Japan's Military 'Needs Marines and Drones' 159
arisvega writes "The State of Japan is apparently seeking 'Deter and Respond' military capabilities, perhaps as an artifact from being 'embroiled in a bitter row over islands with China' and being 'deeply concerned by North Korea's nuclear ambitions,' as reported by the BBC. Since the end of WW II, under Article 9 of its post-war constitution, Japan is blocked from the use of force to resolve conflicts except in the case of self-defence. Now, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is looking to expand the scope of Japanese military activities — potentially a highly controversial move that would anger its neighbours. The post-war constitution was of course put in place by the then victorious west, who would now have an interest to fully back up this move: though Japanese officials claim that any new upgrades will not be used for preemptive strikes, the result will be arms and battalions installed close to The People's Republic of China, The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and The Russian Federation. It will be interesting to track how this plays out."
It will be interesting to track how this plays out (Score:1)
As always, follow de Monet...
Re:It will be interesting to track how this plays (Score:5, Insightful)
As always, follow de Monet...
It will be interesting to track how this plays out ... unless you happen to live in a country or belong to a race that the Chinese think have historically wronged China, or a race that the Chinese see as being inferior, in which case it could be scary to see Chinese attitudes of resentful nationalism closely tracking those of Japan and Germany prior to WW II.
Re: (Score:2)
Hong Kong and Macau would like to have a chat with you.
Along with these other places [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Ancient Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Components made in Philippines, Vietnam and Laos.
A bit like any pro/consumer* camera but new Warlord friendly prices.
*autoland is extra
Good news for us, I suspect... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless Abe has some unwisely-published rantings about the reestablishment of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere stashed in his closet somewhere, this seems like the sort of 'controversial' that will lead to grumblings and not a whole lot else.
It's not as though any of Japan's neighbors are necessarily going to like it; but nation-states maintaining armed forces, even potentially threatening ones, is sufficiently universal that there isn't exactly any complaints department who would take you seriously. "Dear the UN, I think Japan may be deciding to maintain a military larger than the one that the Americans let them keep after fighting a particularly nasty war with them, that's mean!"
It also wouldn't be a total surprise if some of the Japanese increase is aimed specifically at replacing the (never entirely popular) American bases in the area, which would leave the total amount of force roughly constant, just changing the label (and hopefully saviing the US some cash).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Japan already pays the cost of the US bases. (Ignoring the hidden costs) it won't effect the US bottom line very much. Having a superpower in the region is a good way to deter another superpower though, so I doubt that the US will be leaving Japan (but even if they did, there would still be S. Korea and Taiwan to deter China and Russia from enforcing their territorial claims).
Russia have no territorial claims to Japan, on contrary Japan have claims on some of islands that is currently a Russian territory.
Re: (Score:1)
Russia have no territorial claims to Japan, on contrary Japan have claims on some of islands that is currently a Russian territory.
Japanese claim Russian islands, Russian claim to Japanese islands, it works out to the same thing. In a regular situation, after diplomatic breakdown, there would be war. Which side is in the right (you claiming that Russia is correct), is irrelevant. Having the US back Japan greatly deters the idea of a real, actual shooting war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Japanese claim Russian islands, Russian claim to Japanese islands, it works out to the same thing. In a regular situation, after diplomatic breakdown, there would be war. Which side is in the right (you claiming that Russia is correct), is irrelevant. Having the US back Japan greatly deters the idea of a real, actual shooting war.
No it's not works out to the same thing, it's the matter of who need to start aggression to get what they perceive as theirs. I'm saying that de-facto Russia control those islands since WW2, and Russia have no territorial claims to Japan. US backing Japan is irrelevant in this case, as Russia would not start aggression on Japan (as it have no territorial claims), and Japan would not start aggression on Russia in foreseeable future as it could lead to nuclear strikes.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not as though any of Japan's neighbors are necessarily going to like it...
The Taiwanese are sure to like it (though not their government).
Re: (Score:3)
It's not as though any of Japan's neighbors are necessarily going to like it...
The Taiwanese are sure to like it (though not their government).
You have got to be kidding [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me ask you, do you consider America to be the "Free Europe"? Do you believe America is part of Europe and do you consi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless Abe has some unwisely-published rantings about the reestablishment of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere stashed in his closet somewhere, this seems like the sort of 'controversial' that will lead to grumblings and not a whole lot else.
As long as the US keeps up the shipments of oil and steal. No wait, that's hollywood movies and iPhones now.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're mixing it up with Cheney's Iraq plan - steal the oil.
Re:Good news for us, I suspect... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not as though any of Japan's neighbors are necessarily going to like it; but nation-states maintaining armed forces, even potentially threatening ones, is sufficiently universal that there isn't exactly any complaints department who would take you seriously.
China will take it seriously. The primary military buildup is aimed at them. They've been fighting over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands for decades now, mainly with words. China teaches their school kids about the evil Japanese empire who stole the islands. In the last decade, the conflict has escalated dramatically, including trade wars and kinetic conflict. The Senkaku's are the center of it all.
The primary difficulty is that there's no obvious solution to the dispute. Both sides want the rocks, and will be
Re: (Score:3)
One of the major achievements of the post-WW2 New World Order was that it got rid of almost all territorial disputes. Before WW2 everybody in Europe had claims on most of their neighbors, which made for an extremely unstable military situation. Nowadays almost nobody has claims on anybody's continental territory, which makes for a lot less international warfare. The major exceptions are Israel/Palestine, and Kashmir.
There are still plenty of maritime disputes, including islands, but it's a lot better then 1
Re: (Score:3)
Nowadays almost nobody has claims on anybody's continental territory, which makes for a lot less international warfare.
Hah. They do not actively pursue them but the claims still are there. Take Gibraltar as an instance. Or Kaliningrad for that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that a) "not pursuing" is a vast improvement over pursuing, because people tend to get killed when Bulgaria pursues the idea that that Dobruja does not belong in Romania, and b) the territorial disputes you mention cover a tiny fraction of Europe's landmass.
Prior to WW2 the Hungarians, for example, really wanted the entirety of the Hungarian bit of Austria-Hungary to be put back in Hungary. They wanted almost all of Croatia, 1/4 or so of Romania, something like half of Serbia's land area, and a
Re: (Score:2)
Also Arunachal Pradesh.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the neighbors won't like it. China just complains about any move in any direction, North Korea will threathen (again) to start a nuclear war. South Korea, who should be Japan's natural ally in the region, will probably have on of these strange indignation and Japan will continue to be racist against Koreans.
This is not a loving neighborhood. Actually, Japan getting an army is actually a good news for everyone. It means that Japan wants
Re: (Score:2)
Well Abe may not personally have such plans, but you know what they say about politicians and slippery slopes.
I don't know about drones (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
If it's not obvious, GP is talking about the Marines that garrisoned Japan immediately post-WW2. The USA doesn't have six Marine Divisions anymore....
More importantly (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe this is, ultimately, the only important question. We must build a defensive perimeter around the mangakas, as well as the Ministry of Agriculture (well, one of them....as they are purportedly working on the Gundam project, if Wikipedia is anything to go by). We will then extend the perimeter, as resources allow, to include the local convention centers, cosplay cafes, any and all restaurants serving sushi (shhh), and the 'Heavy' industries. All strategizing will take place either in Okinawa, on the
If (Score:2, Insightful)
If you disarm somebody, you're morally responsible if they get attacked.
Sun Tzu would be proud (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure in which part of the Art of War he said that the best defense is to create new enemies, or promote new weapon races (even in fields where you can participate with widely available and cheap technology, like the internet based ones), but it should be somewhere because US is following that to the letter and the rest of their (for now) allies are following the example.
Which part of Art of War says appease rising powers when they try to bully you?
Re:Sun Tzu would be proud (Score:5, Insightful)
but it should be somewhere because US is following that to the letter and the rest of their (for now) allies are following the example.
It is China's arrogant, bullying, overbearing behavior, treating its neighbors like the vassal states of Imperial China, trying to take their territory, that is driving its neighbors to affirm their defensive alliances, and seek new arms to defend themselves.
Trying to blame this on the US and its allies simply demonstrates you either pay no attention to the news, or have a pathological animus towards the US.
Re: (Score:3)
These days even the powerful officials in China may wonder if they would not be personally better off if communism shifts more towards gentle socialism with a bit more capitalistic activity. It is one thing for the common person to ponder such things but when it gets to the point that the rich and powerful have similar thoughts things really might change.
What all nations seem to need is a more realistic formulation of the valu
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a US-centric POV, it is the countries that China is bullying that find its behavior obnoxious. That is why the countries that China is bullying are taking their current actions. I'm not really sure how you could be confused on that point.
China is currently trying to take territory from the Philippines, Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan, and there may be others. What parts of Latin America is the United States currently trying to annex? China is militarily threatening many nations around it. Which natio
Re: (Score:3)
Fun with the "currently" term.
Need a history lesson in that part of the world Cold?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions [wikipedia.org] in list form with dates
The US goes for "security arrangements" now and likes to "lease access" under the banner of "hunting drug traffickers and guerrillas"
Its the same as having a U.S. military base, just the base is still all part of "Colombia".
Cold if you wa
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you may need a grammar lesson. "Annex" means formal border-change. The US is not trying to make Honduras or Venezuela the 51st state.
China is trying to make several islands controlled by non-Chinese nations Chinese territory.
More to the point: who gives a shit? Just because the US is wrong in one area of the world, that does not imply that everyone who disagrees with us is always right. Most importantly, the fact that we bully (or attempt to bully, I don't know if you noticed but it hasn;t worked
Re: (Score:2)
Well...let's look at this from a slightly Machiavellian viewpoint....the US military typically doesn't advertise its latest and greatest in weaponry...and even in times of major warfare, it usually isn't hard pressed to go any more recent than a decade back in terms of 'what does the cat have in the bag.'
What this means is...the US military probably has some directed energy weapons it wants to field test on the Chinese...and is looking for any volunteers. Because only if the 'threat' is big enough, and bad
Hmm (Score:1)
Perhaps he should be more like the people of Aneyoshi, in that village carved into a 4 foot stone obelisk is a warning "Don't build your homes below this line".
That village survived thanks to the warnings from the past.
But ... but ... this is JAPAN! (Score:2)
Realize what this means! Drones, made in Japan. They'll fit into your pocket, be able to hit whatever square inch on this planet you tell them with more force than anything anyone else builds, come with a sleek, chrome polished design, are invisible to radar and whatever other detection you could come up with, cost way less to produce and of course in retail (but you'll never be able to afford spare parts, if you find any that is) and of course look like Mechagodzilla.
On a less funny note, ponder that one o
Self-defense (Score:2)
They can have Jupiter and Venus drones (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps the worrying should have started earlier. (Score:3)
All you need is drones (Score:2)
Drones will eventually provide enough offensive capability that you'll need ground troops only to invade and repel invaders. With ranges > 1000 miles, you can have a swarm of them protecting your shipping lanes. With enough of them, you can overwhelm any seaborne invasion force relatively cheaply. They'd be a good, cheap way to do power projection without the expense.
They need to start thinking about drone carrier bases instead of aircraft carriers.
Swarming technology will get good enough that you'll onl
Re:japan is a fascist nation that was spared (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if it successfully withered away and died, how can it possibly be a threat to China? :)
(There's an inherent contradiction in what you say.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There where a respectable number of British troupes involved in operation Normandy and the final push against Hitler, along with British air support which had a major role. If you think that we where nothing more than a passive part of Hitler's defeat then you likely have only got your information from moves. With most war moves being made in America with Americans as their fist target audience they have easy access to American army props and accents because of this and the desire to appeal to local audienc
Re: japan is a fascist nation that was spared (Score:5, Informative)
The numbers speak for themselves. The number of American troops during the Normandy beach landings = 63,000, British =60,000. The casualty figures are similarly even.
As you say, Hollywood revisionism is to blame for a lot of the misconceptions about the American role in the war. It was a big role, but far from a one-nation-show.
Re: japan is a fascist nation that was spared (Score:5, Interesting)
"Hollywood revisionism is to blame for a lot of the misconceptions about the American role in the war".
By the way, it was the Eastern Front, which claimed 80 percent of all German military casualties in the war. So basically, it was one evil empire against other and the winning one got away with its crimes. That is the reality. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/21/arts/a-job-for-rewrite-stalin-s-war.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree. They had the terrible punishment of being stuck with Stalin for quite a few more years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In reality the defeat of Hitler was caused by a mixture of two flaws the first was the resource costs of the whole 3 front war, in Africa, against Russia and the UK, as long as none of them went down all of them took resources that could have been spent to beat the others.... The second flaw was the Nazis insufficient respect for the greatest Russian general, General Winter which cost them dear. Hitler was already defend at that point without too much further ailed intervention, but without the allies forcing the issue early Russia would have simply steamrollered Europe as their opponents ran out of resources (and probably finished the UK as part of that), and so for saving us from that I am definitely grateful to all those who fought.
I highly recommend you read about the German desert campaign. It was a tertiary front for Germany and a secondary front for Italy. The Germans never gave any serious consideration to it. In fact, if it hadn't been for Churchill pushing for an intervention somewhere else in the Medeterranean in the middle of Operation Compass that made the British stop short of Tunisia which provided the breathe needed for the DAK to get deployed. The Axis forces were constantly struggling with a lack of mechanization. The m
Re: (Score:3)
like the UK during WW2--a huge aircraft and troop carrier parked off the coast of Germany. No disrespect to the British, who just happened to be living on "the carrier" when the extra troops arrived
You obviously got your "history" from the movies. Apart from the numbers of American and British invading Europe in 1944 being of the same order, it was the British who stopped a collapse of the US forces in the Battle of the Ardennes in the following winter. Basically the US army, like the French Army, had (still has?) a similar (and fatal) trust in "elan", so the troops had little training in fighting defensively or in retreat; they considered to train for such situations was defeatism. The British OT
Re:japan is a fascist nation that was spared (Score:5, Interesting)
The military was neutered, but the constitution that was forced on Japan was basically a Western system of government with a token emperor. Surprisingly, this worked really well for Japan. Without any possibility to create a hawkish foreign policy and with a government that generally respects human rights, Japan advanced faster than almost any other country in history--from rubble and millions dead to massive manufacturing industries and cities full of skyscrapers in less than 50 years. This is what can happen when you spend 1% or less of your GDP on the military. Perhaps this should be a lesson to some other countries in the world.
Re:japan is a fascist nation that was spared (Score:5, Insightful)
The military was neutered, but the constitution that was forced on Japan was basically a Western system of government with a token emperor. Surprisingly, this worked really well for Japan. Without any possibility to create a hawkish foreign policy and with a government that generally respects human rights, Japan advanced faster than almost any other country in history--from rubble and millions dead to massive manufacturing industries and cities full of skyscrapers in less than 50 years. This is what can happen when you spend 1% or less of your GDP on the military. Perhaps this should be a lesson to some other countries in the world.
Yeah, every country should sign a defense treaty with the United States and have America provide a security guarantee.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, I thought they all have, with the possible exception of Russia and China and a few smaller ones like Cuba, Venezuala and Ecuador?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:japan is a fascist nation that was spared (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, every country should sign a defense treaty with the United States and have America provide a security guarantee.
There are a number of countries that spend even less [wikipedia.org]. Most countries have no disputed borders, and no hostile direct neighbors. Most military spending in the world is out of tradition or political calculation rather than any real security need. Even countries that need to keep their military, often have more than they need, and they focus on the wrong skills and capabilities. For example, two decades after the end of the cold war, Germany's military is built around heavy armored divisions, when there is no plausible scenario where they would be useful. On the eve of the 9/11 attacks, the US Army's top priority was the Crusader Artillery [wikipedia.org], a 99 ton monstrosity what would have proved nearly useless in the the ensuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even GWB had enough sense to kill that.
Re:japan is a fascist nation that was spared (Score:4, Funny)
Germany's military is built around heavy armored divisions, when there is no plausible scenario where they would be useful.
Zerg rush wins every time. That's their plan.
Re: (Score:3)
The Germans sold a lot of their tank inventory all over Europe and elsewhere after the Cold War ended. They have like a fifth of the tanks they used to have.
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY.
All it takes is one coup for the Pontipines to invade Wottingerland.
Re: (Score:2)
For that to work at least some of the peaceful countries must have sizable armed forces, they must be prepared to use them and last (but probably the most important) they must be perceived as being prepared to use them.
We've seen indecision about Syria already. Even if you consider the chemical weapons (they were warned about that, remember?) an internal matter, a Turkish village was shelled and a plane shot down. Last time I looked Turkey was a member of NATO. And NATO has done what, exactly?
Once the bo
Re: (Score:2)
On the eve of the 9/11 attacks, the US Army's top priority was the Crusader Artillery [wikipedia.org], a 99 ton monstrosity what would have proved nearly useless in the the ensuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The link says it weighs less than half your 99 ton. Just looks like a modern 155mm Self Propelled Gun to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that's rich. First you force a country to sign your treaty and then you blame it for doing so.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, since surely grandparent was alive during the time this was voted for and executed and had an effect in the decision. That's right fellow americans, the rest of the world not only sees us as a hivemind but a hivemind with longevity.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I wasn't alive during WW2 either. But I get told time and again that I should still feel remorse for what some idiots did in my country back then. Care to explain why I should feel responsible for and pay for Nazi war crimes?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As for paying for Nazi war crimes, that's a bit more complicated. Certainly you shouldn't be punished for them (sometimes "be punished for" is what people mean when they say "pay for").
However when it comes to fiscal depts - medical treatments for surviving victims still suffering from WWII era wounds, for example, there is a collective debt of the country (Gemany) and no good way to separa
Re: (Score:2)
My point was only that the method of having a pacifist doctrine and tiny military doesn't work for all countries. How long would Taiwan or Israel last if they shrank their military to practically nothing (we may find out with Taiwan)?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, every country should sign a defense treaty with the United States and have America provide a security guarantee.
You say it flippantly, but it might actually be a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
It worked really well up until the point corruption went wild, they had a massive real estate bubble, followed by one going on two lost decades where they've propped up their economy with massive public works projects and piles of debt. Of course lately they are printing money at a furious place to try to break the deflationary spiral they've been in for like 20 years.
They also have a demographic time bomb because young people have stopped having jobs, hope or babies so they can't support their rapidly exp
Re: (Score:1)
It worked really well up until the point corruption went wild, they had a massive real estate bubble, followed by one going on two lost decades where they've propped up their economy with massive public works projects and piles of debt. Of course lately they are printing money at a furious place to try to break the deflationary spiral they've been in for like 20 years.
They also have a demographic time bomb because young people have stopped having jobs, hope or babies so they can't support their rapidly exploding senior population.
You sir, are on point!
Abe and their Central bank ideas are running out of steam and they have had to intervene by completely stopping markets to stop from a full on crash because of their intervention. They are running out of ideas, so the next best thing. Give the people and enemy and go to war! (pulling a US style tactic)
Central banker probably says " Get people on board with fighting China. This will fix our economy! "
^^^ Remember, someone take a picture of this here.
Why? Years from now after they have c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The current constitution has a lot of popular support in Japan. You have to remember that the Japanese people were largely victims for WW2. Few really supported the military and they suffered greatly due to its actions. The idea that the government should not make war or allow military build-up is very popular, and a lot of people believe has kept Japan safe from neighbours that would otherwise feel far more threatened than they already do.
Re: (Score:2)
Today's Japanese perhaps, but back then, no. I mean shit, 5,000 civilians committed suicide upon report of US advancement of Saipan because they didn't want the shame of being captured. It was a regular saying/chanting there that should Americans reach the mainland, they (the civilians) will all rise up and kill millions. The nukes prevented that.
Japan was a very militaristic society. Even today they remain highly xenophobic.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're confusing things here. It's estimated that 5,000 Japanese soldiers committed suicide. 2,000 committed suicide, outright. Another 3,000 did so by charging directly into the face of U.S. Army and Marine units, actually managing to overrun the frontmost U.S. units. This gained some time for their comrades to carry the counterattack forward, but we all k
Re: (Score:2)
I found the saying by the way, I posted earlier on my smartphone so I did some wreckless paraphrasing, but here are the original quotes:
The sooner the Americans come, the better...One hundred million die proudly.
-- Japanese slogan in the summer of 1945.
Japan was finished as a warmaking nation, in spite of its four million men still under arms. But...Japan was not going to quit. Despite the fact that she was militarily finished, Japan's leaders were going to fight right on. To not lose "face" was more import
Re: (Score:2)
As for being disliked by other Asians, you forgot the Filipinos, Singaporeans, and to a lesser extent, Indonesians and Malaysians. I live in a multi-ethnic neighbourhood in Vancouver, B.C., Canada. I have a Chinese neighbour on one side, a Korean neighbour on the other side, and a Filipino neighbour across the street. I also work with a guy who hails from Indonesia. They've all told me
Re: (Score:2)
Which would you rather be, a Japanese internee in the US/Canada, or a prisoner of the Japanese?
They aren't even in the same league.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what this has to do with the original topic.
In a nutshell, we were discussing the use of propaganda to sway the outlook of a civilian population. AlphaWolf_HK's mention of civilian suicides during the Battle of Saipan and my mention of the internment of Japanese-Canadians and Japanese-Americans are examples of the effects of propaganda (in general, the demonizatio
Re: (Score:2)
It has plenty to do with the post I replied to.
Discussing the topic of the largest paragraph of your post (a third of the whole) is veering off?
Now answer the question. For maximum marks, include references to the Burma railroad and comfort women.
Re: (Score:2)
But, if you really want an answer, then I'd have to say that I'd rather be a prisoner of the Japanese. Considering that I'm Japanese and all.
Re: (Score:2)
I mentioned in an earlier post that Japanese citizens were under the sway of wartime propaganda. As I also mentioned, demonization of the enemy was de rigueur. Some of that had to do with the fear (instilled by the military) that white men were amoral savages, but also from the notion that almost all non-Japanese were sub-human. That probably explains the dehumanizing treatment inflicted on prisoners of war and on the citizens of nations that Imperial Japan invaded
Assuming that I
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the HK is an old reference to a gamer tag I have long since stopped using. I tend to respect Asian cultures for their high disciplinary values (which is why they are so damn successful in academia that affirmative action throws them under the bus - yet another reason why I think we need to get rid of it - we should be encouraging talent, not condemning it) but I am about as white as casper and have no Asian ancestry whatsoever.
But anyways I don't think bringing up internment camps is a prudent thin
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? My intention was to show that wartime propaganda from both sides was used to justify various actions. I exemplified it with events that occurred in Japan and in North America. Also, I think it's safe to say that propaganda was even more important to the war efforts of certain European nations at that time.
Unfortunately, some people seem to be keying on the example used and ignoring
Re: (Score:2)
The Japanese didn't NEED to spend on a military to defend them during the Cold War because the US military did that for them instead.
That's not a victory for pacifism. US forces were ready to nuke China and North Korea at no notice. Nukes were loaded on aircraft sitting Alert at many Asian bases including some in South Korea.
The same fellow who helped give Japan its sudden taste for pacifism by burning hundreds of thousands of its people to death in WWII "fire raids" (some of which bagged more of them than
Re: (Score:2)
Not so sure about what'd happen if every outlying island in the region had a Chinese military base on it; they need not use nukes, and they never need to fire a shot to change the balance of power enough to impact any negotiations for trade or treaty in the region.
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone actually believe that?
I mean, Assad was warned about using chemical weapons, and he didn't even get a strict telling-off.
Not that I believed it before that. Obama is more likely to dither and say that perhaps tempers got a little heated, yada yada yada yada, there's a lesson here we can all learn, bla bla bla.
Re: (Score:2)
But it changes the situation from one where China can launch a limited conventional attack (say, annex the Spratlys) and win by a walkover to one where it might have a fight on its hands.
Assuming that fight goes against them or even turns into a stalemate China must either use nukes or lose face.
If you've ever had dealings with Chinese people you'll know which is more likely.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you really hate history so very much?
(Nod to JC.)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I'm not clear on which "free" China it is that I'm supposedly a lackey of. Kindly elucidate.
Afterwards, we can discuss who's paying you to post nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
one Godzilla is not enough ???
This will be a swarm of little ones, that fly around shooting missiles and delivering IP takedown notices.
Re: (Score:1)
EVERY pundit in the West told the sheeple...
Ironic how often that those people who tend to accept pundit's statements at face value apply the term sheeple to others, isn't it? Anyway, Japan was pretty content to remain isolated until forced to open up to foreign relations.
Re: (Score:2)
If America left South Korea, North and South would reunify just as quickly, under the capitalist system of the South.
Excuse me? The DPRK has the 4th-largest army in the world, and the highest percentage of military personnel per capita of any country in the world. They have about one and a quarter million military personnel. They have nukes, too. And Seoul is close enough to the border that they could just about lob one at it with a slingshot.
If the US abandoned South Korea, the North would be able to resist the temptation of all those material goodies they know the South have and they don't for... I dunno... a few weeks,
Re: (Score:2)
That was a racist flaimbait, not a comment.
Re: (Score:3)
Foshan, Guangdong, PRC, January 2011:
Me: It's a pleasure to meet you, sir.
Retired PLA Colonel: Likewise. Tell me, young man, did your father or perhaps your grandfather fight in Korea?
Me: Actually, I had a couple of great-uncles who saw action there.
He: I too fought in Korea. You realise that they and I were probably shooting at each other over there, right?
Me: Well... I'd not thought about it, but I suppose so.
He: Did they come home?
Me: Yes, they did.
He: Then I am most happy for you and your family, becaus