It is a problem if an enemy can use your gray area to nuke you:
Japan’s self-defense-only principle under the country’s war-renouncing constitution prohibits its military from making a first strike, and officials discussing a limited pre-emptive strike are calling it a “strike-back” instead. Whichever the language, it further loosens postwar Japan’s pacifist principle and could strain its relations with China, which is suspicious of Tokyo’s intentions. There are gray areas as to how far Japan can go and still justify minimum self-defense.
But if Japan really doesn't want to strike first, I think there might be an alternative that will let Japan shoot down a missile on launch:
F-35s could probably shoot down North Korean nuclear missiles as they are launched and the North Koreans would never know the planes are there.
Japan is getting the F-35. Could Japan avoid the problems of launching missiles at North Korean missiles sites before they fire by instead flying stealth planes over missile launching sites suspected of preparing to launch?
I know the logistics of doing this means you can't do this 24/7/365. But with a warning, during a crisis couldn't Japan put up stealth planes that North Korea can't detect and fire either air-to-air missiles at the ballistic missiles going up and bombs on the launch sites?
Wouldn't that sequence satisfy Japan's constitution and effectively allow a sort-of preemptive strike?
In the long run, high endurance stealth drones would be the way to go in order to maintain more coverage outside of a crisis.
Surely a pacifist constitution doesn't prohibit you from stealthily flying into a potential enemy's air space just in case they shoot, with no intention of shooting first. Right?
NOTE: In a pre-publication update, note this article on Japan's defense role in Asia. The Army may not think much about Japan issues, but the Army doesn't think much about Asia issues, really, outside of South Korea.
