Japan Unveils Largest Warship Since WW2 282
schwit1 writes with an excerpt from an AP story on some interesting technology afloat: "Japan on Tuesday unveiled its biggest warship since World War II, a huge flat-top destroyer that has raised eyebrows in China and elsewhere because it bears a strong resemblance to a conventional aircraft carrier. Some experts believe the new Japanese ship could potentially be used in the future to launch fighter jets or other aircraft that have the ability to take off vertically. The ship, which has a flight deck that is nearly 250 meters (820 feet) long, is designed to carry up to 14 helicopters.Though the ship — dubbed 'Izumo' — has been in the works since 2009, its unveiling comes as Japan and China are locked in a dispute over several small islands located between southern Japan and Taiwan. For months, ships from both countries have been conducting patrols around the isles, called the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyutai in China."
Japanese Military (Score:5, Informative)
It's well past time for the Japanese have a decent offensive capability against that of China. Leaning on the U.S. forever is not sustainable.
Re:Japanese Military (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, well, treaties enforced by the U.S. don't really allow "offensive capability."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When the shit hits the fan the definition of 'defensive' will be very vague.
Re:Japanese Military (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's like meteor and meteorite. It's not a kamikaze plane until impact.
Sadly, WWII saw planes that were effective just manned missiles. There really were kamikaze planes - and not just planes: it was a very tragic, "what were they thinking" time.
Re: Japanese Military (Score:4, Informative)
No one said the Zero was purpose built to be a kamikaze, I believe the parent poster was referring to the Ohka.
Re:Japanese Military (Score:5, Informative)
When the Japanese name a plane Cherry blossom [wikipedia.org], it's not going to be the sort of plane that needs landing gear. Even sadder was The turn toward heaven [wikipedia.org], where the suicide pilot only added marginal value to the torpedo. Japan had reached a very bad place by then.
Re:Japanese Military (Score:5, Funny)
When the Japanese name a plane Cherry blossom [wikipedia.org], it's not going to be the sort of plane that needs landing gear.
By the same token, when medieval Spain named a ship Most Holy Virgin or something similar, you could be sure it packed at least two hundred guns...
Zeroes were good but not great and not the best (Score:4, Informative)
Zeroes were excellent mid-speed dogfighter and had tremendous range, but that was the limit of its advantages. The P-40 routinely beat the Zero in China using energy tactics, and the Wildcat and Zero were dead even by actual loss count in carrier battles. The Zero was 30 mph faster than the Wildcat but fragile, and the controls locked up near its top speed, so it was no good in a dive.
Both US planes had the immeasurable advantage of bringing home rookies far more often than the Zero.
Read the two First Team books.
Re:Zeroes were good but not great and not the best (Score:5, Informative)
The Zero had the advantage but it took a top pilot to exploit them. At the start of the war they had plenty of experienced and talented fliers but as attrition mounted they failed to keep their pilot corps properly replaced. As the talent level dropped the US fighters were better able to handle the zero. An aircraft is only as good as it's pilot.
Re:Japanese Military (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, I don't think any current treaties between the U.S. and Japan limit Japanese offensive capability. It's the Japanese constitution which does. Now everybody knows the U.S. is responsible for the non-offensive military part of the Japanese constitution when it was written. That being said they (the Japanese) could change it if they wanted to.
But they don't, because it's far easier to let the U.S. spend big $$$ on a military along with R&D then it is for them. I'd guess though that if the U.S. ever reduced their pacific capabilities the Japanese would see the light...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Pravda has a very good article on how weak the US is in the Pacific Rim, with the main reason that the carrier fleets don't get sunk is because China doesn't really care about the "floating circuses" -- groups of ships which are defenseless against long range sub attacks.
Re:Japanese Military (Score:4, Insightful)
Everything is, more or less, defensive against ICBMs. Including Shanghai and Beijing. MAD hasn't really changed.
There are American fast attacks under every carrier group that will have something to say about 'defenseless' if you are talking about closer then ICBM range.
Russia is a failed superpower, telling it's self what it wants to hear.
Re: (Score:3)
Russia is a failed superpower, telling it's self what it wants to hear.
I saw an interesting show on how Russia is slowly dismantling the nuclear submarine fleet (Discovery's "Submarine: Hidden Hunters Collection"). They showed how a team of contractors and experts from former East Germany were helping decommission the fleet. There were over 200 nuclear power plants, with more still coming, sealed in part of the sub's pressure hull and being stored on cement slabs until the radioactivity had decreased enough for a later generation to tackle.
Failed super power or not, it does s
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Japanese Military (Score:4, Insightful)
Carriers exist to project power when it's not a case of total war against a strong opponent (i.e., every conflict since WWII). Nothing else does that job as well - not even close. When war gets hot then of course its the Boomers that matter, and surface ships are irrelevant.
Destroyers have never been able to project power - that's never been their mission in the history of navies.
Re:Japanese Military (Score:4, Interesting)
Cruise missiles can be shot down, either by interceptors or CIWS, and nuclear weapons that are shot down don't detonate. In what way are they unstoppable?
Nuclear torpedoes have the yield to take out a single ship, not an entire carrier group, and can be defeated the same way any other torpedo can (if unguided, it can miss or be evaded, especially if fired from extreme range, if guided, it can be tricked). This assumes that the militaries involved even have any; the US got rid of their nuclear torpedoes in the 70s, probably because they could never fire them (without starting a nuclear war) but took up limited space that could be used for torpedoes with conventional warheads.
This also assumes that China or the US, if starting a war, was willing to go nuclear. I find that highly unlikely: most probably any war between the two countries would be conventional.
Re: (Score:3)
I think people who grew up after the cold war miss that point entirely.
Yes, it's easy to nuke a carrier group. It's easy to nuke all of them. The Navy does, in fact, understand this, it having been obvious for about 60 years now.
So you've nuked a carrier group. Did you get all the Boomers first? If not, you have a bright future - glowing even.
Re: Japanese Military (Score:5, Interesting)
A big nuke detonated near the surface (I forget now whether it's just-above, or just-below that's optimal) will sink most smaller craft and take capital ships out of the war - probably permanently - from a considerable distance. It's been years since I looked at the weapon tests, but a big nuke folded the superstructure over onto the deck from something like a mile away.
Most damage from nukes falls off very fast with distance - some radiation effects fall off with the 10th power of distance, IIRC. But a nuke in the ocean creates an outrushing wall of water with destructive power that only falls off directly with distance at first.
The open question (which we can hope remains so forever) is whether use of tactical nukes at sea requires strategic nuclear retaliation. Either way, nuking a carrier group means the US will take the gloves off when it retaliates, and if that retaliation doesn't involve the strategic nuclear arsenal it will only be because it didn't need to.
Re: (Score:3)
I see your problem. Carrier groups only do that for pictures. They normally cover a 50x50 mile area or larger.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I doubt it is more than 10 miles.
The frigs and destroyers are supposed to defend the carrier (and get themselves also covered by the carriers CIWS). With bigger distances the carrier would be behind the horizon and the small ships weapon systems to intercept missiles etc. had trouble to get the missile if it comes in a strange path and is already inside of the fleet. Keep in mind ship / ship and air / ship missiles fly pretty low, likely you can only defend against them in an area of about 2 miles aro
Re: (Score:3)
The last nuclear torpedo the US used had a yield of 11 kilotons (ICBMs are a hell of a lot larger than a torpedo). The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 16 kilotons. The closest survivor (lived into his 80s after) to the blast was 300 feet away in a basement. Ships in a carrier strike group are not exactly brushing up against each other, nor are they made of largely wood and glass as most buildings in Hiroshima were. They are in fact made of steel, and designed with the assumption that they WILL be subjected to
Re: (Score:3)
A nuclear torpedo does not need to hit. It only needs to explode close by. Claiming it only had the yield to kill one ship is just nonsense. Think about something of the power of an hiroshima bomb. It easily kills a whole carrier group a dozen times over.
a nuclear tipped torpedo, must, in order:
1. be actively directed onto the target by a stealth sub platform, or be self directed (assuming the carrier has been pinpointed beforehand;
2.evade decoys and active countermeasures, like other torpedoes launched against it;
3. positively identify the primary target, in a target rich environment;
4. get close enough;
5. explode;
Then, since it is quite impossible to hide the use of a nuclear warhead, the powers that be must be ready for a nuclear exchange with the o
Re: (Score:3)
China isn't stupid enough to use nuclear weapons. Try some realistic scenario and get back to us.
Re: (Score:2)
In a war between the US and the old Soviet Union, the aircraft carriers weren't expected to last more than a day or two at most. Too many missiles, even if you ignore torpedoes.
Has China gotten to that level? I doubt it. And there's a lot more stopping them than the threat of an aorcraft carrier or two. Never forget that the US was capable of cranking out one major ship a week 70 years ago when someone got us started.
Re: (Score:3)
Never forget that the US was capable of cranking out one major ship a week 70 years ago when someone got us started.
Never forget how many shipyards have closed in the USA during the last 70 years. And how long it takes to train new workers to construct that kind of ships.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Last I saw the Japanese pay far more than it costs the US for that defense and that isn't even including all the land for military bases.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC the last base is on Okinawa.
They are lucky we let them have any of it back. They wouldn't have.
Re: (Score:3)
[...] they (the Japanese) could change [the constitution] if they wanted to. But they don't, because it's far easier to let the U.S. spend big $$$ on a military along with R&D then it is for them.
Japan's Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, certainly wants to change it [japantimes.co.jp], so I don't think it's as far off as you suggest.
Re:Japanese Military (Score:5, Interesting)
According to both Douglas MacArthur and the memoirs of the Japanese prime minister at the time, Kijuro Shidehara, article 9 was written by the prime minister. Because he was afraid that having a weak military would only provide an opening for those wanting to rearm. His answer to that was to preclude that in the constitution. So it was Japanese internal politics rather than the US ramming it down their throats that gave them article 9. Just as their politics have prevented it from being changed. Simply becaue a substantial portion of the Japanese population still supports the idea behind article 9. The current LDP government would like to change article 9 but can't even really push it because their coalition partners, New Komeito, are commited to preserving article 9.
There is one part of that constitution that I have read was rammed down Japan's throats over the screaming objections of their government. That is the part about equal rights for women. They were not the least bit happy about that.
Re: (Score:2)
True, and that mistake needed to be corrected. But guess who wrote the Japanese constitution? Hint: Not the Japanese.
Re:Japanese Military (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, well, treaties enforced by the U.S. don't really allow "offensive capability."
Do you think that the US would have the slightest interest in enforcing them? Anything short of strategic nuclear weapons could be brushed off with a 'my, my, Japan's coast guard is looking so robust lately!' unless the US actually has a continued interest in disarming Japan.
Re: (Score:3)
As someone else said, I was mistaken, and it's Japan's constitution, not a treaty that establishes the defensive nature of their military.
If it were a treaty, the U.S. has every interest in establishing the appearance of a nation that enforces its treaties, for fear that other nations would flout them.
Re: Japanese Military (Score:3)
The US hasn't really gotten a great reputation for following treaty obligations in the last while, from the Geneva Convention down to things like trade in lumber and catching ugly fish.
They're pretty adamant about other countries following treaties though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You sir haven't taken any classes on foreign policy lol. It's not about logic. It's about maintaining a boot on the neck of a former enemy under the guise of peace. I do agree that we should use the Japanese as a counterweight against growing Chinese military power, but the offset is risking another industrial giant leveraging location to push us out of the theater.
Re: (Score:2)
what exactly do you mean by 'us' ? The 0,1% richest people of the earth, which you are not a part of ? and who do not have a nationality ?
Re: (Score:2)
You realize the US have been restricting the Japanese military and even have military bases on Japanese soil?
Re:Japanese Military (Score:4)
You realize the US have been restricting the Japanese military and even have military bases on Japanese soil?
Winston Churchill once said that the purpose of NATO is to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. The US has bases in Japan for the same reason except China==Russia and Japan==Germany. If the American bases are removed, Japan will be forced to re-arm to defend themselves (including nukes), and the Chinese will then feel obligated to do likewise, ... which will then lead to an arms buildup in India and SE Asia. It is far cheaper for the US to maintain the bases than to deal with the consequences of their removal.
you're right, as Churchill was at the time (Score:2)
Re:Japanese Military (Score:5, Funny)
You know what? It's also well past the time for them to have a flying space carrier with a huge mounted laser gun in the front too (which was what I was expecting with this new ship). Or maybe even a transforming space carrier with a massive super weapon on its shoulders. Very disappointed.
Re:Japanese Military (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the U.S. designed it that way. They were the ones who stipulated as a condition of surrender that the Japanese have no standing army (only a "defense force" whose training and armament is tightly-controlled by the U.S.). The U.S. wants a base of operations in the far east, and maintains tight controls over Japan for that purpose. They have other bases in the Pacific, but they set up Japan before long-range aircraft, requiring them to be close to Russia/China/North Korea.
So no, it's not by choice the Japanese have to rely on the U.S. for military protection. It's a consequence of losing WWII that they're effectively subjugated to U.S. military "protection" (in the same sense of "protection" money).
Re: (Score:2)
Leaning on the U.S. forever is not sustainable.
Perhaps, but right now it's the best way of preventing a second Sino-Japanese War. China trusts the US military much more than they do a Japanese military, and US abandonment of the region would trigger an arms race (conventional and otherwise) that would make Indian-Pakistani relations look warm and fuzzy.
Be careful what you wish for (Score:3)
Perhaps, but right now it's the best way of preventing a second Sino-Japanese War. China trusts the US military much more than they do a Japanese military, and US abandonment of the region would trigger an arms race (conventional and otherwise) that would make Indian-Pakistani relations look warm and fuzzy.
Not just with the Japanese, either -- basically, all the other countries in the region are going to have to decide whether they care more about the evil things Japan did to them prior to and during WW2, or about how powerful mainland China is today. Further, the less of a counterweight the US is to China, the more incentive there is for China's neighbors to go nuclear -- and Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have the technological/industrial base to do so very quickly.
Mind you, that might not necessarily be a
Re:Japanese Military (Score:4, Funny)
Forget about defending against the Chinese - wait until giant lizards and moths start attacking, they'll need all the firepower they can get!
Re:Japanese Military (Score:5, Informative)
The new USS America [wikipedia.org] has a flight deck of the same size. France's (only) aircraft carrier is about ten meters longer. The gigantic Nimitz-class supercarriers are the exception to the rule.
Re: (Score:2)
It's similar in size to the next British carrier class which has been sized for 36 JSFs.
Sorry your shitty segue onto a pet topic didn't work out.
Re:Japanese Military (Score:4, Informative)
It's a DESTROYER. That is a puny ship in modern naval terms.
We probably have Coast Guard ships larger than this thing.
It's roughly the same size as some of the carriers (Hiryu and Soryu) that launched the strike on Pearl Harbor. By the standards of a modern American carrier, they're pretty small (tiny), but 27k tons isn't exactly anything to sneeze at, and calling it a "destroyer" is a bit of a fig leaf as that's roughly the size of a Kirov class BC (IIRC, the largest surface warship class currently in service with any navy that isn't an aviation/amphibious warfare ship).
Re: (Score:2)
> Such a carrier could easily launch F-35 VSTOL
In other words, no serious aircraft to speak of.
That makes it an amphibious assault ship, not a modern aircraft carrier. An aircraft carrier is something that can launch air superiority craft like the ships that did battle in World War II.
Modern aircraft require a flight deck to match.
This is no capital ship. The fact that other navies field puny things and try to call them aircraft carriers really doesn't change that.
Carrier? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ya have to wonder why it has "...has raised eyebrows in China..."
Did they think everyone would just sit around while they grew their military and acted like buffoons?
Re: (Score:2)
Though technically a destroyer, some experts believe the new Japanese ship could potentially be used in the future to launch fighter jets or other aircraft
Anybody know how this thing can be classified as a destroyer?
Re: (Score:2)
The same way you can call a lion a housecat.
Doesn't mean anyone will believe you, though.
Re: (Score:2)
You press that big button on the top (not shown in the picture) and the flight deck folds up and guns pop out.
Sheesh. Haven't you seen the Transformers movie yet?
Re: (Score:2)
Same way the Soviet and Russian navies called their Aviation Cruisers?
Re: (Score:2)
"Anybody know how this thing can be classified as a destroyer?"
Since WWI the main role of "the destroyer" has been to hunt subs. Maybe the Japs intend that for this ship. The flight deck could be for carrying anti-sub helos.
Its way to small to be used for conventional jets, and I don't think the JDF has any VSTOL fighters, and even if they did, it couldn't carry enough fighters to protect itself without US support
It may be their largest ship since WWII, but its only about 1/3 the size of a WWII carrier like
Re: (Score:2)
Carriers are sitting ducks without a battle group. I doubt the Chinese are worried over this at all.
Even with a battle group, Japan and China are, what, ~800 kilometers apart (and the islands that Japan and China have special togetherness problems about are roughly equidistant); is anyone feeling lucky against the number of anti-ship missiles that you could launch, from shore or from land-based aircraft?
Re:Carrier? (Score:5, Interesting)
Carriers are sitting ducks without a battle group when outside land based fighter range. I doubt the Chinese are worried over this at all.
Fixed it for you. But I admit that even Japanese F 15 Eagle would not be able to keep a continuous air cover on the Sea of Japan.
Be aware tough, that the Japanese navy already has the basic capability of a carrier group. Kongo Class destroyers [globalsecurity.org] are equipped with the SPY-1 phased array radar and the SM2 block 3 missile, the same suite defending American carriers.
If anything, given the cold war capabilities of the Japanese navy, their carrier group is a bit skewed towards anti submarine warfare, but who's complaining?
given your original post, I must say that China has no reason to complain. Even if Japan builds another three of these (one for each battle group that it has available now), there's no way that it can mount a credible threat to China itself. It can, tough, be a credible threat against China's expansionary policy in the Spratleys, etc., and above all China's wayward province, North Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force's (JMSDF) fleet of Atago class (modified US Burke Flight IIA) and Kongo class (modified US Burke Flight I) Aegis guided missile destroyers? Seems to me like they could put a pretty credible group of AAW escorts from that. Add in the indigenous Akizuki and Takanami class ASW frigates, and I think the JMSDF could field a pretty credible short range carrier battle group with 2-3 Aegis destroyers and a similar number of ASW escorts if they had an appropriate c
Re:Carrier? (Score:4, Interesting)
Carriers are sitting ducks without a battle group. I doubt the Chinese are worried over this at all.
They should be worried about their own carrier shaped ships since they don't have a battle group either.
Besides japan does have a battle group [navy.mil].
Dont forget China's deadly and groundbreaking land carriers [defensetech.org].
The ideas behind this new kit. (Score:2)
Article 9 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So am I correct in inferring that no one really takes Article 9 [wikipedia.org] very seriously any more?
No, and this is another victory for reality over idealism. History is chock full of those, or at least, of the dead bodies of the hapless victims of ill advised good faith. For reference, see "this is an era of peace", "open covenants openly arrived at", etc.
For an explanation why tough, nobody beats General Von Mannerheim [wikipedia.org], who was quoted as saying, when asked why Finland should have a standing army: "Every country has an Army. Either its own, or an army of occupation"
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, nobody's taken Article 9 very seriously for about forty years now. It gets taken out on occasion when people want to object to sending Japanese units to participate in some international force, but otherwise it gets pretty much ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
Where have I seen this ship before? (Score:2)
History (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's a plan, let's learn from the loser and repeat his idiocy.
But then, who are we to talk, we copy from the late 1920 how to deal with economic troubles.
What happened to the Japanese industry? (Score:5, Funny)
What about their zeal to make everything smaller and more efficient? I'd have expected them to produce the smallest aircraft carrier with a few hundred fully automated drones that can conduct pinpoint strikes and play some soothing melodies while they clean themselves.
Neat Boat, but... (Score:2)
So... when is it gonna transform into a giant robot?
You're probably closer than you know. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
All joking aside, that's pretty much what I assumed. I wouldn't be surprised to find out the navigation system can function with complete autonomy as well.
That's no moon... (Score:3)
And that is not a Helicopter Carrier.
It is going to be a "full sized" drone carrier.
Re: (Score:2)
This *10. Even for a drone carrier, this is still a huge ship. The future is not with manned aircraft.
ours is bigger than yours (Score:2)
by comparison, the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier (aka the floating island) is 332.8 meters (1,092 feet) long.
compensating, wha?
How is this "technically a destroyer?" (Score:2)
>> huge flat-top destroyer...bears a strong resemblance to a conventional aircraft carrier. The ship, which has a flight deck that is nearly 250 meters (820 feet) long, is designed to carry up to 14 helicopters.
OK, if it's designed with a "flight deck" that designed to carry aircraft (helicopters), how is this NOT an aircraft carrier?
Re: (Score:2)
how is this NOT an aircraft carrier?
Simple, pick your favourite:
Ceci n'est pas un porte-avions. (René Magritte)
This isn't the aircraft carrier you're looking for. (Obi-Wan Kenobi)
Re:How is this "technically a destroyer?" (Score:5, Funny)
A lot of people who fly fixed wing planes really don't consider helicopters as 'aircraft'.
"Helicopters do not fly. The ground repels them because they are so ugly."
VTOL aicraft? (Score:2)
Unless they changed something about the surface mix during the move from the Hyuga class to the new Izumo class, the downward heat from a launching VTOL fighter like the F-35 would melt the runway. Not the kind of surface you'd want to take off from.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless of course they added the piping and pumping systems necessary to water cool the deck. Right?
Re: (Score:3)
Good point, I am sure the Japanese engineers that build the ship did not think to make the surface not melt when something tries to land or take of vertically on it. Good thing Slashdot exists otherwise all kinds of engineers and scientists might be making fools of themselves.
Good Old Days (Score:4, Informative)
The Izumo is a replacement for the existing smaller Japanese helicopter carriers and they plan to build a second one. Some defence-oriented website put up a scale comparison picture -- the Izumo is about the same size as the IJN fleet carriers like the Akagi that attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941. It's still significantly smaller than the USMC's Tarawa LHD carriers and the forthcoming America class replacements for the Tarawas are even bigger targets^W.
This flirting with carriers isn't new: (Score:2)
Japan has been fielding "destroyers" that are really helicopter carriers for some time.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy%C5%ABga-class_helicopter_destroyer [wikipedia.org]
for example.
They probably also could be refitted to launch VSTOL aircraft like the Harrier.
Destroyer? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Izuma? Not Yamato? (Score:2)
And where's the wave motion gun?
mark
Remember WWII, anyone? (Score:3)
For several years before war broke out, German airliners looked suspiciously un-airliner-like. Examples the HE-111 and FW-200. War breaks out, and surprise! Turns out with a few twists of a wrench they make much better bombers than they ever did airliners. Izumo may be a destroyer now, but I guarantee you there are plans - and possibly fittings already installed - for launch equipment.
Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along? (Score:5, Informative)
Would you believe that it's extremely complex and and the boiled down version dates back to WWII(and the real version dates way before that). Japan did some horrible things to Chinese people in WWII, and their government has never acknowledged any of it. Japanese nationalists, much like U.S. republicans are unwilling to accept that their country has ever done anything wrong, and view the Chinese assertions about the rape of Nanking and other atrocities as propaganda. The U.S. uses Japan as a proxy in limiting China's imperialism, which only further sours the resentment around these things.
China, for their part, are lead by a bunch of unelected fascists, who do in fact, publish anti-Japan propaganda in addition to the true things, making Japan seem like a inhuman monster in the public consciousness. We're lucky they're only really in a cold war with each other, because the U.S. would almost certainly get drawn into one side or the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Japan did some horrible things to Chinese people in WWII, and their government has never acknowledged any of it.
On the surface, it seems like the Japanese government has repeatedly acknowledged its crimes during World War II. See List of war apology statements issued by Japan [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Japan did some horrible things to Chinese people in WWII, and their government has never acknowledged any of it.
On the surface, it seems like the Japanese government has repeatedly acknowledged its crimes during World War II. See List of war apology statements issued by Japan [wikipedia.org].
They have indeed. They have also repeatedly retracted those apologies. The strongest apologies have come from lower level officials. Even an apology by the prime minister is really like John Boehner apologizing for America. An clear and unambiguous apology by the emperor would carry far more weight.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've seen, the US has been a moderating force in the region since the 1900s, from keeping Japan from attacking Russia, through WWII, to keeping the peace in the area.
People seem to forget, but if that area went to war, it would make the turmoil of the Middle East look calm, so even though the US isn't perfect, the peace has been kept in that area for the most part.
Re: (Score:3)
Japanese nationalists, much like U.S. republicans are unwilling to accept that their country has ever done anything wrong,
Since when has Obama been a Republican? Last time I checked the Democrats have been just as happy to bomb third world countries as Republicans have. The only outspoken criticism of these policies are coming from Tea Party Republicans like Rand Paul. The problem is not Dem or GOP. It's a problem with the federal government.
Re: (Score:2)
Wah wah wah, let's pretend that democrats are the hypernationalists who never acknowledge the unethical premises in U.S. foreign policy because Obama has done bad things.
Re: (Score:3)
The US officially protects the Japanese with their nuclear weapons, this has been official US policy since WWII. In political science parlance Japan is under the Nuclear Umbrella of the US. In other words they are a country on a very short list that the US will defend with Nuclear weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's bad for the industry 'cause they can't sell as much if people don't have to rebuild, and it's bad for politicians because people actually worry about real problems if you don't show them a boogeyman.
Duh.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, why not?
One reason is China's one child policy and the resulting gender imbalance. The crowds of young men outside the Japanese Embassy in Beijing, chanting "War! War! War!" would probably have something better to do if they had a family or even a girlfriend.
Re: (Score:2)
China did purchase a used aircraft carrier from Russia. A gutted, empty hull of a ship with no equipment or propulsion. China spent millions rebuilding the ship, not to have a carrier, but to learn what it takes to build one. China already has a least one carrier and possibly more under construction.
None of the carriers china is building is anything close to the Nimitz class ships the United States has.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't from Russia but from Ukraine. And it wasn't a "used carrier" but an unfinished one.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, it will be ok as long as they keep the reactor away from the ocean.