Following Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s assertion that Chinese military action against Taiwan could trigger an “existential crisis” for Japan, a Beijing-controlled media outlet issued a stark commentary on November 25, 2025, warning global observers not to dismiss the possibility of Japan launching a pre-emptive military strike against China. The article, published by Beijing Time under the Beijing Radio and Television Station umbrella, sharply escalated tension in Sino-Japanese relations by analyzing historical Japanese military doctrine and national characteristics to suggest a deep-seated predisposition toward surprise attacks, fueling regional anxiety over the strategic status of the Taiwan Strait.
Analyzing Japan’s Strategic Calculus
The extensive commentary, headlined “Four reasons Japan so often resorts to surprise attacks,” analyzed historical precedents to build its case, citing instances where Japan initiated conflict with significantly larger adversaries without formal declaration, including the First Sino-Japanese War, the Battle of Port Arthur, the Mukden Incident, the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, and the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The analysis presented four core rationales underpinning what it characterized as Japan’s enduring strategic culture of pre-emption:
1. Environmental Fatalism: The commentary suggested that elements of the Japanese national character, shaped by life on isolated islands constantly threatened by natural disasters—volcanoes, earthquakes, and tsunamis—foster a potentially fatalistic mindset that favors decisive, immediate action over protracted attrition.
2. Resource Scarcity and Strategic Depth: Given Japan’s limited resources and small strategic landmass, the article argued that meticulously planned, high-stakes strikes aimed at securing swift victories are prioritized to avoid drawn-out conflicts that Japan cannot sustain.
3. Doctrinal Pre-emption: Tokyo’s strategic culture, it claimed, is fundamentally centered on pre-emption and the decisive concentration of force. The piece specifically cited the 1901 Naval Operations Manual as a historical doctrinal foundation still influencing modern Japanese naval tactics.
4. Diminished U.S. Security Value: The commentary assessed that Japan’s post-war security hinges on proximity to the First Island Chain strategic defense line. Should Taiwan “reunify” with China, the analysis posited, Japan’s strategic value to the United States would drastically diminish. Prime Minister Takaichi’s firm stance on Taiwan was thus interpreted not as a genuine security concern but as an effort to bind the U.S. closer, motivated by anxiety over being strategically sidelined.
Beijing Dismisses Conventional Threat
While warning against Japan’s surprise attack potential, Beijing Time simultaneously asserted that China holds overwhelming military superiority. The article claimed that China’s conventional military force alone would be sufficient to prevail against Japan “several times over,” arguing that a change in China’s established nuclear policy remains unnecessary given the marked inferiority of its opponent.
In a demonstrated act of resolve, China’s embassy in Japan has reportedly utilized social media to invoke the little-used “enemy state clause.” Furthermore, a formal letter was simultaneously dispatched to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, asserting China’s self-defense rights under the UN Charter and international law, with the communication circulated to all UN member states.
This highly unusual exchange, marked by the invocation of historical conflict patterns and direct appeals to the international governing body, signals a critical inflection point in the geopolitical maneuvering surrounding the future of the Taiwan Strait, underscoring the deep mutual distrust informing the security calculations of both East Asian powers.