What's new

Japan Might Build 'Super' Destroyers. Why? Think North Korea and China.

You need a super destroyer to defend against North Korea's navy? Really? The National Interest is really scraping the bottom of the barrel here ...

No, I think it is mainly for ballistic defense. They don't want static targets that North Korea can hit.
 
.
Well of course this is in the event of open hostilities which I don't hope for. Actually part of me is happy to see a strong and proud China that can defend itself. Although I don't feel like saying that often because of Pro-CCP troll posters always spamming blatant threats to Japan.

But the claims on Taiwan, the 9 dash line, and the Senkaku islands are unacceptable.

Cutting PRC access to the ME wouldn't cut PRC oil supply entitely. Yes the PRC has domestic oil production and oil land routes that include Russia. But with greater supply comes lower cost. The PRC is massive and much of it uses oil, not just the Navy. Not just the military. A drastic cut in oil supply would resort on increased oil costs. Perhaps triple the cost. That will inevitably slow GDP growth. Supply of other goods transported by sea would also naturally be cut. Joint navy exercises between Pakistan and China would end. The PRC base a Djibouti would disappear. Vietnam would grow into a military power armed to the teeth. Open hostilities would present Taiwan with notjing left to lose in declaring an official independence. The cost to Russia for being a partner to an increasingly isolated China is the loss of some of its military export markets to traditional partners Vietnam and India. As those countries seek less from China-friendly Russia and more from India-friendly countries regarding China. Russia may be unwilling to stick that close to China when you think about it.
If you really mean what you say about China. Then you better stop kissing American a$$se$. Because we're not the ones holding you hostage. A few rocks in the sea can be settled on the negotiating table.
I also like Japanese girls. :D
 
. . .
Back
Top Bottom