politics

Japan, U.S. defense chiefs agree to bolster deterrence

21 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

21 Comments
Login to comment

Talks like these, and actions to mitigate the aggressive destabilizing actions of the Chinese in the region are going to continue for as long as China remains a threat to other nations and the status quo. China knows this and expects this and will make bellicose statements denouncing anything that makes their plans of dominance harder to achieve.

Queue the deniers.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Sounds like very productive talks given literally nothing changed.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

In response to Xi's increased aggressiveness and brutality, increasing defense capabilities of the surrounding nations just makes common sense.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

P. SmithToday  06:02 pm JST

Sounds like very productive talks given literally nothing changed.

I'm with you. The US does not have a foreign policy that is set up to deal with China's growing military strength; but maybe sending Harris to Vietnam and Singapore will shake up the CCP.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Answer to China's aggressive rise.

Support Japan rebuild it's military.

Article 9 USA idea, pushed for it in the 50's. Time for a change, time for USA to support Japan if you want help when the missiles start firing.

Plaza Accord which crippled Japan for more then 3 decades 30 years of economic stagnation USA idea. America can help at least for 1 decade to support Japan's rise again to counter China on the world stage.

Japan tried to get Nuclear Deterance once China had the Nuke. Who stopped Japan?? USA You did.

USA told Japan you don't need the nuke, don't built it, don't get it, we have it. Now in 2021 China threan Japan with Nuclear destruction. North Korea threaten Japan with nuclear destruction. Such Threats Would Not Exist If Japan Had It's Own Nuclear Deterance.

South Korea rich and powerful not Part of Quad Alliance. No Article 9. No restrictions. Getting closer to China and North Korea. All the help and pressure falling back on Japan in East Asia as the Shield.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

The U.S, does have a foreign policy to confront China's military expansion. The US "Pivot to Asia" was implemented during the Obama administration. And it has developed into expanded joint exercises with US allies as well as full implentation of QUAD which actually goes back to 2007. An effort is being made to expand the alliance to Southeast Asian nations as well. All of this is being facilitated by China's continued actions and behavior towards other countries.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Look like China beat Japanese to the punch ,by building 100 of nuclear silos ,found by a private company Google China Missile Silos

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The U.S, does have a foreign policy to confront China's military expansion. The US "Pivot to Asia" was implemented during the Obama administration. And it has developed into expanded joint exercises with US allies as well as full implentation of QUAD which actually goes back to 2007. An effort is being made to expand the alliance to Southeast Asian nations as well. All of this is being facilitated by China's continued actions and behavior towards other countries.

A lot of the new weapons coming on line now and in the next few years entered development ten to twelve years ago in response to what the DoD was seeing China develop. Next year a new stealth bomber begins flight testing (the first two are being built in Palmdale now) and a new 6th fighter is already well along with its own test program (look up NGAD). It was revealed last September that the new airplane "broke records" though the Air Force is coy about which ones and claims it is nearing a production decision. Who knows what else is out there. The Army has never revealed what that helicopter was that crashed during the Bin Laden raid and the Air Force has never released a photo of the RQ-180 long range stealth UAS, though it admits to its existance.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The two defense chiefs agreed to "further strengthen the deterrence and response capabilities of the bilateral alliance in light of the increasingly severe security environment.”

Does the further strengthening of ties mean Japan must increase the amount of the so-called "sympathy budget" and that the construction of the new Marine base in Okinawa must be accelerated?

If so, their agreement is a shenanigan. To bolster a true alliance they must revisit the bilateral security treaty first and remove dishonesty and hanky-panky in it.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Voice: It's not a new base. Henoko is being expanded so Futenma can be closed. This will help in the fight against China.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Japan better pick up it's military game if thry in fact need to go toe to toe with china because their military equipment is way out if date.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Voice: It's not a new base. Henoko is being expanded so Futenma can be closed. This will help in the fight against China.

I don't know about any tactical advantages associated Henoko as the runways will be shorter and unable to handle the largest transport aircraft that Futenma can now handle, but it will remove a major point of contention between the US and Japanese governments on one side and the heirs of the owners of the land Futenma was built on along with local residents tired of aircraft noise on the other. Hopefully a more cordial relationship with the people of Okinawa can be gained.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Look like China beat Japanese to the punch ,by building 100 of nuclear silos ,found by a private company Google China Missile Silos

I would bet more than beers intelligence organizations in several nations were acutely aware of that project long before those commercial satellite images were published.

What I find interesting is that China chose to go with fixed silos instead of more mobile ICBMs. In theory a mobile launcher should be harder to find and thus more survivable than a fixed silo that can be precisely targeted. Maybe they are a ruse intended to draw weapons away from targets of greater value, destroying empty holes in the ground? Or maybe the Chinese are starting to think their mobile launchers are vulnerable to something the US has? Hard to say. You can bet those intelligence agencies will be watching their own satellite imagery to see if real missiles are placed in them. Just a funny thought I had.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Anyone arguing about closing US bases in Okinawa or anywhere else in Japan probably understands now that is not going to happen.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

the_sicilian,

It's not a new base. Henoko is being expanded so Futenma can be closed. This will help in the fight against China

It's not a new base, as you say, but supposed to be a replacement for Futenma. But is it a mere replacement? Never, either. The putative replacement has many innovative facilities Futenma doesn't have.

For example, it'll have port facilities to berth an amphibious ship like the USS Wasp. It will also have an ammunition loading and unloading facility. Certainly, 1,800-meter V-shaped runways aren't long enough for large transport aircraft like Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, but more than enough for VSTOL aircraft like Ospreys and Harrier jump jets.

When this replacement is completed, the core elements of U.S. Marines who were hitherto deployed to Okinawa will be in Guam. The construction of infrastructure to house them there is now underway partly with Japanese taxpayers' money. They come to Okinawa on a yearly basis for training, that includes jungle warfare training at the Jungle Warfare Training Center near Henoko.

And do you insist that all this will help in fight against China?.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Henoko still is 10 years away from being a reality.

But terrible idea anyway, destroying the land.

Just leave Futenma as it is. Everything is and will be fine.

This is the best approach or Okinawa.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

How many of you posters know about the Naha Military Port issue? Officially known as US Army Naha Port Facility, It is located at the gate of Naha. The port is a historical site for Okinawa serving a window to the world in old times. Naha City strongly demanded for its return for an economic redevelopment of the area, for the military port had been left idle after the end of the Vietnam War.

In 1974, Tokyo and Washington agreed on its return. But Washington never failed to attach a string to its return as usual: Build its replacement on the Urasoe coast. A sequence of events that have taken place strikingly resembles the Futenma relocation issue.

I demand therefore: Return all the bases but minimally necessary ones with no strings attached; Rewrite the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty fair enough to Japan, that would be the root of damaging the future bilateral relations for sure. Then, the sympathy budge issue, which the U.S. side thinks unfair to the U.S., will be solved automatically once and for all.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

voiceofokinawaToday  05:13 pm JST

How many of you posters know about the Naha Military Port issue? Officially known as US Army Naha Port Facility, It is located at the gate of Naha. The port is a historical site for Okinawa serving a window to the world in old times. Naha City strongly demanded for its return for an economic redevelopment of the area, for the military port had been left idle after the end of the Vietnam War.

The mayor of Urasoe ran on the platform of having the the port relocated from Naha to Urasoe.

This is actually a minor issue in the scheme of the bases located on Okinawa. Even the locals do not know, or care about this matter.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

What a waste of time and tax payers money.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The incumbent mayor of Urasoe is serving his second term now. He originally ran for mayorship on the platform of opposing the transfer of Naha Military Port to Urasoe. But he flipflopped his position after the election. I would say he is an opportunist.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Let me re-post the comment I posted on another thread (“Kim's sister warns S Korea-U.S. drills will rekindle tensions”: Japan Today: Aug. 2, 2021:

Tensions between North and South on the Korean Peninsula are always worrisome developments indeed. Is it because of this that Japan must host 55,148 U.S. troops (as of March 2020) for its security when South Korea hosts about half as many (26,183)?

How would they explain this discrepancy in the number of U.S. troop deployment between Japan and South Korea?

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