Take our user survey and make your voice heard.

Voices
in
Japan

quote of the day

The United States would find it nearly impossible to respond promptly and effectively to Chinese aggression against Taiwan without being able to call on U.S. forces and its facilities in Japan.

23 Comments

A spokesperson for the Council on Foreign Relations, a New York-based think tank.

© Kyodo

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

23 Comments
Login to comment

Was there ever any doubt?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Well, doesn't take a brain to figure that out. Just leave some here to protect Japan like you were paid to.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

CFR, CSIS, Brookings (to a lesser extent) are lost to me. It's military/security thinking first on pretty much every issue.

Please explain why the US is not directly engaged with nuclear armed Russia in Ukraine but many here seem to think that the US getting directly involved with nuclear armed China on the Island of Taiwan is just peachy.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Duh. It's the reason they're here. They'd probably call on their forces in S Korea, as well.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I don’t believe that the US could respond efficiently anyway, regardless of where they have troops based. For all their posturing, all their war worshipping movies, all their money spent on their military, they totally screwed up Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Can’t be trusted.

I think it was Churchill who said that you can always count on America to do the right thing, after they’ve tried everything else.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@garypen You do understand that the US would have to ask for permission, right? I can see the current group of LDP leaders wrongly agreeing. I don't see even Yoon giving the green light in South Korea and he's as pro-American as they come.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

That's why there are here,

The two 'unsinkable aircraft carriers' in the US Military have always been the UK for European conflicts and Japan for Asian conflicts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

On the 70th anniversary of the Korean Armistice, the Korean War needs to be included. The US underestimated Chinese capabilities then when China was just recovering from a civil war and was dirt poor. Today is very different.

 they totally screwed up Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

deanzaZZRToday 10:16 am JST

Please explain why the US is not directly engaged with nuclear armed Russia in Ukraine but many here seem to think that the US getting directly involved with nuclear armed China on the Island of Taiwan is just peachy.

The US staked its reputation on protecting Taiwan over 73 years and in the Taiwan Relation Act. I know you will just say the US has no reputation, but that is objectively not true: the entire Asia-Pacific still turns to the US for protection from China.

You do understand that the US would have to ask for permission, right?

Best I can tell is the US only has to "inform" Japan of actions it is taking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_and_Security_between_the_United_States_and_Japan

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Politik KillsToday 10:30 am JST

I don’t believe that the US could respond efficiently anyway, regardless of where they have troops based. For all their posturing, all their war worshipping movies, all their money spent on their military, they totally screwed up Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Can’t be trusted.

You do realize there is a difference between trust and capability, right? The US has been to war frequently since 1953. China has not. For every standoff capability China has, the US has an equal standoff capability to give them a very bad day.

I think it was Churchill who said that you can always count on America to do the right thing, after they’ve tried everything else.

I.e. the US did the right thing in his estimation. Also he was talking about the US not entering the war earlier.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

deanzaZZRToday 11:27 am JST

On the 70th anniversary of the Korean Armistice, the Korean War needs to be included. The US underestimated Chinese capabilities then when China was just recovering from a civil war and was dirt poor. Today is very different.

And none of those land based swarm tactics will amount to anything against Taiwan.

 they totally screwed up Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Guess it is good that history records a W for the US in the Korean War and in all likelihood will for Iraq as well.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Guess it is good that history records a W for the US in the Korean War and in all likelihood will for Iraq as well.

LOL Okay yea if you regard US forces retreating from the North to the 38th parallel (the original demarcation line) in the face of Chinese forces a W, keep living in a bubble...illegal no WMD invasion of Iraq also real wonderful, especially in light of the chaos it's left behind (led to the rise of IS and major internal strife).

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

they totally screwed up Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Can’t be trusted.

They totally screwed up on China as well. Just pulled the plug and threw China under the bus to the Communists.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

quercetumToday 02:31 pm JST

they totally screwed up Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Can’t be trusted.

They totally screwed up on China as well. Just pulled the plug and threw China under the bus to the Communists.

Funny thing about that statement: it implicitly acknowledges that China is worse off under the Communists.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

LegrandeToday 02:14 pm JST

Guess it is good that history records a W for the US in the Korean War and in all likelihood will for Iraq as well.

LOL Okay yea if you regard US forces retreating from the North to the 38th parallel (the original demarcation line) in the face of Chinese forces a W, keep living in a bubble...

The war didn't begin at that point. It begin with the North invading and almost eliminating South Korea. All completely rolled back, hence the W.

illegal no WMD invasion of Iraq also real wonderful, especially in light of the chaos it's left behind (led to the rise of IS and major internal strife).

Everybody's got an illegal war these days. By definition, if the objective was already accomplished before you started, it is a W. If the occupation furthermore, in the fullness of time, results in an Iraq that is not completely hostile to the US, that is also a W.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The war didn't begin at that point. It begin with the North invading and almost eliminating South Korea. All completely rolled back, hence the W.

illegal no WMD invasion of Iraq also real wonderful, especially in light of the chaos it's left behind (led to the rise of IS and major internal strife).

Everybody's got an illegal war these days. By definition, if the objective was already accomplished before you started, it is a W. If the occupation furthermore, in the fullness of time, results in an Iraq that is not completely hostile to the US, that is also a W.

Again showing your complete ignorance of the historical situation.

The conflict began the day the US entered the South, and then reinstated to power those South Koreans who had collaborated with the Japanese imperialists during the Japanese occupation of the peninsula. That immediately riled both the South and North Koreans. From then the situation escalated as US Military Occupation authorities first jailed and then via their ROK proxies (who again had been the same South Koreans who had supported the Japanese Imperialists) tortured and began killing the many South Koreans who were incensed that the collaborator traitors had been reinstated to power in the South. Because of the widespread anger against the US military occupation, the majority of the South Koreans actually supported the North, and called for the North to come down and help them kick the US out...this led to increased killing of the ROK citizens, which culminated in the 1948 Jeju Massacre and then the Bodo League Massacre, in which it is estimated that at least a million may have been executed in the South (after it was confirmed that 100,000 had been executed the investigation was shut down by pro-US Lee Myung-bak, who was later jailed for corruption).

That Korea is still divided (the US had pledged originally that the peninsula would be reunited after a brief period of US "stewardship," which predictably led to war) with a nuclear-armed adversary in the North, families forever divided, and the spectre of WWIII breaking out as a result of the escalating tensions...yea a real "W" LOL

And as for Iraq, you say IF it results in an Iraq that is not completely hostile to the US, it's already a blemish on the US as everyone knows it was an illegal invasion with no WMD, led to the rise of IS, has left Iraq in perpetual internal strife, and planted seeds of resentment all THROUGHOUT the Middle East, all you can feel good about is stealing their oil through their Iraqi proxies, so congrats another great "W" for you there.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

LegrandeToday 04:11 pm JST

The conflict began the day the US entered the South, and then reinstated to power those South Koreans who had collaborated with the Japanese imperialists during the Japanese occupation of the peninsula. That immediately riled both the South and North Koreans. From then the situation escalated as US Military Occupation authorities first jailed and then via their ROK proxies (who again had been the same South Koreans who had supported the Japanese Imperialists) tortured and began killing the many South Koreans who were incensed that the collaborator traitors had been reinstated to power in the South. Because of the widespread anger against the US military occupation, the majority of the South Koreans actually supported the North, and called for the North to come down and help them kick the US out...this led to increased killing of the ROK citizens, which culminated in the 1948 Jeju Massacre and then the Bodo League Massacre, in which it is estimated that at least a million may have been executed in the South (after it was confirmed that 100,000 had been executed the investigation was shut down by pro-US Lee Myung-bak, who was later jailed for corruption).

Utter nonsense. Rhee would have never been successful eliminating the communists if there wasn't local support for it. Kim Il Sung shopped the idea of invasion around to Stalin and Mao and didn't get much objection. They thought the US wouldn't bother to intervene and they were wrong. Start stupid wars, win stupid prizes.

That Korea is still divided (the US had pledged originally that the peninsula would be reunited after a brief period of US "stewardship," which predictably led to war) with a nuclear-armed adversary in the North, families forever divided, and the spectre of WWIII breaking out as a result of the escalating tensions...yea a real "W" LOL

Nothing about that says it is not a win for the US and South Korea. The North won't start anything if Kim wants to see his kids grow up.

And as for Iraq, you say IF it results in an Iraq that is not completely hostile to the US, it's already a blemish on the US as everyone knows it was an illegal invasion with no WMD, led to the rise of IS, has left Iraq in perpetual internal strife, and planted seeds of resentment all THROUGHOUT the Middle East, all you can feel good about is stealing their oil through their Iraqi proxies, so congrats another great "W" for you there.

Anybody with a brain can see that IS is a product of weak governance in the region and Islamic fundamentalism going back centuries. You can try to pin it on the US, but such attempts are just met with laughter. And as for that "blemish", not much to worry about when sub-regional power Russia has a huge black and blue face right now.

left Iraq in perpetual internal strife

Iraq is pumping more oil than under Saddam Hussein ever did.

planted seeds of resentment all THROUGHOUT the Middle East

9-11 was before the Iraq War, just so you know. If anti-zionists want to wage jihad against the US, they will be taken out discretely as always.

congrats another great "W" for you there

Thank you. Our troops suffered much for these victories but they still keep the dictator cabal contained with their efforts.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Utter nonsense. Rhee would have never been successful eliminating the communists if there wasn't local support for it.

Try utter ignorance.

Rhee was flown in from the US and then "elected" in 1948 amidst widespread protests. He had the support of the reinstated Jpn collaborators, who wielded power and money accrued through working with Jpn. You ever notice there are huge power swings from left to right and vice versa (i.e. President Park Geung the deposed via massive street protests, pro-US administrations promising to honor the 1960's agreement with Japan regarding WWII slave labor/comfort women, only to be overturned when a leftist president is voted in)?- This is due to the fact that the conflicts begun in 1945 when the US reinstated the Jpn collaborators has never been resolved. But realistically you and your "USA or the highway" ilk are not trying to objectively understand the situation, you are only eternally trying to justify the US presence and objectives, whether in Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Iraq, or wherever, regardless of the incidental "collateral damage."

1 ( +2 / -1 )

deanzaZZR

@garypen You do understand that the US would have to ask for permission, right?

You do realize that the US military will utilize every Asia-Pacific-based asset it deems necessary to protect any of its Asia-Pacific allies, regardless of permission, right?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The U.S. tried to take the whole peninsula but were taught a lesson by the Communist Chinese. MacArthur was removed. An L for the US.

If you look up the expression quit while you’re ahead in the dictionary, you’ll see a picture of MacArthur. Surely they regret provoking the Chinese. They had the whole Korean Peninsula and there could have been one Korea today.

The U.S. tried to help Republic if China but quit have way in between. The Communist won. An L for the U.S.

After two decades in Vietnam, the U.S. again called it quits. Too many lives sacrificed. An L for the U.S.

After building Air Force bases in Taiwan and installing nuclear weapons there, The Communists demanded the complete withdrawal from Taiwan and to kick Taiwan out of the UN. The U.S. had no choice and accepted the terms like a loser in a war. An L for the US.

In the Philippines, the US betrayed the Filipinos post the Spanish American War. In the end the Filipinos fought and became independent. Am L for the U.S.

In Japan the US dropped two atomic bombs which ended up killing civilians.

The US has not had success in Asia. Losses everywhere not to mention Laos and Cambodia and the use of chemicals on civilians.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

China will continue to be a threat, and to counter that threat countries in the region need to assure they can provide for their own defense, with US assistance. Japan needs to sharply increase expenditures on its military to assure they can provide for their defense, and assist the US in bringing the fight to China. Of course using US military assets in Japan will be necessary in the fight. It will also be necessary for Japan’s military to become an offensive force, not solely defensive. In the event of a war with China it is certain China will attack US military assets in Japan. Japan needs to be ready to fight back with a devastating response on Chinese forces along with the US. In the end China will lose after a bloody conflict and mass casualties on both sides.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

quercetumJuly 28 10:05 pm JST

The U.S. tried to take the whole peninsula but were taught a lesson by the Communist Chinese. MacArthur was removed. An L for the US.

If you look up the expression quit while you’re ahead in the dictionary, you’ll see a picture of MacArthur. Surely they regret provoking the Chinese. They had the whole Korean Peninsula and there could have been one Korea today.

Nope, telling only part of the narrative does not make it a loss. An invasion from the North was repulsed and that is all you need to know for the US side. And MacArthur was removed because he wanted to bomb China, including with nukes. You can thank Truman for keeping the PRC alive again.

The U.S. tried to help Republic if China but quit have way in between. The Communist won. An L for the U.S.

You like to keep bringing that up as if it is somehow relevant. Supplies are not a direct military intervention with US lives lost.

After two decades in Vietnam, the U.S. again called it quits. Too many lives sacrificed. An L for the U.S.

Not going to deny this one: just like China, we lost in Vietnam.

After building Air Force bases in Taiwan and installing nuclear weapons there, The Communists demanded the complete withdrawal from Taiwan and to kick Taiwan out of the UN. The U.S. had no choice and accepted the terms like a loser in a war. An L for the US.

It's almost as if those were the negotiated demands of petulent PRC to normalize relations. It's almost as if the other western nations backstabbed Taiwan all too willingly.

In the Philippines, the US betrayed the Filipinos post the Spanish American War. In the end the Filipinos fought and became independent. Am L for the U.S.

Cool story bro. It surely has nothing to do with WW2 and the rising tide of anti-colonialism.

In Japan the US dropped two atomic bombs which ended up killing civilians.

As part of our W in WW2. The US dominated an ocean pretty much singlehandedly.

The US has not had success in Asia. Losses everywhere not to mention Laos and Cambodia and the use of chemicals on civilians.

We had success in WW2 and Korea and you still have nothing to point to that is a loss except Vietnam. Also you have to go to war to lose a war, rather than cower in fear like China.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

LegrandeJuly 28 06:54 pm JST

Utter nonsense. Rhee would have never been successful eliminating the communists if there wasn't local support for it.

Try utter ignorance.

Rhee was flown in from the US and then "elected" in 1948 amidst widespread protests. He had the support of the reinstated Jpn collaborators, who wielded power and money accrued through working with Jpn. You ever notice there are huge power swings from left to right and vice versa (i.e. President Park Geung the deposed via massive street protests, pro-US administrations promising to honor the 1960's agreement with Japan regarding WWII slave labor/comfort women, only to be overturned when a leftist president is voted in)?- This is due to the fact that the conflicts begun in 1945 when the US reinstated the Jpn collaborators has never been resolved. But realistically you and your "USA or the highway" ilk are not trying to objectively understand the situation, you are only eternally trying to justify the US presence and objectives, whether in Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Iraq, or wherever, regardless of the incidental "collateral damage."

You ever notice that even the leftists in Korea don't actually push for surrender to North Korea? That is the contribution of the US: a civilized Korea in the South.

1 ( +1 / -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