[angler57]

andyt sats of me.

I dunno, Angler. Maybe you're a fundie, and so to you it just seems normal?

I am a boring Methodist. Am an indpendent voter.
Love my country.
Yet I feel our leadership? Or lack there of for the last dozen years, counting those now in office, have no idea what goes on outside of D.C.
And could really care less.


Only thing we may be considered to be Fundie about is our naturally grown garden products. And, our blackberries.

Our religion and our vote are our business and we keep it that way.
Folks we know just want the Gov e met to just stay out of our business and our pockets.

[commanderkai]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Japan is reliant on the US for defence?

Yes it does. You might want to believe otherwise, but a country with a military force of about 300,000 (both active and reserve), when the country's population is about...127 million? Even though there are a number of major threats to Japan's sovereignty (North Korea primarily, but China secondary), and the completely anti-gun culture of Japan amongst its civilian population, it's military force is purely defensive in nature, and is not self sufficient to defend it's borders from an invasion by a foreign power, even with their technological superiority (which I'll be getting to later)

$1:

You obviously have no idea of how well equipped and powerful the JSDF is. Japan is far more powerful than anyone else in Asia, with more modern aircraft, ships and weapons than China, Taiwan or South Korea.

Now, who supplies Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan with a great deal of its armaments, specifically combat aircraft? You know the answer, no matter how much you don't like it. Now, does that mean Japan can't create its own combat aircraft? No, it doesn't. Japan CAN create a capable combat aircraft, but it doesn't. Also, before you bring up the F-2, a great deal of its parts are supplied by the United States, even if it's assembled by the Japanese. Building planes based on supplied parts from other countries (Read: The United States) doesn't make you self sufficient militarily.

And yes, I'm focusing on combat aircraft for a reason. I'm sure it can be argued that, barring nuclear strikes, air superiority is needed to conduct combat operations successfully, especially in a symmetrical/conventional war. Although it has an advantage of being an island nation, the massive range of bombers, the relatively small naval force (nothing larger than destroyers, IIRC, and nothing in the huge quantities that the United States fields) means Japan would require a great deal of air power to harass enemy fleets/bombers/ground forces. This is, of course, you believe in the RMA.

As much as Japan is powerful, it currently is not powerful enough to be self sufficient against a major enemy operation. Luckily for Japan, the only country capable (as of now, you have argued plenty about China's rise) is the United States, which is currently Japan's ally.

$1:

It also has an excellent space program and large nuclear industry. If they wanted/needed to have the bomb, Japan would have it in less than a year.

So can Canada. We're still reliant under the US nuclear umbrella even though we CAN make nuclear weapons. They're plenty capable to become self sufficient, but they aren't WILLING to. You can't argue their power based on hypothetical scenarios that can happen, but rather on the current reality.

$1:

Their high level of technology is also helping them to build a missile shield at least as good as the one Dubya built and would easily allow them to build ICBMs if they needed to.

Actually they already have a ICBM. M-V, although a satellite launcher, can be converted into an ICBM. However, even though, ONCE AGAIN, that Japan can be self sufficient and have a nuclear program, they don't at this current point, and there's no proposed program in the future. So...unless you have some knowledge about Japan's nuclear weapon stockpiles somewhere under Mt. Fuj, this doesn't prove Japanese self-sufficiency.

$1:

The only thing that really restrains the Japanese from more aggressive posturing is their constitution and a large number of Japanese citizens who aren't interested in ruling the world militarily (though there is a fairly well-organized right wing movement that advocates that path).

Ding ding ding ding! You just proved me right. The Japanese CAN be militarily self sufficient and independent from the United States, it isn't, because it doesn't want to. You need both civilian and political desire and will to do this. Japan, although having a large technological, industrial, and population base to establish a major military power, independent from supplies and equipment from foreign countries (like, once again, the United States) it has no real motivation to do so. Partially because Japan is protected by the United States, and there's no signs of this changing.

$1:

Yes, the US has bases in Japan, but those are there more for the US's benefit (forward deployment of forces) to intimidate China and North Korea.

Yes, to intimidate China and North Korea from making moves against Taiwan, South Korea...and Japan.

$1:

Perhaps your argument had merit back during the Cold War, but Japan doesn't need anyone to protect it nowadays, least of all the US.

Right. You have dreams of the fall of the American Empire. It hasn't happened yet, and Japan, as much as it can be independent of the American Empire (a term I totally disagree with, but whatever) the fact it still has about 130 fighter aircraft in Japan, compared to Japan's 300, an entire US fleet based in Japan, and 30,000 military personnel (compared to Japan's 300,000), and a great number of bases and facilities still in Japan, the fact is that Japan is still defended by the United States, even after the Cold War.

You argued yourself that military bases were America's "colonies", then the United States still is the colonial overseer of Japan, defending America's interests by intimidating China and North Korea. Why else would the United States even care, either way, if it wasn't to protect Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan?

[fifeboy]

angler57 angler57:

fifeboy fifeboy:

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

Pbbbbbbbbbbbtttt.

Economic power won't push Turkey into leadership of other Muslim states. If anything, increasing wealth would tend to lead Turkey away from that fate.

I will agree with you. A modern industrial society full of middle class folk generally have little time for religious fundamentalism. Well, most don't. It does seem that the U.S.A. is edging toward religious fundamentalism. Let's hope the "normal folks" pass it by.

Where is this happening in USA? Here in the mid-west (Ohio river Valley)don't see anything that supports your statement.

What is happening in the Ohio River Valley? Religious fundies taking over or "normal folks" passing fundamentalism by?

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Japan is reliant on the US for defence?

You obviously have no idea of how well equipped and powerful the JSDF is. Japan is far more powerful than anyone else in Asia, with more modern aircraft, ships and weapons than China, Taiwan or South Korea. It also has an excellent space program and large nuclear industry. If they wanted/needed to have the bomb, Japan would have it in less than a year. Their high level of technology is also helping them to build a missile shield at least as good as the one Dubya built and would easily allow them to build ICBMs if they needed to. The only thing that really restrains the Japanese from more aggressive posturing is their constitution and a large number of Japanese citizens who aren't interested in ruling the world militarily (though there is a fairly well-organized right wing movement that advocates that path).

Yes, the US has bases in Japan, but those are there more for the US's benefit (forward deployment of forces) to intimidate China and North Korea. Perhaps your argument had merit back during the Cold War, but Japan doesn't need anyone to protect it nowadays, least of all the US.

Interesting. I did not know this. I thought Japan was very weak militarily because of their constitution (written by McArthur). But we all know, technologically, if they put their minds to it they could make advanced weapons no probrem.

This guy's scenario tho, seems to hypothesize that the US etc lose their nukes, or that they won't deploy them if they're threatened.

Under the Japanese constitution, they are not supposed to spend more than 1% of their GDP on defence. 1% doesn't sound like much, until you remember that Japan has the world's 2nd/3rd biggest economy with somewhere between 4 and 5 TRILLION annually. That translates to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $40-50 billion they can spend on defence, which they do. That usually puts them at the top of the non-nuclear nations list for defence spending.

I don't see the US giving up their nukes anytime soon, although I do see them reducing the numbers of weapons and throw weights, simply because technology is far better than it was 30 years ago during the Cold War. Trident launched SLBM D-5 warheads have the ability to take out hardened targets, like missile silos and command bunkers, which the C-4 (the first generation Trident) didn't have. I also don't imagine there will be any new bombers constructed anytime soon, as the USAF already has more heavy bombers than it needs. I foresee the US maintaining an arsenal of a few thousand warheads, which is still plenty to kill all of us.

The only reason they built and deployed so many weapons during the Cold War was due to the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine, which meant that they needed to have enough weapons to survive a first strike by the USSR. It was believed (thank god we never had to find out), that the Soviets wouldn't dare launch a first strike if they knew that the USA would turn their whole country into ash.

[commanderkai]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Wake up. Japan has the largest navy in the Pacific Ocean at any given time since about 2005, their air force is more modern than anyone else's in the world (meaning they have more newer airframes per capita than any other air force), and I believe it was last year or 2008 that their PM quietly announced that Japan could be a nuclear-armed state in a matter of a few months if they wanted to be.

I don't deny Japan has the capacity to be self sufficient from US influence, but so far, even with it's expansion of its military of its capabilities since the end of the Cold War (and more recent expansion of its forces due to the threat of North Korea), it still has not reached the point where it is self sufficient enough to be independent of American influence in military affairs.

Being capable of such a feat, ranging from being a nuclear power, but also, more importantly (I'd argue) having a self sufficient, or mostly self sufficient defense industry. So far, for combat aircraft (which, once again, I'd argue as being the critical factor) it has not committed itself to being self sufficient.

$1:

In the circles I move in this is accepted as the politely evasive way for Japanese leadership to say that they already are a nuclear armed state.

Maybe. I don't roll in your circles however, and I have to accept that they are able to produce nuclear weapons (something I don't deny, but also something that isn't exactly unique to Japan, either) but haven't done so yet, due to the fact that they're still under the US umbrella.

$1:

* The general referred to the Japanese Self-Defense Forces Army as 'the Imperial Japanese Army' - a term that had not been used since WW2. That's a subtle way to say that the Japanese are not content to use their army just for self defense anymore.

Interesting, but it can also be argued it's Japanese grandstanding, a general wanting to bring back the glory days of Imperial Japan, or a general wanting to irritate the Chinese further.

$1:

* It also said, quite clearly, that Japan was prepared not just to wage a war with China, but to fight the war in China.

Oh come on Bart. You really think Japan has the ability to wage war in such a scale? Let alone invade a nuclear power? Japan isn't prepared for such a war, especially without US support. I don't deny Japan is technologically superior than China, but that technological superiority cannot totally discount Chinese numbers.

$1:

Japan does not need the USA anymore.

I respectfully disagree. Although Japan doesn't need the United States, theoretically, realistically it is still under the US nuclear umbrella, it's military industrial capacity not geared towards independent production or operation, and it's defense force still supplemented by the United States. In case of another Sino-Japanese War, Japan's long term survival depends upon US reinforcements and supply. That, to me, still tells me that Japan CURRENTLY is reliant upon the United States in case of major war.

What the future holds, I don't know. I haven't seen Japan becoming increasing independent in military affairs, even though it has expanded its defense forces in the last two decades. It might be a larger defense force, but it still lacks projection capability, and self sufficiency to be truly independent from US defense umbrella.

[bootlegga]

commanderkai commanderkai:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Japan is reliant on the US for defence?

Yes it does. You might want to believe otherwise, but a country with a military force of about 300,000 (both active and reserve), when the country's population is about...127 million? Even though there are a number of major threats to Japan's sovereignty (North Korea primarily, but China secondary), and the completely anti-gun culture of Japan amongst its civilian population, it's military force is purely defensive in nature, and is not self sufficient to defend it's borders from an invasion by a foreign power, even with their technological superiority (which I'll be getting to later)

So then the Chinese must also be reliant on someone else for protection too? Given your theory of low numbers of troops to population (3 million - and falling I might add - to over 1.3 billion in citizens), they too must have some protector to help them out if the shit hits the fan.

If you want to talk about RMA, I suggest you study it better. One of the key tenets is smaller, better trained and equipped forces over mass attrition style forces of the past. Therefore, the Japanese do not need to maintain large numbers of troops, simply because theirs are far better equipped and trained than their potential adversaries. China, after watching the US and Coalition dismantle the huge Iraqi conscript force, shifted its military policy to focus on small numbers of well trained and equipped forces. That is why China is buying SU-27s and SU-30s from Russia to replace its thousands of Korean/Vietnam era fighter planes. It's also why they bought new Kilo subs and Sovremenney destroyers for the navy. And it's also why the first units deployed to fight in Afghanistan after 9/11 were SF troops, where they operated in conjunction with air strikes to crush the Taliban.

The JSDF is fully capable of defending Japan from an invasion. Their air force has more modern planes than North Korea and China combined, and their pilots get a lot more flying time than either of those two nations. Their navy is the best in the Pacific, except for the USN, and any invasion force wouldn't last more than a couple of hours against it. The only credible threat you mention is the Chinese, and they don't even have the capability to invade Taiwan, nevermind a much larger, more populous nation far wealthier, stronger militarily, and located farther away.

commanderkai commanderkai:

$1:

You obviously have no idea of how well equipped and powerful the JSDF is. Japan is far more powerful than anyone else in Asia, with more modern aircraft, ships and weapons than China, Taiwan or South Korea.

Now, who supplies Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan with a great deal of its armaments, specifically combat aircraft? You know the answer, no matter how much you don't like it. Now, does that mean Japan can't create its own combat aircraft? No, it doesn't. Japan CAN create a capable combat aircraft, but it doesn't. Also, before you bring up the F-2, a great deal of its parts are supplied by the United States, even if it's assembled by the Japanese. Building planes based on supplied parts from other countries (Read: The United States) doesn't make you self sufficient militarily.

And yes, I'm focusing on combat aircraft for a reason. I'm sure it can be argued that, barring nuclear strikes, air superiority is needed to conduct combat operations successfully, especially in a symmetrical/conventional war. Although it has an advantage of being an island nation, the massive range of bombers, the relatively small naval force (nothing larger than destroyers, IIRC, and nothing in the huge quantities that the United States fields) means Japan would require a great deal of air power to harass enemy fleets/bombers/ground forces. This is, of course, you believe in the RMA.

As much as Japan is powerful, it currently is not powerful enough to be self sufficient against a major enemy operation. Luckily for Japan, the only country capable (as of now, you have argued plenty about China's rise) is the United States, which is currently Japan's ally.

First off, most of the planes you mention were designed in the US, but built under license in Japan. Now, if the US was to suddenly refuse to sell planes to the Japanese, do you honestly think they couldn't build something better than China's J-10 fighter? Please. The F-2 is already more than a match for the J-10.

I'll take a Japanese built plane over a Chinese built one any day of the week. And if Japan was forced to be fully self-sufficient as you claim, with their manufacturing base and high technology, it wouldn't take them very long. Imagine if they were forced to design their own stealth fighter.

If you're going to talk about air superiority, fine, but remember that the Japanese have more force multipliers in the form of AWACs and aerial refueling planes than the Chinese (or anyone else in Asia for that matter) and far more experience in the use of both (China just got AWACs and tanker planes a couple of years ago). Those two factors would hinder large scale attacks by the PLAAF or North Korean air force (given that Japan is an island nation). They also have more experience with PGMs and more flying time. Plus, you need to take into account that neither China nor North Korea really have ANY heavy bombers. Chinese might have the H-6, but they are based on forty year old technology and wouldn't last long in combat against Japanese F-16s, F-15s, or F2s. China has tried again and again to buy Backfires from the Russians for this very reason, but have been rejected every time.

The MSDF might only have "nothing larger than destroyers", but then again, neither does China or North Korea. Japan's are larger, far better equipped and for the most part, newer.

Perhaps you've heard of this ship?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... China.html

At 19,000 tons, it'll be bigger than anything either China or North Korea has. No doubt, it'll be better armed and equipped too. Japan may call it an amphibious assault ship, but Asia knows a Japanese carrier when it sees one.

commanderkai commanderkai:

$1:

It also has an excellent space program and large nuclear industry. If they wanted/needed to have the bomb, Japan would have it in less than a year.

So can Canada. We're still reliant under the US nuclear umbrella even though we CAN make nuclear weapons. They're plenty capable to become self sufficient, but they aren't WILLING to. You can't argue their power based on hypothetical scenarios that can happen, but rather on the current reality.

I never said they were self sufficient, I said they didn't rely on the US for protection. Big difference.

commanderkai commanderkai:

$1:

Their high level of technology is also helping them to build a missile shield at least as good as the one Dubya built and would easily allow them to build ICBMs if they needed to.

Actually they already have a ICBM. M-V, although a satellite launcher, can be converted into an ICBM. However, even though, ONCE AGAIN, that Japan can be self sufficient and have a nuclear program, they don't at this current point, and there's no proposed program in the future. So...unless you have some knowledge about Japan's nuclear weapon stockpiles somewhere under Mt. Fuj, this doesn't prove Japanese self-sufficiency.

Again, I never said they were self-sufficient, I simply said they didn't rely on the US for defence.

commanderkai commanderkai:

$1:

The only thing that really restrains the Japanese from more aggressive posturing is their constitution and a large number of Japanese citizens who aren't interested in ruling the world militarily (though there is a fairly well-organized right wing movement that advocates that path).

Ding ding ding ding! You just proved me right. The Japanese CAN be militarily self sufficient and independent from the United States, it isn't, because it doesn't want to. You need both civilian and political desire and will to do this. Japan, although having a large technological, industrial, and population base to establish a major military power, independent from supplies and equipment from foreign countries (like, once again, the United States) it has no real motivation to do so. Partially because Japan is protected by the United States, and there's no signs of this changing.

So aggressive posturing on the world stage equates to self-sufficiency? Great, if you ever run for office, be sure to remind everyone that your foreign policy skills are up there with Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

Being allied with the US and being protected are two very different things.

commanderkai commanderkai:

$1:

Yes, the US has bases in Japan, but those are there more for the US's benefit (forward deployment of forces) to intimidate China and North Korea.

Yes, to intimidate China and North Korea from making moves against Taiwan, South Korea...and Japan.

You're repeating what I said?

commanderkai commanderkai:

$1:

Perhaps your argument had merit back during the Cold War, but Japan doesn't need anyone to protect it nowadays, least of all the US.

Right. You have dreams of the fall of the American Empire. It hasn't happened yet, and Japan, as much as it can be independent of the American Empire (a term I totally disagree with, but whatever) the fact it still has about 130 fighter aircraft in Japan, compared to Japan's 300, an entire US fleet based in Japan, and 30,000 military personnel (compared to Japan's 300,000), and a great number of bases and facilities still in Japan, the fact is that Japan is still defended by the United States, even after the Cold War.

You argued yourself that military bases were America's "colonies", then the United States still is the colonial overseer of Japan, defending America's interests by intimidating China and North Korea. Why else would the United States even care, either way, if it wasn't to protect Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan?

I have dreams of the fall of the American Empire? Methinks you have me confused with someone else. I never said I wanted the American Empire to collapse, I just said that it will someday. Again, big difference.

And, on the contrary, I don't look forward to it one bit, as I think it will provide a rude awakening for Canada that the world isn't as peaceful/friendly as we generally think it is.

Apparently, you've never heard of the term froward deployment.

The US built those bases to protect Japan AND intimidate the Soviets during the Cold War, as they provided bases from which forces could attack the USSR very quickly. The only reason it still maintains them now is to keep forces forward deployed into a potentially hostile theatre. They are there as a deterrence to China and North Korea. If China had not morphed into the powerful economy (and an increasingly strong military to go along with it) in the last decade, or the Koreans hadn't decided that firing missiles over Japan was fun, the Americans likely would have shut those bases down a while ago.

The theory is essentially the same as why the USN based a large part of its fleet at Pearl Harbor a year or two before the Japanese attacked, to forward deploy them, so as to be closer to Japan in the event of war. USN HQ was, and still is to my knowledge, in San Diego, so why base them 300 miles away? Because a fleet at Pearl Harbor would sail and threaten Japan within a week or two, whereas if it was still based at San Diego, it would be almost a month before it could do so.

[Scape]

Great thread, Loving the Alt time line theme. Reminded me of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cuban_ ... _Holocaust

And

2020 Project - CIA FOIA - Overview

http://www.foia.cia.gov/2020/2020.pdf

[bootlegga]

Scape Scape:

Great thread, Loving the Alt time line theme. Reminded me of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cuban_ ... _Holocaust

And

2020 Project - CIA FOIA - Overview

http://www.foia.cia.gov/2020/2020.pdf

Great reads Scape!

The first one reminds me The World Next Door, by Brad Ferguson (someone living in an alternate universe where the Cuban Missile Crisis became WW3 encounters someone from a parallel universe where WW3 happened in the 1980s (and was much more destructive).

[CDN_PATRIOT]

$1:

Like it or not, the 21st century belongs to the United States.

Oh the arrogance!

Just when I thought that the Americans might be mellowing out a tad, something like this comes along, written by someone who is supposedly respected and generally regarded as a 'genius' in his field.

How can one take his book seriously when he writes shit like this? Seriously!

U.S.A. = EPIC FAIL.

-J.

[angler57]

fifeboy opinion

"What is happening in the Ohio River Valley? Religious fundies taking over or "normal folks" passing fundamentalism by?"

Find it AMAZING that someone can make such a
statement founded on absolutely no knowledge or personal experience.
Maybe spending as much time as I have spent in Canada you might
understand the average factory worker, farmer, machinist or craftsman in USA.
We are no different than the average honest, hard working
Canadian.
We would like to be left alone to be part of our famalies and communities.
Fundies? Fundamentalism? Not a part of our lives. Not even in our thoughts.
So much clap-trap and silly phrases. Not impressive or important to putting food on the table or crops in a field.

Corn and fuel prices. Enough rain at the right time. Factory orders and the prices of groceries. Now, that is
important.

[EyeBrock]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

commanderkai commanderkai:

*Yawns* Wake me up when Japan isn't reliant on the United States to defend itself

Wake up. Japan has the largest navy in the Pacific Ocean at any given time since about 2005, their air force is more modern than anyone else's in the world (meaning they have more newer airframes per capita than any other air force), and I believe it was last year or 2008 that their PM quietly announced that Japan could be a nuclear-armed state in a matter of a few months if they wanted to be. In the circles I move in this is accepted as the politely evasive way for Japanese leadership to say that they already are a nuclear armed state.

A couple years back when Japan tired of Chinese subs transiting their waters without permission China threatened them if they interdicted the subs. A Japanese Army general responded by saying that he was not concerned about the Chinese threat as 'the Imperial Japanese Army still knows its way around China' (paraphrased).

That comment was important for two reasons.

* The general referred to the Japanese Self-Defense Forces Army as 'the Imperial Japanese Army' - a term that had not been used since WW2. That's a subtle way to say that the Japanese are not content to use their army just for self defense anymore.

* It also said, quite clearly, that Japan was prepared not just to wage a war with China, but to fight the war in China.

Japan does not need the USA anymore.

Do you have a link to the "Imperial Army" quote?

That's very interesting.

[Hyack]

RUEZ RUEZ:

Your title doesn't match your article.

It does now.

[commanderkai]

bootlegga bootlegga:

So then the Chinese must also be reliant on someone else for protection too? Given your theory of low numbers of troops to population (3 million - and falling I might add - to over 1.3 billion in citizens), they too must have some protector to help them out if the shit hits the fan.

Wrong. Numbers actually played a small part in my assessment. Self sufficiency is the key. China, is modernizing, much like Japan, but China, unlike Japan, had developed it's military industrial capacity to be self sufficient, while Japan's military industrial capacity is reliant on the United States for combat aircraft, which I'd constitute as the essential part for Japanese defense.

$1:

If you want to talk about RMA, I suggest you study it better. One of the key tenets is smaller, better trained and equipped forces over mass attrition style forces of the past. Therefore, the Japanese do not need to maintain large numbers of troops, simply because theirs are far better equipped and trained than their potential adversaries. China, after watching the US and Coalition dismantle the huge Iraqi conscript force, shifted its military policy to focus on small numbers of well trained and equipped forces.

Even so, China's modernizing will still constitute a larger force than Japan has the political will to field. Political will is the other key factor in my assessment. China, in its desires to become a global, and possibly a super power, desires to be military independent from any other major power, including Russia.

$1:

That is why China is buying SU-27s and SU-30s from Russia to replace its thousands of Korean/Vietnam era fighter planes. It's also why they bought new Kilo subs and Sovremenney destroyers for the navy.

Yes, but what does China excel at after making a major purchase? It copies and changes the design to its own specifications. Examples of this include the J-10, the J-11 (based on the SU-27s). Now, as much as China still cooperates with the Russians, it has the capacity and certainly the willpower to produce its own equipment.

This is partially due to the autocratic nature of China's government and its economy, but also due to its desire to establish itself as a global power. China is modernizing it's military, but, if it does, China will still field a numerically superior force along with being technologically comparable (unless you're going to argue Russia, and along with that, China's equipment is so poor that it cannot equate to Japan's 300 or so strong combat aircraft based on US tech). This imbalance can only be countered by Japan's alliance with the US.

$1:

The JSDF is fully capable of defending Japan from an invasion. Their air force has more modern planes than North Korea and China combined, and their pilots get a lot more flying time than either of those two nations.

Hmm. 200 J-10s (independently produced by the Chinese), 70 SU-27s, 100 Su-30s, and 110 J-11s based upon the Su-27 model. So...unless those purchased and constructed aircraft do not compare with US/Japanese aircraft in the region (300 for China, about 130 Air Force with maybe an extra 20 or so US Naval Air Force aircraft) I don't see how about 500 modern Chinese aircraft somehow outnumber 300 Japanese aircraft (once again, discounting how those extra 150 US aircraft, since the Japanese don't need the US any longer).

I have no idea about Japanese vs. Chinese flight times. I assume Japanese pilots are better trained, but I certainly can't judge or assess the level of expertise of Chinese pilots. Either way, Japan and the United States conduct many joint training operations, and certainly that has influenced Japanese defense policy, as well as their skill. If both countries cooperate with one another for training of their pilots in defending Japan, along with operating cooperatively to protect Japanese airspace, does that not support my concept that Japan willingly relies on the United States?

$1:

Their navy is the best in the Pacific, except for the USN, and any invasion force wouldn't last more than a couple of hours against it. The only credible threat you mention is the Chinese, and they don't even have the capability to invade Taiwan, nevermind a much larger, more populous nation far wealthier, stronger militarily, and located farther away.

Agreed. China's navy is pathetically weak. However, as I'm sure you'd also agree, China is attempting to change this. Also, I remember a few people arguing that the carrier age is obsolete due to China's development of ballistic missiles specifically made to target naval fleets. If China does possess this sort of weapon, the power of Japan's fleet will be neutralized. But, at this current moment, this capacity does not exist (that we know).

In my personal opinion, and we have the right to disagree, but I see air power as more critical for defense, with naval power based more for power projection. Without air superiority, ground, and naval forces are vulnerable to attack.

So far, unless Japan expands its air force even more (which requires a lot of money, which it has, but also a great deal of political will, which I don't see yet) to keep on par with China, the Japanese will still depend on US support for its defense.

$1:

First off, most of the planes you mention were designed in the US, but built under license in Japan. Now, if the US was to suddenly refuse to sell planes to the Japanese, do you honestly think they couldn't build something better than China's J-10 fighter? Please. The F-2 is already more than a match for the J-10.

Yes and no. They were built in Japan, but they still use a great deal of American parts. The F-2 is built mostly in Japan, but with one very large exception, the engine, which is built in the US. The J-11 is built with Russian kits, which makes that aircraft reliant upon Russian supply.

I don't deny that Japan CAN built a self sufficient fighter, but it hasn't had to, and it doesn't have any real plans for it that I know of (if you do, then do tell). This is my point. If the US suddenly stops supplying Japan, Japan can, in time, supply itself. However, the United States has done no such thing, and Japan uses its military alliance with the United States to supply itself with modern equipment and aircraft, or the major components to said aircraft. That's how Japan is reliant on the US.

$1:

I'll take a Japanese built plane over a Chinese built one any day of the week. And if Japan was forced to be fully self-sufficient as you claim, with their manufacturing base and high technology, it wouldn't take them very long. Imagine if they were forced to design their own stealth fighter.

But they don't have to. It's convenient to work with, and rely on the United States due to the United States being a stable ally, with a large industrial capacity and high technological base (especially with defense related tech). This is why Japan is dependent. They CAN become self sufficient, but they don't have to, nor do they want or need to.

$1:

If you're going to talk about air superiority, fine, but remember that the Japanese have more force multipliers in the form of AWACs and aerial refueling planes than the Chinese (or anyone else in Asia for that matter) and far more experience in the use of both (China just got AWACs and tanker planes a couple of years ago). Those two factors would hinder large scale attacks by the PLAAF or North Korean air force (given that Japan is an island nation). They also have more experience with PGMs and more flying time. Plus, you need to take into account that neither China nor North Korea really have ANY heavy bombers. Chinese might have the H-6, but they are based on forty year old technology and wouldn't last long in combat against Japanese F-16s, F-15s, or F2s. China has tried again and again to buy Backfires from the Russians for this very reason, but have been rejected every time.

Eh, I'm not sure about you, but if China was going to mount a bombing run upon Japan, they certainly wouldn't leave their bombers unescorted, at least I wouldn't. Then again, I'm not China.

This here, however, is where Japan currently dominates the skies in comparison to China. Not in numbers, but in technology through AWAC and air tanker capacity. And I agree with you, as well. Once again though, it's technology is based upon US aircraft, and if they are destroyed/damaged, they could not be easily repaired or replaced without American assistance.

$1:

The MSDF might only have "nothing larger than destroyers", but then again, neither does China or North Korea. Japan's are larger, far better equipped and for the most part, newer.

Perhaps you've heard of this ship?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... China.html

At 19,000 tons, it'll be bigger than anything either China or North Korea has. No doubt, it'll be better armed and equipped too. Japan may call it an amphibious assault ship, but Asia knows a Japanese carrier when it sees one.

Does Japan have helicopter combat aircraft? I didn't see any officially, but a great deal of transports, search and rescue, etc. That ship can go along with force projection, but I think it still lacks true naval superiority, but rather is more useful for rescue and supply operations. Like I said, I think air superiority is key to any successful defense, though, technically, carriers aren't critical for the relatively short distance between China and Japan.

I'm not sure how useful naval dominance would be in a Sino-Japanese war, and even though I agree China is weaker navally (by a long shot), I'm not sure if the Japanese fleet would be powerful enough to defend against China, and I'm not sure if Japan has the political will to stay on par as China modernizes.

$1:

I never said they were self sufficient, I said they didn't rely on the US for protection. Big difference.

Nuh uh. Japan is still under the US nuclear umbrella, providing for its defense from WMD attack by China, North Korea, or whoever else. They don't have to rely on the United States, but they do, and having the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in a few months means nothing if most of your population is dead from a nuclear strike. If you don't think M.A.D. or nuclear defense is essential post-Cold War, fine, but until Japan tells the United States to not retaliate against a nuclear strike upon its soil, or until Japan develops its own capabilities for nuclear defense, I'll still see Japan as reliant upon US defense in strategic defense, much like Canada, South Korea, Taiwan and a large number of other US-aligned countries are.

$1:

So aggressive posturing on the world stage equates to self-sufficiency? Great, if you ever run for office, be sure to remind everyone that your foreign policy skills are up there with Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

Being allied with the US and being protected are two very different things.

Hilarious attempt to put words in my mouth. I never said they had to be aggressive in their posture. I said they need to be self-sufficient to be non-reliant. If they can't successfully produce and defend itself without foreign assistance, they cannot be considered non-reliant upon the US for its defense.

I never said Japan must be aggressive in its posture, or threaten China with war, but rather it must be able to produce and defend itself to be considered non-reliant. Although they have the ability to defend themselves, they have no will to do so. I never said they must become Imperial Japan, but rather a Germany or a France. And no, not Nazi Germany either.

$1:

You're repeating what I said?

Okay, think this through. The United States has bases in South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan (among others, but let's focus on those). Why? Because they are there to help defend those nations from potential or very likely threats. So yes, it's partially there to intimidate China and North Korea. But, they're there more to support South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan in armed conflict with North Korea or China.

$1:

Apparently, you've never heard of the term froward deployment.

The US built those bases to protect Japan AND intimidate the Soviets during the Cold War, as they provided bases from which forces could attack the USSR very quickly. The only reason it still maintains them now is to keep forces forward deployed into a potentially hostile theatre.

Yes I have heard of forward deployment. Seriously, enough.

Your first sentence is correct, those bases were established to defend Japan and to intimidate China, though thirdly to occupy Japan after WWII. However, I can't agree with your second sentence. The Soviet Union is gone, yes, but China is still around, and North Korea has grown as a potentially lethal threat. Those bases still operate to defend Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc, from attack. The fact that those bases exist with the consent of the Japanese/Taiwanese/Korean/etc governments makes them both allies of the United States, under the defensive umbrella of the United States, and a target because of their closeness to the United States. Said potentially hostile theater is not just hostile to US interests, but also the interests of South Korea, Japan, or Taiwan, or all three combined. As such, all three countries, but in this discussion, Japan, will continue to rely on the US due to their common interests with the US.

$1:

They are there as a deterrence to China and North Korea. If China had not morphed into the powerful economy (and an increasingly strong military to go along with it) in the last decade, or the Koreans hadn't decided that firing missiles over Japan was fun, the Americans likely would have shut those bases down a while ago.

Maybe. This is a huge hypothetical, and you know it. Also, if China and North Korea didn't display military aggression or expansion, certainly Japan wouldn't have modernized its military forces either, as such, Japan would still be dependent upon the US in case a military force did attempt to attack Japan, even MORE so than it is currently. The United States, as you would have argued, would have kept some of its bases (most likely air bases) for force projection into Asia in case of a crisis, human or naturally caused. So I'd argue that if China and North Korea was neutralized as a threat tomorrow, the United States might gradually close some bases, but not all.

$1:

The theory is essentially the same as why the USN based a large part of its fleet at Pearl Harbor a year or two before the Japanese attacked, to forward deploy them, so as to be closer to Japan in the event of war. USN HQ was, and still is to my knowledge, in San Diego, so why base them 300 miles away? Because a fleet at Pearl Harbor would sail and threaten Japan within a week or two, whereas if it was still based at San Diego, it would be almost a month before it could do so.

True, though it could have deployed it's fleet to the Philippines and really scare the shit out of the Japanese. Also, a major difference between 1940 USA and 2010 USA. The United States was isolationist until Pearl Harbor, while the United States still actively maintains and defends its interests globally today, specifically because its alliances and its foreign bases contribute to US defense, foreign, and political policy. If, for some random reason, said countries the US has bases in wanted all US personnel out, I don't see the United States using military force to maintain its position.

An example occurring now, actually. Kyrgyzstan holds a US base that assists American operations in Afghanistan. If Kyrgyzstan demands the US to get out after it's lease, I don't see the United States using its military might to break Kyrgyzstan's sovereignty, though I can certainly see bribes with economic aid.

[bootlegga]

Apparently, you've never heard of sarcasm...

The only thing I will as is that if your definition of self-sufficency is based on the ability to produce indigenous weapons systems, then China isn't self sufficent either, as it still relies on purchases of high tech planes and ships from Russia. For that matter, pretty much only France, the USA, and Russia fit that narrow definition. The UK is buying its next generation of aricraft from the US, as well as its SLBMS and boomer subs.

Whatever, as usual, we'll have to agree to disagree...

[BartSimpson]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Do you have a link to the "Imperial Army" quote?

That's very interesting.

No link, but I have the news article at home. I am in Los Angeles today and will be home tomorrow night. I'll look this up this weekend.