Why Japan should have the capability to counterattack enemies - this is a good summary of where we are. Let us reflect upon some of the points in it.
1. Vocabulary. This isn’t a trifling matter and not one of the kind of ‘special cars’ used for tank. https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Comment/Why-Japan-should-have-the-capability-to-counterattack-enemies

The idea of talking of ‘counterattack capabilities’ matters because it is indicative of a doctrine that may be tactically aimed at pre-emotion in some conditions, but remain firmly engrained in an overall operationally defensive posture. This will drive the discussion on cap.;

2. Relativity. The article rightly points out that how GoJ will make its choice largely depends on the regional security context. NE ASIA is heavy on missiles. Things can actually go bang.
3. Tactical issue. This capability shows the debate has moved on.

MD and counter strike are no longer a strategic capability. In particular counter strike has gained tactical prominence. Expect Japan to build, buy, and integrated lots of T-Lam equivalent stuff. I’m still very keen on sub delivery more than air strike. Stealthy and precise;

4. The second - more limited option - would seem a natural fit for a country that likes convoluted solutions. Personally, once you’re in that business you go all in. Still, the the second option has the advantage of plugging JPN in the US mil plan system. A Nato for two.

5. The only truly strange concept is how GoJ would be pursuing the one capability requiring full gov responsibility and would do so fully integrating it into the US strike umbrella. That somewhat invalidates all my previous points, and increase dependency. But I’ll reflect more.

6. Basically from the shield and the spear the idea is to go to a shield with a spear - when the US let you use it.