Voices
in
Japan

have your say

Two new low-altitude routes introduced in April for landings at Haneda Airport enter Yokota airspace controlled by the U.S. military. Do you think it is right that the U.S. military should be able to control airspace in Japan?

30 Comments

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

30 Comments
Login to comment

No. While I can assume that they can come up with a sensible justification for it, it is still Japanese airspace and should be under Japanese control. People might just wake up one day to see parks cordoned off because US air defense systems are deployed there, don't let it happen.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

If it is a joint-use base like Atsugi, then Japan can set the restricted area. If not, I say charge the US a fee to designate it a restricted area. Something reasonable like 1 trillion yen per year.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I cannot understand why this country is infested with the US military in the first place. WWII ended more than 70 years ago. This is Japan. The land and the airspace are Japan.

If the U.S.A. insist on having bases here, they should pay ground rent at the same rate as we would have to pay.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

No, but that’s what happens when you lose a war. That being said, that was 75 years ago and the occupation and airspace control should’ve ended when the US returned Okinawa back in 1972.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

No.

This is not a vassal state of the American empire.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

All the people here deriding the U.S. presence better realize that those service members are here protecting you. You can complain all you want because of the freedom you have due largely in part to that presence. Go ask people in Hong Kong about losing their freedoms. China and North Korea would be on Japan's ass in a millisecond without the U.S. deterrent. Be thankful.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

You can complain all you want because of the freedom you have due largely in part to that presence.

Always with the threat that the US is keeping an even worse adversary at bay.

End imperialism. Now.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

As an American I say no. In a perfect world, the Japanese should control this airspace and make the necessary allowances for the U.S. and JSDF to use the airspace as needed. If the U.S. has an issue with Japanese decisions then the U.S. can protest and the U.S. military and Japanese government can use an arbitration process to make a decision which is in the best interest of Japan.

My reply is not deriding the U.S. presence in Japan at all but recognizing the sovereignty of Japan with a full understanding that the U.S. shares the responsibility for the defense of Japan; mostly due to Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Nonsense. Why in the world would N. Korea or China attack Japan? What would they get? Does anyone truly believe that Japan cannot turn a few screwdrivers and have deliverable nuclear weapons?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

What Bertie said.

The US military have plenty of air space over their own land, they should do their low-altitude flights there where patriotic Americans can holler and cheer and wave the flag.

If they want to use Japanese land/airspace, they should pay the going rate and a bit extra for good will.

All the people here deriding the U.S. presence better realize that those service members are here protecting you.

The kind of language gangsters use when extracting protection money.

Invalid CSRF x4!

1 ( +6 / -5 )

As a non-Tokyo resident, I can't say much about the flight path situation, other than as a plane nerd, it wouldn't bother me to see all those aircraft flying close by. Heck, one reason I bought the apartment I did was to sit on the balcony and watch planes take off and land at Itami.

But on topic, in a perfect world the US military wouldn't need to be here. But as we know, it ain't perfect and they help to keep the wolves at bay, at one time the USSR and now China (Japan wouldn't have too much trouble with NK). As part of the deal of hosting bases, Japan gets protection from an all-intents-and-purposes friendly ally while saving enormous amounts of money they'd otherwise have to spend on defence, making funds available for useful things like white elephant projects, tetrapods and amakudari posts.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

No. This is Japan, not US or the 51st state of the US.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The kind of language gangsters use when extracting protection money.

Yes, and it's not the first time that kind of threat wrapped up in a velvet glove has been used.

Many countries seeking independence from their colonial/imperial masters (my own included) were told that they'd suffer - financially or from extraneous sources.

I find it trememdously ironic that a nation that prides itself on "freedom" has caveats attached, when it comes to others.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Naw, let the Chicom have the whole archipelago.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Without knowing the purpose I am not sure. Japan uses "controlled by US military" as a red herring so that its own SDF can also use such airspace. The interests are aligned but the US takes the heat.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Absolutely yes.

It should serve as a constant reminder to Japan of their Wartime aggression and the consequences they brought upon themselves with it.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

It should serve as a constant reminder to Japan of their Wartime aggression and the consequences they brought upon themselves with it.

In that case, who will remind the USA of it's long and shameful history of aggression in Central and South America, in the Middle East, in Vietnam and so on?

Can those countries form an alliance and occupy the US and it's airspace?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

WWII was the biggest mess in the history of mankind, of course that leaves a mark... even if it was 70 years ago, Japan still needs to accept the consequences of losing a war... and remember that they were an ally of Germany and Italy ( translation: they weren,t exactly the good guys )... that being said, i agree when people say that “this is Japan, not the US”...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The quote makes it seem like they are controlling and dictating ALL over the airspace over Japan, when that is not the case. Now, they SHOULD be able to control the airspace they currently control, yes, because it is needed for Japan's security, whether some people don't like that fact or not.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Toasted Heretic: "In that case, who will remind the USA of it's long and shameful history of aggression in Central and South America, in the Middle East, in Vietnam and so on?"

They remind the US of "it's" (sic) long and shameful history quite well, especially Vietnam being prosperous (well, increasingly) and peaceful after the US ran with their tail tucked between legs.

"Can those countries form an alliance and occupy the US and it's airspace?"

Did I miss something? Did those countries invade and occupy the US? because if not, your "comparison" is ludicrous.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

To the victors go the spoils of war.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

As long as Japan has to rely on USA for defense then they are obligated to provide assistance to u.s. military activities. If Japan assumes military capabilities to effectively defend and thwart aggression then the USA military forces can reduce their presence and questions like this become a non issue. This is the current reality. Emotionalism will make you feel good but won't protect Japan.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Disgraceful that some people here are still fighting a war.

How many people have been killed by the Japanese Self Defense Forces in the past 75 years?

How many people have been killed by the US military in the past 75 years?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

It’s an American base. American soil (legally). It’s their airspace. People may not like it but that’s how it works. And I think the American presence has worked out pretty well for Japan over all.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Like the UK, Japan is an unsinkable aircraft carrier. But the US airplanes at Lakenheath/ Mildenhall, and elsewhere must comply with UK flight paths, air traffic control and regulations. Should be the same here.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

This is not a vassal state of the American empire.

Oh yes it is.

But the US airplanes at Lakenheath/ Mildenhall, and elsewhere must comply with UK flight paths, air traffic control and regulations.

That's not my understanding. I may be wrong, but I think military flights in the US, whether UK or US planes, are not subject to flight path regulations. Military flights stay out of commercial flight paths on a voluntary basis.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry, I should have written "but I think military flights in the UK"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

if you don't like it you can always ceded directly to China and get it over with

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Inflammatory title.

Control airspace in Japan with impunity? No.

Around the bases? Possibly.

There is a Status of Forces Agreement in place between the USFJ and the Japanese government regarding these kinds of things.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Countries should only have bases in their own countries. Otherwise, why not let the British Navy have a base in Yokohama, and Australia have Marines based in Okinawa?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites