China-Russia flotilla displays show of force, says Japan defense chief

Paper Tigers,non coherent response

All flotillas are show of force.

Interesting and also disconcerting that those straits are considered international waters. How about the North Channel between N. Ireland and Scotland? Geographically speaking it would be similar, no?

Why is the channel called Tsugru Strait international waters?

The strait is 23 km from shore to shore at the narrowest points. So, under international navigation law, it can be Japan's internal waters. But if so, U.S. nuclear submarines cannot pass through it because of Japan's three non-nuclear principles. So, the U.S. government must have urged Tokyo to make it international waters in order for U.S. nuclear submarines to be able to navigate there freely.

Same with the Osumi Strait in southern Kyushu.

Should have quickly shown them in response some impressive force too. And the two narrow straits would have been a good double and easy opportunity to do so. But playing the devoted slave for the communists to keep the options for cheap energy or mass products is of course also a valid strategy. lol

such developments must be closely monitored from the viewpoint of regional peace and stability."

I’m not sure that such over cautious and feeble messages are gunna cut it Mr Kishida. If anything they will embolden the aggressors. Japan is eventually gunna have to take its head out of the sand and grow some, as terrifying a concept as that may be. Unless of course it wants to play the weak hand until it’s too late.

A strong interest? What does that even mean?

This aggression will not stand man. - The Dude

This was never done by Russia or China before.

Russia attacked Ukraine and took Crimea by force.... Is that a sign of aggression?

China killed over a dozen Indian soldiers and plans to take Taiwan. Is that aggression ??

This people want Japan to ignore everything. Just ignore until the bombs dropped. Then they will blame Japan for not being ready.

International waters. Japan does the same even when allies protest. Antartica anyone?

Kishi speaks like this because he needs a rise in the military budget and hope for the change of the constitution.

The U.S. Navy is larger than China's. The USN's larger than Russia's. Heck, the U.S. Navy is the largest in the world and its larger than all of the navies in the world combined. Nothing to see here, folks. Don't worry!

Should have quickly shown them in response some impressive force too.

Russia has deployed a variety of hypersonic misiles for which the bandits and fascists of American imperialism and its lackey regimes (LDP and Japanese ruling class) have no defence against.

Any 'show of force' they present is nothing more than target practice for Russian forces. Should stick to 'shows of force against Yemen, Venezuala, Somalia and etc. Not Afghanistan anymore ):

The U.S. Navy is larger than China's. The USN's larger than Russia's.

The US navy is obsolete vs any major power. Heck, the US navy even steers well clear of Iran. The US navy is a giant public works stimulus. Unfortunately for Americans, too expensive to maintain that and provide universal health care.

Japan is fine, attack Japan and the US/EU/Pacific nations will intervine in such a big way that it’s just not worth it. Of course the desperation of the CCP for validity from their parents does play a part.

"The US navy is obsolete vs any major power."

Yes, it's large. Yes, it's expensive. And it's debatable about how the U.S. government spends its money. Actually, I agree to some extent that it spends to much money on its military, but the world is a dangerous, isn't it? You may think that the U.S. Navy is afraid of Iran's mighty navy. However, it's probably just trying to avoid any confrontations with a country's vastly smaller navy in a dangerous part of the world. Not so dumb, is it?

Anyway, just because you can't see it, doesn't mean that it isn't a threat to all challengers. That's probably why the Chinese and Russians joined up together. They know there's a much bigger dog out there.

*Rob **Russia has deployed a variety of hypersonic misiles for which the bandits and fascists of American imperialism and its lackey regimes (LDP and Japanese ruling class) have no defence against.*

The defense against any missile Russia has is the fact that if Russia were to use the missile system against any U.S. Navy asset the response could be anything up to nuclear. As far as the  US Navy being obsolete no power including Russia or China can project the firepower of U.S Carrier strike force. Hell, the U.S. has more carriers stationed near Japan than Russia or China has in total.

If china starts a real war they will be cut off from so many things including their way of earning an income. The people of china who quietly accept whatever the gov force upon them are pacified by being allowed to enjoy things from the west. If that ends it will be even harder to control their own population and resistance will begin to grow within china.

Iam completely disappointed in Japan's self defense force and the government's response to the Russian and Chinese military show of force and provocation towards Japan.

If indeed it is a severe security situation then why is Japan being so complacent and wimpy ?

The U.S. Navy is larger than China's.

Technically this is not true.

I don’t see another explanation to that other than China and Russia are LDP’s puppets making a show to help them to win elections and raise the military budget at the same time. :)

The people of china who quietly accept whatever the gov force upon them are pacified by being allowed to enjoy things from the west. If that ends it will be even harder to control their own population and resistance will begin to grow within china.

Are you familiar with history and culture of China?

It’s all show!

Wars are not conventional when nuclear powers are involved…

China-Russia flotilla displays show of force, says Japan defense chief:

Is Tokyo getting worried about the unusual joint Beijing-Moscow naval exercises around Japan?

Perhaps no.

After all, it always has Washington to rely upon in matters of defense..

You may think that the U.S. Navy is afraid of Iran's mighty navy

I'm not sure Iran has a navy. More like a coast guard. But Iran has missiles that can easily take out any US warship within a 2~300 miles of the coast.

Needless to be pointed out by Defense Minister Nobuo Kishi, it was nothing other than a show of force by China and Russia, but apparently it was done in response to joint military exercises by the U.S. and its Quad allies.

The defense against any missile Russia has is the fact that if Russia were to use the missile system against any U.S. Navy asset the response could be anything up to nuclear.

Russia has deployed mach 20 hypersonic ICMs. I guess the right acronym would be ICHMs. They could likely 'win' a nuclear war but if course fallout would make it a Pyrric victory.

As far as the US Navy being obsolete no power including Russia or China can project the firepower of U.S Carrier strike force. Hell, the U.S. has more carriers stationed near Japan than Russia or China has in total.

The bandits and fascists of American imperialism can 'project power' off the coast of weak and backward countries. Against Russia and China, heck even Iran if they go within 2~300 miles of the Iranian coast, US navy vessals are sunk within minutes of hostilities. Heck, that's the case for US navy vessals off the coast of Virginia, Hawaii or Florida in the event of a war with Russia.

"Technically this is not true."

Technically, North Korea's navy is larger than China's.

"But Iran has missiles that can easily take out any US warship within a 2 - 300 miles of the coast."

And you don't think the US Navy has missiles that can do likewise many times over. Again, they're just trying not to stir up a hornet's nest more than it already is.

"The bandits and fascists of American imperialism can 'project power' off the coast of weak and backward countries."

And what weak countries are you referring to? Crimea perhaps? Oh, that was Russia. Are you referring to the threats of invading Taiwan? Oh, that was and is China.

We should keep in mind, that Taiwan-Formosa was never Chinese or part of China.

There was a large imigration from mainland China, just like to other China neighbors.

In 1895 Taiwan was internationally recognized by all major countries as part of Japan, including by China.

At that time Chinese were a minority in Taiwan’s population and several non-Chinese languages were spoken by the majority of the Taiwanese.

Rob writes

Russia has deployed mach 20 hypersonic ICMs. I guess the right acronym would be ICHMs. They could likely 'win' a nuclear war but if course fallout would make it a Pyrric victory.

So basically Russia has fewer ICMs or ICHMs than one Ohio Class ballistic Submarine and the U.S. has 14 Ohio Class ballistic Submarine four of which are always stationed off the Russian coast not to mention the 4 cruise missile submarines SSGN capable of carrying up to 154 Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles that can be nuclear armed.

The U.S. Navy fears Iran like a Great Dane fears a Chihuahua. The U.S Navy routinely operates in the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, and the Gulf of Oman and performs freedom on navigation exercises to within 25 miles of the coast of Iran. The only thing the U.S. Navy worries about is if they were to sink one of the four Iranian Frigates or a Speed boat that Iran would retaliate against an unarmed merchant ship like they have in the past.

Show of force? Sure, but for what? To increase tension and hostility in order to feed the military industrial complex? An excuse to spend more money from tax payers on defense? Just imagine what humans could accomplish if we could settle these disputes that are almost a century old (even older if you want to consider pre-WWII stuff). Time for a new approach.

Japan's hardly averse to codpiecing with its mates, either.

So basically Russia has fewer ICMs or ICHMs than one Ohio Class ballistic Submarine

Hmmmm according to the US and Russian governments, Russia has the same number of nukes on standby as the US. It's a bilateral agreement.

Russia has about the same number of nukes period as USA, UK and France combined.

The U.S. Navy fears Iran like a Great Dane fears a Chihuahua.

I like the bravado but unfortunately for the US navy, it's not more than that. It's why Trump didn't attack Iran. Military advisors told US forces ib the region would be crushed.

This provocation is a move to destabilize the region and intimidate Japan. It seems it may be the new "go to" action to send messages of displeasure to Japan as well as sailing close to the Senkaku's in force.

Japan needs to arrange similar sailings around Chinese and Russian islands with a number of it's allies to show it is not intimidated and will stand up for it's rights.

So basically Russia has fewer ICMs or ICHMs than one Ohio Class ballistic Submarine

Rob wrote about Mach 20 missiles. the US doesn't have any at the moment as far as I know.

*Rob wrote **I like the bravado but unfortunately for the US navy, it's not more than that. It's why Trump didn't attack Iran. Military advisors told US forces ib the region would be crushed.*

You have this bizarre idea that Iran U.S. would be some heavy fighting. Nothing could be further from the truth. Trump (for some unknown reason) killed Iran's most powerful general, Quasem Soleimani with a drone attack. Iran responded with a missile attack on Al Asad Airbase in Iraq. Any escalation by the U.S. would have been in the form of SSGN submarine and Surface ship Cruise missiles and fighter jet air bombardment from U.S. Carriers of Iranian missile sites. Iran would have had zero chance of defending itself. Israel conducts air attacks on Iran with impunity and the U.S. can easily do the same but cooler heads prevailed on the U.S. military.

Like I have said multiple times the U.S. Navy is unworried about attacks from Iran. Iran attacks would do minimal ship damage at worst, but $1.2 billion worth of oil pass through the Strait of Homuz every day and a oil tanker is a sitting duck for attack.

The government can justify the defense budget increase

Kumagaijin makes a very valid point. All of this huffing and puffing is very nonsensical and quite dangerous. In a perfect world, navies and armies would be unnecessary, however, this isn't a perfect world. At present, Russia is nibbling away at its borders enriching itself off of its neighbors, such as the invasion of Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea. China is nibbling away in the South China Sea and is having clashes with India over the border they share. At present the U.S. has not been nibbling away at its Canadian or Mexican borders. It could quite easily if it wanted to annex valuable real estate at the expense of Canada and Mexico, but it hasn't. At the moment, Watching present-day China and Russia is kind of reminiscent of first half of the last century.

As Kumagaijin stated above, this is all ridiculous. Unfortunately, the U.S. is not the one annexing territories that belong to other countries. However, China & Russia have been quite enthusiastic about increasing the sizes of their borders. The facts speak for themselves.

Rob wrote about Mach 20 missiles. the US doesn't have any at the moment as far as I know.

US has thus far unsuccessfully tested mach 5 hypersonic missiles, not intercontinental.

Any escalation by the U.S. would have been in the form of SSGN submarine and Surface ship Cruise missiles

Thanks for the tip. US can only launch long range cruise missiles because any recources they have within 2~300 miles of Irans border is toast.

China is nibbling away in the South China Sea 

They didn’t just wake up one day and decided to “nibble” away at the SCS. They were embargoed for 23 years. The embargo served its purpose and weakened the country. The whole SCS was in response to the US carrier sent there.

The CPC runs a tight ship. They are not going to sit and scratch. They responded at the Yalu River after giving MacArthur fair warning. They do what they need to do to ensure the shipping lanes will be open that us to “serve their interests.”

In 1895 Taiwan was internationally recognized by all major countries as part of Japan, including by China.

Japanese and Chinese history both have the victory in the Nisshin War resulting in Japan taking Taiwan from China. How, in your opinion did Japan colonize Taiwan then?

Is Tokyo getting worried about the unusual joint Beijing-Moscow naval exercises around Japan?

Their concern is justified. If Japan joins a China/Russia vs US and allies war, it will be fought over the skies of Japan and Taiwan.

If you want to fight, fight in mainland China or mainland US. Don’t destroy Japan.

Unfortunately the US bases are in Japan and are fair game.

This people want Japan to ignore everything. Just ignore until the bombs dropped. Then they will blame Japan for not being ready.

Im glad you’re able to understand the Chinese view. They will not just sit and scratch while the US sends its carrier to the South China Seas. You can’t expect them to. The concern is justified

More a show of weakness in reality, wanting to show their own populations the necessity for more military spending. After China held Russia's hand to tiptoe around Japan playing daredevil and gathering intel...

You could change the translation of Kishida's reply to, "We saw what you guys did there, and we're watching you!"

Edit, not Kishida but Kishi (Nobuo).

You have this bizarre idea that Iran U.S. would be some heavy fighting. Nothing could be further from the truth. Trump (for some unknown reason) killed Iran's most powerful general, Quasem Soleimani with a drone attack. Iran responded with a missile attack on Al Asad Airbase in Iraq. Any escalation by the U.S. would have been in the form of SSGN submarine and Surface ship Cruise missiles and fighter jet air bombardment from U.S. Carriers of Iranian missile sites. Iran would have had zero chance of defending itself.

Iran has proxy forces under their control, often under the command of IRG commanders, in places like Syria where there are multiple IRG controlled militias along with actual Iranian forces on the ground, Lebanon (Hezbollah), the Houthis and tribes in Iraq who can attack US forces and those of its regional allies in response to a US attack. One of the reasons Israel has not attacked Iran directly is the threat posed by Hezbollah. During the 2006 Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon they were never able to stop Hezbollah from firing missiles into Israel. Israeli forces were never managed to find and attack their missile forces, and Israeli ground forces were fought to a stalemate by Hezbollah. It was a defeat for the Israelis. Now Hezbollah has many thousands of missiles many with the range to reach targets as far south as the Sinai Desert, such as the Dimona nuclear weapons facilities. Israel knows that attacking Iran directly would cause Hezbollah to attack. The same would be true of a US attack on Iran. Iran's proxies would go to war against Israel in retaliation and it would be very ugly when Hezbollah missiles started crashing down into Tel Aviv, Haifa and west Jerusalem.

Japan should have sent a small off shore patrol boat to "escort" them through the channel. Insultingly implying that nothing more was required. A friendly gesture of offering the Russians a loan of a tug bout would no doubt have gone down well! (or did they have one along anyway as they usually do?).

*Rob *Russia has deployed a variety of hypersonic misiles for which the bandits and fascists of American imperialism and its lackey regimes (LDP and Japanese ruling class) have no defence against.

In the history of naval warfare most of the anti-ship missiles fired in combat, and there have been a great many, are defeated by electronic warfare. The Israelis spoofed some four dozen Russian made anti-ship missiles fired at its forces in two engagements during the 1973 war before going on to sink the Egyptian and Syrian missile craft that fired them. Most of the Exocets fired by the Argentine forces at the British during the Falklands war were spoofed off target by EW. Same during Operation Praying Mantis where the Iranians were firing very supersonic Standard SM1s at US forces (Standard has always had a surface to surface mode and Iran not only bought a lot of them during the Shahs time but now make their own copy of it) in significant numbers. I remember the Ops O from one ship involved saying their radar screens were covered in missile tracks but the EW equipment spoofed them all off target.

There is a good reason why western navies have not built supersonic anti-ship missiles in any great numbers, even though the US in particular has built and tested some eye-watering prototypes such as ALVRJ (of which 3M80 and Kh-31 are very close copies) and ASALM. If you think about the best sensor you can put in the nose of your missile, the range at which it can detect a possible target is fixed. Doesn't matter what missile you stick this sensor in, it can only see so far. That sensor and all the electronics associated with it have to conduct a scan, classify everything detected (is it a merchant ship, someone else's coast guard ship or an enemy combat ship), chose the correct target, and maneuver to hit that target. The faster the missile goes, the less time is available to do all of these things. A missile moving at Mach 2.4 has 1/5 the time available to do all these things compared to a missile only going a subsonic Mach 0.8. So there are sound reasons western navies have stuck to subsonic sea skimming missiles for use against ships. When all is said and done they seem to have a greater chance of finding a target and hitting it. The chances of those Russian fast movers finding a moving target in an ocean full of merchant ships and fishing vessels are not as high as you might imagine. If a legitimate target ship is not right in front of the missile when it turns on its sensor, the likelihood it can scan the ocean, process what it sees and find a legitimate target then maneuver to hit it are actually quite low. It is probable most will never find a target.

The strait is 23 km from shore to shore at the narrowest points.

In the narrows Japan's territorial waters only extend about 5 km from each shore, leaving a central channel through which any nation's ships may navigate. There are similar accommodations in the Straits of Malacca, Straits of Hormuz and the Dardanelles. These accommodations are necessary to facilitate international maritime commerce.

We all know that China and Russian don't trust each other. This is a sham, a scam and a distraction. Why do you think China went for so long without Nukes. It wasn't as if they couldn't get their filthy commie hands on them. Hell, Russia was offering them free of charge back in the 50's but the Chinese didn't trust them and so they went without until they could steal the technology to develop their own.

China was not offered Soviet nuclear weapons. Mao harbored a deep and abiding hatred of Nikita Kruschev and the feelings were mutual. Mao believed the Soviets used the outcome of WWII to strip China of vast territories in Siberia and Tajikistan that Mao believed rightfully belonged to China. Remember the Soviets backed a short lived independent Uyghur Republic in the mid to late 1940s. A territorial dispute on the border with Tajikistan remained. As late as the mid 1960s even as China did not yet have a viable nuclear weapon (but was known to be developing them) the Soviets worried that even with nukes, Mao's human wave tactics could make it impossible for Soviet forces to hold Vladivostok, Blagoveshchensk, Khabarovsk, the Trans Siberian Railroad and could even threaten their nuclear weapons development centers. Kruschev was replaced by Leonid Brezhnev who claimed in his "Brezhnev Doctrine" created as part of their suppression of the 1968 Czech uprising, that the Soviets had the right to overthrow any communist government that was diverging from what defined by the Kremlin as approved communist orthodoxy. Mao saw that as a direct threat to the CCP and began a military build up on the Soviet border that culminated in a short border war in 1969. Mao ultimately backed down fearing a Soviet first strike could destroy his embryonic nuclear arsenal and leave China vulnerable to nuclear devastation.

Desert Tortoise (Today  04:01 am JST),

A river flowing through several countries is not one particular country's possession. It's shared by all countries concerned -- a common, international property. Same with channels and straits in the sea, I think.

If you look at the straits of Malacca, Hormuz and Dardanelles, you'll see they are no different from rivers flowing through several countries. Can the Tsugaru and Osumi Straits be taken in the same vein and manner?

If you look at the straits of Malacca, Hormuz and Dardanelles, you'll see they are no different from rivers flowing through several countries. Can the Tsugaru and Osumi Straits be taken in the same vein and manner?

Yes. Prior to the 1983 round of UNCLOS nations made various claims to territorial waters., from 2 to 24 nm typically. In the late 1970s some nations were starting to claim territorial waters out as far as 200 nm and that forced the UN through UNCLOS to address the matter urgently. The compromise was to set territorial waters at 12 nm though it was well into the 1990s before all the signatories agreed to abide by that number. There are provisions in UNCLOS that permits ships to skirt through territorial waters if they are only passing through and it is the shortest route, called "innocent passage" and another clause prohibiting nations from closing navigable straits by claiming the straight lies within their territorial waters. The latter clause applies to multiple straits around the world including the Soya Strait, the Tsugaru Strait, the eastern and western channels of the Korea Strait and the Osumi Straits.

A personal beef of mine is that while the negotiations for the most recent iteration of UNCLOS were led by retired Admiral Crowe, the US is still not a signatory although it adheres to the treaty and often cites it when maritime disputes arise.

Desert Tortoise,

The catch is the Tsugaru and Osumi Straits had been international waters long before Japan signed UNCLOS, wasn't it?

In other words, these straits were made international waters just for the sake of the U.S.

The catch is the Tsugaru and Osumi Straits had been international waters long before Japan signed UNCLOS, wasn't it?

No. "Transit passage" through straits is a traditional right of seafarers that goes back almost to the beginnings of people taking to the seas. The 3 nautical mile limit was considered universal until after WWII. Japan, like all other nations in the world adhered to the "canon shot" concept of defining a nation's territorial waters. Until the 20th century the greatest range of a shipboard or land based black powder cannon firing a big cannon ball was about 3 nm. Most nations set their territorial limits such that they were further from shore than the longest range canon. There was some variation however with Iceland claiming 2nm, Spain 6nm, Norway and Sweden claiming 4 nm, etc.. The old 17th Century "Law of the Sea" included the right of "transit passage" through straits. All of this was formally codified into law with UNCLOS 1 in 1958. The 12 nm limit was not discussed until UNCLOS 3 negotiated between 1973 and 1982 as a result of UN member states claiming territorial waters out as far as 200 nm from shore. The 3nm limit used in the Japanese straits and elsewhere such as between some Australian islands as well as between Australia and PNG, measures taken to protect the right of transit passage. There is a 6 nm territorial limit between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean Sea.

A river flowing through several countries is not one particular country's possession. It's shared by all countries concerned -- a common, international property.

No. This is an area in which there is no international law whatsoever and disputes over water rights to rivers that cross international boundaries are common. Both Iraq and Syria have longstanding disputes with Turkey over water diverted by the Turks from these two rivers. Neither has any leverage to challenge Turkey so Turkey takes what it wants and disregards the complaints of its neighbors. You may in the near future see an ugly war between Egypt and Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, or GERD, on the Nile upstream of Sudan and Egypt. Egypt has been trying for a decade to negotiate a water use agreement with Ethiopia but Ethiopia isn't interested in negotiating anything. Egypt of late has become increasingly angry with Ethiopia periodically stopping the flow of the Nile to fill the reservoir behind GERD as they build it and has been hinting strongly that if a negotiated agreement is not soon reached they will take military action. There are a number of disputes over the Mekong River as China and Laos (with Chinese money and engineering help) build dams that deprive Vietnam of water, and by extension are destroying their local fishery. In none of these instances is there a body of international law to draw upon to use to settle these disputes.

Desert Tortoise,

You seem to say that before UNCLOS was established nations had set territorial waters freely as they pleased. So, if Japan wanted to make all the Tsugaru Strait as its own, it could have. But Japan decided not to. why?  

As for rivers, if there is no international accord as to the water rights, there should be one. My post above is only my personal wish based on a putative common sense.

For your information:

Transboundary or international rivers are those that flow through several countries that guarantee by an agreement a free navigation by not only their own ships but also other foreign-flagged vessels. Among international rivers are: Donau, Nile, Mekong, Rhein, La Plata, Ganges, etc. (Data from WIKIPEDIA)

My naïve question is: Are such agreements concerned only with navigation? Aren't they concerned with water facilities for agriculture and the generation of power, as well? I think upstream countries need the full sanction of downstream countries when they want to alter the shape of the river for agricultural and industrial purposes.