Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    08 Aug '13 00:08
    The new Japanese President is powering up the Japanese military. They just put a small aircraft carrier into service and he's talking about changing the Constitution.

    Is this a good thing for Japan? How about her neighbors?
  2. 08 Aug '13 00:47 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    The new Japanese President is powering up the Japanese military. They just put a small aircraft carrier into service and he's talking about changing the Constitution.

    Is this a good thing for Japan? How about her neighbors?
    Japan's President Abe has a reputation as a nationalist who's not truly
    sorry enough about Japanese war crimes in the 1930s-40s (or earlier).

    The new Japanese DDH-183 Izumo 22DDH warship is not officially listed
    as an aircraft carrier but as a 'helicopter destroyer' (escort).
    But the Izumo looks like an aircraft carrier and seems larger than every
    Imperial Japanese Navy aircraft carrier (CV) that attacked Pearl Harbor.

    Under the Japanese Constitution (Article 9), Japan's supposed to restrict
    its military to self-defence and not employ offensive weapons systems.
    In 1988, Japan's government issued a statement acknowledging that
    building an 'offensive aircraft carrier' would violate the constitution.
    As early as 1983, however, Japan has wanted to build aircraft carriers.
    At that time, Japan hoped to build a 20,000 ton aircraft carrier that could
    carry at least 20 Sea Harriers, but Japan's plan was cancelled after the
    United States opposed it.

    Japan's MSDF (Maritime Self-Defence Force, the navy) wants to build
    aircraft carriers, and to get around their prohibition by the constitution,
    the Japanese seem to be redefining a comparatively small aircraft carrier
    (or one that carries only helicopters for now) as not really an 'offensive
    aircraft carrier'.
  3. 08 Aug '13 01:02
    Japan has every right to protect its citizens from the crazies who run North Korea. Japan is within easy reach of N.K's nuclear missils
  4. 08 Aug '13 01:26 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Phranny
    Japan has every right to protect its citizens from the crazies who run North Korea.
    Japan is within easy reach of N.K's nuclear missils
    That's an absurd rationalization for the launching of the Izumo.
    How could the Izumo (or its helicopters) possibly help Japan's defence
    against ballistic missiles--which it could not intercept--from the DPRK
    (North Korea)? No way at all. (By the way, the Western intelligence
    consensus seems to be that the DPRK cannot yet make a nuclear warhead
    small enough to be launched with any of its missiles). And the DPRK
    has a small navy with obsolescent vessels, no match for Japan's MSDF.

    The ROK (South Korea) has more reasons than Japan to prepare for
    aggression from the DPRK. So would the ROK be pleased that Japan's
    launching de facto aircraft carriers? I suspect that most South Koreans
    would be displeased, perceiving it as a sign of renewed Japanese militarism.

    Japan's launching of the Izumo seems to serve two purposes:
    1) domestically, it pleases right-wing nationalists who want Japan to
    become militarily more powerful and assertive (if not also aggressive)
    2) internationally, it strengthens Japan's hand in any future confrontation
    with China over disputed territories.
  5. 08 Aug '13 01:47
    Maybe they will take on the US again. After all, they seem to be pretty resistant to high dose radiation.
  6. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    08 Aug '13 02:30
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    2) internationally, it strengthens Japan's hand in any future confrontation
    with China over disputed territories.
    That's my thinking.
  7. 08 Aug '13 03:02 / 1 edit
    The new Japanese President is powering up the Japanese military. (AThousandYoung)

    Japan's President Abe has a reputation as a nationalist who's not truly
    sorry enough about Japanese war crimes in the 1930s-40s (or earlier). (Duchess64)


    Japan is a monarchy and does not have a "President". It has an Emperor and a Prime Minister, the latter being the position that Shinzo Abe holds.
  8. 08 Aug '13 07:45
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    That's an absurd rationalization for the launching of the Izumo.
    How could the Izumo (or its helicopters) possibly help Japan's defence
    against ballistic missiles--which it could not intercept--from the DPRK
    (North Korea)? No way at all. (By the way, the Western intelligence
    consensus seems to be that the DPRK cannot yet make a nuclear warhead
    sm ...[text shortened]... trengthens Japan's hand in any future confrontation
    with China over disputed territories.
    they can use it as a deterrent. they can preemptively strike launch sites.




    it is insane to consider japan should stick to a promise they made 50 years ago.

    also, one aircraft carrier doesn't mean japan is going to launch a campaign of conquest
  9. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    08 Aug '13 10:52
    They never should have scrapped the Hosho.
  10. 08 Aug '13 18:02
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    [b]The new Japanese President is powering up the Japanese military. (AThousandYoung)

    Japan's President Abe has a reputation as a nationalist who's not truly
    sorry enough about Japanese war crimes in the 1930s-40s (or earlier). (Duchess64)


    Japan is a monarchy and does not have a "President". It has an Emperor and a Prime Minister, the latter being the position that Shinzo Abe holds.[/b]
    Yes, I remembered that Abe's Japan's Prime Minister, not its President,
    after I had quickly copied 'President' from AThousandYoung's original post.
    But it was too late to edit it.
  11. 08 Aug '13 18:27
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    they can use it as a deterrent. they can preemptively strike launch sites.




    it is insane to consider japan should stick to a promise they made 50 years ago.

    also, one aircraft carrier doesn't mean japan is going to launch a campaign of conquest
    "...they (Japan) an preemptively strike (missile) launch sites (in DPRK)."
    --Zahlanzi

    That's absurd. Japanese helicopters don't have anything close to the
    capability of destroying (hardened) fixed missile launch strikes in the DPRK
    (North Korea), even if the Japanese could pinpoint their secret locations.
    Even the US military would find it difficult, without using nuclear weapons,
    to destroy the DPRK's fixed missile launch strikes. And what if the DPRK
    has the capacity of launching missiles from (unpredictable) mobile sites?

    Also, if Japan foolishly attempted such a 'preemptive strike' using
    unescorted helicopters, they would be intercepted and destroyed by
    the DPRK's MiG-29s and MiG-21s. While the MiG-21's obsolete when
    compared to modern fighters, it's still deadly against helicopters.
    And the DPRK's too far away for Japan to escort its (short-ranged)
    helicopters with its land-based F-15 fighters without air-to-air refueling.
    In short, any Japanese attempted 'preemptive strike' (which would violate
    international law) using helicopters would hand the DPRK's regime an easy
    victory, one that might be celebrated even by many South Koreans too.

    Obviously, you (Zahlanzi) never have worked as a military analyst.

    "it is insane to consider japan should stick to a promise they made
    50 years ago."
    --Zahlanzi

    Japan's constitution, which prohibits all offensive weapons systems, is still
    supposed to be in legal effect today. If Japan would like to deploy more
    offensive weapons systems, then the constitution should be amended.
    My point is that governments should *not* feel free to disregard their
    constitutions whenever it seems politically expedient.

    By the way, I was not aware there was a 'statute of limitations' upon
    constitutions. If you (Zahlanzi) believe it's 'insane' for Japan to 'stick to
    a (allegedly 50 year old) promise' not to deploy offensive weapons systems,
    then perhaps you would also believe it's 'insane' for the United States to
    keep its (19th century) constitutional promise not to enslave people.

    "...one aircraft carrier doesn't mean japan is going to launch a campaign
    of conquest."
    --Zahlanzi

    Obviously, none of Japan's neighbours are worried about being invaded.
  12. 08 Aug '13 18:49
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    That's an absurd rationalization for the launching of the Izumo.
    How could the Izumo (or its helicopters) possibly help Japan's defence
    against ballistic missiles--which it could not intercept--from the DPRK
    (North Korea)? No way at all. (By the way, the Western intelligence
    consensus seems to be that the DPRK cannot yet make a nuclear warhead
    sm ...[text shortened]... trengthens Japan's hand in any future confrontation
    with China over disputed territories.
    I believe DPRK's missile and nuclear capabilities are grossly over rated. The threat to Japan at present anyway is much more DPRK's conventional army and navy, which would be impaired by tactical carriers.
  13. 08 Aug '13 19:20
    Originally posted by normbenign
    I believe DPRK's missile and nuclear capabilities are grossly over rated. The threat to Japan at present anyway is much more DPRK's conventional army and navy, which would be impaired by tactical carriers.
    "The threat to Japan at present anyway is much more DPRK's conventional
    army and navy, which would be impaired by tactical carriers."
    --Normbenign

    That's absurd. How could the DPRK's 'conventional army and navy'
    threaten Japan? While it's true that the DPRK has a large conscript army,
    how could it invade Japan? Any invasion (which the DPRK lacks the
    logistical capacity to sustain at such a great distance) would have to come
    by sea, allowing Japan's MSDF (navy) or the US Navy ample time to detect
    and destroy the DPRK force. And there's no doubt whatsoever that, even
    before launching the Izumo, Japan's MSDF was much stronger than the
    much smaller and less advanced Korean People's Navy (KPN) of the DPRK.
    At most, the KPN's primarily a coastal defence navy that could present
    problems if Japan was foolish enough to attempt an invasion of the DPRK.

    Otherwise, even the most concerned Japanese nationalists would be
    confident that the Japan should win every naval battle against the DPRK.
    Even the DPRK's leaders would not be nearly insane (that's a popular
    stereotype) enough to attempt any amphibious invasion of Japan.

    "Most NKN (North Korean Navy) vessels are small patrol-sized craft unable
    to operate over 50 nautical miles (nm) from the coast but capable of
    policing the DPRK's territorial waters."
    --US Defense Intelligence Agency (1997)

    For a more objective and insightful look at the DPRK than what's usually
    found in the mainstream US media, I recommend:
    _The Real North Korea: Life and Politics in the Failed Stalinist Utopia_
    by Andrei Lankov (2013, Oxford University Press)
    Andrei Lankov (who was born in the USSR and studied in the DPRK)
    is a professor of history in Seoul, ROK.
  14. 08 Aug '13 22:27
    Originally posted by whodey
    Maybe they will take on the US again. After all, they seem to be pretty resistant to high dose radiation.
    That's pretty crass, whod.
  15. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    09 Aug '13 01:20
    This helicopter carrier can probably launch and recover F35Bs.