national

Japan, U.S. troops consider drill to retake island

96 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

96 Comments
Login to comment

Jiji said some Japanese and U.S. government officials were cautious about holding the drill, fearing a likely angry response from China.

Like reporting this won't? I can see the ulterior motives behind putting this information out there, but it does nothing to help the situation.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Let protests in China start again.....

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Yubaru, you took those words right out of my mouth. It only fuels the fire already burning. Why not state, Senkaku islands will be drilled on and permanently military infiltrated. That's what they are really saying...

6 ( +7 / -1 )

This will go down well...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

And this is the US' way of staying out of the island business, right? I'm sure this will piss China off...

5 ( +5 / -0 )

This was planned back in September when the first Island joint island taking exercises were carried out in Guam. Which would be before China decided to use the purchase by the Japanese government as an excuse to have it's massive hissy fit..

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Just settle it in the courts or at the UN. The answer really is as simple and as obvious as that.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Headline a couple of weeks back: "U.S. takes no sides in Japan-China dispute".

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Just drop a couple of nukes on them and there won't be any islands to claim. What then? But really, if the US and Japan are going to talk about it may as well just do it and be done with it. China is going to react badly no matter what. Or is that what is desired?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Just drop a couple of nukes on them and there won't be any islands to claim.

I get the humor. Two things: nukes don't seem to make much of a dent on earth. There are no cravasses in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Second, it's not the damn islands everyone wants. It's the minerals beneath and around the islands. If the islands were to disappear I'm sure some government drone would say 'Where the islands used to be, that's ours.'

8 ( +9 / -1 )

"Japan and the United States are mulling a joint military drill to simulate retaking a remote island from foreign forces"

The only thing more obvious to do would be to use Senkaku for the training!

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Don't worry China, this is just Japan and the US preparing to retake Takeshima - totally different!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

or retaking Kurill islands?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Given this is coming from Kyodo and Jiji, obviously the source is someone (politician most likely) in Japan. Would assume someone on the right intentionally leaked the information, while not everyone in the US and Japan should be happy about this leak.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Bumbling politicians at their best, the big boys want to play with their big toys. Now there is one thing to remember, if and when £$%^ does hit the fan, and I hope never, where are these bumbling politicians and generals????? Who suffers the most, we see daily around the world how many innocent people are dying in conflicts, but where are the people who cause it, nowhere to be seen ??? Power hungry ego maniacs, thats all they are. Don't they like, maybe a "Diplomatic solution" or a "Compromise" no because even if they are wrong they won't accept an outcome. Always, the people who elect these (i wish I could find a word to truly describe these people) are the ones who suffer most.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

or retaking Kurill islands?

the Russian is the only Country the idiot in nagatacho wont play they stupid game with

0 ( +4 / -4 )

A joint exercise to retake remote islands? But how can this be - haven't I read in these comment sections countless times that the USA will never help defend Japan? Wow, could those bold, confident assertions actually be wrong?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

"Japan and China have long been at loggerheads over the sovereignty of rocky outcrops in the East China Sea"

In the East China Sea, eh? They must be an integral part of Japan, then.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

"or retaking Kuril islands?"

You mean the Northern Territories that the Russians stole?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Obama administration: "Hey, let's calm the Senkaku Islands thing down by stirring the pot a little bit. We can just flex our muscles and solve the whole thing. Look how well that has worked out in the Middle East."

Prior to the pro-US Kan taking the PM's office, Japan and China were looking at ways to jointly develop the natural resources around the Senkaku Islands. It was Hatoyama who sought closer relations with China and a "more equal" relationship with the US for which he was ousted. Kan came to office and declared that the Japan/US alliance was the core of Japan's regional FP. The joint development talks stopped. Soon after, the infamous Chinese fishing boat captain was arrested and ultimately released at the insistence of the Obama administration who did not want become involved lest it affect the US/China relationship.

Meanwhile, The US has invited China to participate in the 2014 Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC). This was announced by Secretary of Defense Panetta in China the day after he gave the Japanese vague and convoluted assurances that the Senkakus was part of the Japan/US security agreement but that the US takes no stance on the issue.

Now this.

These guys are all over the place and have a track record in the Middle East which does not instill confidence in anything they do except for their ability to drop bombs on foreign soil and ambush Americans and foreigners who have not been found guilty of anything (not even taken to court) but who are unfortunate enough to show up on Obama's personal hit list using unmanned drones controlled by the US military's best-trained gamers (join the US military and blow up people in real time, just like in your favorite shooter RPG).

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The US just showed what side they are on.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

hatsoffOct. 15, 2012 - 09:53AM JST A joint exercise to retake remote islands? But how can this be - haven't I read in these comment sections countless times that the USA will never help defend Japan? Wow, could those bold, confident assertions actually be wrong?

No, they are, most likely, valid. These drills have no real meaning, but only for the show. In both cases of Kuriles and Senkaku Islands there will be no needed to "retake" anything, as there will be already a full-blown ongoing war between nuclear superpowers. The US most probably offered Japan these joint drills to show solidarity. Whether, in the worst case, the US will still join the war against China, is not clear. The war against Russia the US will not join, as in that case it is Japan, which will have to start the aggression leading to a nuclear disaster.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The US just showed what side they are on.

As always, the US is just hedging its bets. As I pointed out above, the US is also holding military exercises with China.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm thinking this might be a good introduction to the capabilities of the Osprey!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm thinking this might be a good introduction to the capabilities of the Osprey!

You know, there are those who believe that the US dropped 2 A-bombs on Japan simply because they had some new toys and were bound to use them.

On September 9, 1945, Admiral William F. Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet, was publicly quoted extensively as stating that the atomic bomb was used because the scientists had a "toy and they wanted to try it out . . . " http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-10-14/real-reason-america-used-nuclear-weapons-against-japan

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

This doesn't bode well...

3 ( +3 / -0 )

china is not comfortable to see this drill

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Feel better this shows our friends the United States will help protect Japan from aggression from the Peoples Republic of China. They will commit aggression at their own peril.

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

So US is also prepared to stoke conflict with China? Syria next? At some stage the burden of all this will be too much.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

To some it may come as something new as Japan's response to the recent rise in the Senkaku dispute, but the truth is the JSDF had been developing a counterplan for this kind of scenario for more than five years when the GSDF first developed plans to assemble an amphibious brigade.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

This one was for all those that think the US will not help Japan if the thuggish PRC invades it's territory.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

I don't think US, Japan and China will decorates their x'mas tree with body bags specially the US this coming x'mas season. But I'm sure one man Mr Ishihara and the Right Wingers doesn't care the x'mas spirit.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

JoeBigs Oct. 15, 2012 - 11:39AM JST

This one was for all those that think the US will not help Japan if the thuggish PRC invades it's territory.

I am definitely sure that US will not help any nation unless it does not need to foot the bills. It has budget deficit of more than 14.4 trillions right now. It has already passed beyond constitutional limit. Irag war was financed by PRC since 2003. That war bill was 1.2 billion for a week. Will PRC foot the bill for US again? Current Japan debt is 200% of GDP. If Japan has to foot the bill, she needs to find the foreign banker. Government owed the debt to citizens heavily. Unlikely their debt will never be repaid.

May be Myanmar or Burma will foot the bill for US military adventure for Japan territorial dispute.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Start the music. The pounding sound of the roters of the Ospreys' will be deafening!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I don't understand, now who is provoking who?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Whats the point of historians, you know those history academics who spend their whole life's work solving historical problems. Why don't the powers that be ask the academical historians for their judgement , just a thought !!!!!!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I don't understand, now who is provoking who?

I am sure that it will be portrayed as China escalating the conflict by provoking Japan and the US into conducting such drills with their protests.

It is always portrayed this way in the media.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Jiji said some Japanese and U.S. government officials were cautious about holding the drill, fearing a likely angry response from China.

No kidding. If that's the case then hand over the islands to China and stop crying. No? Then buck up buttercup and be able to show the big bully on the block that you can defend yourselves

1 ( +2 / -1 )

YuriOtani: "Feel better this shows our friends the United States will help protect Japan from aggression from the Peoples Republic of China."

And yet you time and time again have demanded the US forces be sent out of Japan, no? The 180 continues, I see; curse them when it's convenient and then seek help when it's needed.

Anyway, it won't go beyond 'considering'. Japan will push for it, but the US will not agree.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Sounds like the initiative for this came out of Okinawa. I seriously doubt the State Department would have ever brought this up. But if some higher ups in DOD start talking to their Japanese counterparts, I can see where the SDF would get very excited and run with it.

Since it's been already been announced, maybe we should just go with it. Load up the SDF and Marines, say we're going to said island and then head to Iwo Jima. Now THAT would stir up some sentiments...

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I think the people of both Japan and China don't want to see tentions escalate as there are so much involved. It really comes down to the self centred politicians to take the right action to defuse the tention.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tiger_In_The_Hermitage-" self centred politicians" really, well you do surprise me(sarcastic)

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The same to JP & US, Chian was also mulling military drill to simulate taking islands. So just don't worry, nothing would happen. What does it mean when dogs fiercely barking ? THEY ARE AFRAID! A dog won't bark when it really want to bite people.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

So when is "D"-okdo Day? How about they land at Ieodo and really rustle everyones' jimmies?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Feel better this shows our friends the United States will help protect Japan from aggression from the Peoples Republic of China. They will commit aggression at their own peril."

@YuriOtani:

But you still want the U.S. bases and troops out of mainland Japan and Okinawa right??!!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

toguroOct. 15, 2012 - 09:52PM JST @YuriOtani: But you still want the U.S. bases and troops out of mainland Japan and Okinawa right??!!

Oh, everybody is constantly kicking YuriOtani rear about protection of Japan vs. troops in Okinawa. Yes, she wants US troops out of Okinawa, and yes, she wants good relationships with the US and help to protect Japan. Where is contradiction in that?? Who said that the US must occupy a large chunk of best Japanese land, impose no-flight zones, disturb people and prevent economical development of Okinawa in order to protect Japan from Chinese threat?? These things may be connected, but they are not interdependent. Stop the nonsense. YuriOtani has full right to wish both.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Sorry Yuri and Konsta, ya can't 'ave your pie and eat it too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The islands they are practicing taking in this drill are not Senkaku, but Honshu after the Chinese attack and invasion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fish! According to the Commies, this entire Saber Rattling is all about Fishing near the Senkakku Islands.

SHOW ME THAT RARE FISH!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SaketownOct. 15, 2012 - 10:30PM JST Fish! According to the Commies, this entire Saber Rattling is all about Fishing near the Senkakku Islands. SHOW ME THAT RARE FISH!

The fish is from the same evolutionary family, which according to Japanese, lives to the north of Hokkaido, I presume.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"Oh, everybody is constantly kicking YuriOtani rear about protection of Japan vs. troops in Okinawa. Yes, she wants US troops out of Okinawa, and yes, she wants good relationships with the US and help to protect Japan. Where is contradiction in that?? Who said that the US must occupy a large chunk of best Japanese land, impose no-flight zones, disturb people and prevent economical development of Okinawa in order to protect Japan from Chinese threat?? These things may be connected, but they are not interdependent. Stop the nonsense. YuriOtani has full right to wish both."

@Konsta:

You even highlighted my comment. Please show me where I was "kicking" YuriOtani by posing a simple question? I'll even oblige you and answer your questions. Who says the U.S. must occupy a large chunk of best Japanese land, impose no-flight zones, disturb people and prevent economical development of Okinawa to protect Japan from Chinese threat? Apparently people with more say so and voice than you as that is the reality to a certain degree of the situation. If you feel there is no contradiction to her viewpoint, then no matter what I or anyone else says to the contrary, you're going to feel there is no contradiction regardless. Just as she has her right to her opinion, everyone else has the right to call her on it just as well. So heed your own words and "stop the nonsense".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, pretty sure the chinese will take offense at this (like a fart), but here we go anyway. Maybe this is the October Surprise we've been anticipating. Government fools doing what government does best.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Apparently people with more say so and voice than you ...

OK, then. I see. Who are we here, anyway. Regardless, I said what I said, because the simple question you posted was indeed a statement, aiming to underline some sort of contradiction in YuriOtani's logic. I do not see any contradiction, aside that I am told otherwise by people, who have "much more important say" than me, and by you. And also, she is given that question with the same aim to portray her as a contradictory person in every thread she has misfortune to post. It creates an illusion, that she is wrong, yet nobody cares to explain. Including you. I felt obliged to defend the lady :).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

saidaniOct. 15, 2012 - 10:11AM JST As always, the US is just hedging its bets. As I pointed out above, the US is also holding military exercises with >China.

The US conducts jont drills with allies and bilateral and collective securitry partners, such as Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Phillipines. Take one wild guess who the unnamed potential adversaries are in all of these cases. The US holds ANTI-PIRACYdrills with China and many other nations in the Gulf of Aden. Best not to confuse the two as it will lead to highly erroneous conclusions.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Smith and toguro, I want the Marines on Okinawa to leave. There is just not enough of them to do any good in combat. If they stay keep only the combat forces. They can go to other places to train, like Guam. In any fight repulsing Chinese invasion, it will be the US Air Force and Navy that will protect Japan. With their help the SDF can establish air supremacy over the Senkaku islands and total naval supremacy. The Peoples Air Force and Navy will not stand a chance. Just being able to do it should deter any aggression from the Peoples Republic. Keeping the peace comes about from being strong and not weak.toguro, we have trained for many years with the Americans, we are a team to defend Japan against invasion. Each of us contributes to the defense, it is not a question of running to them. Wish we could help defend America. Article #9 should be changed to allow the sdf to help defend the free world.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Wish we could help defend America. Article #9 should be changed to allow the sdf to help defend the free world.

America's defense budget is almost equal to the rest of the world combined. Nearly 1/2 of all American households have guns in them. America doesn't need help.

I agree with your comment except the part about allowing the sdf to help defend the world. You are advocating for the deaths of Japanese youth to fight US wars, most of which are not fought in defense of the US, but in defense of US economic and political interests around the world. That is hardly worth the loss of Japanese life.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Eric Schneider i suppose you meant hydrogen/fusion bombs, not nukes, if you want the island gone and i'll suppose you take that as a very badly chosen figure of speech to say something like that on a japan-related website ... the only place in the world EVER where people got like VERY very dead from a nuke ? that's a bad choice of words man

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Smith and toguro, I want the Marines on Okinawa to leave. There is just not enough of them to do any good in combat. If they stay keep only the combat forces. They can go to other places to train, like Guam. In any fight repulsing Chinese invasion, it will be the US Air Force and Navy that will protect Japan. With their help the SDF can establish air supremacy over the Senkaku islands and total naval supremacy. The Peoples Air Force and Navy will not stand a chance. Just being able to do it should deter any aggression from the Peoples Republic. Keeping the peace comes about from being strong and not weak.toguro, we have trained for many years with the Americans, we are a team to defend Japan against invasion. Each of us contributes to the defense, it is not a question of running to them. Wish we could help defend America. Article #9 should be changed to allow the sdf to help defend the free world."

@YuriOtani:

Other than your opening two sentences, I agree with what you've said for the most part. As a Marine myself(former active duty) I strongly disagree with your opinion of the Marines on Okinawa. IMO they are there to supplement the JSDF first of all. Secondly, you would be surprised at the fighting capabilities of our Marine Corps. :-)

1 ( +1 / -0 )

IMO they are there to supplement the JSDF first of all. Secondly, you would be surprised at the fighting capabilities of our Marine Corps. :-)

I agree, However, it still is not enough to justify 67 years of MC presence in Japan in which no action has ever been taken in defense of Japan. At least admit to Okinawans that you are not there to protect them, but to protect the interests of the US in Asia.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Headline a couple of weeks back: "U.S. takes no sides in Japan-China dispute".

The US may not take a side on the issue of sovereignty, but it is obliged, by treaty, to defend any territory under the administration of Japan. Consequently, this drill is a wholly appropriate action to ensure readiness to do just that.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"I agree, However, it still is not enough to justify 67 years of MC presence in Japan in which no action has ever been taken in defense of Japan. At least admit to Okinawans that you are not there to protect them, but to protect the interests of the US in Asia."

@saidani:

How do you know for certain that the presence of Marines in and of itself hasn't been a deterrence to keep would be aggressors from attacking Japan? After all, Japan hasn't been attacked since the end of the war has it? As for admitting to Okinawans that we're not there to protect them, but rather to protect the interests of the U.S. in Asia, it is not my place to do that. I merely did a job I was ordered to do. You would have to go to the State Department or the POTUS for a statement of that nature. But name for me one country in the history of the world that DIDN'T have their own interests at heart, in the "defense" of another nation, state, etc.? Or are you claiming that the U.S. is unique in this respect?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The US holds ANTI-PIRACYdrills with China and many other nations in the Gulf of Aden. Best not to confuse the two as it will lead to highly erroneous conclusions.

I do not believe that the 2014 Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC) is an anti-piracy exercise, nor do I believe that it is held in the Gulf of Aden. What conclusions should we draw from this?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

saidaniOct. 16, 2012 - 06:50AM JST I do not believe that the 2014 Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC) is an anti-piracy exercise, nor do I believe that it >is held in the Gulf of Aden. What conclusions should we draw from this?

You stated "US is also holding military exercises with China". Suggesting that the US isa doing so at this time. This is 2012, not 2014. And while Russia was invited to this years RIMPAC, China was not. Perhaps you mean to say "will be"? Many things can happen in 2 years as the US pivots it's military strength to the pacific to counter China's expansionism. China has been invited to the furuyre RIMPAC, wjich incidentally is far from bilateral, because of the need to expose both sides to each other in order to avoid possible unintentional conflicts since the US and China are clearly in adversarial positions. If you are suggesting that China is a US ally you would be way off base.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

US, nuclear capable. China, nuclear capable. Japan? Loudmouthed bungling politicians...

And the Mayan calendar continues to countdown...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Perhaps you mean to say "will be"?

To be sure these things take time to plan. That said, it is not anti-piracy exercises. What should we make of it since you used that as an excuse for there being "no there, there."

I'm not suggesting that the US and China are allies. You responded to my comment that the US was simply hedging its bets. I would say our conversation here confirms that or is there something else going on with the RIMPAC invitation?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

saidaniOct. 16, 2012 - 01:51AM JST "Wish we could help defend America. Article #9 should be changed to allow the sdf to help defend the free world." America's defense budget is almost equal to the rest of the world combined. Nearly 1/2 of all American households >have guns in them. America doesn't need help.

The US individual riught to posess firearms is utterly irrelevant to defense of the country much less the free world. Small arms in untrained hands are of no use agaunst military weapons.

I agree with your comment except the part about allowing the sdf to help defend the world. You are advocating for >the deaths of Japanese youth to fight US wars, most of which are not fought in defense of the US, but in defense of >US economic and political interests around the world. That is hardly worth the loss of Japanese life.

No country today is totally isolated. Global peace, regional stability, securing free trade and flow of energy resources are U.S. intertests. Butb they care also all interests of our allies and nations with whom we have bilateral and collective defense agreements. Nations act as coaltions when the economic and political intersts are mutual. You seem to think that the maintenance of peace is "free".

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The US individual riught to posess firearms is utterly irrelevant to defense of the country much less the free world. Small arms in untrained hands are of no use agaunst military weapons.

So, you are saying that any force planning to invade the US would not factor in the existence of so many weapons in the hands of civilians, many of whom are ex-military or law enforcement and well-trained in the use of both arms and combat tactics? I'm stunned to hear that. Utterly irrelevant, huh?

It seems that much to do about the dropping of the A-bombs on Japan was the fear that the Japanese people, armed only with bamboo spears cut from local groves all around the nation, would fight to the death of every Japanese man, woman, and child and cause the death of a million American troops. Apparently, Truman did not realize how utterly irrelevant his fears were.

No country today is totally isolated. Global peace, regional stability, securing free trade and flow of energy resources are U.S. intertests. Butb they care also all interests of our allies and nations with whom we have bilateral and collective defense agreements.

I don't know, Switzerland is doing okay through a century of war. Some in Japan are suggesting the same course here.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

So, you are saying that any force planning to invade the US would not factor in the existence of so many weapons in the hands of civilians.....It seems that much to do about the dropping of the A-bombs on Japan was the fear that the Japanese people, armed only with bamboo spears cut from local groves all around the nation, would fight to the death

So what makes you think anyone wanting to invade the US wouldn't take a leaf out of the history book and start off by bombing a couple of huge civilian populations together with the missile sites? Lethal weapons in the hands of civilians merely makes them targets, not a force to be seriously reckoned with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So what makes you think anyone wanting to invade the US wouldn't take a leaf out of the history book and start off by bombing a couple of huge civilian populations together with the missile sites? Lethal weapons in the hands of civilians merely makes them targets, not a force to be seriously reckoned with.

If this is such a great strategy, explain, then, the rationale of dropping A-bombs on Japan, especially after years of fire bombing just about every major population center?

And are you saying that you would not fight for your family, your community, your nation?

The Libyans got bombed and many there seem to be willing to fight back against those who bombed them.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

If this is such a great strategy, explain, then, the rationale of dropping A-bombs on Japan

I explain it as a war crime. Those who think it was a good idea say it helped prevent the scenario you suggest of civilians giving grief to armed and armoured military personnel.

The Libyans got bombed

How many A-bombs were dropped on Libya? Is this secret news we aren't being allowed to know about?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Those who think it was a good idea say it helped prevent the scenario you suggest of civilians giving grief to armed and armoured military personnel.

So you agree with me.

How many A-bombs were dropped on Libya? Is this secret news we aren't being allowed to know about?

Please...it is not credible on your part to assume that I was referring to A-bombs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So you agree with me.

Oh dear. And you accuse me not being credible......I stated my opinion clearly. Or are you suggesting that I might think war crimes to be a good idea?

And yes, you did refer to the US dropping A bombs on Japan as a means of dealing with the sharpened bamboo stick problem.

Seriously, if you think any country (a) capable of getting through America's homeland defences thoroughly enough to engage in stree-by-street, hand-to-hand combat with the locals is (b) not going to have to use something as drastic as A-bombs to do it, then you really need to lobby your politicians to rethink America's defence policy and its obscenely bloated 'defence' budget. Your tax dollars are being wasted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Readers, no more references to A-bombs please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Stay on topic please. A-bombs are not relevant to this discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"It seems that much to do about the dropping of the A-bombs on Japan was the fear that the Japanese people, armed only with bamboo spears cut from local groves all around the nation, would fight to the death of every Japanese man, woman, and child and cause the death of a million American troops. Apparently, Truman did not realize how utterly irrelevant his fears were."

@saidani:

Really. Really??!! LOL

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleoOct. 16, 2012 - 09:17AM JST

Hence my first comment in reply to Yuri that America doesn't need help to defend itself.

As for my conversation with Ossan, my point is that on can not have it both ways. Either an armed citizenry is a factor, in which case Truman's argument for nuking Japan might have some validity, or, as Ossan contends, it has no effect in which case Truman is a war criminal.

Of course, it is possible that an armed citizenry is a factor and Truman is still a war criminal, but it is not possible that he gets a pass if an armed citizenry is "utterly irrelevant."

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Japan cannot give up another grain of sand to a foreign country. It is already occupied by the USA military, which just refuses to go home. There isn't room for another "sheriff in town."

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"A more reasonable assumption is that the 7th Fleet and the 5th Air Force along with America's nuclear umbrella had more to do with protecting Japan than a few thousand Marines. That, plus the fact that Asia was tired of war. Mao isolated China, the Soviets weren't interested in actual confrontation with the US or its surrogates, and North Korea was not a factor.

In fact, Japan is in more danger now because of its alliance with the US than it has been since the war, especially since the US has so many conflicts of interest in Asia."

@saidani:

I agree with the first part, although you still need the boots on the ground to supplement the JGSDF. The second part regarding Mao and the Soviet Union is pretty irrelevant since both are dead, and China is hardly isolated..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Really. Really??!! LOL

Indeed.

To implement this policy of training children to kill, soldiers attended Japanese schools and trained even small children in the use of weapons such as bamboo spears.

American military leaders were deeply concerned. They advised President Truman that an attempt to invade and subdue the Japanese on their home islands was likely to cost at least 1,000,000 American battle casualties. http://www.pacificwar.org.au/AtomBomb_Japan.html

That's a very interesting take, seeing as how I didn't know that polar bears tried to venture to Tokyo much.

Neither has the PLA.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Neither has the PLA."

That's great. The problem with your logic is, the PLA is doing a lot of saber rattling towards Japan, and more likely than not planning some sort of military action with Japan. Do you know of any polar bears planning to venture to Tokyo? If you do, I must ask what any of that has to do with Marines in Okinawa?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The problem with your logic is, the PLA is doing a lot of saber rattling towards Japan,

They are now. That's my point about Japan being in greater danger now because of the Japan/US alliance, especially since the US has stated in no uncertain terms that its intent is to isolate China and mitigate its growth so that it can not challenge America's domination in Asia. China can make that challenge toward a US surrogate and force it to act while doing nothing directly to the US.

Prior to recently, Japan and China have had a relatively peaceful relationship since the Big Thaw.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"They are now. That's my point about Japan being in greater danger now because of the Japan/US alliance, especially since the US has stated in no uncertain terms that its intent is to isolate China and mitigate its growth so that it can not challenge America's domination in Asia. China can make that challenge toward a US surrogate and force it to act while doing nothing directly to the US.

Prior to recently, Japan and China have had a relatively peaceful relationship since the Big Thaw."

So you're saying that this rift over the Senkakus between Japan and China is the fault of the U.S.?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So you're saying that this rift over the Senkakus between Japan and China is the fault of the U.S.?

I am saying it should not be discounted that the US was involved on the Japanese side or is the real target of Chinese actions. Prior to Hatoyama being ousted and the pro-US Kan taking office, there were talks between Japan and China about joint development of the area. But then, Hatoyama was also talking about moving closer to China and making the Japan/US relationship "more equal." Apparently, that is not beneficial in the long-term for Japanese politicians.

It was only a couple of months after Kan took over and reaffirmed the Japan/US alliance that the Chinese captain was arrested. What do you think it means?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not much when Japan releases the captain with no repercussions for China.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not much when Japan releases the captain with no repercussions for China.

At the behest of Obama who did not want the incident to upset China US talks while at a UN general Assembly meeting in September 2010.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The islands are a red line for China, any person with basic military or strategic insight can SEE that China and Taiwan will lose a substantial area of their immediate sea coast to Japan. Shanghai doesn't want the sight of Japan's Navy patrolling off its coast. Will Tokyo tolerate the Chinese Navy glide past Tokyo Bay after it seizes some islands off Honshu??

All this talk about China's belligerence never took into consideration the geopolitical implications for China or Taiwan of losing the islands - Japan annexed them in 1895 in the first place because they were a prelude to a Naval Blockade and all out invasion of China.

The media is doing a disinformation by only raising the "oil and gas" or "fishing" resources question, when it is a matter of economic life or death, the access to the sea and trade routes for China.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So there WILL be a war if Japan seizes those islands - "administration" is an acceptable status quo, as it doesn't imply sovereignty. However, if the US-Japan were to formally annex these islands like they did in 1895 under Shimonoseki Treaty, then for sure we reboot history to return to that era of warring nations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I read the headline as "Japan, U.S. troops consider drill to retake ireland". Imagine my surprise...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

YuriOtani: "Smith and toguro, I want the Marines on Okinawa to leave."

And yet moments ago you were praising your 'brothers in arms' for being where they are. Which is it, Yuri? You're worse than Hatoyama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AthletesOct. 15, 2012 - 12:18PM JST I am definitely sure that US will not help any nation unless it does not need to foot the bills.

By you saying this shows how little you understand our military. First off the US military is licking it's chops at going at the PRC's Naval power. It is well known within the ranks that we will face the PRC sooner than later and the sooner the better. Especially if they make the first move.

AthletesOct. 15, 2012 - 12:18PM JST It has budget deficit of more than 14.4 trillions right now. It has already passed beyond constitutional limit. Irag war was financed by PRC since 2003.

Tell me, if the PRC attacks and the US strikes back do you actually believe that funds will matter?

The US military machine is the best in the world and it's navy is beyond ready to take out anyone.

This is no boast, this is reality.

If the PRC makes it's mistake, and it will, the US and Japan will pounce on it faster than a Catholic school girl loses it.

It's better to take it out now than in 20 years.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Smith I am praising the US Navy and Air Force and not Marines. The Marines need to out at sea in an amphibious group and not sitting around the base.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Hope a military operation will never took place in reality on Senkaku islands... It will easily trigger a war in Asia and i doubt that USA want to take part on a huge war against China..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@JoeBigs

US has been already humiliated for poorly equipped Taliban of Afgan and insurgents of Irag war. Why is it still war mongering? Will mission be ever accomplished?Since the Vietnam war, US is a loser of almost every war except 1991 gulf war. Having modernized navy and air craft carriers did not translate as claming trophy of victory for every war. Talk is cheap. Real war cost billions of dollars. US is too broke to fund another advefnture.

Unlike US, PRC will not spend fortune for acting as global policeman. Truth is they have upper hand as banker of US. If they cut their fiancé, Marines wallet will be empty. Air craft carrier fuel thanks will be empty. Therefore your logic of waging war without money is irrelevant to the reality. Modern advanced arm forces need to spend ten times more than Saving private Ryan style combat. It is out of date and PRC will not spend fortune for bankrupting herself like US. The problem of US is looking for enemy every part of world except Russia. Unlike US, PRC had gut to settle with Russia in1969. They are more experienced and letheal. US arm forces look good however it will not make as decisive winner for all of the conflicts. Heal the world and make a better place.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The Island is between japan and china, so why USA is concern??

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Hard to believe, isn't it? The US just backed down from China. Big time. Scared? Maybe.

We played naval games around Guam last week showing our military might to China. Then we arranged joint maneuvers with Japan on the re-taking of a Japanese island in the event that an "enemy" chose to occupy it militarily, which was all a big what-if regarding the Senkaku islands. China countered by sending in its North China Sea fleet into the vicinity of Okinawa, a little more than a hundred kilometers from the contested islands of Senkaku.

Guess what? After all that saber-rattling around Guam and our moving in two aircraft carrier battle groups into the South China Sea and the East China Sea, we...we...we backed down. China called our bluff, and we were forced to call off the joint maneuvers with Japan, signalling that we weren't going t o contest the taking of the Senkakus by China, if it so wished to do so.

Of course, we got Noda to call it off so that we would save face, but he's a good boy and does what we tell him. Now Japan knows that it's on its own in defending the Senkakus. And Japan desperately needs the Senkakus for its oil and gas deposits, since it has none of its own and is fast removing its nuclear reactors as a source of energy. Japan can't back down without admitting how weak it really is, and it can't go forward without China's acquiescence. It could be war, and Japan would lose...if it stood alone.

But, this is the game that China is playing. If China magnanimously gives the Senkakus to Japan, then Japan enters China's economic and military orbit. Since the US has already signaled that there is a real possibility that we will not honor our commitment to protect Japan, does Japan really have any other option but to fall in line with China. And then, the other dominoes fall. Vietnam is probably next, following the same strategy of contesting an island group and then magnanimously offering them up. Then the Philippines. Taiwan is virtually gone from the American orbit already, since they're fast remembering that they're Chinese and need the mainland Chinese market. South Korea is next. And, finally the US is out of the South China Sea.

This is a Cold War that America seems set to lose...if...if...if we let China be magnanimous by letting Japan have the Senkakus. However, that's the Chinese game, not ours. What if we can keep China from giving up their claim to the Diaoyu Island group? What then?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

to at least give a warning sign to bullying china , and if china gets piss off then the result of the drill is perfect . the world cares of china ambition to rob others , but not to care how china feels

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