When a Japanese Carrier escorts an American Carrier

[Hamartia Antidote]

so the best long-term solution is probably to move our bases elsewhere (another Japanese island, a new artificial island,

The Rising Sun: Japan Prepares for 2017 Creation of New Constitutional Amendments

I suggested somewhere here: Bonin Islands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iwo Jima....

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

The Rising Sun: Japan Prepares for 2017 Creation of New Constitutional Amendments

I suggested somewhere here: Bonin Islands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

View attachment 224765

Iwo Jima....

Aren't those somewhat far away, though, not providing much more benefit than simply pulling back to Guam or Saipan? What about the Daito Islands, can they be built up sufficiently to host the US? The population there is quite low, but they still seem to be geographically relevant given their proximity to Okinawa.

 

[Aepsilons]

I realize that at 1% of GDP, Japan technically has capacity to expand its military spending, but from where will the financing come? Increased debt, or is another area of the budget being cut to make room for these expenditures?

Japan still runs a deficit over 3% of GDP, while the US just fell under 3% last year--and we have implemented difficult cuts to our budget. If the US, with its comparatively better economic outlook, is cutting defense spending, how can Japan be expanding its defense budget?

Hi Sir,



I agree with you that Japan has to take up a more active role , to shoulder its own burden , not merely to complement the American global strategy, but also to satisfy Japanese security interests. Its interesting to note that Japan’s current political situation , and defense standing was not necessarily so. In fact, one can even credit the Soviet Factor.

Permit me to provide a historical explanation for this. The year form 1978 to 1985 were a crucial period in which Japan shifted its “omnidirectional” foreign policy to a closer and more integrated defense alliance with the United States. Already in 1978, when Japan concluded a Treaty of Peace and Friendship (PFT) with the People’s Republic of China , it was tilting towards a US-Chinese-Japanese entente against Soviety hegemony. Nevertheless, Japan under the Ohira Masayoshi government resisted pressure from the United States to bring Japanese defense policy into closer alignment with US global strategy, opting instead for a new concept of “comprehensive security” that encompassed not merely military but also economic security.

The Soviet deployment of troops into the contentious Northern Territories and the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan are often seen as having spurred Japan’s strategic reorientation. Japan’s adherence to omnidirectional foreign policy was no longer tenable as the Soviet Threat to Japan’s security increased, so the government in Tokyo sought closer defense cooperation with the United States. The first major change took place under Ohiro, who gave in to U.S pressure and accepted closer defense cooperation with the United States, but still resisted an increase in Japan’s defense budget, despite repeated US requests and pressure.

When President Ronal Reagan succeeded Jimmy Carter, the new administration switched course vis-a-v-s Japan. Unlike the Carter Administration which had focused on Japan’s defense spending, the Reagan administration was eager to have the Japanese take up specific military tasks in the framework of the US global strategy against Soviet expansionism. The soviet threat was the most decisive motivation for the development of a closer US-Japanese security alignment. Each new Soviet action --- the deployment of Soviet troops in the Northern territories – the soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the deployment of backfire bombers and SS-20 nuclear missiles in the Far East – provided new impetus towards closer US-Japanese defense cooperation.

So as you see, Sir, Japan’s current alignment with the United States has been reactive towards regional threats, Japan has not , by its primary preference, chosen to align with the United States to instill its will on other countries, rather has chosen to take up a more active role from its past omnidirectionality – to preserve semblance of stability. Even now that Japan has developed its military capabilities , still, one can see that that sense of omnidirectionality still is present , that resistance to completely militarize, since there is even considerable resistance in the opposition parties such as the DPJ in the Diet. Even within the LDP and New Komeito Parties (which holds dominance in the Diet) there has been resistance within the LDP-affiliated councilors and representatives to increase the defense budget above 1% of the GDP. The reason for this, Sir, is because we simply have to maintain a healthy and responsible budgetary process. The current goal is to decrease the deficit by 1% primary by 2018 and to be honest Abe has done well in implementing necessary decision making to revitalize the Japanese economy: 1) raised taxes, 2) implemented monetary easing, 3) lowered corporate taxes, 4) promoted re-shoring of Japanese businesses from abroad back to Japan. This has led to our recent success in this 1st quarter of the fiscal year with the goal of an annualized growth rate of 2.4% (that’s impressive, Sir, since last year we were in a negative trend !). So the plan is to maintain defense budget , and at the same time implement necessary cost-saving strategies to bring our deficit down , much like what the United States has done --- and rather well at it too !

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Aren't those somewhat far away, though, not providing much more benefit than simply pulling back to Guam or Saipan? What about the Daito Islands, can they be built up sufficiently to host the US? The population there is quite low, but they still seem to be geographically relevant given their proximity to Okinawa.

Those islands you mentioned seem like an obvious choice for the Japanese/US government rather than dealing with the Okinawan mess. Considering the population is less than 1500 people you'd think with the snap of a finger this whole issue could be solved. My guess is there must be something more to it with these islands for them to be out of the running (environmental?).

 

[Aepsilons]

Regarding Okinawa, I'm not talking about a unilateral pull-out, but rather a transition as part of a negotiated solution. The US presence is clearly no longer welcome in Okinawa, and I don't believe in stationing American soldiers where they aren't wanted (cough-SouthKorea-cough, ah-Philippines-choo), so the best long-term solution is probably to move our bases elsewhere (another Japanese island, a new artificial island, pulling back to Guam, etc.) and have Japan fill the vacuum as its own military role strengthens. America is increasingly embracing an alliance system to manage its affairs abroad, as the global commands simply don't have the resources to act unilaterally anymore (thus the Syria debacle after the UK parliamentary rejected intervention). It thus makes sense that the US would encourage Japan to build up its forces and bear more responsibility for its sector, if you will; and that is also why the US has been pushing so hard for a Japan-SK reconciliation, and has been supportive of the rapidly strengthening ties between Japan and Australia, etc.

On the other hand, some analysts have posited that Abe's moves to expand the definition of "collective self defense" aren't simply an attempt to make the US-Japan defense relationship more symmetrical, but rather to normalize the Japanese armed forces and create a sphere of influence in its own right, independent of the US (think Shintaro Ishihara). Taking the long view, Abe's increased military spending would the first step in such a move, with assumption of the Okinawa garrison as a medium-term step. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?

As for Okinawa.

We had a discussion about this before and I have told you that I have mixed feelings about this since US military forces stationed in Okinawa are actually part of the JSDF strategy in island chain defense, and as one who served in the armed services, I have deep respect and appreciation for American servicemen whom we work with closely. Deeply.

At the same time the protestations from Okinawa folks against American military presence is a legislative, gubernatorial and judicial issue. The current governor of Okinawa ran on the platform that once he wins the governorship, would forward the mandate of blocking the Henoko base construction. At the same time he has resisted Executive “arm twisting” by Abe and even the Defense Ministry in cooperating. This has taken ear to the House of Councillors and House of Representatives in The Diet and now is a legislative debate on the constitutionality of hosting military bases in Okinawa, and even has led to debate on the constitutionality on Article 9 – itself ! It has led to some legislatures to invoking the intervention of the Saiko Saibansho (Supreme Court of Japan) to make a ruling, but this has yet to happen. In other words, Sir, its causing a democratic oiling, lol.

Ideally, we would prefer that the United States stays. Until the situation in the region normalizes and stabilizes. With the current threat of Pyongyang and China’s recent hegemonistic actions so far, I think we are moving away and away from this so called normalization. This therefore necessitates the presence of American military in the region.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

So as you see, Sir, Japan’s current alignment with the United States has been reactive towards regional threats, Japan has not , by its primary preference, chosen to align with the United States to instill its will on other countries, rather has chosen to take up a more active role from its past omnidirectionality – to preserve semblance of stability.

Thanks for that enlightening analysis. While I am aware of current tensions between the US and Japan when it comes to countries like Iran and Russia (with Japan attempting to grow those relationships, while the US attempts to isolate Iran and Russia), I was unaware of the pre-1980s friction with regard to the USSR.

That said, what does your statement above mean in light of Abe's push to expand the definition of "collective self-defense"? That would seem to accentuate the alliance, rather than strengthen omnidirectionality, at least as far as I understand it.

 

[Aepsilons]

The Rising Sun: Japan Prepares for 2017 Creation of New Constitutional Amendments

I suggested somewhere here: Bonin Islands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

View attachment 224765

Iwo Jima....

Better yet.

I would propose Japan invite the United States into the Okinotoroshima Island. We are currently conducting island genesis on said island, which will be a JMSDF naval base in the future. A joint Japanese-American occupation of said island base would be perfect. In fact, it would secure the Western Pacific.


Please observe, some pictures of island genesis in Okinotorishima:

Thanks for that enlightening analysis. While I am aware of current tensions between the US and Japan when it comes to countries like Iran and Russia (with Japan attempting to grow those relationships, while the US attempts to isolate Iran and Russia), I was unaware of the pre-1980s friction with regard to the USSR.

That said, what does your statement above mean in light of Abe's push to expand the definition of "collective self-defense"? That would seem to accentuate the alliance, rather than strengthen omnidirectionality, at least as far as I understand it.

Of course Japan has now been aligned with the United States Global Strategy because , quite frankly, most , if not all, of our national interests intertwine. From economic interests in China (and overall our governments' need to balance relations with China because there's just so much economic interests involved), to the maintenance of freedom of navigation as both the United States and Japan are both maritime powers with vast merchant fleets that need the open waters to and no inhibition from foreign navies.

The United States would have a compliant Japan -- that will defend mutual interests in the middle east, that will defend interests in the Baltic, defend interests in the Atlantic, as well as the Pacific. Collective self defense is the first step towards Japanese military normalization. And as you noted, Japan's engagement (entente) with Iran is a sign of our omnidirectionality. We are keen on developing relations with developing nations and I believe that Japan may also help serve as a conduit for American-Iranian communique as Japan and the United States are partners. At the same time Iran has a favorable opinion of Japan and through Japan --- agreements could be made between Washington and Tehran.

 

[As is - where is]

This thing has an EEZ? Really? ._. Damn.

 

[Aepsilons]

This thing has an EEZ? Really? ._. Damn.

Of course

Why do you think we have such a large navy for?

To look pretty? lol

 

[As is - where is]

I'm just saying it because of the disputes that Greece has (mostly with Turkey and Albania) over whether its islands are entitled to an EEZ or not. Greek islands have villages, are populated since ancient times, have ports and airports and yet there are disputes.

 

[Aepsilons]

I'm just saying it because of the disputes that Greece has (mostly with Turkey and Albania) over whether its islands are entitled to an EEZ or not. Greek islands have villages, are populated since ancient times, have ports and airports and yet there are disputes.

The Japanese Archipelago consists of over 6,900 islands. And all of the islands are inhabited (except for around 400 which are uninhabited). For example, Japan has islands to our southern quadrant known as the Ogasawara Islands -- these are populated in the thousands per island.

I actually made a thread about this, please help yourself to explore it.



The Japanese Western Pacific, the Imperial Frontier

@As is - where is ,

If you juxtapose Japanese Maritime EEZ maps and our Ogasawara Islands --- you see how it makes sense.

 

[Carlosa]

We can count on one hand the militaries that actually 'took on' the US, whether by choice or by circumstance:

- Germany
- Japan
- China
- Iraq

China is unique in that China 'took on' the US twice, or thrice, depending on perspective:

- Direct confrontation in Korea.
- Second hand in Viet Nam.
- Rhetorical in the world.

This history is neither ignored nor forgotten by the leaderships of both countries. The lessons of Korea gave pause to what China is willing to bear in Viet Nam when Ho Chi Minh sent a delegation to China to appeal for active combat participation in the manner of US forces, the result was that China relegated her forces to support roles to the (North) Vietnamese.

China cannot fight US on the rhetorical battleground the way she did during the Cold War simply because today there are too many types of relationships between China and the US, prominent of those relationships is economic. China does not have any ideological conviction to support any proxy in that proxy's conflict against US -- vis a vis Viet Nam.

That leave direct military confrontation.

Despite being a continental power, China's coastline made her a sea power as well, or at least a potential one. Unfortunately, China have let that potential atrophied to the point of gross negligence. Not so with Japan. Despite the devastation of WW II, Japan's reconstruction of every aspects of her society have not ignored the sea power potential the way China did and that mindfulness is reflected in the JMSDF today. Absent a large land army to support territorial expansionist goals, that leave the JMSDF the primary, if not sole, executor/protector of Japan's national interests outside her islands. Keep in mind that throughout history, first impressions of countries are usually made by and between military commanders before the self importance diplomats takes over. So if Chinese aggression continues to build, and I believe it will, the JMSDF will have to don the 'diplomat' hat as well in trying to build an alliance of Asian countries to counter-balance China.

Despite the childish 'nuking', the DF-21D, and DSI blather from the Chinese camp on this forum, China cannot afford a direct military confrontation against the US. That leave US Asian allies vulnerable to Chinese bullying and this is where Japan, via the JMSDF, can take the lead, even ahead of the US, in securing an Asian alliance to counter China. South Korea, unfortunately, will not be of much help simply because of constant vigilance of North Korea. South Korea can, at best, protect her territorial waters, and not able to protect Japan's flank in the East China Sea, that leave -- again -- the JMSDF.

The boldest move the JMSDF can make -- and this will take diplomatic and military balls of brass -- is a direct run to Viet Nam and secure at least an initial first impression of good will between the two countries. Currently, the PLAN is too weak to directly confront the JMSDF, even without US support, but with US support, a relationship between Japan and Viet Nam will reinforce the belief that freedom of navigation in the South China Sea is necessary if these smaller Asian countries are to economically prosper.

Japan is in a tight spot, for the historical long term, and all three major powers knows it.

Good analysis, Vietnam is also in a tight spot. There are intense military and political contacts between US and Vietnam right now, there is a lot going on behind the curtain, we'll soon know how far Vietnam will go in terms of a possible military alliance of sorts with USA.

The increasingly aggressive posture of China in the Spratlys and the fact that recent warnings to PH and USA flights over the area clearly imply that China does intend to have full control over the area in total disregard to international law makes a confrontation all but inevitable and that will force Vietnam to take a position, can't stay on the sidelines forever.

The other question also is how far will Obama go. He is known for not wanting to take risks and for avoiding confrontation. Will he step up to the platter or will he leave it for the next president?

Plenty of decision making coming up.

This thing has an EEZ? Really? ._. Damn.

Artificial islands can't have an EEZ, period. International law is very clear about that.

The thing is, China claims that Okinotorishima can't have an EEZ, but at the same time they pretend that their artificial islands in the Spratlys can have territorial waters and EEZ, they want to have the cake and eat it too.

 

[hans]

Japan will never build such a carrier..US won`t allow it..
Yes, you are right.
Defeat your competitor in economy is much easier than in battlefield..

Great ... Build it Fast , and create a CBG , and send it on a good Will visit to Pakistan

I dont think China wants any War in Asia , they are busy in taking over World Business and Industries
a War will effect their efforts ..

Whether an island should have EEZ or not is depending on if it can support the life of normal people.
A rock or island not suitable for human living cannot have EEZ but only 12Nm sea territory..
So that is why Okino should not have EEZ.
regarding artificial islands, if you build island from below water, of course you should not have EEZ.
But things will be different if the island already there and only made larger to support human living....

Good analysis, Vietnam is also in a tight spot. There are intense military and political contacts between US and Vietnam right now, there is a lot going on behind the curtain, we'll soon know how far Vietnam will go in terms of a possible military alliance of sorts with USA.

The increasingly aggressive posture of China in the Spratlys and the fact that recent warnings to PH and USA flights over the area clearly imply that China does intend to have full control over the area in total disregard to international law makes a confrontation all but inevitable and that will force Vietnam to take a position, can't stay on the sidelines forever.

The other question also is how far will Obama go. He is known for not wanting to take risks and for avoiding confrontation. Will he step up to the platter or will he leave it for the next president?

Plenty of decision making coming up.

Artificial islands can't have an EEZ, period. International law is very clear about that.

The thing is, China claims that Okinotorishima can't have an EEZ, but at the same time they pretend that their artificial islands in the Spratlys can have territorial waters and EEZ, they want to have the cake and eat it too.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Japan will never build such a carrier..US won`t allow it..

Oh boy...are you so wrong...

 

[Carlosa]

Whether an island should have EEZ or not is depending on if it can support the life of normal people.
A rock or island not suitable for human living cannot have EEZ but only 12Nm sea territory..
So that is why Okino should not have EEZ.
regarding artificial islands, if you build island from below water, of course you should not have EEZ.
But things will be different if the island already there and only made larger to support human living....

Wrong, what you are saying applies to natural islands, artificial islands don't have a right to either EEZ or territorial waters. Read the UNCLOS regulations, they are very clear.