Why Japan Is Facing Pressure To Return To Military Research (thestack.com) 267
An anonymous reader writes: China's growing nation status has Japan reconsidering its 70-year old ban on military research projects, as Japanese defense circles actively seek to take advantage of the country's vanguard position in robotic technology. Pressure from the government is also mounting, as authorities try to find means to bring university researchers into the defense fold — particularly to meet the challenge of a more aggressive Chinese military. Funding cuts in Japanese higher education, combined with a weakened economy and governmental austerity measures, may make the allure of military funding irresistible to researchers and academic institutions.
I really hope (Score:2, Insightful)
I really hope Japan resists becoming more militarised and aggressive. The current pacifist constitution is a model other countries should look too, not one that should be abandoned. Abe wants Japan to become a "normal" country, but look at what "normal" gets us. The weaponry we export in no way makes up for what we waste on wars, and much of it goes to dubious places and killing the families of people who them try to kill us.
More than that, being pacifist has kept Japan safe for decades. The threat is alway
Re:I really hope (Score:5, Insightful)
It is no longer clear that independent Japan is more valuable to US than trade with China, as such protection is less guaranteed. Look at much weaker Russia getting away with annexing parts of Georgia and Ukraine that only resulted in anemic sanctions and rhetoric.
Re: (Score:2)
You are confusing pacifist with not having a strong defence force. Japan has a modern, powerful military, and as I pointed out could develop ICBMs in a matter of months if required.
Re: (Score:3)
Second, Japan and China are separated by ocean, which h
Re:I really hope (Score:5, Insightful)
I sort of see Japan as the place to look how to make something new , whereas I look at China as the place to look how to make something cheap and in high volume
You might ask someone who remembers the '70s how they used to see Japan.
Re: (Score:3)
Young Doc: No wonder this circuit failed. It says "Made in Japan".
Marty McFly: What do you mean, Doc? All the best stuff is made in Japan.
Young Doc: Unbelievable.
Re: (Score:3)
And while I'm not going to say th
Re: (Score:3)
That's entirely true, in that it was the viewpoint of people back then - but they'd be wrong. Japan has always been about high quality work, rather than mass production.
No. Certainly not before Iwakura Mission to United States and Europe. They sent people around the world to see how Westerners did things and then report back so they could change how the Japanese did things. There is a book of the trip and besides recounting some very obvious stereotypes of Americans and their habits in the 1870's that would be recognized today*, one of the subjects was a long argument that Japan should make their items with skill and built to last as the Americans and Germans did. The auth
Re:I really hope (Score:5, Interesting)
Pacifist nations get conquered unless they pay to non-pacifist nations to protect them. Blame human nature, but dare not to ignore it.
It is no longer clear that independent Japan is more valuable to US than trade with China, as such protection is less guaranteed. Look at much weaker Russia getting away with annexing parts of Georgia and Ukraine that only resulted in anemic sanctions and rhetoric.
Your first paragraph is fine. Your second - not so much.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Georgia and Ukraine were not NATO members and had no treaties requiring other nations to come to their aid if attacked. Japan has a mutual self-defense treaty with the USA and the US has made it clear to China that it will honor this treaty by saying that it recognizes Japanese control over some disputed islands that China also claims. The reason that South Korea and Japan don't have nuclear weapons isn't because they are too stupid to create them. They don't have them because basically the security treaties they have with the USA are strong enough that they don't feel - yet - that they need to violate international law and build nuclear weapons on their own. But China's continual asshat behavior may eventually lead to Japan reconsidering that and while South Korea and China have no territorial disputes, aggressive North Korean behavior may also convince South Korea and Japan that they need nuclear weapons of their own. China's current government cannot be trusted at all and some Asia watchers have speculated that that some years from now the so-called Peoples Liberation Army may stage a coup and take over China themselves. And nobody knows what will happen then,. I can tell you that my impression is that too many years of Communist Party propaganda have created a PLA that is somewhat divorced from reality and literally believes it is invincible. Japan's fears are real and they would be best served to strengthen their own military now while they have time rather than wish they had done so later when facing a possible Chinese military dictatorship. I believe it is inevitable that the Chinese Communist Party will be removed from power, probably within 10 years. Whether that removal leads to a democratic China or a crazy military dictatorship that in a worst case scenario could be like dealing with a gigantic North Korea, I don't know. But I'm pretty sure that the Chinese military leaders are not as sane as rational as they need to be and it's not going to be good at all for anybody if they end up running the show there.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I really hope (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, Ukraine had a treaty where both Russia and US guaranteed its territorial integrity in exchange for post-Soviet nuclear disarmament.
This is somewhat misleading. The treaty Budapest Memorandum stated that both Russia and the U.S. would respect its territorial integrity, not guarantee it. Russia broke this agreement, but there is nothing in the treaty stating that the remaining signatories had to come to Ukraine's defense*.
There are the 6 obligations outlined in the treaty:
1) Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty and the existing borders.
2) Refrain from the threat or use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
3) Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
4) Seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, "if Belarus/Kazakhstan/Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
5) Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
6) Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
*#4 would have a bit more teeth if the part about nuclear weapons was left out.
Re: (Score:2)
At least get your facts straight before you go insulting long time allies.
Re: (Score:2)
Turkey has been a member of NATO since 1952, and considering that the Bosporus is the chief gateway for a large part of Russia's navy, Turkey's membership was pretty integral to the Soviet containment policy.
Re: (Score:2)
NATO was created in response to Soviet actions following WW2, specifically the Berlin Blockade served as a major catalyst for its formation. The Axis alliance had been dismantled before that.
Re: (Score:3)
NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and its members used to be strictly those seaboard nations touching the Atlantic Ocean and was an alliance against the Axis Powers. Today even terrorist harbouring countries such as Turkey are members of NATO. NATO like the UN are obsolete abd should be dismantled.
It was an alliance not against the Axis Powers but against the Communist bloc.
Other than that, I fully agree w/ you. Communism was our enemy during the Cold War, but since the 90s, Islam has replaced it as the leading enemy of the West. That's a part of what makes NATO obsolete: it pretends that Russia is still an enemy, while Turkey ain't. The Turkey of Kemal has been dead for a while now: the Turkey that pined to be a part of Europe is dead, and in its place is a Turkey that would like to reviv
Turkey, Islam & the West (Score:3)
One doesn't have to be a 'Putin Bot' to recognize that the Turkey of today is no longer the Turkey of Kemal Mustafa a.k.a. Ataturk.
Kemal Ataturk saw Islam as an ideology that kept Turkey from becoming a modern state, and so after removing the Caliphate, he made Turkey a secular country - even though its population was fully Muslim - and totally redid its culture in far reaching ways - like replacing the Arabic script w/ the Roman. His successors did everything they could to integrate Turkey into Europe.
Re: (Score:3)
It is generally understood that Japan could become a nuclear power in fairly short order if it needed to. This isn't Iran desperately trying to gain nuclear capability, this is one of the most advanced industrial powers in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
They can get it done in time because the US nuclear shield means China and Russia wouldn't do it at all. If, eventually, the US does withdraw its nuclear shield from its East Asian allies, you can be sure Japan and South Korea would be nuclear states in very short order.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not forget there are 23 US military bases [militarybases.com] already in Japan, providing some considerable deterrent to aggression.
In some ways, the growth of the Nippon economy can be tied to the lack of a huge defense budget.
Re: (Score:3)
LOL at the astounding amount of miscomprehension in this post. The only reason Japan is pacifist today is because the USA guaranteed its safety. In fact, both axis powers are still today under occupation. So, how 'bout those US forces in Okinawa, right? Get 'em out! And then suddenly Japan is responsible for its own defense and it's the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere all over again. Thinking the entire world is just like yourself and would never harm a fly is the worst kind of unworldly solips
Re: I really hope (Score:2)
In fact, both axis powers are still today under occupation.
There were three Axis powers. Although if you want to count Germany and Japan as occupied by the US, Italy is occupied as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Finland was forced by Soviet aggression into the Axis. The Soviets were nearly two years away from war with Germany when they invaded Finland, so I view the Winter War and Finland's attempts to find alliances to maintain its territorial integrity a little differently than, say, Vichy France.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which might be something if that was actually the way it happened.
Re: (Score:3)
The Soviets were pretty much working hard to start the Winter War. They even shelled their own troops to provide the excuse. I'm going to have to say that I don't see the Finns in any light but self-defense against a country like Stalin's Soviet Union. The fact that they managed to even remain independent in that situation was nothing more than astounding.
Yeah, if you're fighting with the Nazis, you are totally in a bizarre place, but we need to remember that what Germany in regard to Jews and minorities
Re: (Score:3)
Even Churchill was not unmoved by the Finnish plight, and regretted that the necessities of war required that Britain turn a blind eye to the Soviet aggression in Karelia. I view Finland's alignment with the Axis is a sad twist of history that somehow left Finland stained as a collaborator state, and let Russia off the hook for what was an aggressive war to annex Finnish territory.
Re: (Score:3)
You forgot Croatia and Yugoslavia as signers to the Tripartite Pact however the major and original signatory nations to the Tripartite Pact were Germany, Japan, and Italy and these three nations are the ones traditionally thought of as Axis nations. When you say "both Axis power" that is a phrase that is non-sense unless you define the Axis powers as the original signatories to the Anti-Comintern Pact which would qualify as Germany and Japan.
It is really prudent to differentiate between the Tripartite and A
Re: (Score:2)
Fallacies are fake or deceptive arguments, arguments that prove nothing. Fallacies often seem superficially sound, and they far too often retain immense persuasive power even after being clearly exposed as false.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't trust every made up quote you see on teh intarwebz
-- Abraham Lincoln, book of Unarius
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I really hope (Score:5, Insightful)
More than that, being pacifist has kept Japan safe for decades.
I think it's more likely that the U.S. military presence in Japan has kept it safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Japan's Self Defence Forces are pretty formidable on their own, and of course they have the means to build and deliver a nuclear weapon anywhere on earth in a few months. They also have their own spy satellites etc. so it's not like China could sneak attack them.
Re: (Score:2)
China or Russia could deliver a ballistic missile armed with nuclear warheads to Japan in a few minutes, and Japan would be helpless to stop it. One of the things* stopping them from doing so is the threat of retaliation from the rest of the nuclear club.
*Of course there are other major reasons for China or Russia to not do this, but Mutually Assured Destruction is definitely one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
And if China or Russia did that, they'd be saying hello to US ICBM's in a few minutes. There won't be any nuclear strikes on Japan or South Korea. The Chinese won't do it, the Russians have no reason to, and China would never allow North Korea to do it (if NK could even do it, there are significant doubts about its rocket abilities).
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point I was trying to make....were you in agreement?
Re: (Score:2)
" The current pacifist constitution is a model other countries should look too, not one that should be abandoned"
Which was imposed on them by the US after WWII.
"More than that, being pacifist has kept Japan safe for decades. "
I think you will find that it is more that the US military has kept the safe for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It reflects reality.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
North Korea's ability to launch (possibly nuclear) missiles at Japan,
So here's an opportunity to do a little negotiations. Japan says it needs to arm up because of the North Korean threat. This makes China nervous. China can step up and sit on Kim Jong-un and maybe Japan will feel more at ease. Joint talks between China and Japan over this could also lead to better communications over maritime boundaries than just sending in the warships.
"stimulus" (Score:2)
Please Build Mechs (Score:4, Funny)
Oh dear god, please build Mechs! You'll need them when giant creatures emerge from a rift in space-time in the Pacific...
WTF? (Score:2)
Is it more of a nation than it was ten years ago, or is this just more incompetent writing funnelled through a dipshit editor?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to take a wild guess and assume what was meant was China's status as a "growing nation"... or rather, the transition from a 3rd world country into a 1st world powerhouse - economically, militarily, and socially. Although maybe I'm giving too much credit. Agreed, though... poorly worded.
China has only itself to blame (Score:5, Interesting)
The only reason that Japan is doing this is because China is coming. The USA currently guarantees Japan's safety, but seeing as the Japanese hate the US military being on their soil, it's only a matter of time until they get kicked out, to thunderous applause. Then, it's back to the good old days of Japan/China relations.
Why are the Chinese doing what they're doing? Two reasons, the first being that they require external resources to power their economy. Without military control, they're under the domination of the international bankers, and we all know how well that turns out.
China's view is, "we were out of commission for 150 years, but now we're back, and it's time return to the old system where everyone acknowledges China as the center of the world (a far better translation of 'zhongguo' than the pathetic 'middle kingdom' literal translation). Oh, and we're bringing back the kowtow so be ready to knock your head on the floor when you visit us." They were wronged in the past, and now it is time for others to be wronged. Social justice in action. The second reason is to distract their population from the horrid job the Communist Party is doing. Growth is slowing, people are getting restless, and some of them are getting crazy ideas like they could do a better job running the government themselves rather than allowing the smart people to do it. The smart people have been ruthlessly fucking over the ordinary people and laughing about it. You can turn on Chinese TV any hour of the day or night and see at least 2-3 wartime dramas, all reminding the people about WWII. Sheesh, we Americans got sucker-punched by the Japanese but we paid them back in spades. China never got to do this...the Japanese surrendered and suffered few defeats in the mainland. So they do it on TV every day...the joke is that more Japanese soldiers die every month at TV studios than died during the whole war. And it is always the Communist Party doing the fighting, when the truth is that they wisely stayed out of the war and let the right-wingers do all the dying. You gotta hand it to them, they have a good plan and they're executing it well. Japan doesn't really have a choice but to re-arm, they want the Americans out and without defense, it will be Japan who will become a client of China.
Re:China has only itself to blame (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Prestigious to join the military! In the USA of 2016!!! WTF, where have you been for the last 50 years? Elites stopped joining the military a long, long time ago and indeed today spit on those who do. The entire Left considers the US military nothing more than cowardly baby-killers. Prestigious...wow there's a screamer. Thanks for that, I needed a laugh today.
Broad generalizations are the staple of the weak minded. You are partially right that joining the military is not as prestigious as it used to be, but that has nothin g to do with external lefty chupacabras and boogeymen. People in the service no longer recommend others to join. People in the service had ask their relatives to buy and ship body armor when our overthrew the Hussein regime. Undermanned, and underequiped, on the Republican watch.
Do you have an idea how many veterans are at risk (or become) h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not a cheap shot to say that the Left has hated the US military since the days of Vietnam if not before. Let's not cry crocodile tears and pretend we care about them, eh? Remember: cowards who hide behind drones and murder civilians. And laugh about it. Shall we do a Google search, or can you do that yourself?
Reading comprehension. I never said this is not true. And it is still a cheap shot because it doesn't address the bipartisan issues that have created the situation we are in. I'm interested in changing the state of our military for the better and take the left and the right to task. You are just interested in harking back to slogans and talking points.
Feel free to have the last word. You win.
Arms Sales as well (Score:4, Interesting)
Overall, this is nothing bad - even were Japan to fully rearm, Japan today is a far cry from the aggressive expansionist of 80 years ago. China is the real threat to international stability and order in East Asia with its aggressive attempts to seize outlying islands on the flimsiest of justifications. (North Korea is a threat as well, but more to South Korea, and to a lesser extent Japan)
The Japanese public is also incredibly wary of full rearmament, and they're undergoing massive protests to the current government's plan to even relax some of the pacifist restrictions to let them do things like help the USA prior to a direct attack. To put another way, as it currently stands, if North Korea attacks South Korea, and starts firing missiles at US ships, Japan wouldn't be able to do a thing until Japan itself is fired on - not even to shoot down missiles targeting US transports.
History with China suggests need for defense (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Japan has had a long history with China, and generally not a good one.
True - Most notably, Japan conducted an extremely brutal war of conquest in China in the beginning of the 20th century. The atrocities of the Nazis in Gernmany are well known - Japan was no less bestial in China, IMO. This is still one of the main reasons for the bad blood between Japan and China; as far as I know (but I haven't particularly tried to find out), China has not attacked Japan at any point throughout its entire history.
As for Taiwan and Tibet: a brief look in Wikipedia shows that Taiwan was ann
Re: (Score:2)
Japan has had a long history with China, and generally not a good one.
True - Most notably, Japan conducted an extremely brutal war of conquest in China in the beginning of the 20th century. The atrocities of the Nazis in Gernmany are well known - Japan was no less bestial in China, IMO. This is still one of the main reasons for the bad blood between Japan and China; as far as I know (but I haven't particularly tried to find out), China has not attacked Japan at any point throughout its entire history.
As for Taiwan and Tibet: a brief look in Wikipedia shows that Taiwan was annexed by China in 1683. Tibet's relation to China has been more checkered, but it isn't correct to say that China doesn't have a historical claim on that territory. As for whether the annexation by the PRC counts as liberation or not is a matter of taste, I think; as far as I know, it was medieval, feudalistic society, where a majority were serfs who lived in poverty. Punishments like maiming were not uncommon. I know that I would have preferred Communist rule, personally, if that was the alternative.
The Yuan invasion of the Japanese islands. 1274 and 1281. I'm not posting in an attempt of starting a 1st-grader "who started it?" game. I am simply pointing to a well known, extremely important point in the history of warfare.
Ministry of Gundam (Score:2)
It's about time Japan started cutting funding to the Agriculture Ministry [slashdot.org] to increase funding to the Gundam Ministry [slashdot.org].
Another reason... (Score:2)
Japanese universities are already partners in technology development with Japanese companies, as universities around the world are partners with companies in their country.
Japan will lose a quarter of its population in about a generation from now, so the country must transform from the traditional economic engines of growth (manufacturing, services, etc.) to offset the inevitable decline that will occur in those engines.
Japan, with encouragment from the US, sees defense technology R&D, manufacturing, li
Minimum requirements (Score:2)
I absolutely do not support Japan doing military research....
unless it involves building giant sword-wielding mecha. I would absolutely support giant sword-wielding mecha.
In addition to China and NK, Ukraine (Score:2)
China's growing nation status has Japan reconsidering its 70-year old ban on military research projects, as Japanese defense circles actively seek to take advantage of the country's vanguard position in robotic technology.
It is not just China, it is also the lunatics in NK launching missiles over Japanese airspace and making not-so-subtle threats to turn the archipelago into glowing glass. I am sure the US would retaliate and vaporize NK should they carry a devastating attack in Japan, but that is an after-the-fact conclusion. It is one that would not bring comfort to the Japanese who have to face the real threat.
The US position when it comes to a confrontation with China is less clear. Will they help Japan? I doubt it. T
Re:Perhaps (Score:5, Insightful)
Not everything relating to global military concerns revolves around the US.
Pretty much this (Score:3)
I wouldn't be surprised if the research is really only concentrated in two areas:
1) Missile defense technologies to counter NK
2) Navel defense technologies to counter China
Though realistically the second I don't really see as a "counter" so much as it is to apply pressure and to posture over territorial claims.
Re:Pretty much this (Score:5, Funny)
I wouldn't be surprised if the research is really only concentrated in two areas: 1) Missile defense technologies to counter NK 2) Navel defense technologies to counter China
Though realistically the second I don't really see as a "counter" so much as it is to apply pressure and to posture over territorial claims.
Nah, giant fucking mechs or nothing. It's the Japanese destiny.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Please make it so.
Re:Perhaps (Score:5, Insightful)
The US doesn't start fights. It imposes itself into fights it has no reason being involved in. Totally different.
Regarding Japan though, I doubt the Japanese are fearful of the US attacking them anytime soon. It's more that they're worried, rightfully, that if China were to invade them the US may or may not help defend them depending on the politics of the situation. Also the Chinese have been seizing any rock poking it's head above water in the South China Sea to claim territorial rights on, and there's quite a few disputed rocks that China & Japan both claim ownership of.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The US doesn't start fights. It imposes itself into fights it has no reason being involved in. Totally different.
What? We actually create enemies and then attack them. The precise opposite of your assertion is true.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... yeah.
like dudz theres this planet and junk called saturn and like it has no martians living on its surface and stuff and like its like really really cold dudz and i am SUER its all the fault of the USA and junk dudz!!!!!!!!! gawds i hates he usa!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it destroys life everywhere dudz!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sometimes a strawman can be actually creepy. This is one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes a strawman can be actually creepy. This is one of them.
Welcome to Slashdot. Another creepy straw man will be along shortly to take your coat.
Re: (Score:2)
Well...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The US doesn't start fights. It imposes itself into fights it has no reason being involved in. Totally different.
Like WWII, right?
No chance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No chance (Score:5, Insightful)
That's exactly how deterrence works.
And the moment you show you're unable or unwilling to use it, all bets are off, everywhere, for every US ally. The threat becomes useless if you reach the point where you would use it, and you blink and back down instead. The USA would no longer be able to deter China from anything short of an invasion of the mainland USA - and even then, if you keep drawing lines in the sand and I keep crossing them, at what point do I start thinking you'll suddenly change just because I cross another one?
Interesting (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's exactly how deterrence works.
No. The nuclear deterrent only works to deter nuclear war, because nobody wins one of those. It doesn't work to deter conventional warfare, because you can have one of those even if you own nukes. Sanity is not boolean. You can go crazy enough to go to war without being crazy enough to nuke things. People with nukes have been doing it for some time now.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. There are plenty of generals who believe you can have tactical nuclear exchanges and not end up in a global thermonuclear war, WOPR notwithstanding.
Not sure I like the chances of going down that road, but it is theoretically possible to not have an immediate race to annihilation.
Re: (Score:3)
If the USA is unable to stop it by conventional means, then absolutely, yes.
That's exactly how deterrence works.
And the moment you show you're unable or unwilling to use it, all bets are off, everywhere, for every US ally. The threat becomes useless if you reach the point where you would use it, and you blink and back down instead. The USA would no longer be able to deter China from anything short of an invasion of the mainland USA - and even then, if you keep drawing lines in the sand and I keep crossing them, at what point do I start thinking you'll suddenly change just because I cross another one?
Like the US used nukes to defend the Ukraine just as we swore to do in exchange for them getting rid of their nuclear weapons?
I hope that deterrence is not broken unless and until we prove our willingness to use Nukes again, but I fear it may be.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't recall us pledging to use nukes to support Ukraine. They're not even part of NATO.
Now if Russia pulls that in the Baltic states, then you might see some fireworks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No what will happen is a tactical nuclear weapon will be used on say an invading fleet. It would not start with a full exchange of weapons but with an F-18, F-16, F-35, F15E, or B-2 dropping a B-61 on a fleet or a man made island in South China sea or a Chinese sub using a nuclear torpedo to attack a US carrier.
US escalation early? (Score:2)
Chinese first use of nukes? More plausible, but still, I suspect, unlikely. At least I hope so... Though of course in the context of war, everyone does things that were inconceivable before its start. If a shooting war does happen, it will l
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to agree that it is unlikely. I was just pointing out that it would not go right to a full exchange. You may see a nuclear deapth charge , bomb, or antiship missile used at sea or on a manmade island would be the first step.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be so, but the bulk of the PLA's forces are relatively poorly equipped. China has long had the largest army in the world, in theory, but if you compare the average PLA soldier to the average NATO or Russian soldier, they're not in the same league. China is trying to catch up, but it's going to take decades, and it's not as if NATO will be standing still all that time
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, the Chinese can lose 5000 men in one day without batting one eyelid. Can the US withstand such losses the same way? One supercarrier sunk with all hands and it's over.
The Chinese could lose 100 times that in an exchange, and still be a force to be reckoned with.
We are concerned when we lose a few people at an embassy. That arguably is a morally worthy level of concern, but it reminds potential adversaries that all they have to do is kill a few Americans in a particularly visible way, and our backbone softens. Our humanity is tactically a weakness.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem would be getting that Army to Japan or for that matter Taiwan. The Chinese navy is not up to that task.
Re: (Score:2)
We have ten of those supercarriers, and the Chinese don't have shit for a navy. Even with their somewhat better equipment now, they still have poor training and leadership. I'm not worried.
As for China's army, it would be hell on wheels if we had to fight them in China, or even Korea, but China can't land and support their hordes in Japan without very good logistics, which they don't really have. It doesn't help to have 10 million troops when they don't have the training or support to allow them all to b
Re: (Score:3)
Heh, at least two good comments in one thread. You are correct by my reckoning. The US hasn't a damned thing to fear from China. Japan? Well, maybe if the US doesn't protect them and they're left to their own devices, then they're royally screwed. I imagine that China has some history books and a few people left alive that remember. If China gets their hands on Japan, they might just wipe them off the face of the Earth. Add to that, Japan still has people worshiping their war criminals so it's not like any
Re: US escalation early? (Score:3)
Japan still has people worshiping their war criminals
Mod up... and on a related note, this [wikipedia.org] is one of many reasons why we don't want the country of my childhood performing "military research." There's always been something about the insular nature of Japanese culture and the homogeneous nature of Japanese society that lends itself to following the crowd and not questioning authority; it can be argued that there's no country on the planet more likely to succumb to sick-fuck shit than Nihon...
Re:Perhaps (Score:5, Interesting)
Bullshit. If China invades Japan, ICBMs be flying within the hour.
It's not about invading, it's about bullying. If China gets control over the seas around Japan it can always threaten to blockade the Japanese archipelago, holding it in a stranglehold, and then engage in a staring contest over who wants to launch nukes (think Cuban missile crisis). It is necessary to Japan's survival to have unimpeded access to the oceans for trade, and since WW2 it has relied on the United States to guarantee it (the United States is grossly under appreciated in how it's domination of the blue oceans has facilitated global trade and the creation of global GDP). Japan would be extremely uncomfortable if it had to rely on China to guarantee it's ability to trade around the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, just maybe it has something to do with our (USA) penchant for starting fights with the entire fucking planet
Are you implying the US is going to start a fight with Japan?
It's more likely that the Japanese realize that after 8 years of jug-eared pussification the US is unwilling to help them if the chinese or norks start to mess with them and that they are likely going to have to do it themselves.
I look forward to the Neo Japanese Robotic Warlords.
Re:Why shouldn't they? (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
True, although that's mostly because anyone who was a POW or MIA from Korea is likely quite dead by now. They could technically be alive, but it is hard to see someone being treated like a POW in a place like North Korea having a long life in captivity. Even the peasants in NK suffer, I can't imagine any US POW still being alive in that shithole after 50-60 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for the new word, I had not come across "revanchist" before. For anyone else who has to look up a definition:
Revanchism (from French: revanche, "revenge") is the political manifestation of the will to reverse territorial losses incurred by a country, often following a war or social movement - wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Japan is populated by humans, and is thus still subject to the same racist and nationalistic tendencies that they succumbed to before WWII (and which are resurgent in certain segments of the US population now).
Personally, I see nothing wrong with Japan toning down its pacifism a bit (and becoming a little less reliant on US protection), but I can also see how some of the folks over there would be reasonably concerned about things getting out of hand.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason is that the Japs, Chinks, and all the other Slant Eyes in the region can't get along with each other. The result is an arms race that threatens the security of the civilized nations that make up the West. The EU should conduct a few preemptive nuclear strikes against the Japs, the Chinks, and their buddies to put an end to the threat.
Most nations in the EU do not have nuclear weapons. Europe has no purpose involving itself in east asian affairs at the present time. China and Japan especially are extremely civilized and cultured countries, more so than most places in the world. The Chinese and Japanese are most certainly not friends, and I doubt you've even heard of the rest at all. You don't even make an allowance for foreigners living in Japan or American military members stationed here.
Japan is a very innovative and interesting cou
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt he's a "patriot" at all. Just a basement dweller thinking he is accurately portraying the "other" Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
you realize he was trolling right? I doubt he's a "patriot" at all. Just a basement dweller thinking he is accurately portraying the "other" Americans.
I know that full well. But I've encountered a suprisingly high number of people who think like this in real life, and they're not trolling, they honestly think like that. I don't give a crap about him, but hopefully if there's a single shred of reason in somebody left, they'll realize how stupid a view it is to hold. Probably won't change anything, you're right, but then at least I can say I've tried.
Re: (Score:2)