voiceofokinawa comments

What a disgrace! What a caricature! Tokyo asks Washington not to fly Ospreys in Japan, which have turned out to be structurally very unreliable and defective.as shown by the recent crash of an AV-22 Osprey off Yakushima. To this, U.S. Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emmanuel asserted that the U.S. would continue to operate them.

USMC operates 24 Ospreys at Futenma, Okinawa, and USAF 6 at Yokota, Tokyo, 30 Ospreys altogether. They fly over densely populated residential areas routinely, causing anxiety among citizens below their routine flight routes.

Some posters say Japan lost the war 78 years ago, and, so they say, what's wrong with the victorious U. S. in using the loser Japan for whatever purpose it may regard suit.

If such mentality dominates the mind of people in power in Washington, no doubt, Japan is under U.S. occupation still now.

A witness says the aircraft went upside down suddenly, with one of the engines exploding and inflaming, nose-dived and crashed into the sea in no time.

Ospreys are flying on a thin rope of computerized systems. So if there occurs any glitch in the aircraft’s system, it loses the balance of the aircraft instantly, leading to a serious accident like this, it seems to me.

Okinawa’s public opinion is boiling over this incident, demanding no Osprey be deployed here.

China seems to be emulating the U.S. for everything military, even upscaling it, in no regard to a plan's superfluity.

Note that the JSDF are building missile bases on the islands of Yonaguni, Ishigaki, Miyako and Tokunoshima; GSDF marines are training for littoral wars under the guidance of U.S. Marines.

Desert Tortoise,

You say bases in the U.S. mainland and territories won't work as deterrence because of the "tyranny of distance." But what does the idea of "tyranny of distance" mean in missile-exchanging future wars?

You also say "the JSDF on its own could (not) withstand a Chinese attack". But they can at least buy time until U.S. forces arrive for help.

In other words, this deterrence thing that you're talking about is nothing but shenanigans.

Desert Tortoise,

I take what you want to say is that if there is no deterrence, your antagonists would invade your country in no time just as Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo did. Is that the reason why U.S. bases must be in Japan? 

If your claim is correct, that is, if U.S. forces are here as a show of deterrence, can't they be dispatched from bases in the U.S. mainland or territories to help JSDF?

in case a contingency should ever occur in this region, can't U.S.-located bases be deterrence against adversaries?

It’s JSDF that has primary responsibility, anyway, to directly deal with such an emergency.

Christopher Mas Osan,

If you don't like the word "burden," change it to "sacrifice."  If you think Okinawa is not being sacrificed for the sake of the U.S. and mainland Japan, you are really ignorant of the reality.

In your view, shouldering more than 70 percent of all U.S. bases planted in Japan, from which derive so many cases of crimes against locals and noise/environmental pollution.                    

If you think the U.S. is also being sacrificed with so many soldiers sent and deployed here, let them pack up and go home. But I'm sure they won't so easily, because they are here to defend the U.S. for starters, not necessarily Japan nor Okinawa.

Wow, it's been 30 years since the news of the Antarctica's drifting iceberg was first reported. Thirty years seem a very short time in the geological time scale, maybe, equal to three days on our solar calendar.

These drones are used not only for surveillance but also for attacking enemy targets with missiles, etc. If a future war is fought mostly with drones and such unmanned weaponry, will bases as large as Kadena or Futenma be needed?

At first glance, you can't tell Japanese from U.S. Marines. In the photo above, it's the U.S. Marine who is in the background, instructing his Japanese counterparts how to use equipment when landing and invading a hostile territory.

What does it all mean in light of the fact that it has been bilaterally agreed that Japan has primary responsibility to defend its own islands? It seems the U.S. is asking Japan to assume all the responsibility for paying its debt, that is, using bases for free.

U.S. bases in Okinawa are being strengthened, thus increasing the burden the locals have to shoulder. No doubt, China's missiles are trained to attack Kadena and other USFJ/JSDF bases on the island.

Will the MQ-9 unit that operates the unmanned spy drones replace the role the U-2 Dragon Ladies have played at Kadena?

If it's just orbiting the earth, it must be an ordinary satellite, not a reconnaissance satellite. Eventually, though, North Korea is sure to perfect the know-how of launching a spy satellite.

Ian,

IAEA is a U.N.-affiliated nuclear watch dog, isn’t it? It may not have police power, but certainly an authority to say something is right or wrong.

I wanted to point out in my post above that if its resolution concerning the water release was not unanimously decided on with some experts opposed to it, then there is a room to question if the measure adopted for the Fukushima water release is absolutely correct.

When IAEA chief Rafael Mariano Grossi visited Japan and told that IAEA approved the way Fukushima water would be released to the ocean, I wonder if the IAEA resolution was unanimous or not. Was it a majority vote resolution with some experts opposed to it?

Good grief.

The Taiwanese themselves want to talk peace with China, rather than go to war against it. Look at Japanese politicians, above all, LDP lawmakers, who are fortifying the island chain of Okinawa as if China would invade Taiwan and Okinawa tomorrow.

 Dialogue is needed more in these critical times.

*U.S. National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson said Washington strongly condemned North Korea for the launch, saying it "raises tensions and risks destabilizing the security situation in the region and beyond.”*

No one can blame North Korea for trying to develop spy satellites when you yourself have already developed the technology and have been surveying your enemy's moves.            

The catch is which side will win out this arms race, succumbing to the burden of spending so much money on defense.

There's been a years-long debate in U.S. Congress to rename the "Department of the Navy" in the Pentagon as the "Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps." The proposal to change the nomenclature seems very natural in view of the fact that the U.S. Marine Corps has credible records as an independent service.

The late Sen. John McCain, a veteran Navy pilot, is said to have been opposed to the idea of renaming, for he must have feared that it might hurt the glorious U.S. Navy. The majority of the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services, which McCain chaired, supported the renaming, though.

All this boils down to show that the Marines are not subsidiary to the Navy.

It's very interesting that there are many Americans, let alone service members themselves, who don't know which force (service) the Marine Corps is part of. Historically, the U.S. Marines were part of the Navy all right, but today it is an independent service with its own chain of command and rank names. 

The Marine One helicopter, which is exclusively used by a sitting U.S. President, is not a Navy helicopter. The Marines' highest ranking officer is a General, not an Admiral. And he can be Chair of Joint Chiefs of Staff over Navy Admirals. 

The Japanese marines, on the other hand, belong to the Ground SDF, the Army, not the Marine SDF, the Navy. So may be marines in the U.K. Force and forces in many other countries.

Why should North Korea's launching of a spy satellite be condemned when the U.S. and its allies have already developed the technology and has been surveying North Korea's military movements right from space? 

To anyone’s chagrin, an arms buildup on both sides seems to know no bound.

Desert Tortoise,

 And the Marines are part of the Navy.

The Marines are part of the Navy, or, maybe, vice versa, when both are engaged in attacking and invading enemy land. That doesn't guarantee that the U.S. Marine Corps is a branch unit of the U.S. Navy.

Desert Tortoise,

The English version of the security treaty refers to "land, naval and air forces" as regards the expressions in question. 

The wording in the English version is very ambiguous. For example, as you say, "land force" or "naval force" could be either Marines or Army infantrymen as was shown in the formation of U.S. forces in the Battle of Okinawa. 

And so, negotiators of the treaty from both countries must have decided to eliminate such ambiguity from the Japanese version. It curtly and unambiguously said that only the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force are allowed to be stationed in Japan.

Yubaru,

FYI, so are the Departments of the Army and Air Force as well! None of which are identified or mentioned in the security treaty either.

You hit the nail on the head by suggesting that it's not departments in the Pentagon that determines the service-hood of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force. It's Title 10 of the U.S. Code that does the job.  

As I pointed out, the Japanese version of the security treaty, which has the equal legal force to the English version, says only the Army, Navy and Air Force are allowed to use bases and facilities in Japan. Again, no mention of the Marine Corps.                                            

Peter Neit,

The USMC is a bona fide military service with its own chain of command; its general can be chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff over Navy admirals; its ensign is different from that of the Navy. Historically, the U.S. Marines were a unit subsumed under the Navy all right, but today they are an independent military service on a par with the Navy, Army and Air Force.

The fact that they are put under the Department of the Navy at the Pentagon is only for convenience's sake and for historical and administrative reasons. The Department of the Navy is not a military body but an administrative one headed by a civilian secretary.

Article 6 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty (the Japanese version) says the U.S. is allowed for its Army, Navy and Air Force to station in Japan. There is no mention of the Marines.  

At any rate, it was formerly considered the U.S. Marins' responsibility to defend Japan's territory. That's why they are given large swaths of land for their use as bases plus many other perquisites.

It has been bilaterally agreed, though, that JSDF has primary responsibility to do what the U.S. Marines were supposed to do.

 Hence, this U.S. Marines-like drill by JSDF on Tokunoshima.

The pacifist constitution prohibits Japan from developing weapons with attack capability, much less selling them to a third country. Together with the doubling of Japan's defense budget, this joint project of developing next generation fighter jets will be subjected to a fierce Dietary debate.

 Will the Kishida government's short shrift to the constitution win over the Diet and the nation? To win, the Kishida government will do more of fear-mongering campaign.

Sonar uses sound waves to obtain an image in the water. At high levels, those can cause dizziness, hearing damage (and) other organ damage.

 What came to my mind after reading this passage was occasional mass stranding of whales on beaches the world over.　Sonar poses danger not only to sea mammals but also to human divers.

Sonar uses sound waves to obtain an image in the water. At high levels, those can cause dizziness, hearing damage (and) other organ damage.

What came to my mind after reading this passage was occasional mass stranding of whales on beaches the world over.　Sonar poses danger only to sea mammals but also to human divers.

What came to my mind after reading this passage was occasional mass stranding of whales on beaches the world over.　Sonar poses danger not only to sea mammals but also to divers.

It seems that whenever Japan initiated to establish good relationship with China, the U.S. came forward to botch it.

When Shintaro Ishihara, the late former Tokyo Governor, announced that Tokyo intended to buy Uotsurijima/Diaoyudao in a speech delivered at a Washington, D.C. gathering, that was the beginning of the deterioration of Japan-China relationship.                                                   

I always wonder if Washington wasn't behind the scene when Ishihara announced the purchase plan.