antiterror13
Brigadier
selective concerned? I think this is another proof for China to do something
selective concerned? I think this is another proof for China to do something
joshuatree
Captain
Also significant similarities. Japan too is modifying the natural form of the reef in order to perpetuate their claims. In this case, they are actively preventing Mother Nature from taking away the remaining rocks above water which would happen in a relatively short time.
I was commenting on Blackstone's comment on the original post which already stated the issue with Japan's claim which Vincent restated:
Here is a more in-depth article regarding Okinotori specifically and in the context of US-Japan-China relations:
Here is a much more in-depth article regarding the legal issues surrounding artificial islands in general which includes looking at Okinotori:
Last edited:
Blackstone
Brigadier
What international norms are you talking about? The one in Nirvana or in the real world? If you mean the real world, then China is following well-established international norms. I say that because evidence show China avoiding the ICJ is not double standards at all, quite the opposite. In fact, history show great powers avoid international courts in general and habitually ignore unfavorable rulings with alacrity. So, the internal norm you're so fond of supports China opting-out of ICJ lawsuits and ignoring court rulings when it suits its interests.
Blackstone
Brigadier
The real reason is US needs Japan to contain China, so it will overlook Japanese infringement of international laws for national interest reasons. Should US and Japan part ways on China, then you'll hear Uncle Sam sing a different tune.
Conversely, Japan will likely get support from China on its artificial islands getting EEZ, for Chinese national interest reasons, of course.
Guys, let's steer the conversation away from name calling/national chest thumping.
Brumby
Major
Yes you did. However neither Blackstone nor your post referencing his comments actually stated what Japan was infringing. If you are making an accusation, isn't the decent thing to do is to state what it is? I am reproducing the two said posts immediately below as reference.
Btw, Vincent did not restate as you allege and thus implying he did the same thing as you or Blackstone,. He actually stated what he believes Japan was infringing.
There you go again. You don't position your views by providing links as a primary recourse. Common sense is that you state your views (in your own words) and reference to specific comments from sources if you want to and provide links if you have to. That is simply basic presentation and communication skills because it is your job to communicate your thoughts (not someone else as your surrogate) . It is not for the other side to try to figure out what you are trying to say or your point of disagreement.
Right now yes but the rest in FY 16 effectively 2016 or 17 ? with one of the two F-2 Sqns based to Misawa replace this one to Tsuiki, and 2 based there.
Good infos also on Scramble, ORBAT.
Maybe SamuraiBlue know more ?
About Huyga Class, can also refuel others ships, about 3000 m3 max disponible and used several MCH-101 for minesweeping, also can carry up to 450 troops.
I think that the F-15 is better for interception since it has a higher speed than the F-2.
I said Vincent restated what is in the original post, not that he is doing anything same as me or Blackstone. There is only one Japanese infringement mentioned in the original post, it's pretty straightforward to see that is what is being referred to.
I have already stated my views in my own words and also provided sources and links to share additional information. Unlike you I am not here to argue for some supposed ultimate conclusion but to share and explore perspectives and information.