Japan to Rearm?

[Footslogger]

Could a war between Japan and China happen in the near future?

Read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25411653

[DuckofTindalos]

You sure do post a lot of OT stuff, huh?

[mind_messing]

1. The thread title is wrong. Japan is not rearming, Japan has been re-armed for some time now.

2. My god, seven warships, thirty-five aircraft and enough amphibious vehicles to furnish a battalion! It's like Japan plans to invade China all over again!

[Footslogger]

I thought Japan wasn't suppost to have aircraft carriers? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqi9iIi3x2g

[dr.hal]

If one were to take their constitution literally they are not suppose to have and do a lot of things.... I think a dust up between Japan and Chine north of Formosa is not out of the question given the growing value of the seas in that area and the growing strength of China's navy (and its Russian built aircraft carriers!).

[Footslogger]

Here's another clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0BJ_r-RZyM

A secret weapons program with nuclear enrichment!!! [X(]

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

Here's another clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0BJ_r-RZyM

A secret weapons program with nuclear enrichment!!! [X(]

A word of advice, spend less time on YouTube. Quality journalism it is not.

[Bo Rearguard]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

Here's another clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0BJ_r-RZyM

A secret weapons program with nuclear enrichment!!! [X(]

A word of advice, spend less time on YouTube. Quality journalism it is not.

I beg to differ. If it were not for YouTube I wouldn't know all about the Illumanti, chemtrails, Hitler living in Antarctica and Saddam Hussien's Stargate Machine.

The Truth is way out there. [:D]

[Footslogger]

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/japan/nuke/

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

Could a war between Japan and China happen in the near future? ...

I doubt that war would be just with Japan after China abruptly declared a new "no fly" zone that many nations have deliberately violated.

[Lecivius]

Agreed. The one constant in this world is change. China has been quietly turning itself into a major player. The U.S. has been declining for some time (not to go into that). Even Japan has stated that the United States cannot be depended upon to defend Japanese interests. And anyone with any real knowledge of that region knows that China is not even slightly afraid to do whatever they feel is in their best interests.

Shooting is a real possibility. War, however, is obsolete.

[dr.hal]

I could envision a confrontation more along the lines of the "Cod Wars" that happened between Iceland and the United Kingdom in the mid 70s. Also what the US and Japan are currently doing is exactly what is needed to be done, purposely violating the claim by China. In International Law there is the concept of "persistent objection" in that a claim will become a "fact" of international law over time (how much time is needed has never been established) unless objected to. The US has traditionally sent warships into the Black Sea at least once a year for no other reason that to counter the old Soviet claim that only warships from countries with a shoreline on the Black Sea would be allowed to have warships with access to that sea. The US also crossed the "Line of Death" that Gaddafi claimed off of Libya across the Gulf of Sidra (were the US shot down some Libyan MIGs if you will recall). The claim was in violation of traditional International Law concerning the definition of territorial waters in a bay or indentation of a shoreline. That's why the US is purposely flying B-52s into the seas south of Japan in defiance of the Chinese claim. To establish an objection in fact over the claim by China. All of this is a big huge expensive chess game!

[catwhoorg]

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

I thought Japan wasn't suppost to have aircraft carriers? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqi9iIi3x2g

Its a ASW destroyer.
Helicopters only, nothing to see here.

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

I could envision a confrontation more along the lines of the "Cod Wars" that happened between Iceland and the United Kingdom in the mid 70s. Also what the US and Japan are currently doing is exactly what is needed to be done, purposely violating the claim by China. In International Law there is the concept of "persistent objection" in that a claim will become a "fact" of international law over time (how much time is needed has never been established) unless objected to. The US has traditionally sent warships into the Black Sea at least once a year for no other reason that to counter the old Soviet claim that only warships from countries with a shoreline on the Black Sea would be allowed to have warships with access to that sea. The US also crossed the "Line of Death" that Gaddafi claimed off of Libya across the Gulf of Sidra (were the US shot down some Libyan MIGs if you will recall). The claim was in violation of traditional International Law concerning the definition of territorial waters in a bay or indentation of a shoreline. That's why the US is purposely flying B-52s into the seas south of Japan in defiance of the Chinese claim. To establish an objection in fact over the claim by China. All of this is a big huge expensive chess game!

dr. hal,

Freedom of navigation has been a long standing policy among all administrations. We do it, and we should do it. However, I am as concerned with our own Government's intentions as much as with China's. Given current polling numbers on a host of issues, my main concern is a "Gulf of Tonkin" style event to wag the dog.

Regards,
Feltan

[dr.hal]

Thanks Feltan, I'll admit I never even thought of that possibility. I would like to think that our increased access to or ability to obtain various point of view due to a plethora of information out there would adversely impact the ability of a government to create a "Tonkin" style enlargement of a threat. It should be far more difficult in today's information age than it was in the "dark" ages of the early 60s, but it is certainly something to consider. Certainly governments attempt to manipulate information to their own purposes.... I doubt that such a need will ever change, just an ability to execute it. Hal

[spence]

I could envision a confrontation more along the lines of the "Cod Wars" that happened between Iceland and the United Kingdom in the mid 70s. Also what the US and Japan are currently doing is exactly what is needed to be done, purposely violating the claim by China. In International Law there is the concept of "persistent objection" in that a claim will become a "fact" of international law over time (how much time is needed has never been established) unless objected to. The US has traditionally sent warships into the Black Sea at least once a year for no other reason that to counter the old Soviet claim that only warships from countries with a shoreline on the Black Sea would be allowed to have warships with access to that sea. The US also crossed the "Line of Death" that Gaddafi claimed off of Libya across the Gulf of Sidra (were the US shot down some Libyan MIGs if you will recall). The claim was in violation of traditional International Law concerning the definition of territorial waters in a bay or indentation of a shoreline. That's why the US is purposely flying B-52s into the seas south of Japan in defiance of the Chinese claim. To establish an objection in fact over the claim by China. All of this is a big huge expensive chess game!

Such actions are surely not without risk. Cuba claims a 13 mile Territorial Sea. The US recognizes a 3 mile Territorial Sea and out to 12 miles as a Customs Zone (where the claiming state can enforce its customs laws). So the USN routinely sends a warship to a position 12.00001 miles off the Cuban coast to thumb its nose at the Cubans. Might more or less makes right. Might is a relative thing though. In the 80's when Cuba and the Bahamas had a dispute over some fishing grounds between the two countries Cuba sent a pair of MiGs to blow the Bahamian Patrol Boat Flamingo out of the water.

A misjudgement of relative might by one side or the other could definitely lead down a very slippery slope.

[John 3rd]

I think Japan MUST rearm. They cannot depend on the USA at this moment in time.

Good looking ship and fine named class (Hyuga) of vessel. Does anyone know how many more are being built? Does the ship have VTOL ability? Don't know if the Japanese have a version of a Harrier but that could be a fine addition to this warship.

[dr.hal]

There is a very real divide within Japan about rearming. And it is not really along "ethical" lines as we in America so often think of. Yes there are those that still see Japan as the aggressor (especially outside of Japan in other areas of Asia) and think that a "pacifist" approach to international relations is the best way to go, but the divide for most WITHIN Japan is really based upon economics. It costs money to create, build and maintain an advanced military. Many within the government and industry simply don't want the expense. Even with a growing China, the real question is "power projection" capability and China has very little even across her own land boarders let alone to Taiwan and even further to Japan. So the skeptics say "why invest all that money?" They have a winning argument in that Japan has not really invested as much as it certainly is capable of doing. I think if the US states a claim like the UK did in 1970 which was "withdrawal from East of the Suez" along the lines of "Withdrawal from West of Guam" then the dynamics would change, but Japan has assessed the likelihood of such a statement as being close to "nil" and I believe they are right.

[tocaff]

If there is one country in the world that really is under the shield of the US, it's Canada. I believe that any other country had better look after itself because even if the US does come to your aid it's not going to be for the long term.

[CT Grognard]

China is faced by massive geopolitical issues.

They really cannot afford a war.

The best they can do at the moment is rattle the sabre.

Do you think China is able to exist independent of other countries?