This has turned out to be a controversial post. The bolded question, taken out of context, is one I'd like to walk back. Now I will substitute/edit "more aggressive military policy" for the term "nuclear war".
The situation is not entirely without hope.
Taken out of context? To the press reporting that Japan would shoot down a rocket that would strike her, you posted that Japan was potentially initiating a
new nuclear war. I guess your message to us here is "take it like a man, this won't hurt a bit compared to the Tsunami?"
I also noticed that you said that we are initiating the "new" nuclear war, as if we don't let it hit us, this is actually our second time initiating a nuclear war? Very interesting.
Well, I still don't see how it's "more aggressive military policy", and I'm not sure why you are caught up on portraying Japan as one of the aggressors. Where have they changed anything in their rules of engagement? Again, if the plan is to
shoot down anything that may hit Japan, this is the same old order, same old policy.
What would United States do if a foe still stuck in the Cold War, located just few hundred miles across the water, have threatened to burn your country down numerous times, they start launching rockets into one of the coastal waters of United States? Actually launch one right over the U.S. from the east coast to the west, or maybe the west to east? And when it looks like one of them have a good chance of striking Seattle, do you go "Take it like a man, Americans?". Would U.S. be "initiating" anything if they fired Patriot missile at the thing before they hit your house?
I still don't begin to understand how one would rebuke a military action that is absolutely defensive. I wish my country was the U.S., because IMO, U.S. would shoot that rocket down. Then in the same week, they would be going Israeli on Kim Jong-un.
), and from a country that have threatened to destroy Japan before(think Iran/Israel). 
.
