picture of the day

Show of force

25 Comments

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

© Reuters

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.

25 Comments
Login to comment

America does it - show of force

North Korea does it - reckless provocation

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

I can't recall America shooting missiles over a country for no particular reason, unless at war. NK does it all the time, which is provocation.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Great display of US Naval power. Each carrier has a nuclear submarine nearby looking out for it. The subs are armed with nuclear missiles. DPRK better shut up or put up.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

America does - show of force and reckless provocation.

North Korea responds to show of force and reckless provocation.

It is a case of temper-temper, boys.

This is known as escalation. Let's hope the Chinese can help and control the two wayward leaders.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Gaijin traveller - those ships are the reason why we aren’t ducking North Korean missiles every day.

You should be thankful rather than take a needless jab at Trump.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

I hate dictatorship regime of Kim family in NK and one-all-mighty communist party regime of China but there's something unfair to use the word provocation. People should know why Kim John Un is doing that, the reason and risk to do that, the simple answer is: It's still in war armistice situation on the Korean Peninsula, the presence of USA (weapons and soldiers) in South Korea + military exercises of US/SK near the border of NK, and so on. As we are belonging to the US allies doesn't mean this picture isn't a provocation. It's clearing provocation. Why not to reverse to diplomatic table talks? Perhaps, mbetter to children of the world see it and know it, makes much sense...

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Clamenza, I am not the least bit thankful for Trump and his warmongering. My jab at Trump is needed, not needless. As Alexandre T Ishii has just point out, Trump is the provocateur.

I do not like Kim Jong Un either, but I see his development of nuclear deterrents, and his are more realistically deterrents than the US nuclear weapons are. Do you think Kim will go for a first strike? That is most unlikely as whatever his country destroyed with its weapony, there would be plenty left to obliterate his country.

Missiles have flown over Japan, but they went over a remote area where not many people live and with a trajectory that meant they would land in the sea. The American bombers flying near NK were a much more realistic threat than Kim's missiles.

In the words of Winston Churhill jaw-jaw is much better than war-war.

I am assuming you are American. If so, I would not be surprised if did not know that the US has been invloved in and even started so many wars since WW ll.

Take a look at the photo of those ships and planes again. Then ask yourself this question. Why can't the US afford to educate its population better with free education for those who cannot afford it, and why can't the US afford free medical care for all?

It seems that the last good republican president was Eisenhower, who warned of the military-industrial complex.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Dango

I can't recall America shooting missiles over a country for no particular reason, unless at war

Really?

how about trumped up (hehe) allegations about a country or its intentions?  Grenada?  Panama?  Somalia?  Syria?  etc etc.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

First, I would like to express the opinion that it is reckless to have all three aircraft carriers cruising so close together. It makes it much easier to destroy all of them at once.

Secondly, regarding Eisenhower, I am definitely of a mixed opinion. As a general in WWII, he was very capable. He did not espouse the wasteful tactics of WWI generals, who intentionally had their troops killed in massive frontal attacks into prepared artillery and machine gun positions, but tried to use troops carefully. On the other hand, as president, he practiced the Republican practice of supporting dictatorships around the world. He joined the British in intentionally overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran, and then installing the Shah as dictator. That did not work out well for either Iran or the West. The only benefactor was British Petroleum, which temporarily avoided the nationalisation of their oil properties in the country. Eisenhower also encouraged the overthrow of the government, and the installation of a dictator, in Guatemala, which dictator then proceeded to massacre thousands of his own people in the name of anti-communism. Eisenhower was in favor of close ties with the military establishments in South America, rather than with the elected governments. Eisenhower also rejected cooperation with Communist China, and encouraged the government of South Vietnam to resist reunification with North Vietnam, and rejected cooperation with North Vietnam. As a diplomat, Eisenhower left much to be desired, although on the domestic front he was a very good president. On the domestic front, he encouraged resistance to the rabid right wing of the Republican Party, he encouraged desegregation, he appointed liberals to the Supreme Court, and he encouraged bipartisan cooperation and respect. Interestingly, he was disgusted when the Republican National Committee forced him to take Richard Nixon as a running mate. He considered Nixon an immoral scoundrel, and history proved him correct.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

My jab at Trump is needed, not needless. As Alexandre T Ishii has just point out, Trump is the provocateur.

Trump and the United States have much better things to do than worry about North Korea. If NK weren't being so bellicose, the US wouldn't have anything to do with the area.

Missiles have flown over Japan, but they went over a remote area where not many people live and with a trajectory that meant they would land in the sea.

I see, so you have no problem with NK using Japanese airspace as a shooting range, against all International law. Check.

I am assuming you are American. If so, I would not be surprised if did not know that the US has been invloved in and even started so many wars since WW ll.

You assume wrong. And past wars involving the US have nothing to do with the current situation besides making your anti-US agenda quite obvious.

Why can't the US afford to educate its population better with free education for those who cannot afford it, and why can't the US afford free medical care for all?

The US has some of the highest standards of education in the world. Free medical care is a domestic political issue and has absolutely nothing to do with the NK threat to world peace.

My guess is that if those ships had Union Jacks flying over them, you'd be pleased as heck.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

First, I would like to express the opinion that it is reckless to have all three aircraft carriers cruising so close together. It makes it much easier to destroy all of them at once.

1glenn - I'm petty sure you have absolutely no idea how fruitless any attack would be. How in your opinion could all 3 aircraft carriers (the most guarded ships in the world) be sunk in one go? By whom? Why?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Should be '3 Carrier Fleets' as each carrier is accompanied by destroyers, frigates, etc they act as one Unit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People should know why Kim John Un is doing that, the reason and risk to do that, the simple answer is: It's still in war armistice situation on the Korean Peninsula, the presence of USA (weapons and soldiers) in South Korea + military exercises of US/SK near the border of NK, and so on.

REALLY, this is what he WANTS you to believe.... The REAL reason is simply for the PRESERVATION of the regime, nothing more, nothing less!

k.j.u doesn't give a damn about the people of NKorea, only for his survival.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Clamenza, you say, "Trump and the United States have much better things to do than worry about North Korea." I made that point. Educating and caring for the health if Americans is more important even if Trump thinks playing golf and reducing taxes for the rich is.

I do not approve of flying missiles over Japan, but it is better than flying them into countries.

"Past wars involving the US have nothing to do with the current situation besides making your anti-US agenda quite obvious." Well, as they say. "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

*Also, if you do not want to consider history, consider the wars that the US is currently involed in. Who even that the US had marines in Niger until one was killed and Trump upset his widow?

I admit the US does have some institutions with extremely high standards, some of the highest in the world. It is a pity most Americans cannot afford to go to them or can never get out of debt if they do.

If those ships had Union Jacks flying over them, I would be extremely displeased as would a huge majority of British people. It should be noted that the majority of British people did not approve of joining the US in Iraq, and there were huge demonstrations to make this point, but of course, that is history so you are not interested in that point.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Japan agreed to join this flotilla, but South Korea refused, supposedly so as not to anger China. They did join it at a separate time, when Japan was not part of it, however.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

PS Nice phto by the way. Reminds me somewhow of a board game I used to play as a kid.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Good of Japan to join. Give us the Forces of Good anytime!

MAGA
1 ( +2 / -1 )

gaijintraveller - you seem absolutely transfixed with hatred for Americans. Why would that be? Is it because they resist ceding their country and culture to mass immigration like certain other countries have done?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

How in your opinion could all 3 aircraft carriers (the most guarded ships in the world) be sunk in one go? By whom? Why?

They could probably manage to crash into an container ship, they seem quite adept at that these days. Or by a nuclear weapon.

you seem absolutely transfixed with hatred for Americans.

You seem absolutely easily rattled Clamenza; any criticism of the US and you throw down the 'anti-USA' card immediately. Very childish.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"We were able to show to countries including North Korea strong bonds and ties between Japan and the United States,"

If we must put up with this display of strutting roosters (not sure what the marine equivalent is) then we should all welcome the next display of "force" by our good friends in the DPRK. For the sake of parity, if nothing else.

Of course; it's provocation. Japan and the other country cannot act against the DPRK because of China. So, the threat is empty and redundant.

I hope Pyongyang will have the common sense to see it for what it is; all show and no substance. The Force Forsakens, if you like.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Americans, sease your cervile behaviour ; )

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Sounds like alot of military experts posting on Japan today tonight. Perhaps combat hardened?

Better to have all the facts before commenting on things folks know little about.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The ships seem to close tougher, one nuke would take out all 4 carriers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Overkill? Can't imagine the gnashing of teeth if Russia parked it's fleet in the gulf of Mexico. One can't fathom the stupidity of the war industry. Peace through war, right?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The US probably feels empowered by the 21 UN resolutions condemning DPRK's attempts at nuclearization.

(We won't mention the 45 resolutions condemning Israel, however.)

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