Naval Strategic and Operational Discussion

by78 said:

Staying out of the way?

Click to expand...

And you answered correctly. That's why US want to get Japan as equal partner in alliance.

'Militarization' of Japan, 'right wing swing' is of course product of PRC propaganda agencies who don't like the move. The only addition to the current state of things from China perspective would be only the capabality of pre-emptive strike on strategic facilities from Japanese SDF side. Untying hands of Japanese means for China also that they can be side in a conflict and that's huuge strategic pain in the ass if there will be military treaties signed between Japan, India, Taiwan, Australia and some ASEAN countries. US Navy could be more concentrated on the South-East Asia relieved in the north to a certain level at the same time.

US could benefit greatly by the change of Japanese constitution.

Japan is an abnormal nation in the sense it choose to disarm itself after WWII and to completely depend on the US for protection. Given the economic and military changes in NE Asia, and continued Japanese refusal to own up to its massive war crimes, it is wise to rearm.

Blackstone said:

Japan is an abnormal nation in the sense it choose to disarm itself after WWII and to completely depend on the US for protection. Given the economic and military changes in NE Asia, and continued Japanese refusal to own up to its massive war crimes, it is wise to rearm.

Click to expand...

It actually wasn't a choice, it was part of the unconditional surrender. The truth is, it is wiser to remain a pacifist country if it chooses to keep denying it's wartime atrocities. Or be like the Germans, own up to it, teach that history to its future generations to prevent a repeat, and then restore a full fledged military. What it does now is only contributing to the instability in the region. Just look at the headaches the US has in trying to get Japan and SK to work together. It only happens at a superficial level.

Rutim said:

Another article which misses the point why Abe wants to change 'pacifist' constitution and why US would love to see that. Not to mention it doesn't mention that no matter what will be done PRC will continue it's military equpiment modernisation and grow in numbers of modern warfare no matter what US, Japan, India or whoever else will do about that, if they will have peaceful relations or more twisted like right now.

I would recomend everyone to keep track with what US or Japan has in their minds regarding Chinese military to read pieces or watch some videos with Toshi Yoshihara as he's probably most competent civilian talking about those matters on the American side of Pacific Ocean.

Click to expand...

can you provide some relevant links in which Toshi Yoashihara talks about the relevant subject?

joshuatree said:

It actually wasn't a choice, it was part of the unconditional surrender. The truth is, it is wiser to remain a pacifist country if it chooses to keep denying it's wartime atrocities. Or be like the Germans, own up to it, teach that history to its future generations to prevent a repeat, and then restore a full fledged military. What it does now is only contributing to the instability in the region. Just look at the headaches the US has in trying to get Japan and SK to work together. It only happens at a superficial level.

Click to expand...

Actually, it was then Prime Minister Shidehara that suggested the inclusion of pacifism clauses.

Blackstone said:

Actually, it was then Prime Minister Shidehara that suggested the inclusion of pacifism clauses.

Click to expand...

Noted but Article 9 and the Constitution were introduced by the US and that does limit Japan's ability to wage war.

joshuatree said:

Just look at the headaches the US has in trying to get Japan and SK to work together. It only happens at a superficial level.

Click to expand...

Actually that's probably more complex on the diplomatic level than it is in reality in mutual relations between both countries. South Korea would preferably stay in the middle between two big partcipants (PRC and US) but it's close to a gamble and not an easy task for sure. Remember the letter that President Xi sent few days ago to President Park calling his 'friend'? It's surely easier to become a friend than end the relationship in this case and you can't be friends with everyone because there could come a time when you have to put a statement where you stand. South Korean is pretty interesting animal where surely the North Korea and China started their own internal games after the democratization in the early 90's. Anything anti-US or was strictly banned by authoritarian rulers of South Korea for decades and that surely paid off with US and Japanese financial help to transfer into what it is nowadays. The situation greatly changed after that point. We surely know that they can't talk on equal rights with China and after 'friendship' declarations on diplomatic level there might come a time to do actual work to 'repay' this 'friendship'. It will be surely interesting how Koreans will manage this in the coming years.

And I don't there are really problems on South Korea-Japan level on military level of talks. They train together like they used in previous years.

I have no doubts that if China could overcome US-Japan alliance and both countries will part their ways at some point in the future they'll win a war without firing a single bullet as Japan will be too overwhelmed with Chinese sheer military power. So maybe there won't be a need for a conflict in 30-40 years from now as Japan will take something like middle to maybe even pro-Chinese attitude and that will be the time when US will have to track back to Hawais after some 150 years of continous presence and being the main player in the region.

shen said:

can you provide some relevant links in which Toshi Yoashihara talks about the relevant subject?

Click to expand...

Sure, here he talks about Chinese ADIZ

Rutim said:

And you answered correctly. That's why US want to get Japan as equal partner in alliance.

'Militarization' of Japan, 'right wing swing' is of course product of PRC propaganda agencies who don't like the move. The only addition to the current state of things from China perspective would be only the capabality of pre-emptive strike on strategic facilities from Japanese SDF side. Untying hands of Japanese means for China also that they can be side in a conflict and that's huuge strategic pain in the ass if there will be military treaties signed between Japan, India, Taiwan, Australia and some ASEAN countries. US Navy could be more concentrated on the South-East Asia relieved in the north to a certain level at the same time.

US could benefit greatly by the change of Japanese constitution.

Click to expand...

This strategy comes with long term costs that the US foreign policy community at large is uncomfortable with. It may well be that the US will eventually settle on preferring Japanese remilitarization, but right now Washington still seems be leaning towards the status quo.

latenlazy said:

This strategy comes with long term costs that the US foreign policy community is uncomfortable with. It may well be that the US will eventually settle on preferring Japan remilitarized, but right now the (U.S.) preference still seems be to maintain the status quo.

Click to expand...

That was the case a few years ago, but now that China no longer accepts US primacy in Asia (hence the new model of great power relationship), the status quo will go the way of the dodo.

Blackstone said:

That was the case a few years ago, but now that China no longer accepts US primacy in Asia (hence the new model of great power relationship), the status quo will go the way of the dodo.

Click to expand...

Not what I'm seeing from State and Defence with regards to Japan. They haven't made up their minds yet about how to deal with China's military development, but letting Japan militarize is not on the top of the list. They don't want to load the region with further escalation if there's an arms race between Japan and China. This has two nasty and undesirable effects, which are that it could further diminish the US's military power, which loses them leverage over Japan's behavior ( really important in situations where Japan's preference is military when the US's is diplomatic), but could also force all the other countries in the region to commit to either one, and the US can't be sure that on net balance more will side with Japan. Both have the effect of pushing the US out of the region faster than if China rose without Japan challenging it. Both cut against the US's primary goal of maintaining stability in the region. The US would rather be the muscles if there needs to be a check on China rather than give that decision making power to Japan. They want to be the option countries disgruntled with China's growing strength go to. The US prefers a bipolar world to a multipolar one and letting Japan miitarize would be risking the creation of another power pole.