Major changes to the US-Japan defense agreement

allenidaho

I'd also like to mention something about the Japanese not being allowed to have carriers. It isn't true. For example:

en.wikipedia.org...

Why do you think it is called a Destroyer? Why do you think it only has helicopters? Because they can't have carriers.

IamSirDrinksalot
China may be a 500lb Gorilla - but it has never threatened anyone or invaded anyone, so as far as we know, its completely harmless.

Seriously? They have threatened every single one of their neighbors recently. And then ...

RalagaNarHallas
1988 invasion of Spratly Islands by China

There was another little flotilla earlier this year.

they fought several wars/border skrimishes with india

There are still Chinese troops in India right now.
zeenews.india.com...

This isn't exactly ancient history stuff. There is an ongoing policy of expansionism.

and i think back in the day there were even cross border raids between the soviet union

Actually turned into a little shooting war in the late sixties ('69?)

reply to post by IamSirDrinksalot


Really? ever heard of Tibet? I know modern maps do not show it, but I have old world atlases that show Tibet as a sovereign nation. I believe China also invaded Vietnam? Chinese troops took part in the Korean war.

SubTruth
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

This is going to sound harsh..........The countries of Japan and Germany should never have large forces again. History is our teacher and it will show us the future. As it stands right now sure they are no threat but times change and the worm could turn for the worst.

Because what Americans did to the Native Americans and successfully committed genocide, and actually successfully dropped two nukes on Japan, as well as the too many to list atrocities America has committed against the world masked by patriotism is not at all warrant of the same harsh judgement you just laid down on Germany and Japan. I wish people like you did not exist, but you do, and sadly people like you are in control.

OccamsRazor04

Why do you think it is called a Destroyer? Why do you think it only has helicopters? Because they can't have carriers.

First, a helicopter is an aircraft. Last I checked anyway.

Second, Article 9 of Japan's Constitution does not specifically state that they cannot have aircraft carriers. What it does say is that they are only allowed to have the minimum amount of military equipment needed for defense. It also states that they are not allowed to have military equipment of offensive purposes.

What constitutes offensive weaponry is up for debate. Usually this is considered to be ICBMs, long range bombers and offensive aircraft carriers like the Nimitz Class.

But Japan is responsible for determining what the minimum defense level is. And also for determining what a piece of equipment is going to be used for. Theoretically, They could have a full-fledged fixed wing carrier if they decided it was within the guidelines and would only be used for defense, considering China now has a carrier.

allenidaho
Theoretically, They could have a full-fledged fixed wing carrier if they decided it was within the guidelines and would only be used for defense, considering China now has a carrier.

To expand on this:

I don't believe you can actually classify an aircraft carrier as offensive or defensive. The carrier is the platform, not the weapon.

reply to post by SubTruth


And we should...what reason have we that they don't. I mean does the US's actions around the globe paint us in any better light than WWII japan or germany for that matter?

reply to post by allenidaho


The accepted definition of aircraft carrier is fixed wing aircraft. We've had this argument in other threads.

A true aircraft carrier is used for power projection. You can try to label them defensive all you want, but a true aircraft carrier exists to project power, which is an offensive operation.

Ok a helicopter carrier does not serve the same role as a true aircraft carrier. But it's still a carrier. It carries aircraft. That is it's primary purpose.

I see no difference between Japan's Hyuga class Helicopter Destroyer and France's Mistral Class Helicopter Carrier or even America's Wasp Class LHD, aside from not having a well deck for amphibious operation.

reply to post by allenidaho


The Mistral is an Amphibious Assault Ship, also called a helicopter carrier, not an aircraft carrier. Like the Wasp, she's used to put an amphibious unit ashore. As such she carries 900 troops on a short duration mission, and as many as 59 vehicles. Her primary mission is to launch an assault from sea, with helicopters used in the Close Air Support mission.

The Wasp on the other hand, carries a Marine Expeditionary Unit, which is almost 1900 troops. However, unlike the Mistral (mostly because of the lack of capability), and Hyuga (size), the Wasp class can and does operate fixed wing aircraft off the deck. She can put to sea with as many as 20 Harriers (and eventually F-35s), although her standard complement is 6. The Wasp is a STOVL carrier, which is the huge difference between the her and the other two.

The Hyuga's primary mission is ASW, which means she carries a bunch of ASW helicopters on board. She's too small to take on any kind of fixed wing operations, especially if you want any kind of range.

allenidaho

OccamsRazor04But Japan is responsible for determining what the minimum defense level is. And also for determining what a piece of equipment is going to be used for. Theoretically, They could have a full-fledged fixed wing carrier if they decided it was within the guidelines and would only be used for defense, considering China now has a carrier.

Aircraft carriers purpose is force projection. A land base would serve a defense purpose far better. Why do you think when people started calling their new destroyer a carrier they pushed hard to correct them it was not a carrier? Because you are wrong, there is no way to sell a carrier as a defensive weapon.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Not true. You are forgetting about ASW carriers, a specialized type of carrier that has been around since the 1960's. Their entire role was defense just like Japan's new carriers.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by allenidaho


A true ASW carrier hasn't existed for years. The closest equivalent in use by anyone, are the Hyuga and Izumo class Helicopter Destroyers. A modern carrier, whatever the type (CATOBAR, STOVL, STOBAR), make horrible defensive platforms, and are for power projection and offensive operations.

RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by IamSirDrinksalot

 

en.wikipedia.org... ummm

1988 invasion of Spratly Islands by China

they invaded Korea (back when it was unified) invaded Vietnam

en.wikipedia.org...

they fought several wars/border skrimishes with india and i think back in the day there were even cross border raids between the soviet union

tibet.....but opinions differ on that one

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
no those chinese have never invaded any one ever....... and this is just the PRC not talking about ancient chinas shenigans or what they did before the civil war when mao took power

en.wikipedia.org... they are an old nation with lots of history and they have invaded people in their long history and fought a good many wars of unification

on main topic its good to see japan getting a bit more independence and it seems they have wanted the marines out of okinawa for a long time now so its good to see some changes giving them more indepence and hopefully they will start to handle the bulk of their defense

and for those that know their history the Japanese have historically done quite well against china in the past and they have LOTS of bad blood built up over the centuries between those two nations and with this past comes tension hence the build up by a lot of SE Asian nations in regards to both Chinese build up and Japanese build up

and more directly to zaphoid how much change in capiblity does this move represent as far as us forces go?

Hardly any more dangerous that Argentina, i suspect if you go over the same time period with America, Russia, Europe and most African states China would be much lower, especially if you are talking cross border skirmishes (or Tibet) on what is a common fall out over what is soverign or someone elses.

Have they ever straid further than their borders (I am talking medievil here)?

No, but Japan, the US, Russia, the UK, the Nazis, the French have all done this on a much bigger scale over the same time period (perhaps not the Nazis unless you count the moon).

Anyway, my point is, meh, I dont have a point, but from history, i trust the Japanese less than the Chinese.

allenidaho
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Not true. You are forgetting about ASW carriers, a specialized type of carrier that has been around since the 1960's. Their entire role was defense just like Japan's new carriers.

en.wikipedia.org...

You mean post WW2 Carriers that have been obsolete for a really long time and haven't truly existed since the 80's?

The fact you keep wanting to dance around is that the Japanese are not allowed to build a TRUE carrier. At one time this made sense, now it doesn't.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


A carrier is a carrier. You just can't seem to grasp that not all carriers are built alike nor fill the same role.
I say Japan's carrier is an ASW carrier. You say it doesn't count because the US hasn't used them since the 80's.

I say you are trying too hard to win an argument.

reply to post by allenidaho


No, you are trying to reach and search for any way to possibly justify calling it a carrier. If it looks like a dog and barks ... call it a dog. Japan has zero ships that look like a dog or bark, but you want to label them as such.

Despite this you still refuse to acknowledge the entire point which is Japan is not allowed to have a TRUE carrier, and this line of thinking is outdated and needs to change.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Not necessarily, the UK has just got rid of three ASW carriers that were state of the art when built and that was in the 80's. HMS Ocean is also in the assault class and is actually pretty new.


Edit, yeah I should have read back a bit first, oops.