansion.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1870280015461511/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.