Comments on: Well, Jeeeebus.

By: LRP

LRP — Tue, 18 Jan 2005 04:10:17 +0000

Never mind.

By: LRP

LRP — Tue, 18 Jan 2005 04:09:30 +0000

Japan is not the main problem for the region. They are happy not to invest in a military and infrastructure. The majority of it’s citizens would like to remain passive but fear will probably spur them to militarize. Don’t forget that North Korea launched a ballistic missile over their country a few years ago, it caused real alarm. They have no defense for it, no wonder the missile defense plans. Stress defense plans, not offensive.
China is growing and will continue to test other countries for weakness. They have also claimed territory in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. These islands are claimed in their entirety by China, Taiwan, and Vietnam, while portions are claimed by Malaysia and the Philippines. The Japanese know they must respond. Stress defense of their islands, not offense.
If China threatens to seize Japanese controlled territory then the Japanese must respond above all others. If not, the Chinese will see it as weakness. It is inconceivable to me that they would not have contingency plans for defense of any area in their country. I also think they have decided, and rightly so, that the US will not take the lead in defending Japan against China.
Lastly, China can’t invade Taiwan let alone some islands farther from their coast. All they can do now is assert claims for use later or take over some oil rigs or patches of real estate and dare someone to kick them off. The real worry for Japan will be if China builds a true navy that can threaten the main Japanese islands. I apologize for no page breaks, I have put some in but when I preview it they aren’t there. Any suggestions???

By: Jason Kuznicki

Jason Kuznicki — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 03:09:51 +0000

Paul,
Of course most Japanese reject calls for remilitarization. It’s nice to be a free rider. It can’t last forever, though, and the sooner we find a way out of this impasse, the sooner we will have a valuable ally in a region where we could really use one.
As to Russia and South Korea, I’m not sure how just their concerns are–I really don’t see Japan invading either one, nor risking so much for a more minor territorial dispute. Besides, aren’t these two afraid of China also? Wouldn’t Japan be a welcome member of the team?

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 02:21:16 +0000

Jason, three responses:
First, we’ve been making those noises for some time, and many of the noisome people were the same who thought Iraq was building nukes. I’d rather not take their advice right now.
Second, polls consistently show that not just a super-majority of the Japanese people, but something like four-fifths of them reject calls for remilitarization (i.e., amendments to Article IX of the Japanese constitution). Rearming Japan would be, in all likelihood, a horribly undemocratic move in addition to being risky.
Third, it’s not just China that we have to consider. South Korea and Russia are also justly suspicious of Tokyo’s aspirations.
Among the greatest accomplishments of U.S. foreign policy has been preserving the relative solidarity of the non-Communist states in Asia despite the fact that postwar Japan was not reconstructed to atone for its prewar sins, as Germany was. (The same emperor, the same flag, the same anthem, and many of the same leaders.) Let’s not throw that away because China arms a few regiments.

By: Jason Kuznicki

Jason Kuznicki — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 02:14:11 +0000

I suspect that all we’d have to do is make some noises about letting Japan re-arm itself–and China would back down immediately. After all, it’s not Imperial Japan we’d be recreating. It would be more like Great Britain East, which is fine with me.

By: C M

C M — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 00:18:58 +0000

“Japan leads the way in unbiased, morally beneficial reporting when compared to that location of Asia.”
Yeah, if you compare the Japanese media to the North Koreans, Vietnamese, and Chinese they’re unbiased, but that ain’t saying much. They’re essentially tools for the government, and that is reflected in the manner in which they are positioned with police agencies, government departments, and high officials rather than acting as independent monitors of the aforementioned.

By: rosignol

rosignol — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:01:41 +0000

Yeah, the bases are basically pre-positioned facilities to be used to support a deployment, if one is necessary. Forces in place are there as a deterrent and to hold the current position until reinforcements arrive- the first of which would be submarines that deny any enemy the use of nearby waters, followed by carrier battle groups that deny any enemy air superiority, followed by USMC MEUs that land wherever they please (due to the subs and the carriers having driven off any enemy naval/air assets), and once the USMC has secured the beachhead, the regular Army deploys.
The US doesn’t have the forces to do that in okinawa *now*- it’s expensive, and there’s no need- but it can put them there if there is a need.

By: LRP

LRP — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:24:00 +0000

It’s questionable to say the bases on Okinawa are hollow. They won’t be if a deployment is ordered.

By: ss

ss — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:19:02 +0000

We have lots of bases on Okinawa but the force there is hollow, particularly the USMC. No wonder Japan realizes it has to do the heavy lifting itself.

By: Mythusmage Opines

Mythusmage Opines — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 08:21:49 +0000

More on the (Possible) Upcoming War

In the Agora: Well, Jeeeebus.
This is where Glenn Reynolds got the story in the first place. You’ll want to check out the comments.
HT: Paul Musgrave