Japan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Helius

Senior Member
Registered Member
Do you know how many modules they'll have to install before the bow deck mods are completed?
From what I can tell in the latest update, there have been 6 main blocks installed for the bow deck thus far. It doesn't look complete however as the actual bow below deck extends further than that still.

There's at least one additional module in the vicinity for imminent installation. So if I were to guess I'd say there'll be at least one more row of blocks before we get to see Kaga's modified bow deck in its complete form.


Kaga mod.jpg
 

Feima

Junior Member
Registered Member
From what I can tell in the latest update, there have been 6 main blocks installed for the bow deck thus far. It doesn't look complete however as the actual bow below deck extends further than that still.

There's at least one additional module in the vicinity for imminent installation. So if I were to guess I'd say there'll be at least one more row of blocks before we get to see Kaga's modified bow deck in its complete form.


View attachment 102029

"空母"化 = modify into carrier

Not pretending anymore
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
In the last century, when they sent peacekeeping troops to Cambodia, they were still discussing whether to carry machine guns. Now they have begun to discuss the topic of pre emptive strike against the command center of potential enemies.
No, wrong.
Preemptive strikes against long range missile facilities WHEN emanate danger of offensive aggression.
In other words strike the weapons of aggression before being attacked.
 

ficker22

Senior Member
Registered Member
No, wrong.
Preemptive strikes against long range missile facilities WHEN emanate danger of offensive aggression.
In other words strike the weapons of aggression before being attacked.
Normal countries would have functioning air defense against such threats (missiles, etc.)....


This is 1939 Germany vs. Poland kind of bullcrap.

Preemptive Strike = the striker is the aggressor. Period.
 

tygyg1111

Senior Member
Registered Member
No, wrong.
Preemptive strikes against long range missile facilities WHEN emanate danger of offensive aggression.
In other words strike the weapons of aggression before being attacked.
Extrapolating your logic:

a. Japan has invaded Asia more than once
b. Past behaviour is the best indicator of future behaviour
c. Therefore, Japan is likely to invade Asia again
d. "Likely invasion" is a real threat of offensive aggression
e. Therefore, Asia must pre-emptively nuke Japan
 

yungho

Junior Member
Registered Member
No, wrong.
Preemptive strikes against long range missile facilities WHEN emanate danger of offensive aggression.
In other words strike the weapons of aggression before being attacked.
A preemptive strike is an actual act of offensive aggression. So neighboring countries would preemptive strike Japan's preemptive strike as they are facing real offensive aggression, instead of 'emanate' one's. Then Japan could preemptive strike neighboring preemptive strikes that are launched due to Japan's own preemptive strikes, which then the neighbors would pre-preemptively strike.. so on and so forth..
 

Feima

Junior Member
Registered Member
Other than the sneak attack, I mean preemptive strike against the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour in 1941, Japan also made another sneak attack against the Russian Pacific Fleet at Port Arthur (today part of Dalian) in 1904. (And before that was the 1894 Port Arthur massacre of Chinese forces and civilians.)

In this age of nukes, hypersonic missiles and satellite monitoring, the Japanese leadership is mad to even think about another sneak attack.
 
Top