Japan scrambles jets against Chinese plane

The ADIZ map with this article does not show Japan's complete ADIZ. It does not drop off in the Pacific. Japan has a massive ADIZ that is shoved in all neighbor's faces, including South Korea, whose ADIZ was only established after Japan's. Its shoved in Russia's face, but that is not shown.

The map also neglects to mention that Japan's ADIZ was unilaterally expanded into Taiwan's ADIZ in 2010 and now overlaps with theirs, just as the press avoids mention of Taiwan's claim on Diaoyu.

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the size of China's ADIZ at all, but look at Japan's in the area above the Senkakus and below Korea. Its much closer to China than it is to Japan. Why? Could Japan not go halfway, considering that China might want an ADIZ someday?

Believe me, I condemn both parties. But the press always painting Japan a tad more innocent and China a tad bit more sinister is disgusting propaganda.

funny car, regardless of the size of Japan's ADIZ it has not created the kind of international problems that China's has. Much of it I suspect has to do with Japan not requiring any and all commercial flights to register with them, unlike China. All the countries you mentioned are able to work it out among themselves so there are no major issues. Again, unlike China. So yea, China is a bit more sinister.

Japan' ADIZ from map is so large and intimidating surrounding nations.The reason was Okinawa chain Islands were far away from Japan. Okinawa should be liberated from Japan for avoiding ADIZ conflict. 2014 will be referendum for Scotland for choosing their destiny. Senkaku should be liberated from Japan for avoiding WWIII. If no nation own that Island, the world will be more peaceful.

Philippines or Taiwan have no more non ADIZ space for flying between Japan and China or Japan and South Korea. Japan can not cry as innocent wolf. Back in 2010, Japan extended unilaterally for current boundary. Air should have freedom for navigation of all commercial and private Jets.

funny car, regardless of the size of Japan's ADIZ it has not created the kind of international problems that China's has.

I am not defending China's ADIZ. But from the eyes of fierce and irrational pro-Japan anti-China folks anything remotely balanced is perceived as the enemy.

All the countries you mentioned are able to work it out among themselves so there are no major issues.

Its funny how things can be "worked out" among allies but not among rivals. You seriously think its all China's fault their move was met with vehement protest off the cuff?

Yet when Japan extended her ADIZ into Taiwan's, a MOFA official said this: “Given international norms that ADIZ demarcation is at the discretion of each country, it was natural for Japan not to seek prior approval from Taiwan. "

Was China's ADIZ met with such calm consideration? I think not. All parties involved are to blame for the major issues. China first for apparently adding overbearing rules for flying through their ADIZ not done by other countries, and everyone else second for responding with vitriol.

What Japanese fighter Pilot will do next if Chinese plane does not turn back to Chinese air space or does not obey Japanese Pilot order?

Will Mr. Abe order Japanese Pilot to shoot down invaded Chinese plain?

Communist Chinese military leaders are playing dangerous game with its neighbors. They are really stupid if they think provocation to its neighbors is fun.

If Japanese fighter shot down Chinese plain and then constant war will broken out in South China Sea between Japan and China. I’m not sure that what Communist Chinese leaders wanted.

The problem with Communist China is President Xi Jinping do not control Military. I won’t be surprised if some Chinese Generals want to carry out provocation act for to test their latest weapons with Japanese military. Communist Chinese military leader must stop dangerous provocation at once.

What Japanese fighter Pilot will do next if Chinese plane does not turn back to Chinese air space or does not obey Japanese Pilot order? Will Mr. Abe order Japanese Pilot to shoot down invaded Chinese plain?

Probably not. Japan is constitutionally not allowed to attack, only to defend, so if the Chinese do not fire on Japan, the Japanese cannot fire on China. Although this does depend on how an attack is defined, but I do not believe an invasion of airspace is defined as an attack. Maybe someone else can confirm or deny that with a link of some sort.

This whole situation feels like it could turn bad anytime soon.

Maybe they're testing the waters to see what the response time is like and what responses like...

Strangerland, you are correct. That's why they always send two planes: one is sacrificial in the case an attack occurs, and the other one can then take down the attacker.

Probably not. Japan is constitutionally not allowed to attack, only to defend, so if the Chinese do not fire on Japan, the Japanese cannot fire on China. Although this does depend on how an attack is defined, but I do not believe an invasion of airspace is defined as an attack. Maybe someone else can confirm or deny that with a link of some sort.

I think you're right, it depends on how "attack" is defined. However, people are people. Constitutionally, the military/pilots may not be allowed to fire, but who knows what would happen if a pilot gets spooked and fires off a shot.

More distraction for both sides. For China to keep the hatred towards Japanese burning and less eyes on the wealth gap, land grabs etc.. For Japan, keep the hate burning towards the Chinese as Abe changes the constitution and Fukushima spirals more and more out of control.

Probably not. Japan is constitutionally not allowed to attack, only to defend, so if the Chinese do not fire on Japan, the Japanese cannot fire on China. Although this does depend on how an attack is defined, but I do not believe an invasion of airspace is defined as an attack. Maybe someone else can confirm or deny that with a link of some sort.

If a foreign plane is in your airspace and does not identify itself or it's purpose and does not listen to demands to turn around, it is a perfectly justified and defensive act to shoot it down. That aircraft had invaded your space and you have no way of knowing it's intent. What if the plane had kept flying toward a major city? Japan would have no right to shoot it down until it started firing? That's preposterous.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for Japan's position on this issue. They altered the status quo by nationalising Diaoyu, and these are the consequences

What a monumental waste of money all this posturing is-3 coin tosses and the winner takes all.....done!

I'm with everyone above who thinks this is bad. Hard to find a silver lining.

Probably not. Japan is constitutionally not allowed to attack, only to defend

Nope: Article 9:

ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Technically, Japan's military jet planes should not exist. The defense you speak of would be a use of force, which is clearly prohibited.

Now, not saying I agree it should be that way, just stating the facts.

The only reason Japan should defend these Senkaku islands so aggressively is if they made a big claim they have owned them for a long time. I guess it could be about being the bigger man?

If it is not this case and they bought it to be purely dominant then they deserve it.

Nope: Article 9:

Yes, it says right there:

the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

The Japanese are not allowed war as a means of settling international disputes. Defending yourself is not settling a dispute. It is defending yourself. So looking at the second section:

To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained.

They are not allowed to maintain army, navy, or airforce to settle disputes. It does not say they are not allowed to maintain these to defend themselves.

This is how they have been able to maintain the JSDF all these years.

China needs distraction. The banks are running out of cash and having liquidity problems that they need to increase the borrowing rates for the 2nd time less than 6 months which means it is becoming a big problem. And japan keeps the common Chinese population in control. Though money is moving out from China fast silently even from Chinese investors.

China - the messed up country.

These far-flung tiny islands are sure costing Japanese taxpayers and businesses a bundle.

When you have your ADIZ and keep doing stuff in its name, then you should not be a surprise China creates its own. Both ADIZs cover the same islands under dispute.

It's not commonly known, but there are quite a few islands in the region that China claims since long time ago, although so far they've been making fuss about only one, and only since about a year ago. It's Abe's refusal to talk about it ("Japanese territory, no discussion needed") that eventually led to the diplomatic disengagement.

China doesn't actually want to take over the island, they only want Japan to admit the island dispute exists. Since Abe declares it's Japanese territory, no discussion whatsoever, then China goes ahead, sends ships around it and creates the reality of dispute. Now the whole world knows the island is in dispute, whether you admit it or not. So China achieved its purpose already. They don't need to go any further than that. Any more escalations on either are not really about the island.

Does the Japanese government understand this? Or is the island issue only an excuse to develop its military for what Abe calls a "Strong Japan"? It increasingly looks like the latter.

It's not commonly known, but there are quite a few islands in the region that China claims since long time ago, although so far they've been making fuss about only one, and only since about a year ago. It's Abe's refusal to talk about it ("Japanese territory, no discussion needed") that eventually led to the diplomatic disengagement.

I thought it was when under DPJ, they decided to buy it instead of renting it?

China doesn't actually want to take over the island, they only want Japan to admit the island dispute exists. Since Abe declares it's Japanese territory, no discussion whatsoever, then China goes ahead, sends ships around it and creates the reality of dispute. Now the whole world knows the island is in dispute, whether you admit it or not. So China achieved its purpose already. They don't need to go any further than that. Any more escalations on either are not really about the island.

Again, China has been sending ships since the DPJ leadership. What China achieved is what many parts around the world, is that they prey on the weak (SE Asia, South China Sea) but act like one of those kids that ring the neighbor's doorbell and run away. On the flip side, it strengthened the alliance around Sea Lanes with U.S., India, and Japan mostly where one false move by China would result in a complete blockage of the life line, where China would conceivably starve.

Does the Chinese government understand this? They probably do but "saving face" in front of their brainwashed masses are more important than how they are perceived around the world.

The next logical move is for Japan to build defence facilities on the Senkaku islands. China keeps pushing which doesn't leave Japan with a choice. If China stops pushing then Japan won't need to build these facilities.

The Japanese are not allowed war as a means of settling international disputes. Defending yourself is not settling a dispute. It is defending yourself.

When one country attacks another, that is an international dispute. Nobody says the attacking country is engaging in war, and the defending country is engaging in self-defense. They are AT WAR. They are ENGAGED IN WAR. To defend oneself with military force is TO WAR.

They are not allowed to maintain army, navy, or airforce to settle disputes.

They not allowed to have them PERIOD. They are war potential, and there is no wording or clause that allows Japan to have them. There is no such thing as a military force that can only be used for self-defense. You cannot slap a label on a gun that says "for self-defense only" and have a reasonable expectation that it will magically work. If that were true, the Germans after WWI would have been given such guns, tanks and fighter planes. Of course they weren't, because that is just a dream. The Germans had to practice flying in gliders to prep for WWII.

MacArthur had tanks labeled as "special vehicles" and put them under the car of the police. Come on. You can't tell me you buy that garbage.

Saying anything else is a just a form of mental yoga attempting to twist the words of the constitution to accomplish what you want. Its lame and I am not going to engage in it. The constitution is being broken. Its a fact.

Anyway, the theory was to resort to collective self-defense with a U.N. military force only. But the Korean War messed that up. Thus MacArthur's fourth grade labeling exercise.

Japan, don't play China's game. Just sit back till they hit 1st and let the international community see who is the aggressor.

No Gengar Japan has to do this. This is what Blue Impulse has to do.

When one country attacks another, that is an international dispute. Nobody says the attacking country is engaging in war, and the defending country is engaging in self-defense. They are AT WAR. They are ENGAGED IN WAR. To defend oneself with military force is TO WAR.

And yet you are the only one who seems to think this. There has never been an issue with anyone else in Japan having a Self Defense Force. So while I respect that you have chosen to interpret Article 9 this way, you are just some bloke talking on the internet, while anyone that counts doesn't agree with you.

They not allowed to have them PERIOD

See above. Yes they are.

Strangerland, if there was any allowance for a self-defense force, we would not be having this discussion. That would have been spelled out clearly in the constitution. Its obvious. There is no "except" clause to the bit about "war potential shall never be maintained"

you are just some bloke talking on the internet

And you are the rightful Queen of North America??

And yet you are the only one who seems to think this.

Huh? Not many here have turned to the true meaning of Article 9. Its pretty much just us.

I am just dumbfounded that you cannot see why General Douglas MacArthur decided to classify a tank as a "special vehicle" rather than just call it a tank. The power of denial is strong.

And here I advocate amending or altering the constitution in order to make the SDF legit. Its not my fault people refuse to deal with reality and the true meaning of words. Nor is it my fault that people tend to choose the status quo over the wording of the constitution, or even the lack of wording.

I am not messing with your head. I had trouble understanding these facts myself at first too. But nobody put it all as bluntly to me as I put it to you. Never mind my negative votes. There is a nationalist lobby voting here and I doubt they even read English. They just down vote who they are told. Forget the votes. Read the words of article 9. Don't skim. Read them. All of them. Don't drop parts you don't like. Don't add on your own. Just the words.

Strangerland, if there was any allowance for a self-defense force, we would not be having this discussion. That would have been spelled out clearly in the constitution. Its obvious. There is no "except" clause to the bit about "war potential shall never be maintained"

The JSDF has been challenged in court in Japan multiple times. The same courts that operate under the Japanese constitution, and have been been found to be allowed under this constitution. As I said, the people who matter have interpreted and spoken. It's your opinion that the JSDF is not allowed, but not the opinion of anyone that matters.

So you are saying the the Japanese courts have power? I don't dispute that.

But you also seem to be saying that they are honest. That I strongly dispute.

Would you care to clarify your position? See, I never denied that the powers that be will do whatever they want. My only contention here is what Article 9 really and truly means. All the power to defy the constitution in the world is not going to blind me to what is really going on.

If you are going to kneel to power, that is fine. But you don't need to be deluded about what they are doing.

I think Strangerland is trying to say that there is no one interpretation of a text. People always see things differently and so every society appoints a profession that has special skills for interpretation and settles with their recommendation. It will always be possible to dispute an interpretation of a statement as long as the statement has some complexity. But I doubt that anyone has an interest to do so. So basically we all need to agree on some things sometimes. If you choose to use a suspicious presumption (possibly conspiratory class) it is up to you but the appointed ones has made another interpretation and thats it. Just a thought.

Yeah that's essentially what I was getting at, just not as eloquently as you put it.

Another way to put it is that there are a lot of Japanese people who believe extremely strongly in the pacifism of Japan, and maintaining article 9, and even they for the most part are ok with the JSDF. Between that, and the fact that it's passed muster through the Supreme Court multiple times, being judged under that same constitution, I'd have to say that the JSDF is allowed under article 9. It's considers an extension of the police force. If you were to interpret that self defence wasn't allowed, the police would not be able to arrest foreigners, as they would be considered an army, and arresting foreigners would be settling an international dispute.

"The next logical move is for Japan to build defence facilities on the Senkaku islands."

Then these tiny, far-flung islands will cost cost taxpayers in Japan even more. Cripes.

I think Strangerland is trying to say that there is no one interpretation of a text.

Bah. Schemers and their "interpretations" and spin. From wiki and from the source:

According to the Allied Supreme Commander Douglas MacArthur, the provision was suggested by Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara,[2] who "wanted it to prohibit any military establishment for Japan—any military establishment whatsoever."

Spin that.

Once again, I favor Japan having an SDF and I favor changing the constitution to legitimize it. But the text of the constitution is clear. MacArthur's actions during the Korean War make it clear that he understood it as I do.

I don't know how many nails I will have to drive in this coffin so here is another: After the constitution was ratified for years there was not move or talk of making an SDF. Then they did not even go straight into making one, but instead created the NPR. When that status quo was accepted, then they went ahead and created the SDF.

Again, I am not saying the SDF should be disbanded. I am just saying that the constitution DOES NOT allow for it. Subterfuge and denial are being used to get around the fact. If you support that, fine. Just accept reality.