voiceofokinawa comments

Posted in: U.S. Marines chief acknowledges worries on Japan-S Korean ties See in context

One should not mix up between the Navy and the Department of the Navy. There's a sea difference between the two. The Navy is a military service headed by an admiral while the Department of the Navy is an administrative body headed by a civilian secretary.

It's true that the Marine Corps is attached to the Department of the Navy and so when dealings must be done with Congress, the Marines must deal with them through the Secretary of the Department of the Navy.

Note, however, the fact that the Marines are subsumed under the Department of the Navy doesn't mean the Marines are subsumed under the Navy. Both are independent services even though they work very closely together when engaged in invading enemy land. Yubaru characterizes this by implying the Navy is like a taxi company offering transportation vehicles to the Marines.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Posted in: U.S. Marines chief acknowledges worries on Japan-S Korean ties See in context

Yubaru,

Of course, you can claim the Marines are the Navy for whatever reasons there may be or may not be.  But that claim is based on your wishful thinking and not on facts.  Can you answer the questions I posed to The LongerTermer znc extnker?  I asked:

(1) The Navy and the Marine Corps are defined as separate services in U.S. Code 10 Section 5001.  Can you deny this and claim, No, the Navy and the Marine Corps belong to the same service.  (2) They have independent chains of command with respect to each other, don't they?   (3) They have different systems of rank naming, don't they   (4) Marine generals participate in the Joint Chiefs of Staff on a par with generals from other services. Even a Marine general serves as chair of this supreme military body. 

As for the last question, how could this be possible if the Marine Corps isn't independent of the Navy?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Posted in: U.S. Marines chief acknowledges worries on Japan-S Korean ties See in context

extanker,

I understand there are five branches or services in the U.S. military. They are in order of precedence: Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard. But, to my surprise, you say there are seven. So I investigated and found two others: Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps

The latter two are quite unfamiliar to me, I have never heard of them, but am I the only one who is unfamiliar with these branches? I think President Trump is thinking of creating a new branch called "space command"

At any rate, these branches are genuine military bodies. Departments of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, on the other hand, are not. These departments are administrative bodies headed by civilian secretaries, who are supposed to exercise "civilian control" over the military services under their jurisdiction.

So if you insist "the Navy" as stipulated in the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is the same as the Department of the Navy, then the U.S. can keep in Japan only the administrative staff from the Department of the Navy and administrative buildings, never bases and facilities of this magnitude.

How do you respond?.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: U.S. Marines chief acknowledges worries on Japan-S Korean ties See in context

extanker,

I’d read this screed on the Pentagon homepage before it was revised as is. Apparently, there're a hoard of people who ask the same question as I do. The essay is penned by a particular person, and so when something goes awry, it can be attributed to that particular person, not to the Pentagon itself.

Anyway, the author says, today, the Navy and the Marine Corps are "sister services" attached to the Department of the Navy. But does this tell the Marines are part of the Navy with the top of the Marine Corps always reporting to the top admiral of the Navy?

The U.S. Coast Guard is now attached to the Department of Homeland Security, but its jurisdiction will be transferred to the Department of the Navy in case of a war. So one can call the U.S. Coast Guard a sister service to the Navy and the Marine Corps as well. They are sister services but note that they are independent services, nonetheless.

How do you respond to the questions I posed to TheLongTermer? I asked:

(1) The Navy and the Marine Corps are defined as separate services in U.S. Code 10 Section 5001; (2) they have independent chains of command with respect to each other; (3) different systems of rank names; (4) their top brass participate in the Joint Chiefs of Staff on a par with generals from other services. As such, the Marines can’t be stationed in Japan, Okinawa in particular, as if they were the Navy.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Posted in: U.S. Marines chief acknowledges worries on Japan-S Korean ties See in context

TheLongTermer,

they were once an independent force but latter became part of the Navy.

No, you are wrong. Historically, the Marines started as a cog of the Navy for a hand-to-hand combat or for expeditionary purposes. 

Today, though, the Navy and the Marine Corps can be said to be separate services for the reasons: (1) They are defined as such in U.S. Code 10 Section 5001; (2) they have independent chains of command with respect to each other; (3) different systems of rank names; (4) their top brass participate in the Joint Chiefs of Staff on a par with generals from other services..

(4) is very important. The current chair of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff is held by a Marine general. How can he preside over other chiefs of staff from the Army, the Navy and the Air Force if the Marine Corps is subordinate to the Navy.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Posted in: U.S. Marines chief acknowledges worries on Japan-S Korean ties See in context

extanker,

Everything you’ve typed here is still wrong. Period.

You aren't refuting my argument logically. You're simply spitting your frustration out into the air. How would you defend your position that the Marine Corps is part of the Navy when 10 U.S. Code (Sections 5001 and 5061) and Navy Regulations Section 0204-2, the Navy and Marine Corps say otherwise?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Posted in: U.S. Marines chief acknowledges worries on Japan-S Korean ties See in context

TheLongTerme

what kind of a question is that? Talk about disconnect..

The general made a trip to Japan as a kind of courtesy call on the occasion of his promotion to the top of the Marine Corps. Was he engaged in a field activity when he was conferred a promotion and didn't have time to change clothes to make Japan the destination of  his first overseas trip after the promotion?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Posted in: U.S. Marines chief acknowledges worries on Japan-S Korean ties See in context

Extanker,

The Marines fall under the Department of the Navy.

The fact that the Marines are administered by the Department of the Navy, an executive organization headed by a civilian chief, doesn't tell the Marines are an arm of the Navy, a military service. According to 10 U.S. Code (Sections 5001 and 5061) and Navy Regulations Section 0204-2, the Navy and Marine Corps are military organizations or services independent of each other

Of course, you can ignore Article 6 of the said treaty and have the Marines be stationed in Japan, the bulk of which are in Okinawa. But if you do, the bilateral treaty becomes waste paper in no time, and so not only the Marines but also the Army, the Navy and the Air Force are all stationed here as WW II occupation forces.

Japan, especially Okinawa, is still under U.S. occupation. Period.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Posted in: U.S. Marines chief acknowledges worries on Japan-S Korean ties See in context

My first impression at the picture of Gen. Berger:

.One: Why is he in camouflage clothes as if on a battle ground.

Two: Doesn't this show the Marines are a service completely independent of the Navy? 

If so, how would he interpret Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty which stipulates "the United States of America is granted the use by its land, air and naval forces of facilities and areas in Japan."? The Japanese version, which has an equal legal force as the English one, says the "naval forces" are none other than the "Navy".

-13 ( +0 / -13 )

Posted in: S Korea calls in Japanese diplomat over plans for Fukushima water See in context

Some may counter my argument by saying that South Korea is more advanced in nuclear power plant technology and so there'd be no such accident as occurred in Fukushima, Chernobuile or Three Mile Island.

But pundits say building nuclear power plants is like building houses equipped with no sewage systems anywhere in the world. Has South Korea found a way to solve this problem?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: S Korea calls in Japanese diplomat over plans for Fukushima water See in context

I think Seoul has every right to demand to know how Tokyo will deal with contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant that was damaged by an earthquake and subsequent tsunamis Tokyo can’t keep installing a tank after a tank forever to contain the water flow.

At the same time, I wonder how Seoul will deal with a similar accident that may occur in one of the many nuclear power plants they have in South Korea.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Posted in: Japan-S Korea rift may change regional economic, security structures See in context

There's an objective, convincing commentary by Byun Jung-il, editor of Korean Report,  that answers well the question I posed: "Why wasn't Japan's compensation used for comfort women issue?" on iRONNA (https://ironna.jp/article/2282).

I recommend all posters with a command of written Japanese to read it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan-S Korea rift may change regional economic, security structures See in context

For the sake of clarification of the current Japan-ROK relations issue, there's one question I want to ask. 

Under the 1965 Japan-ROK Basic Relations Treaty, Japan had to pay a total $500 million (today's rate: $4025 million) to ROK, part of which had to be used by the Korean government for compensaton for the victims of the colonial era. But the Korean government  used most of the aid money for the improvement of industrial infrastructure, thus triggering the booming economic development of South Korea as we see today.

 If I am wrong, please correct me.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan says S Korea has failed to justify removing Tokyo's fast-track trade status See in context

Cartoonist Dahl depicts in The Japan Times the current Japan-ROK trade spat as two men, Abe and Moon. aiming at each other reversely by slingshot, entitled: "Tit for tat for tit for tat for..."

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: Japan may send ships to patrol off Yemen instead of Strait of Hormuz See in context

Kazuaki Shimazaki,

Wait, wait wait, why does sending a warship necessarily mean fighting Iran? If Iran doesn't attack the convoy, then there is no battle. If there is, they can defend the merchants.

But that's not an ordinary good will visit to a country by warships, is it? Trump-proposed Coalition is for the containment of Iran, thus characterized as hostile forces, isn't it?’

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan may send ships to patrol off Yemen instead of Strait of Hormuz See in context

At the time when P.M. Abe was visiting Iran for talks with President of Iran Hassan Rouhani, Japanese-flagged oil tankers passing through the Hormuz Strait were attacked by unknown attackers. The U.S. government said immediately afterwards that it was an hostile act by IRGC, a branch of Iranian Armed Forces, later showing, at Tokyo's request, a blurred picture of masked men in black costumes trying to attach limpet mines on the hull of one of the vessels.

Is this the reason why the JMSDF must send warships and fighter jets to the Persian Gulf as part of the U.S.-led Coalition? Why should Japan fight against or be at loggerheads with Iran, with which Japan has kept friendly relations for decades?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Posted in: Japan to resume effort to tackle contaminated water problem at Fukushima See in context

Nuclear-contaminated ground water keeps welling up and flowing, and they are to keep installing rows and rows of containers like those seen in the picture. But will they be able to contain the water flowing? And when? Nobody knows

Some critics say building nuclear power plants is like building houses equipped with no sewage systems, for with today's technology there's no way to dispose of nuclear waste. How would the poor house owners deal with the sewage?.

The bottom line: Japan must scrap its energy policy of too much dependence on nuclear power plants .

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Posted in: Trump tells Abe he is tolerant of N Korea's short-range ballistic missiles See in context

Trump tells Abe he is tolerant of N Korea's (nuclear-headed) short-range ballistic missiles

A nuclearized DPRK is an ultimate goal North Korea has pursued to achieve since the days of Kim Il-sung. North Korea seems to have achieved that goal now under Kim Jong-un almost certainly. Will North Korea then part with their hard-won status as a nuclear power so easily as President Trump hopes and is cajoling the young Kim into doing so?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Pompeo urges Japan, S Korea to settle diplomatic row See in context

A very interesting picture. Uncle Sam, someone with no blood relationship, is cajoling two feuding ethnic cousins to come to terms, both of whom he needs most to confront his archrival abroad.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Posted in: S Korea says N Korea has fired several unidentified projectiles See in context

David Varness,

The Pentagon's policy to weapons development is to always keep 10 years advanced from or ahead of other countries. As you say, and as is well-known, the U.S. has the most advanced technology in weapons building in the world, such as stealth aircraft or anti-missile defense systems. 

But who knows? Other countries may catch up with the U.S. or develop new technology to make U.S. weapons useless, whereby today's most advanced weapons may become obsolete in a few years. To me, the Aegis Ashore seems to be such a case.. 

So what's the use of buying unfinished products like Aegis Ashore systems whose capability hasn’t yet been proved for which Japanese taxpayers must pay an astounding 450 billion yen to the U.S

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: S Korea says N Korea has fired several unidentified projectiles See in context

shinhiyata,

I take your post is addressed directly against me. But it's unclear what you're trying to say. Could you be more clear and succinct? 

You haven't explained why anti-missile defense systems such as PAC-3 and Aegis Ashore rmust absolutely be installed at the said locations despite the fact that they may already have become white elephants in front of North Korea's anti-missile finessing technology.

Varnes, will you help this guy out?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: S Korea says N Korea has fired several unidentified projectiles See in context

David Varnes,

You further suggest another Aegis Ashore system be built in either Toyama or Ishikawa, however overlapping it may be with the planned systems. in Ishikawa and Aomori

Note, however, that North Korea has been developing a new technology to evade U.S.- developed anti-missile systems such as Patriot, Pac-3 and Aegis at sea and ashore.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: S Korea says N Korea has fired several unidentified projectiles See in context

David Varnes,

I remember former Deputy Secretary General of Japan's Defense Department Takemasa Moriya and a visiting Pentagon official discuss why Japan must shoot down missiles targeted at the U.S. mainland that fly over Japan, with Moriya clearly rejecting his counterpart's idea. Can't we understand the Aegis Ashore to be built in Aomori in this vein? The Abe cabinet is trying hard to put an end to a constitutional brake to engage in such  activities, you know.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: S Korea says N Korea has fired several unidentified projectiles See in context

Anyone who gave a minus valuation to my post above, could you give the reason why the Aegis Ashore anti-missile systems in Araya in Aomori Prefecture an absolute necessity for the defense of Japan?

The Aegis Ashore anti-missile system in Hagi, Yamaguchi Prefecture, is quite understandable because it can shoot down a North Korean missile heading toward Osaka or Tokyo metropolitan areas. But what's there behind the Araya anti-missile system in Aomori Prefecture? 

The Aegis Ashore systems can thus be said white elephants, or laughing matters, from this perspective.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: S Korea says N Korea has fired several unidentified projectiles See in context

U.S President Donald Trump says the projectiles are short-range missiles, far short of reaching the U.S. mainland, and so presents no threat to the U.S. at all Well, maybe.

But has he noticed their orbits? An ordinary missile flies by drawing a parabola but these objects flew in very haphazard motions.

One cannot help but suspect, then, if the Aegis Ashore systems, which the U.S. is force-selling Japan for 450 billion yen, can deal with these nice things.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Posted in: U.S. ambassador to Japan Hagerty to resign this month See in context

Yubaru,

Well, neither the Ambassador, the US Gov., or Japanese government's considered anything to do with Okinawa to be an issue that needed to be discussed.

You mean, in the thinking of Hagerty, Trump and Abe, Okinawa doesn't count much for the Japan-U.S. security alliance just as Sado Island in the Japan Sea? LOL.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: U.S. ambassador to Japan Hagerty to resign this month See in context

Yubaru,

You aren't responding to the questions I raised above, as always,, only rubbing the surface and avoiding to discuss the real isue.  Come directly to the core of the problem when you discuss something..

One: On what legal basis are the Marines stationed in Okinawa? Two: Why is it necessary for the Marines to maintain bases in Okinawa, occupying so much land and space?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: U.S. ambassador to Japan Hagerty to resign this month See in context

Yubaru,

One its a "he" not they

I've sent JT comments of mine to both of them from time to time. So what's wrong about using the plural pronoun "they" above?

In a couple of more years, there will be some MAJOR changes, on top of the one's that have already ocurred over the past few decades.

You sound like someone directly involved with the U.S. policy toward Okinaw. Well, let's wait and see what will happen in a couple of years. 

Do the Marines pack up and go home then? I've been arguing the Marines have no legal basis to be stationed in Okinawa. And there're a host of security pundits who think there's no strategic reason why they must be deployed tto Okinawa, occupying so much land and space.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Posted in: U.S. ambassador to Japan Hagerty to resign this month See in context

Yubaru,

You're right. I'm very much interested in whether or not they learned anything about the bilateral relation through their first-hand experience with Okinawa. Do they think the status quo of Okinawa must be maintained forever as it is?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: U.S. ambassador to Japan Hagerty to resign this month See in context

Is he following the footsteps of Howard Baker, an ambassador to Japan during the George W. Bush admibnistration? Baker was also from Tennessee and I think ran for a Senate seat after retiring from the ambassadorship. I wonder what they learned about the Okinawa issue during their tenures?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Recent Comments

Popular

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.