world

China to show new warships as Beijing flexes military muscle on navy anniversary

32 Comments
By Ben Blanchard

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

32 Comments
Login to comment

Looking at the rusting hulks of Russia’s old nuclear submarine fleet, I hope that China will have considered a thoroughly clean decommissioning process as part of their overall nuclear program.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

China understands the importance of having strong commercial and military fleets to serve its needs in the Pacific and Indian Ocean regions. China also has established support infrastructure for both fleets. If its Belt and Road succeeds...

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"It is fair to say that the PLA Navy has not brought war or turbulence to any place," Qiu said.

Really, please read about the 1988 battle with Vietnam.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Time for America to quietly leave to their side of the creek.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Time for America to quietly leave to their side of the creek.

Not only will they not leave anytime soon, they will increase their presence more forcefully and boldly.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Not only will they not leave anytime soon, they will increase their presence more forcefully and boldly.

Well, that will depend on the Japanese agreeing and not a decision the U.S. can make alone. You are getting carried away with yourself. Okinawa carry an unfair burden of the U.S. military bases and time to move them to the mainland.

The question will once again bring into focus is Trump succeeds to increase the costs paid by Japan, or if has he stated, wants to turn the U.S. into a mercenary force for hire. Japan was paying ¥5 trillion which was reduced to about ¥3 trillion. Trump has demanded all host countries pay more even though Japan is one of the highest contributors and also the country with the highest numbers of troops.

If Japan is capable of defending itself does it still warrant the need for U.S. bases?

If more of the Okinawa bases were moved onto the mainland the number of Japanese supporters would fall.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Well, that will depend on the Japanese agreeing and not a decision the U.S. can make alone. You are getting carried away with yourself.

No, I’m just a realist, as long as China poses a threat to Japan, the region and the US, we are going nowhere,

Okinawa carry an unfair burden of the U.S. military bases and time to move them to the mainland.

Yes and the Yeti really does exist. That won’t happen.

The question will once again bring into focus is Trump succeeds to increase the costs paid by Japan, or if has he stated, wants to turn the U.S. into a mercenary force for hire. Japan was paying ¥5 trillion which was reduced to about ¥3 trillion. Trump has demanded all host countries pay more even though Japan is one of the highest contributors and also the country with the highest numbers of troops.

As they should, especially when we would do the main bulk of fighting if that were to come to pass.

If Japan is capable of defending itself does it still warrant the need for U.S. bases?

We are a very long way from that, very long way.

If more of the Okinawa bases were moved onto the mainland the number of Japanese supporters would fall.

If...you’re possibly right “if”

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Time for Japan to bulid a kick butt Navy. Wait! Japan already has a kick but navy. Time for Japan to bulid a bigger kick butt navy!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

No, I’m just a realist, as long as China poses a threat to Japan, the region and the US, we are going nowhere,

Once again, you need to respect your host country in both the presence of your U.S. military bases and the country where you mainly reside. Any decision on the U.S. military in Japan totally depends on agreement between the countries. The day could come when you are required to leave.

As they should, especially when we would do the main bulk of fighting if that were to come to pass.

You don't know that because in the past 70 years it has not happened. The Japanese Constitution allows for self defense.

The U.S. bases in Japan have little to do with defending Japan and more to do with protecting American business interests in the region. You should at least be honest about that.

I doubt China, which is considered the greatest threat would have any interest to attack Japan or invade it. That would be the end of China with both the EU and America ending trade which would bankrupt China.

An overmanned American presence of 60,000 troops is no longer required, even for the defense of the country.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

And thus an arms race in East Asia

3 ( +3 / -0 )

"It is fair to say that the PLA Navy has not brought war or turbulence to any place," Qiu said.

It is fair to say Qiu is incorrect and that China has created great turbulence in the South China sea.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The US has bases in Japan and South Korea for two reasons and two  reasons only, to divert any attack from US mainland and to protect its dictatorship. Part of the problem is that the US has never fought a battle with a foreign power on US soil, it has always been on another nations soil. The people of the US should revisit the effects of a nuclear attack on Hiroshima and then imaging that happening in NY or Washington. It would only take one to get in, only one to reach the US. Never mind what would happen to the other nation, just one reaching mainland US.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

The Chinese nuclear armed subs are off the West Coast of America and can strike any target within the country with its nuclear armed missles with a range of 4,000 miles.

Today's ball game is no longer the same one from 70 years ago when America invaded Japan.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Then most of the people in this forum get upset when Japan decides to increase its military capability, disobeying Article 9 of its constitution.

But very few people are aware that it is China's belligerent attitudes that are causing this dangerous situation. For them the bad thing will always be Japan itself and Abe's government. Or the United States themselves.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Once again, you need to respect your host country in both the presence of your U.S. military bases and the country where you mainly reside.

We do as we protect Japan which means, we would be in the front lines, take bullets and die for the country, not just respect and if need be, sacrifice.

Any decision on the U.S. military in Japan totally depends on agreement between the countries. The day could come when you are required to leave.

You and I won’t see that day.

You don't know that because in the past 70 years it has not happened. The Japanese Constitution allows for self defense. 

At the same time for the Japanese to get to the fighting levels of the US will take years. When was the last time we fought a war or better yet, when did we not fight one within the last 100 years and when did the Japanese fight a real war? Experience matters, not to mention we are strategically positioned to easily launch an attack or counterattack should a conflict happens if China or North Korea start becoming aggressively hostile.

The U.S. bases in Japan have little to do with defending Japan and more to do with protecting American business interests in the region. You should at least be honest about that.

In addition to protecting Japan that is correct.

I doubt China, which is considered the greatest threat would have any interest to attack Japan or invade it.

Ok, you may not think that, but I do and many at the Pentagon do as well.

That would be the end of China with both the EU and America ending trade which would bankrupt China.

Yeah, we heard that about that in WWI and in Russia, Germany, Vietnam, Iraq as well, sorry, not buying it.

An overmanned American presence of 60,000 troops is no longer required, even for the defense of the country.

I see, well that’s your personal opinion and it would seem the status quo will remain for a very long time to come.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Yeah, we heard that about that in WWI and in Russia, Germany, Vietnam, Iraq as well, sorry, not buying it.

Yes but its a different world than 70 years ago. China has a range of atomic weapons, nuke subs on your coast, fighter plane, building a navy, total control over the South China Sea.

China would not wish to damage itself by losing all of its trading income with the EU/America.

America has not fought in this part of the world since Vietnam which it lost. You think America could ever invade China, no I don't think so.

I see, well that’s your personal opinion and it would seem the status quo will remain for a very long time to come.

Well your Trump does not agree with you. He wanted to withdraw the troops from South Korea. China has nothing to gain by attacking Japan and so much to lose.

America can't even afford a major war. It cost about ¥6 trillion for the Iraq-Afghan Wars. Great destructions, hundreds of thousands killed and so little gained.

Trump said we don't have to worry about NK, he's got that one, right.

Your original comment was

Not only will they not leave anytime soon, they will increase their presence more forcefully and boldly.

and I stand by my comment America requires the permission of Japan to even launch an attack from Japanese soil.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

zichi Apr. 20 09:23 pm JST

The Japanese Constitution allows for self defense.

That's not true. The constitution does not allow self-defense at all. Moreover, JSDF itself should not even exist. They have only applied the only provisional alternative until the social and political situation is favorable to change that prohibition. Ignoring this article by creating deliberate excuses to legalize what is not legal. This solution will only give more problems in the future than real solutions in the hypothetical case of a war between China and Japan. Because it will be breaking the war ban. (an unconstitutional act).

I doubt China, which is considered the greatest threat would have any interest to attack Japan or invade it. That would be the end of China with both the EU and America ending trade which would bankrupt China.

China has already publicly demanded the return of the Senkaku Islands. And it has expressed that they will use force if necessary to recover those islands if Japan does not voluntarily return them. That would be considered a serious threat to Japan's territorial integrity.

An overmanned American presence of 60,000 troops is no longer required, even for the defense of the country.

For that to happen Article 9 has to be modified first. Something that for the time being the Japanese people are still opposed to.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Yes but its a different world than 70 years ago. China has a range of atomic weapons, nuke subs on your coast, fighter plane, building a navy, total control over the South China Sea.

We have aircraft carriers 5th generation stealth fighters and an unknown supply of military hardware that a lot of people don’t know the exact whereabouts are.

China would not wish to damage itself by losing all of its trading income with the EU/America.

Again, heard that speech before, you can believe that if you want, I don’t.

America has not fought in this part of the world since Vietnam which it lost.

Rules of engagement, were it not for that, the outcome would have been very different.

Well your Trump does not agree with you. He wanted to withdraw the troops from South Korea. China has nothing to gain by attacking Japan and so much to lose.

As we all know Trumps says a lot of things and I’m sure the SOD and the Pentagon said, No way. He hasn’t talked about it in awhile. See, he does listen.

America can't even afford a major war. It cost about ¥6 trillion for the Iraq-Afghan Wars. Great destructions, hundreds of thousands killed and so little gained.

But if we have to, we will.

Trump said we don't have to worry about NK, he's got that one, right.

We have the sanctions on them so tightly, this is something that desperately want relief on and they won’t get it.

and I stand by my comment America requires the permission of Japan to even launch an attack from Japanese soil.

And I stand by mine, the US isn’t going anywhere, not in our lifetime at least.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

America needs to work with Japan so that it becomes a military partner rather than America the military master and Japan the underdog.

"Washington should close Futenma — as a start to refashioning the alliance with Japan. Rather than a unilateral promise by the United States to defend Japan, the relationship should become one of equals working together on issues of mutual interest. Responsibility for protecting Japan should become that of Japan."

4 ( +4 / -0 )

America needs to work with Japan so that it becomes a military partner rather than America the military master and Japan the underdog.

They are doing that, but as you said, Trump is temporary and the next President might be another establishment and they’ll want to keep the troops in for sure.

"Washington should close Futenma — as a start to refashioning the alliance with Japan. Rather than a unilateral promise by the United States to defend Japan, the relationship should become one of equals working together on issues of mutual interest. Responsibility for protecting Japan should become that of Japan."

Yes, we all have dreams.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

It's only a matter of time before a right-wing nut in the White House gets involved in a trillion dollar war in order to get re-elected. As sure as eggs is eggs.

Rules of engagement, were it not for that, the outcome would have been very different.

Abu Ghraib. 'Nuff said.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

We have aircraft carriers 5th generation stealth fighters and an unknown supply of military hardware that a lot of people don’t know the exact whereabouts are.

That's just conjecture on your part, and certainly above your pay scale.

It's not so difficult for country's to know where major military assets are. Thirteen carriers today, are just in their home ports.

https://worldview.stratfor.com/topic/tracking-us-naval-power

3 ( +3 / -0 )

China has 6th generation supersonic stealth fighters.

If Japan stops paying to host the U.S. bases, will the American troops still remain?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

What muscles? They've never been in war to use the ships.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Rules of engagement, were it not for that, the outcome would have been very different.

Absolutely incorrect.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

That's just conjecture on your part, and certainly above your pay scale.

You don’t know or have proof either way.

It's not so difficult for country's to know where major military assets are. Thirteen carriers today, are just in their home ports.

Which is a lot.

Absolutely incorrect

No, it’s correct, very correct.

China has 6th generation supersonic stealth fighters.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/explained-why-chinas-j-20-stealth-fighter-cant-compete-americas-f-22-or-f-35-37497

If Japan stops paying to host the U.S. bases, will the American troops still remain?

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Japan-to-order-100-more-F-35-fighters-from-US

Again, the US is not going anywhere.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

No, it’s correct, very correct.

You should do a bit more research on the Vietnam War before commenting.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

You should do a bit more research on the Vietnam War before commenting.

I did, I wish Democrats would though.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I did, I wish Democrats would though.

Do more. I know I wish republicans would though.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

When was the last time China, Korea or Russia attack and invade Japan. The Cold War with the Soviet Union is over which is U.S. Troops remained in Japan. America has the world's strongest military costing nearly $800 billion a year with the National Debt increasing $1 trillion every year.

If China invades those little ocean rocks, Senkaku Islands, will America defend and send in it's troops too? Could move the marine base there.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Tomorrow, Putin will launch a new very sinister nuke sub, which will be the longest in the world. The Belgorod length 604 feet. Armed with nuclear torpedos which can travel a great distance underwater and undetected. Capable of taking out an aircraft carrier or even an entire city. Each torpedo capable of carrying warheads with an explosive power of two megatons – equivalent to two million tons of TNT, or more than 130 times the power of the Hiroshima bomb.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Hey China, can you build anything that wasn't comprised entirely on stolen secrets from the USA?

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