The U.S. provides security for Japan Photo: U.S. NAVY/AFP/File
politics

Gov't to buy island in Kagoshima Pref for U.S. military drills for ¥16 bil

68 Comments
By Z A Landers

Japan said Monday it had agreed to buy an uninhabited island off its southwest coast for 16 billion yen ($146 million), eyeing it for U.S. military drills.

Tokyo and Washington agreed in 2011 to relocate a training site for U.S. fighter jets to Mageshima island, around 30 kilometers off the southwestern Japanese coast.

Japan's chief cabinet secretary Yoshihide Suga said an agreement to purchase Mageshima was reached on Friday "after discussions between the defense ministry and the developer who owns the majority of the island".

American flight training operations are currently conducted at Iwo Jima, some 1,200 kilometers south of Tokyo.

Washington had requested a move, saying Iwo Jima -- a key World War II battlefield -- was too far away from an American military base in the western Japanese city of Iwakuni, where their fighters are stationed.

Suga said a facility would be built on the island for landing practice "at an early date", adding that he could not reveal further details as the acquisition was not complete.

Japan's military has long been restricted to self-defense and the country relies heavily on the U.S. under a bilateral security alliance.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly insisted that Japan and other U.S. allies should contribute more to the costs of their own defense.

Some residents who live on islands close to Mageshima have said they are concerned about the noise of a potential flight training base.

© 2019 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

68 Comments
Login to comment

Who owns the island? Someone is benefiting a lot from an uninhabited island.

14 ( +15 / -1 )

And why wasnt this considered as a potential move for Futenma?

12 ( +14 / -2 )

And why wasnt this considered as a potential move for Futenma?

From the sound of it, it's basically meant to be a bombing range, maybe with a handful of maintenance facilities. A far cry from constructing a small city that would be required to relocate the entire base to an isolated island.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Good move by Japan.

Clearly a preemptive move against the true aggressor in that region of Asia.

7 ( +17 / -10 )

A photo of the island:

https://cdn.mainichi.jp/vol1/2018/11/29/20181129p2a00m0na002000p/8.jpg?1

@extanker: By the looks of it, it has already been bombed.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Reading the article and the comments, I just wanted to make a few points.

-- Everyone needs to remember what this proposed facility is for.

-- It is for landing practice for the fighter wing of the Yokosuka-based aircraft carrier when it is in port.

-- The fighter wing was historically based at Atsugi Naval Air Station outside of Tokyo.

-- While based at Atsugi, the fighter wing would undertake landing practice at Atsugi and Iwo Jima, with alternate locations being Yokota or Misawa.

-- Due to noise complaints from residents around Atsugi, the fighter wing based at Atsugi when the carrier was in port was relocated to Iwakuni in Western Japan a few years ago.

-- Once relocation was done, it made landing practice training at Iwo Jima really impractical due to the distances involved.

-- Thus the need for a landing practice sight closer to Iwakuni. That is what the purchase of Mageshima is supposed to address.

-- So, to be clear, it is merely intended to be a location for landing practice by the fighter wing of the U.S. aircraft carrier.

-- It is not a bombing range. It is not a new airfield with permanently based aircraft or even permanently based U.S. military personnel and their families.

One question I do have. What is the deal on the private Japanese company that owns the island?! It seems to be shrouded in mystery.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Third is rather distasteful but true strategic point: by basing military completely apart from civilian population an enemy strike on this base would be considered "surgical" --since there would be minimal local losses and this could greatly change the calculations for "reasonable" response options.

This would be a training facility. There would be very few permanent personnel stationed there. Units would go there only for training.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

By the looks of it, it has already been bombed.

Good, then no need to break it in ;-)

4 ( +4 / -0 )

And why wasnt this considered as a potential move for Futenma?

Becuase an entire military base needs all the support structures and logistics of a large town. Electricity generation, sewage, clean water, roads, a major port to supply daily necessities. Housing, construction of every single building, road etc

Everything from scratch needed to accommodate and support a functioning military base...

Also there are no locals on the uninhabited island to work at the base, run bars and restaurants and other businesses that profit highly from a US base being next door, and provide entertainment for the troops and families etc

4 ( +4 / -0 )

A far cry from constructing a small city that would be required to relocate the entire base to an isolated island.

Well, enough for a few thousand military personal anyway! But I get the point.

Maybe now they can close the one's they use down here!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I wonder how many other uninhabited islands in Japan are privately owned.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@BertieWooster

Total waste of money! A country the size of the U.S.A. doesn't have enough land to use for troop training?

No, the US has plenty of land for troop training. Of course, it's kind of a lengthy commute for personnel stationed in Japan to go back to train there.

How about this. Japan can pay for rotating troops back to the US every time they need to train. Is that waste of money better for you? Maybe you fail to realize how often the military trains...

Even when a solution is presented, some people always have to complain.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Lucky "developer". Windfall without having to take any risk. wonder who the owners/shareholders are.......

Yah...3 guesses what kind of ' anti social ' elements are behind the shell company that owns it....and which political party the 'pipeline' is connected to.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@bertiewooster

Becuase an entire military base needs all the support structures and logistics of a large town. Electricity generation, sewage, clean water, roads, a major port to supply daily necessities. 

You forgot golf courses, and tennis courts.

Well if you want to isolate the military from everyone else, you're going to have to provide everything...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Wow, it is right there in front of Nishinoomote where I have some happy memories. Love Tanegashima, an easy jetfoil ride from Kageshima, and would in an ideal world have a beach hut there.

Quote: "Suga said a facility would be built on the island for landing practice..."

@extanker, "bombing range"?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Lucky "developer".  Windfall without having to take any risk.  wonder who the owners/shareholders are.......

1 ( +1 / -0 )

 the bully that pretends to be a friend.

Actually public opinion polls find the majority of Japanese, around 75%, are in favor of Japan's defense alliance with the US. So, in this regard, the US is indeed Japan's "friend." No pretending there.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Buy from whom specifically ?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@cleo

If the US wants to train its military how to fly planes, land them, drop parachutes/bombs from them, etc - let them do it in America. Send us your trained personnel who are up to the job, not your rookies.

As usual, you have no understanding of the reality of the situation. You seem to have this ridiculous belief that once someone finishes being trained, their skills are at 100% and they can just sit around waiting to go to war.

Do you really believe that something like flying a combat aircraft doesn't need to be practiced to maintain the skill level? Come on.

Maybe you have some supernatural ability to never lose a skill, but that's not how it works for regular people.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I don't deny your claim that the military must train constantly to keep up their utmost tactic abilities. The catch is must it be done within Japan with costs shouldered by Japanese taxpayers only? 

The Japanese taxpayers are shouldering 74% of base maintenance costs for U.S. forces in Japan, believing they are here only for the defense of Japan and the Far East. So if their training and using bases are for purposes other than this, this would really be a breach of trust.

The United States military is in Japan at the behest of the Japanese government, despite what you constantly claim. The Mutual Security Agreement clearly states the Japan is free to tell the US to leave at any time. That said, training is a requirement for any competent military. You want the military, you get their training requirements as part of the package. You want their training to move to another location? You're going to have to help foot the bill. It's kind of common sense.

Or do you think the Navy would just nail some plywood to the top of an old rusty boat and trust it to land multi-million dollar high performance aircraft on? There is a reason a modern US aircraft carrier costs 13 billion dollars.

Do you think refurnishing an abandoned super tanker will cost as much as building a real carrier? If it does, I suggest you build a mammoth barge to be used as a mock carrier, not to mention, with your own money. Why should Japanese taxpayers be bothered with financing things like this?

Look, clearly you have no idea how aircraft or aircraft carriers work. No, it will not cost the entire 13 billion dollars to build, but it will require all the flight operations capabilities to safely land and launch a fighter. There will need to be a tower. Where do you put the arrestor cables? What about the catapult? Or did you forget that the plane has to take off again? That kind of kills your whole idea already since the old tankers are no longer big enough for both takeoff and landing.

And do you think 'oh let's just build them and hope they work'? It doesn't work that way. Multiple versions will have to be built, extensive testing will have to be done. Long before they trust anything to land on it. Do you also think that testing is free? Wrong again. Another thing you fail to realize another reason military weapons cost so much. They have to cover the cost of the R&D.

In other words, it's a hell of a lot cheaper to buy that dinky island.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Really? Do you know under what circumstances the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty was signed? The U.S. obliged Japan to sign it in exchange for Japan to becomet independent. Thanks to this treaty, the U.S. could maintain bases in Japan just the same as before.

The U.S. military is in Japan never at the behest of the Japanese government.

It doesn't matter "under what circumstances it was signed". It matters what it says and it says that the US has one year from the date that Japan asks it to leave to get out of Japan. It's that simple. If Japan does not want the US there, the US would not be there. You always try to spin it but you always fail.

I've seen on YouTube what FCLP on Iwojima is like (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvQxurm0BMQ).

There's no fixed control tower on an FC; only a simplistic mobile one.

Congratulations, you're now comparing apples to oranges. An FCLP is a simulated carrier landing. You build one on an actual ship and it's no longer simulated, it's a real carrier landing system. You just don't get it.

But they can be easily installed on the deck of a super tanker-converted mock carrier for a very low cost if needs be, I'm sure,.

You really have no idea what goes into any of this yet you assume it can be had for a 'very low cost'... It would be comical if you didn't really believe what you are saying.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Thus, abandoned super tankers can easily be converted to a mock carrier,

Again. No, it cannot. You still clearly don't have any idea what you are talking about. It's like you believe that you can just slap a runway on top of a boat and call it a carrier. You have absolutely no idea what it takes to actually land and launch a jet aircraft from a ship. NONE.

But you said the U.S. military is in Japan "at the behest of the Japanese government".

Japan can tell the US to leave at any time. Hence, the United States is in Japan at the whim of the Japanese government. Will they ever tell the US to leave? Who knows. But they can. And that means it's up to Japan, at their behest, to host the United States military.

Again, it's plain and simple to anyone except those who refuse to see it such as yourself.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Oh and by the way, a super tanker can cost almost 200 million dollars. So a few of those, plus the cost to retrofit them all to be able to actually land and launch a jet on them, that $147 million dollar island is starting to look like a pretty good deal...

But I'm sure you think the US Navy will land their multi-million dollar fighter jets on a rusted out hulk, right? (I mean, sure if you want to start with that, you better add the millions it will take to make it sea-worthy on top of everything else. The Navy's not gonna land their ships on a sinking boat...)

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Really wise move by Japan, and money well spent.

Wait for the whining from the Communist PRC now about how this is an act of "expansion" or some nonsense.

0 ( +14 / -14 )

@ Becuase an entire military base needs all the support structures and logistics of a large town. Electricity generation, sewage, clean water, roads, a major port to supply daily necessities. Housing, construction of every single building, road etc. Everything from scratch needed to accommodate and support a functioning military base...

I would buy into your post except for one realistic approach. The US has made supporting facilities out in the desert during wartime, i.e. all the infrastructure required including logistics. The US has proven this during both peacetime and wartime operations. It can function pretty much anywhere it wants from firsthand experience speaking.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

X marks the spot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why is it a waste of money? Because to start with so called "defence" is a scheme a) to make money for the arms manufacturers and peripheral organisations that benefit from the "war machine," and b) because it's a complicated mind control system to keep people in fear. People are generally easier to control when they are in fear and control is the name of the game. With real diplomacy and well organised exchange programmes, peace could be assured for far less that the incredible amounts this planet is spending on "defending us over here from them over there!"

0 ( +5 / -5 )

I would buy into your post except for one realistic approach. The US has made supporting facilities out in the desert during wartime, i.e. all the infrastructure required including logistics. The US has proven this during both peacetime and wartime operations. It can function pretty much anywhere it wants from firsthand experience speaking.

And what about the dependents? soldiers don’t bring their families to war zones. It requires a vastly larger amount of resources to house military personnel and their families.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Quote: "Suga said a facility would be built on the island for landing practice..." 

@extanker, "bombing range"?

sorry, I actually missed that part, but he goes onto say that he can’t reveal further details about what it will be used for so ‘landing practice’ is probably a very minor function it will be used for.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

One question I do have. What is the deal on the private Japanese company that owns the island?! It seems to be shrouded in mystery.

Perhaps they prefer not to be bombarded by the press and “concerned” citizens.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unobserved detail by Z A Landers

The company owned the island actually did whatever it takes to not to sell the island for two years including changing its president.

Mage Island sale negotiations:

2018 - Govt proposes ¥4.5 bil. yen sale price; company says ¥40 bil.

Jan - Two parties agree on ¥16 bil.

May - Company, under new president, breaks off deal to pursue "another option" for development

Dec - Company agrees to sell for ¥16 bil.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gov't to buy island in Kagoshima Pref for U.S. military drills for ¥16 bil

Something is worth whatever the taxpayers are willing to pay for it.

Have to wonder what the results of a referendum would say on this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lucky "developer".

They ain't done much developing, it's still uninhabited.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why, and this may be a tad thick of me, but why are the Japanese government buying an island for the AMERICANS to use as a training facility? Surely the Pentagon should buy the island if they want to practice landing... just sounds like Japan is trying to appease the bully that pretends to be a friend.

Just throwing it out there...

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"In 2009, Mageshima came under consideration as a possible relocation site for the Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Ginowan, Okinawa, or at least as a site for the United States Navy to relocate its aircraft carrier aircraft touch-and-go training. However, Tateishi Construction subsequently came under investigation for tax fraud and for collusion with politicians over the project." Copied from Wikpedia.

May we assume there is no collusion involved with the current deal?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Becuase an entire military base needs all the support structures and logistics of a large town. Electricity generation, sewage, clean water, roads, a major port to supply daily necessities. 

You forgot golf courses, and tennis courts.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Surely the Pentagon should buy the island if they want to practice landing...

You would think so, wouldn't you. But Trump has to come bleating to Japan to ask for more money. Probably wants it in unmarked used bills!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I like to see the chain of owners of this island. Someone got to the island at the beginning of time and claimed this is my island??

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are hundreds of privately owned island, some are also for sale.

https://www.vladi-private-islands.de/en/areas/private-islands-for-sale-in-japan/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And how... does an individual obtain claim to an Island off the Coast of Japan ? Should a volcanic eruption produce a mound of rock rearing its head out of the waters in the near future, can I simply pedalow out there and claim it as my own ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@zones2surf

Thanks for the details. That clears a lot of things up that were very vague in the article.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Athletes must train constantly to always keep their utmost skills. So with soldiers. That's what you want to say?

Wow, he get's it.

OK, but is it necessary for the Marines to train their skills always in Okinawa? In other words, their training bases in Okinawa can be moved to the U.S. mainland without any hitch where they can train their skills to their heart's content.

Sigh... no he doesn't.

Do you folks have any idea how often the military trains? Voiceofokinawa, just like the training tempo that the athletes in your example have to train to stay competitive, the US military is always training. It is not possible to constantly send entire units back to the United States every time they need to train. It is ridiculous to think so.

they can re-make abandoned super tankers as mock field carriers, that could be tugged far off the coast. Some super tanker has the length of 458m with the width 69m.

Is this a joke...? No, I'm sure you're actually serious. Even if this was feasible, the cost of research and development to build these 'mock field carriers' of yours would far exceed the cost of the entire island.

Or do you think the Navy would just nail some plywood to the top of an old rusty boat and trust it to land multi-million dollar high performance aircraft on? There is a reason a modern US aircraft carrier costs 13 billion dollars.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

extanker,

Again. No, it cannot. You still clearly don't have any idea what you are talking about. It's like you believe that you can just slap a runway on top of a boat and call it a carrier. You have absolutely no idea what it takes to actually land and launch a jet aircraft from a ship. NONE.

When I say an abandoned super tanker can be converted to a mock carrier, I mean a "mock" carrier, a quid pro quo for a real one, to be used just for the purpose of FCLP (mostly touch and go practice) And you keep insisting that is not possible. 

Japan can tell the US to leave at any time. Hence, the United States is in Japan at the whim of the Japanese government. Will they ever tell the US to leave? Who knows. But they can. And that means it's up to Japan, at their behest, to host the United States military.

You mean, the U.S. planted those bases in Japan inadvertently, so that they will be moved out without a delay whenever asked to do so? Really? Why, in the world, then, is the U.S. demanding the Japanese government build permanent bases and facilities in Henoko in Okinawa and Mageshima in Kagoshima?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan can tell the US to leave at any time. Hence, the United States is in Japan at the whim of the Japanese government. Will they ever tell the US to leave? Who knows. But they can. And that means it's up to Japan, at their behest, to host the United States military.

You mean, the U.S. planted those bases in Japan inadvertently, so that they will be moved out without a delay whenever asked to do so? Really? Why, in the world, then, is the U.S. demanding the Japanese government build permanent bases and facilities in Henoko in Okinawa and Mageshima in Kagoshima?

All that bluster and it's like you've never even read the security agreement. YES, the US has one year to leave if Japan says so. It's so simple I don't know how you can't understand it...

When I say an abandoned super tanker can be converted to a mock carrier, I mean a "mock" carrier, a quid pro quo for a real one, to be used just for the purpose of FCLP (mostly touch and go practice) And you keep insisting that is not possible.

You really don't get it. If the plane has to actually land at sea, then there is no such thing as a mock carrier. A ship that can land and launch aircraft is an aircraft carrier and requires an actual carrier landing and catapult system. There's nothing 'mock' about it. FCLP on land can be simplified because if there's a problem, its just a normal runway with nearby facilities. What do you think is going to happen on that super tanker of yours if there's a problem? A jet in the ocean is what.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

extanker,

While I say an abandoned super tanker may be converted to a floating runway, or a "mock carrier", for fighter pilots to exercise FCLP, mostly a touch-and-go practice, you keep saying, rather than seriously examining its feasibility, that "the US must vacate Japan within a year's time if Japan tells them to go". Isn't that off the track and hence off the topic?

As I commented in another post, the current bilateral relations are very abnormal. It's like a master (colonial power)-versus-vassal (or colony) relationship, with the U.S. dictating and Japan meekly performing as told, as far as security issues are concerned. 

Under such circumstances, what does a bilaleral treaty mean? As you suggest,  it's something nobody really cares about.  If so, can't it be said that the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is a mere façade to hide the hard reality that Japan is put under?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The point at issue here is not about Article 10 of the Security Treaty but whether or not an abandoned super tanker can be converted to a mock carrier or floating runway for U.S. fighter jet pilots to practice touch and go exercises.

Your answer to this is, No, it can’t, because it must be equipped with a catapult, arrest cables, a control tower, etc. Then you say the treaty can be terminated whenever one party tells the other party of its intention to withdraw.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

extanker,

Of course, what you want to say is: “Do as we say. Build a new base on Mageshima whatever the cost. That’s the best option as far as the U.S. Navy is concerned that must practice FCLP on far-away Iwojima currently."

"An abandoned super tanker-turned mock carrier is out of the question here however feasible it may be. If you don’t like it, you’re completely free to terminate the bilateral treaty according to Article 10 of it. That’s all there’s to it."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In face of Saturday's insult-laden rampage against PM Abe from North Korea, I see it a positive response. North Korea attacks; Japan answers back.

-1 ( +12 / -13 )

Well, enough for a few thousand military personal anyway! But I get the point.

Maybe now they can close the one's they use down here!

Yeah it sounds like a good idea to me at least. It will be a good compromise, the base may not move, but at least one of the most controversial elements will be relocated far from civilians.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Why wasn't this done for the past 70 years? Perhaps because it makes too much sense?

There is not a sole on this long abandoned island and the old WW2 airfield is easy to put into shape.

Having said this there will be several complications:

Training activity will disrupt the low level scheduled flights between Kagoshima and Tanegashima as well as Kagoshima to Yakushima. With fighters the extremely busy high level corridor above might be terribly impacted depending on what corridor is established (because fighters can operate way higher than commercial airliners cruise altitudes)

In addition potential conflict with the occasional JAXA rocket launches from Tanegashima.

Third is rather distasteful but true strategic point: by basing military completely apart from civilian population an enemy strike on this base would be considered "surgical" --since there would be minimal local losses and this could greatly change the calculations for "reasonable" response options.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Total waste of money! A country the size of the U.S.A. doesn't have enough land to use for troop training?

Maintaining training facilities as close as possible to the area of deployment is less costly monetarily and labor-wise than constantly rotating troops stateside for training, and is necessary for maintaining readiness.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Yubaru,

And why wasnt this considered as a potential move for Futenma?

Henoko was the target for Futenma's relocation site from the very beginning when the return of the base was promised in 1996. 

This was attested to by Richard P. Lawless, former Deputy Undersecretary for the Office of Asian and Pacific Affairs in the Defense Department, who betrayed in a recently broadcast interview with national broadcaster NHK that the U.S. side had Henoko always in mind for a relocation site from the very beginning.

But the initial landfill plan was botched because of the forceful opposition by canoeing protesters and activists. The turmoil caused by the Futenma relocation issue seemed to have calmed down at last.  After a while, however, the U.S. government started saying they wouldn't stick to the Henoko plan and that the relocation site could be anywhere in Japan.

Tokyo must have been flustered at this.

When Tokunoshima in the Amami group surfaced as a candidate site, a large anti-relocation rally was held on the island with some political big shots from Tokyo participating in. Yuriko Koike (incumbent Governor of Tokyo), Defense Minister until just before, took part in the rally, loudly shouting an anti-Tokunoshima slogan, together with a large throng of the island's protesters.

Tokunoshima was of course rejected by the U.S. side because they say it was located too far from the Marines' training base in Okinawa. The distance between Okinawa and a putative relocation site must be 120 km, they said.

Someone suggested Mageshima along the line, but it was out of the question because the distance is way over 120 km or, more concretely, 450 km.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Extanker,

Athletes must train constantly to always keep their utmost skills. So with soldiers. That's what you want to say?

OK, but is it necessary for the Marines to train their skills always in Okinawa?  In other words, their training bases in Okinawa can be moved to the U.S. mainland without any hitch where they can train their skills to their heart's content.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Sorry, the topic here is about FCLP to be conducted by the U.S. Navy's carrier-based FA-18 Super Hornets now stationed in Iwakuni. But my post isn't too far-fetched.

Here's my suggestion. Instead of spending money and energy for FCLP, they can re-make abandoned super tankers as mock field carriers, that could be tugged far off the coast. Some super tanker has the length of 458m with the width 69m.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Extanker,

I don't deny your claim that the military must train constantly to keep up their utmost tactic abilities. The catch is must it be done within Japan with costs shouldered by Japanese taxpayers only? 

The Japanese taxpayers are shouldering 74% of base maintenance costs for U.S. forces in Japan, believing they are here only for the defense of Japan and the Far East. So if their training and using bases are for purposes other than this, this would really be a breach of trust.

Or do you think the Navy would just nail some plywood to the top of an old rusty boat and trust it to land multi-million dollar high performance aircraft on? There is a reason a modern US aircraft carrier costs 13 billion dollars.

Do you think refurnishing an abandoned super tanker will cost as much as building a real carrier? If it does, I suggest you build a mammoth barge to be used as a mock carrier, not to mention, with your own money. Why should Japanese taxpayers be bothered with financing things like this?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

extanker,

The United States military is in Japan at the behest of the Japanese government, despite what you constantly claim. The Mutual Security Agreement clearly states the Japan is free to tell the US to leave at any time.

Really? Do you know under what circumstances the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty was signed? The U.S. obliged Japan to sign it in exchange for Japan to becomet independent. Thanks to this treaty, the U.S. could maintain bases in Japan just the same as before.

The U.S. military is in Japan never at the behest of the Japanese government. (I'll come back. I have some chores to do now.)

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Japan also pays the most for U.S. Bases long before Trump came to power.

S. Korea was saved from Imperial Japan 1945. Then again during the Korean War 1950 when without U.S. Intervention S. Korea would have disappeared and ruled by Kim.

Japan is paying 4x as much as S. Korea and no attack on Japan ever happened. Twice S. Korea was helped by U.S. Intervention with many Americans dying for S. Korea... Not the same story with Japan. Let others pay as much as Japan is first.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Make the American armed forces pay for it, and house them all there.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

It seems the "Protection Money" extorted by the Trump's mafias is even bigger than ordinary Japanese people has expected!

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Buy it rent it to the Americans

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

number 1 indebted country is printing more fake money to invest in US war platform.

I disagree, where is the referendum???

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Always makes me laugh when the Japanese moan about the US military in Japan. My answer is always, "You should have thought of that before you attacked Pearl Harbor".

The Japanese may be long-lived, but not that long-lived.

I'd bet the number of people complaining about the US military in Japan who were also involved in the attack on Pearl Harbor is close enough to zero to make no difference. Even the youngest fighter pilots from back then would be pushing 100 now, assuming they survived the rest of the war and are still here.

If the US wants to train its military how to fly planes, land them, drop parachutes/bombs from them, etc - let them do it in America. Send us your trained personnel who are up to the job, not your rookies.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

extanker,

There will need to be a tower. Where do you put the arrestor cables? What about the catapult?

I've seen on YouTube what FCLP on Iwojima is like (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvQxurm0BMQ).

There's no fixed control tower on an FC; only a simplistic mobile one. Obviously, there's no arrester cables nor catapult.  But they can be easily  installed on the deck of a super tanker-converted mock carrier for a very low cost if needs be, I'm sure,.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

extanker,

It doesn't matter "under what circumstances it was signed". It matters what it says and it says that the US has one year from the date that Japan asks it to leave to get out of Japan. It's that simple. If Japan does not want the US there, the US would not be there. You always try to spin it but you always fail.

It doesn't matter "under what circumstances it was signed"? But you said the U.S. military is in Japan "at the behest of the Japanese government". Did you say the first thing that came to mind based on nothing or out of fancy? That's what your president calls "fake news".

The issue of terminating the treaty is completely off the topic here.

Look. The Yokosuka-based Ronald Reagan is 333m in length and 41m in width. Compare these specifics with those of some super tanker: 458m in length and 69m in width. Thus, abandoned super tankers can easily be converted to a mock carrier, that can be tugged far off the coast for fighter jets to practice touch and go.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Always makes me laugh when the Japanese moan about the US military in Japan. My answer is always, "You should have thought of that before you attacked Pearl Harbor".

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

No Busness,

You are right. The U.S. military presence in Japan is the end result of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor and a resultant defeat. In other words, U.S. troops are in Japan as victors of WW II. No doubt, Japan has been under the occupation even to this day.

But note that the U.S. government says the U.S. troops are invited guests, stationed here according to provisions stipulated in the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. In your opinion then, as in mine, that treaty is nothing but a farce, shenanigans to hide the true state of affairs.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Total waste of money! A country the size of the U.S.A. doesn't have enough land to use for troop training?

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

A better more strategic site would be the Senkaku's islet. It already is owned by the government of Japan and has administrative rights per the UN. No need to spend additional funding, and serves both noise and proximity to US supporting base. In addition as some have pointed out if and only if this is a "backdoor message" approach to encroachment from the only "aggressor country" in the Southeast Asia it would clearly send a message that Japan nor the US will not be pushed nor tolerate such behavior as in the past administrations.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

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