Chinese submarines, destroyers spotted in high seas near Okinawa

[faithfulguy]

Wrong...You might want to read up on the idea 'institutional memory'. Continuity is more about the preservation of ideas and experiences than it is about structural changes and the transference of these records from one generation to the subsequent.

Maybe I didn't completely explain my reasoning. Both Germany and Japan renounced the use of military as a mean of policy. Japan does not even have a "army" or "navy" They are given different names. Though Japan had built aircraft carriers as a country, they haven't done it in 60 years that its possible that they would struggle to build one today. The same goes with Germany with warmach. Do you see any more well known German fighter jets after WWII even though they are the country that created the first jet fighters? Germans renounced their past even more than the Japanese. So neither countries would be able to arm themselves. Even if they can restore their technical knowledge, the emotions against rearming themselves would prevent them from doing so.

 

[faithfulguy]

Who is the better choice for publishing advice...Take a look at the source for printing presses below...

Printing press - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...And ask who would you rather contract with if you want to print for the masses in the shortest possible time?

Technology often compel radical changes in operations, if not in concepts. Sailing techniques demands the sailor to be aware of changes in wind directions, thereby affecting maneuvers, thereby influential in combat. Powered ships have no such worries. If any ship that frets over changes in wind directions are aircraft carriers as the ship would prefers to launch and land aircrafts into the wind. Another appropriate analogy is the sliderule versus a Texas Instrument scientific calculator. Which engineering company is going to be more productive in the shortest possible time?


The JMSDF has more experience in 'blue water' operations than the PLAN, even though it is primarily a self defense force with no power projection ambitions.


Wrong...That is not how alliances base their foundations. What we casually called 'war' is essentially a state of hostility between two or more nation-states. The two Koreas are technically at war. An 'armed conflict' is when the state of hostility, aka 'war', moved laterally. Some would call it an 'escalation', and some call it 'deterioration'. No matter what term, when there is an 'armed conflict', the state of 'war' by then has been extensively analyzed by all sides and justifications for the state of 'armed conflict' established.

If Japan is the one to move a 'war' into an 'armed conflict' by firing the first shot, the US would most likely be an already active participant leading up to that first shot -- by Japan. The alliance's justifications would have been established for said escalation. We can use the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait for example when Iraq accused Kuwait of 'lateral drilling' into Iraqi territory. The charge, true or false is irrelevant, constitute the justification process to punish Kuwait and exact revenge. If the US, based upon said analysis, determine any justification process to escalate the 'war' into an 'armed conflict', is not worthwhile for any reason, selfish or otherwise, and Japan decide to make an 'irrational' decision and proceed with that justification process, the US would or should make a public decline to support that escalation, putting Japan into an inferior position. For Japan, losing the public support of a powerful ally would force Japan to reassess the justification process that led up to the desire to escalate the 'war'.

In any alliance, there are always disparities in capabilities and experience among alliance members and there is always at least a tacit understanding that when an 'armed conflict' involve a member who depends on a militarily superior member, the inferior must do whatever he can to reduce the burden of support by the superior. So assuming the US does support Japan in moving the 'war' into an 'armed conflict', the combined capabilities and combat experience of both navies would make short work of the PLAN without requiring the US wielding the full might of the USN into this 'armed conflict'.

True. But this could also affect by the policy of the country. For example, the US state that its against Taiwan declare independent. But its against China use its military to attack Taiwan. China, on the other hand, state that it would attack Taiwan if Taiwan indeed declares independent. So if that is the case, no one knows whether US would refrain from assist Taiwan because Taiwan did declare independent or step in to assist Taiwan even though the government had asked Taiwan not to declares independence.

A arms conflict between Japan and China is not as likely because neither China nor Japan has any "claims" on one another. If there is any conflict on any of the islands south of Japan, neither would likely escalate the situation into a all out war. As of now, both China, Japan and the US are more interested in economic development. But if a conflict does occured, it would be a quick battle between the forces in the immediate area and the situation would quickly deescalate.

 

[RAHUL INDIAN]

Maybe I didn't completely explain my reasoning. Both Germany and Japan renounced the use of military as a mean of policy. Japan does not even have a "army" or "navy" They are given different names. Though Japan had built aircraft carriers as a country, they haven't done it in 60 years that its possible that they would struggle to build one today. The same goes with Germany with warmach. Do you see any more well known German fighter jets after WWII even though they are the country that created the first jet fighters? Germans renounced their past even more than the Japanese. So neither countries would be able to arm themselves. Even if they can restore their technical knowledge, the emotions against rearming themselves would prevent them from doing so.

emotions are not something you can predict or will want to be basic of your reasoning...

on the contrary when in need or danger emotions help you get more out of you then normal.

 

[below_freezing]

despite the knowledge in powered ship warfare 60 years ago by Japan, their lack of experience NOW, as in, experience in the age of missile warfare which is as large a difference from sails to engines as from guns to missiles.

the PLA on the other hand fought all of its major engagements in the age of missile warfare.

in fact, despite the weakness of the PLAN, it is always supplemented by the air force and 2nd artillery.

also, in a large scale war against Japan, there is no need for the conflict to be limited to navy vs. navy. in a real war, the PLAAF and 2nd artillery would make any attempted intervention by the USN much more costly, not to mention japan itself would be devastated with the launch of all cruise missiles per frigate/destroyer at strategic targets within japan.

 

[grey boy 2]

China said Thursday that its naval ships in the East China Sea did not violate international law, after Japanese media alleged that two Chinese submarines and eight destroyers were spotted circling Japan's Okinotori coral reefs.

Huang Xueping, a spokesman with the Chinese Ministry of National Defense, warned countries concerned to not track down or disrupt the activities of Chinese military vessels engaged in normal defense exercises.

"We will investigate whether China has any intention against our nation" by dispatching the vessels, Japanese Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa said last week.

A military source told the Global Times Thursday that Chinese vessels had not reached Okinotori coral reefs.
Huang said the Chinese navy's drills on the high seas are common practice, and will not pose a threat to other countries.

Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada said Wednesday the Chinese vessel had not violated international law. Ministry officials also said the incident would have limited impact on bilateral relations. China defends drills in East China Sea - People's Daily Online April 23, 2010

Source: Global Times