Why are U.S forces still in Japan [Archive]

senseiman

Jun 26, 2003, 19:42

"Stability and control of the region" really just means the US having the ability to launch armed attacks on any country it chooses. Those bases, never used to actually defend Japan, were the launching pad of some of the most horrendous atrocities of the Cold war commited in Southeast Asia by US B 52 bombers.

The presence of US troops here has absolutely nothing to do with defending Japan. Who is going to invade Japan? The Japanese "self defence forces" are in fact one of the most powerful military forces on the planet. The Japanese annual defence budget is more than 40 Billion dollars, enough to rank it in the world's top 10. This is far more than any other Asian power, including China. No country in the region is in any position to pose any real threat to Japan. North Korea has no Navy, meaning the only thing it could do would be to launch a few missiles at Japan, which would then result in its immediately being wiped out by American missiles. This would happen with or without US troops in Okinawa and mainland Japan. Ditto for China. The actual likelihood of these worst case scenarios happening is almost zero, the threat has been blown up to huge proportions by politicians in order to scare the public. In Japan it serves the purposes of right wingers who want to re arm Japan and do away with article 9 of the constitution, in the US it serves the purpose of the neo conservatives who are always looking for an excuse to extend US military dominance.

The US actually doesn't pay very much to keep its forces stationed in Japan, a large percentage of the costs are paid directly by the Japanese government. The Japanese government is also currently footing the bill for the construction of an artificial island off the coast of Okinawa that will be used as an airstrip for US military forces. This island will completely cover one of Okinawa's last remaining Coral reefs and is being done completely against the will of the local population, who have no say in matters that will massively effect their lives. The cost will be about 3 billion dollars to the central government and the island will only be useful for about 15 years. This is an absurd and destructive waste of resources being carried out in the alleged interests of security. But really the only people who benefit are the construction firms that build the facilities and the right wing ideologues who want to turn Japan into a war machine again. Its really disgustin.

Maciamo

Jun 26, 2003, 22:43

I won't add much to what Senseiman already eloquently explained.

US troops are not absolutely necessary for the defence of Japan or the atability of the region, given the fact that they have other bases like Guam and in South Korea. But I understand that on a strategic point of view, it's better to be implanted in as many areas as possible to gain a better control of the region.

As for Germany, I really wonder what they are still doing there, if not spending their $ to give a push to the newly ailing German economy. I don't think Germans complain about it anyway. I guess that US troops are less welcome and more conspicuous in Asia than they'd be in North or Western Europe, where they could pass for locals in civilian clothes.

noyhauser

Jun 27, 2003, 02:28

The reason why the United States is in Okinawa and other bases is because the Japanese government wants them there. That痴 what is completely missing from most debates of this sort. After the Cold war, across Europe and Asia nations were pulling out all the stops to keep bases in their regions. The Fears for an American Withdrawal from Europe were particularly acute, where nations like Germany lobbied hard to keep their bases open. Japan is no different. Okinwa, is a hedge towards all potential threats towards Japan, as well as protection of sea lanes in and out of Japan, as well as a closer seaport for the US military to carry out operations across the world. You are correct in the assertion that the Japanese military is one of the most effective in the world, but it still isn稚 as effective as the largest military in the world as a security guarantor, and it is severely handicapped. Japan has no Carriers, nuclear submarines, its navy is seriously hampered because of a lack of long range antiship missiles, or an effective air to ground capability. (The Japanese excel at Air to Air capabilities though). The Japanese military is severely handicapped to fight a war on its own, because certain weapon platforms are conceived to be 登ffensive� and therefore politically unusable because of article 9. For example, long range antiship missiles. Since the Chinese now have 4 Sovremenny Class Destroyers from Russia, carrying 8 SS-22 Sunburn missiles, which have an effective range far exceeding and far more effective than the Harpoon missiles that the Japanese destroyers all carry. Pretty well, the PRC navy can lob shots at the Japanese navy while it has no recourse. Bilateral deals with the United States allow the JSDF to not specialize in areas that could have a 登ffensive capability� but allow the United States to carry out those capabilities in its stead. Without those capabilities the JSDF cannot fight a war at all.

Japan痴 nearest rival today is China, which has no bilateral contacts with Japan or the United States ion security issues and has acted belligerently in the past to its neighbours (Spratleys, Vietnam, Tibet, Taiwan, India, Kyrgystan, and Russia.) What if the future, after a economic collapse, the Chinese communist party starts to rely on nationalistic arguments and becomes increasingly overt in its aggression as a sign of its power to its people (Case in point Serbia 1998 under Milosovich during the Kosovo crisis). An economic collapse in China is not a far fetched occurrence either.. Having an immediate American presence there is a hedge against that threat. Okinawa today is not there to protect Japan itself, but is the main base to defend Taiwan. Since it would be a diplomatic disaster for the United States to place forces in Taiwan, there is a need for a nearby base to defend that island. Without the American protection for the island, which China has made provocations before, most recently in 2000 ahead of the presidential elections, confidence in the Taiwan government would decline. Given precarious nature of the Asian markets, having a crisis of this sort, would send those economies into a tailspin. Imagine the economic repercussions of China invading Taiwan, especially on Japan with its major economic difficulties. Therefore having a hard presence nearby is a deterring factor. Sure if you didn稚 have bases nearby N. Korea wouldn稚 attack directly with its nuclear missiles because, but it may be more apt to start more infiltration missions, or armed incursions into Japan. Or would the China use provocation to force a crisis and create a panic in Japan, to destabilize its economy? Is it really far fetched? Would the US use its nuclear guarantee then? Where would you draw the line? That痴 why the United States maintained a huge conventional Force in Europe during the cold war while it had a massive Nuclear force behind it. By maintaining a visible military force, N. Korea would have less of a bargaining position vis a vis the United States and Japan, through its own military force. By possessing Nuclear weapons, N. Korea has dramatically increased its bargaining position, by having the implied nuclear threat, even if it isn稚 going to use it. It is now able to pretty well preclude any sort of invasion, ever, from the United States for fear of an attack on Seoul or Osaka. When the new National Missile Defence programs come on line, the ability for North Korea to exert such an influence over Japan will be diminished significantly.

If you want I can go into Germany� case for American Troops too� since its my area of specialty (European Security)

BTW I don稚 have any figures for Okinawa in particular, but I do have figures for Japan on American military deployment.

US army-1900 personnel- 1 Corps HQ
Navy, 5200,@Yokosuka and Sasebo
Marines-20,000, 1 Marine Expeditionary force @ Okinawa (these are the troops that would be immediately sent to Taiwan in the event of a invasion. )
Airforce-11,300-90 combat aircraft,

Maciamo

Jun 27, 2003, 10:25

senseiman

Jun 27, 2003, 16:02

You make some interesting points, Noyhauser, but there are some other things worth considering. If we agree that China is Japan's biggest rival, then it is worth considering what the actual security threat is to Japan from China. I think you play up the case that China is a danger too much. You make a long list of countries China has fought wars with, but the most recent of those (a border war with Vietnam) was 24 years ago. A lot has changed since then.

The China of the 1970s was an isolated communist state emerging from decades of warfare and social upheaval. Today's China is one of the most important members of the world economy. It is a member of the World Trade Organization and its annual bilateral trade with the United States is in excess of 100 billion dollars. With more American and Japanese companies opening factories in China each year this figure can only go rise.

China' s economy, much like Japan's economy 40 years ago, is almost entirely based on exports to the west. So why would China ever do something, like say attacking Taiwan or Japan when such an action would absolutely destroy its own economy by cutting off its lifeblood? I think the situtation in China would have to get unbelievably bad for the party leaders to even contemplate military action, which could only worsen China's economic situation. It just doesn't make any sense, at least not in the world today.

Is also worth noting that China's military power is not particularly strong, at least in terms of its ability to project its power. It has an antiquated small navy that is incapable of invading Taiwan, which has modern US equipment, with or without US intervention.

The likelihood of a war between Japan and China is even more far fetched, reaching into the realm of science fiction. Japan is an island nation with a lot of natural advantages that have prevented it from ever being invaded. I am sure Japan's self defence forces are adequate to the task of defending Japan, even without the offensive weapons capabilities you outlined.

I understand the theory behind the flexible response ability that US ground forces in Okinawa provide, but I feel it is unecessary and flawed to assert that this benefits Japan's security.

Everyone in the US administration is screaming bloody murder about the North Koreans trying to use nuclear blackmail to gain concessions from the US. But what they fail to mention is the only thing North Korea wants from the US is a non-agression treaty! That is, the North is making plans to defend itself from a threatened US attack and will only give this plan up if the US agrees to not attack them. Hardly seems threatening to me and I think there are a lot of backhanded motivations driving the US to deliberately keep relations with North Korea hostile.

With the recent invasion of Iraq and President Bush's announcement that the US has the sole right to attack any country on earth, it is abundantly clear that US military power can no longer be viewed as a stabilizing force in the world. Quite the contrary, I believe the presence of US military forces and the views of the people who command them have the potential to be far more destabilizing than North Korea or China . The North Korean 'crisis' is one example, as the only way a war in Korea could conceivably start these days would be with a US invasion of North Korea, not a Northern attack on the South. Given the philosophy and track record of the current administration this is not an entirely unthinkable situation and it is a much more immediate threat to Japan's economic and military security than any potential threat from China or North Korea. For this, among many other reasons I feel Japan would be better off without US troops stationed here.

Ldy Yakuza

Jun 27, 2003, 18:04

Maybe someone has already posted this, but let me just explain simply what is told to me. I do not know too much about the other branches of the military, but I know that the U.S. Navy has a phrase they go by called ``Sea Power`` This idea basically means we are constantly making our military presence known throughout the world.
But more importantly the U.S Navy is made up of fleets. There are about, I believe, 7fleets around the world. Each fleet has an AOR or area of responsibility. One of the most important would be the 7th fleet. Reason being, the AOR of the 7th fleet is from the international date line to the Indian Ocean. So anywhere in between those locations is under the command of the 7th fleet. The 7th fleet command ship (the ship in charge of all ship`s and bases in the AOR) and command is located in Japan.
So,as easy as it may sound to just make the American military get out of Japan, its really not that simple

senseiman

Jun 27, 2003, 22:25

Of course its not that simple. Getting the US troops out of Japan obviously isn't going to happen anytime soon because there are too many entrenched interests keeping them here. Still, for the sake of the Okinawan people who have to put up with 20% of their land being used by the US military I think the possibility of them packing their bags is one worth considering. Bureacratic rationale aside, I don't see why the US's desire to keep a worldwide network of military bases should take precedence over the Okinawan (and other) people's right to their own land.

noyhauser

Jun 28, 2003, 03:04

I want speak to some of the areas you do bring up Senseiman like the characterization of Chinese government as a normal nation under International Political Economy standards as somewhat misleading.

First you have to look at how the Chinese foreign investment system. Unlike any other Asian Tigers, investment in china requires a company to build the plant there, teach Chinese workers how to produce the item, the technology behind it, and must invest in the equipment to produce it. Now here is the kicker, state ownership must always be at 50%+1. So in the event of any sort of crisis, the Chinese government can pretty well walk away with all the technology that they want, and western companies would be left hanging. This is what has been happening in China over the last two decades, Western companies (many Japanese ) have been investing their best technology, while the Chinese government learns the technology and keeps it for themselves afterwards, using it for modernization. Therefore the effects of a western withdrawal from china would not be as bad as in other Export oriented nations because of these changes.

My point about the Chinese government becoming increasingly nationalistic would be based upon an economic collapse and instability in the Communist Party. This is not a unlikely scenario, given the very rapid growth pace of the Chinese economy, that often sees collapse. Case in Point Thailand 1980~96. WTO membership within this case actually may become a scapegoat for the collapse and unleash a wave of anti-western nationalism. What was the largest demonstration in Tiannamen since 1989??? The protests for US bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999 (which I think the US deliberately did). So when the CCP gets into trouble they could ride a wave of nationalism and then follow calls to be more belligerent. Who would be #1 on the Hit list?? Taiwan. (If you already are in an economic collapse, its not going to matter what you do to your economy after that)

Assertions about Chinese poor navy strength are becoming inaccurate. Bilateral deals between China and Russia, especially with the two main companies in the Russian arms industry has been steadily increasing, which has increased China痴 military standing.. Two Sovremmenny痴 and two indigenous counterparts (luhai class which are Sovremmennys under license) would rip apart the Kidd class destroyers that the Taiwanese have. Without an Aegis equipped destroyers, The Taiwanese need American Seapower to combat these threats. Furthermore, Russia has committed to build the submarines that will replace the 1960s era units the Chinese rely upon. These submarines will be the next generation of Russian submarines and will at least be the equivalent of the older 688+ (or 732 type), which is in American service. The Chinese Nuclear option, which has become dilapidated over the last 20 years, has received a Huge boost with the development and deployment of the DF-31, which increases the Flexibility and robustness of the Chinese Nuclear option. (its pretty well a truck mobile solid fueled ICBM) Up to this point the Chinese had static liquid fueled rockets, and didn稚 even store their nukes in the same place as their launchers, which would take nearly a day to launch. The Chinese air force has also been building up, with the purchase of 228 SU-27s (a fighter as capable as the F-15As and even the F-15C).

Now I think you also don稚 understand what the nature of threats are today.. A full invasion into Japan will never be in the cards, but what about a bit of saber rattling? That is not farfetched, especially with China. My best example is the so called 杜issile exercises� that took place off the coast of Taiwan during the1996 election to scare voters from voting for the KMT nationalist candidate. If the US bases weren稚 there, than these exercises would be even more common. Enough of them would push Economic markets into a spiral. Remember, capital inflows move away from instability. Having the American Military nearby keeps that stability in place, as a guarantee to investors.

Completely hypothetically now -True the Japanese military could probably fight off a Chinese military if it ever for a completely insane reason invades Japan, even with its major handicaps. But No military likes to have procurement holes, especially ones as large as Japan. Having really no Air to Ground capability is about one of the largest capabilities holes I have ever seen. If the American-Japanese alliance wasn稚 to exist then the Japanese military would procure weapons and systems to fill these holes. The biggest one might well be the Japanese production of a Nuclear weapon as its own deterrence. (no matter what you say about china, they do have nukes and are Japan痴 traditional competitors, and I don稚 see an Asian Union that is keeping them peaceful like the EU) Then you see how much harder it would be to keep article 9 of the constitution intact.

All north Korea wants is a non-aggression treaty? No really, all they want is to drag more concessions out of the United States. I don稚 need to remind you who initiated the Korean War, who initiated a nuclear program in 1985, far before any talk of a 渡on aggression treaty�. Kim Jong Il likes playing cat and mouse games with the US, he did a good job of it with Clinton in 1994, getting two light water reactors out of it (which were never built), and 500000 liters of Fuel oil in the mean time, for what amounted to a empty process. What happened to President Kim Dae-jung's Sunshine policy? That went over well. Really North Korea is the Chinese little terrier. Pyongyang is utterly dependant on China for its economic means. If the Chinese were really interested in 杜aintaining peace and security� they would pressure the N. Koreans to disarm and press for major reconciliation talks. But no� China likes the Job Pyongyang is doing and keeps America on its toes.

I知 going to finish this post later� I will answer you questions Maciamo later, but I致e got to finish my Abstract thats due in by the end of the week

noyhauser

Jun 28, 2003, 14:35

Okay part #2

For Japan, like the United States, political stability is vital for Japan痴 economic arena. As I mentioned, the threat is not of a full scale invasion, but of a belligerent acts that destabilize its economy. For an example, look at the effects on the Nikkei after the N. Korean No-dong II missile test over Japan. The US痴 role is to guarantee that security. Japan could do it itself, but then it runs the risk of discarding article 9, and upsetting it neighbours because of imperial ww2 sentiments.

Maciamo,

The Marines are specifically earmarked for Taiwan� but I think they can also deploy to Korea as well. Even in the event of an attack on Korea, I don稚 think they would be deployed into Korea unless the situation was desperate enough, or that Taiwan was secure from attack (ie several carrier groups protecting the area), for the worry of a sneak attack.

Most Of the Airforce is either in Okinawa or around bases in Kyushu. Because of fears of N. Korean infiltration into S. Korean bases in the event of war, the US airforce much prefers to operate across the Tsushima straight to prevent any sort of surprise attack that could wipe out its airforce assets on the first day of the conflict.

Im not sure what are the budgetary arrangements for okinawa. My guess is that the US government probably pays the bill for base facilities, while the Japanese Gov稚 doesn稚 receive any sort of compensation in return, (they give the land over the Americans). Looking at Yokohama痴 base, Its very difficult to see how the US could continually pay rent on what could be some of the most expensive waterfront properties in the world. It also injects a lot of money into the local economy� with its various detractors, but I think the Japanese government believes this to be an acceptable trade off (especially given it stabilizes trade links with its neighbours and ensures the flow of raw materials into Japan.

senseiman

Jun 28, 2003, 15:38

You make some very good points that I hadn't considered Noyhauser and it has given me cause to re examine my position on some of the issues we are talking about. I suppose that with the modernization of China's military and the fundamental flaws in its economy the likelihood of a more aggressive China emerging in the future is higher than I had thought. It still seems rather convoluted though. China would likely start attacking its neighbors if its economy collapsed and the US must stay there because if China started attacking other countries it would destroy the markets. But certainly the collapse of the Chinese economy alone would destroy the markets in Asia so there wouldn't be any left for the US to defend......the logic of this gives me a real headache!!

Still, while I can see how this would necessitate a US naval presence in the region, I don't see how it justifies the presence of 20,000 US Marines in Okinawa. The US maintains ground forces in South Korea mainly to act as a trip wire for further US commitment should there be a war there. They aren't significant enough in strength to stop a North Korean invasion, but the sight of thousands of US troops being wiped out by communist invaders would be enough to convince the US public to send a larger force, hence their existance. In Okinawa this is not the case. You say they are there to protect Taiwan, yet certainly the presence of the US 6th fleet would be enough alone to deter China from a hypothetical invasion there.

Plus, if it is politically infeasible for the US to station forces in Taiwan, why would it be politically feasible for the US to send troops to fight a war there? Stupid question, the US just sent troops to fight a war over weapons of mass destruction that don't even exist, so how hard could it be to convince the public of the need to defend Taiwan, right?

The history of the Korean penninsula since world war 2 is an interesting subject. While it was the North that invaded the South in 1950, its worth noting that the two states were already in an effective state of war before that, and that in the months prior to the invasion it was believed that a Southern attack on the north was an equally likely scenario. I might also note that post 1953 acts of military provocation, repression and arms buildups occured just as often in the South as they did in the North. This isn't to defend North Korea, but try to put its actions in some perspective. If it is trying to develop nuclear weapons, it is only to counter the massive numbers of American nuclear weapons pointed at it. They did have an agreement to scrap their nuclear program, but as you mention the US equally failed to live up to its end of this bargain by not building the reactors it had promised. This wasn't because the North wasn't complying with the agreement (they should have been built years ago when IAEA inspectors were keeping track of the Norths nuclear program), but because the US negotiated in bad faith. From what I have read (and maybe there is something I'm missing) the only 'concession' the North is demanding is a simple agreement that the US not attack it. Perhaps the US government under its curent administration has some sort of secret evidence (like all the secret evidence they had about non existant Iraqi WMD and ties to AL Qaida) that makes them believe North Korea would be a threat to the world even with a peace treaty, but I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Its true that Kim's sunshine policy is on the rocks, but if you listen to what South Koreans are saying, they aren't blaming the North for that, they are blaming the Bush administration for deliberately provoking the North and rightly so. By calling the North evil and lumping it in the same group as a country the US has just launched a massive, unprovoked attack on, how are they supposed to react?

senseiman

Jun 28, 2003, 15:55

[Edited by Maciamo : I replace the posts in the right thread]

Provocation and sabre rattling of course do damage to markets by making investors worry about their money. But if you look at the more flagrant acts of sabre rattling in the past couple of years you'll discover its been the Americans, not China or North Korea, that have been doing most of the provoking.

I guess this is more of an argument against the current administration than US military facilities that have been there for decades, but it is related. You say that China might hypothetically go a little nuts with its military in the future, but that ignores the fact that the US is going nuts right now! As you say, China might one day be taken over by an ultranationalist leader bent on military expansion as a way of distracting people from a sour domestic economy, but that is an exact description of the Bush administration running the US today!

Gaki

Jul 5, 2003, 22:06

Why would China attack Japan anyway ?

War is only started for the benefits of the country, in past history it has been Japan invading China and rarely the other way round.

There would be no benefit for China to attack Japan in modern times.

In response to original question : US forces are based in Japan, in my opinion, to keep Japan in under their control. The American government is a sick mind, which aims to keep control the world.

senseiman

Jul 6, 2003, 01:08

Good point, Gaki, why would China ever attack Japan? It doesn't make any sense.

I think the US keeps troops in Japan to control most of Asia, not just Japan. There is a good site on the government and politics links section of this website to a site called US troops out of Okinawa. It has a speech by a former US marine who served in Vietnam and was briefly stationed in Okinawa. He tells some really bad stories about what US troops did there and his personal experiences, its worth a read. I tried to type the link here, but it doesnt seem to work.

infinitijapan

Jul 28, 2003, 19:51

i do think that U.S. troops in japan is good but i also think that it may be a bad thing.the wasting of resources for that shity useless fake island is very bad and they should do it somewhere else at least and leave the natural wonder there be.
the only good reason for having them there is encase the idiots in N.korea try to do something to any of the surrounding countries or if china trys something.also if any country was able to have troops close to probable enemies they would do it like that!i also think that the droping of bombs was very sad but it might of been the only way to stop the war and i do not think it was racist also many people were lost in pearl harbor and the US government wanted the people to have some sort of rec. for what happend and revenge is something that most humans like(as sick as it sounds)
p.s. sorry if my words bore u im not a good writer(:

jirzji

Aug 18, 2003, 05:35

Having experienced China from the inside for some time, i believe the chinese governments first concern is to get the country on its feet economically and level the huge internal differences across the country to some reasonable extent. even more one should realize that China is not 1 country but an artificial hotchpotch of a douzain of nationalities, be it historically ruled by the Han population, which represents some potential timebombs aswell. Here lies the true weakness of the country. This fact gives the government already enough headaches to be busy with.

One of the reasons for China's haughtiness towards the outside world is, that for the time being it can't have an (American) nosey parker interfering, while it still has to deal with it's complex (and only for chinese comprehensible) internal issues. The mid-term governemantal policy guidelines aim at national stability first. Having a strong army force is part of that.
This also meaning a huge potential threat, requires the Americans to have some counterweight in the area, keeping an eye on the situation.

I remember, the Chinese governement was increasingly developping good relations with the previous US administration, which abruptly came to an end because Chinese by nature can't accept brutal arrogance, such as demonstrated by a late whiz kid in the white house.

So far for the political layer. What would China's interest be to invade (or even sabre ratlling with) Japan, who manages, despite the political squabbling, to do enormous investments (of course with the aim of return of benefits) both financially and through knowledge transfer?

On the other hand, would Japan wish to start an invasion, for whatever reason, and this would not hamper the US strategical vision, i am 100% sure it would get US backup (much like what we see with Israel), although my imagination is probably leading me too far here.
Most probably the forces are just there to remind Japan of its role as political doggy ("you were bad once!"). So where better could they be than Japan. This justifies the number of troops.

Things mostly occur at more than one level. The quarreling over historical issues is merely throwing sand in the eyes.

noyhauser

Aug 18, 2003, 09:27

Originally posted by jirzji
Having experienced China from the inside for some time, i believe the chinese governments first concern is to get the country on its feet economically and level the huge internal differences across the country to some reasonable extent. even more one should realize that China is not 1 country but an artificial hotchpotch of a douzain of nationalities, be it historically ruled by the Han population, which represents some potential timebombs aswell. Here lies the true weakness of the country. This fact gives the government already enough headaches to be busy with.

Maybe, but I think the situation similar but not as pressing as what happened in the the Soviet Union during its day. The potential time bombs are definately in the Far east with Uighur Seperation movement in Xingjiang and Tibet in the South, but the USSR also had these problems as well.. I dont think that they are problems in themselves, as the CPSU is more worried about overall domestic instability. If these groups emerge, it would probably occur after the government is overthrown, kinda like what happened in Soviet Union, where ethnic cleaveges revealed themselves after the government collapsed.

Originally posted by jirzji
One of the reasons for China's haughtiness towards the outside world is, that for the time being it can't have an (American) nosey parker interfering, while it still has to deal with it's complex (and only for chinese comprehensible) internal issues. The mid-term governemantal policy guidelines aim at national stability first. Having a strong army force is part of that.
This also meaning a huge potential threat, requires the Americans to have some counterweight in the area, keeping an eye on the situation.[/B]

Yes, but the Current procurement plans have shifted towards "force Projection" rather than domestic pacification. Look at how the Chinese military has cut 500,000 troops in the last 2 years, but has continued increasing its spending. When combating domestic instability, technologically advance forces are not as effective as low tech large scale armies. What sort of pacification effect does a Hi tech Destroyer at sea, or a ICBM have for a domestic population? Far less than an extra 50,000 soldiers on the street does. The modernization of the Chinese military forces is now more focused towards outwards threats than inwards ones. The Chinese naval procurement strategy is a example of this. In the last 5 years the navy has purchased itself a considerable Blue water capability, in a bid to influence its outside sphere better.

Originally posted by jirzji
I remember, the Chinese governement was increasingly developping good relations with the previous US administration, which abruptly came to an end because Chinese by nature can't accept brutal arrogance, such as demonstrated by a late whiz kid in the white house. [/B]

Clinton was flexible on principles and hard on Details. He didnt mind who he traded with and acted accordingly. Bush is the opposite, Flexible on Details but very hard on principles. His ideological beliefs is that repressive governments are extremely bad, and the US should not encourage them. In Bush's mind, the US should be on the forefront of spreading liberal democratic values rather than allowing repressive regimes to proliferate.

Originally posted by jirzji
So far for the political layer. What would China's interest be to invade (or even sabre ratlling with) Japan, who manages, despite the political squabbling, to do enormous investments (of course with the aim of return of benefits) both financially and through knowledge transfer? [/B]

Arrg. READ MY POSTS CAREFULLY. For the fourth time, my theory works on the assumption of a Chinese economic collapse and the rise of a Nationalistic State. Want a example? Argentina and the Malvinas/Falkland Invasion of 1982. Argentina, police state undergoing a economic collapse with a military junta government attacked Falklands, which created a nationalistic fervor within that nation. Now chances are for China it would be directed at Taiwan, rather than Japan, but that is the reason why they have forces in Okinawa. It doesn't even need to be a econonic crisis for the Chinese government to resolve Taiwan, a leader could make it a causi bellum to garner peoples support.

And if there is an economic collapse, it is likely that China would blame the Japanese anyways because it is its largest investor, and would of exhaberated the crisis by withdrawing its money at the first sign of trouble. Thailand after its collapse in 1997 pointed fingers at the US investors for withdawing their money far too quickly, making their crisis far far worse.

Originally posted by jirzji
On the other hand, would Japan wish to start an invasion, for whatever reason, and this would not hamper the US strategical vision, i am 100% sure it would get US backup (much like what we see with Israel), although my imagination is probably leading me too far here.
Most probably the forces are just there to remind Japan of its role as political doggy ("you were bad once!"). So where better could they be than Japan. This justifies the number of troops. [/B]

No, completely wrong. The United States craves stability for its capital markets. 50% of the worlds capital market flows through New York. The US tries to keep the world as stable as possible to promote world investment. That is the US strategic vision. Although the US doesn't like the Chinese government, it won't do anything to destabilize it. Having your #3 and #4 largest trading partners go to blows is about the worst thing you can do for your economy. The US forces are there for stability, especially for South Korea and Taiwan.

Furthermore The bases in Japan are there because they are cheaper to maintain and because it would cost too much to rebuild them somewhere else. The Base at Guam is far less more expensive to operate than the ones in Okinawa and Sasebo. The Domestic market at guam is too small to support the base adequately. This includes a wide range of goods, like machined parts, food, construction materials, ect.. Much of this must be shipped in by the military, which costs far more than civillian operators.Because Japanese bases are beside major cities it is far cheaper to operate their bases there than in more remote areas. They can also rely on civillian transportation networks to get goods from the US.

Also because Japan is a very stable nation, the US rather have its bases there, than in a less stable nation. The US has a bad experience of having to lose its bases because of domestic instability. Case in point, Cam Rahn Naval base in Vietnam where the United States dumped in Billions for its development only to lose it ten years later. The Russians would later utilize those facitities during the 70s and 1980s. Japan's bases have been there since the 1950s, and they can rely on them being there for quite a long time.

maji

Aug 18, 2003, 09:38

[quoteThe Consititution of Japan (drawn up after WW2 and supervised by the US) prevents Japan from having an active millitary force except for minimal defence efforts. Hence the Japanese Self Defence forces.[/quote]
those self defence forces are exactly the same as a regular army. they just have a different name.
and about us troops... usa likes to colonize other countries... like iraq... they like to spread their military throughout the world to gain more control

noyhauser

Aug 18, 2003, 11:31

No they don't, Not in the least. Read what I posted earlier (because this really is starting to bug me), they have a limited offensive capability due to intelligent procurement that prevented the JSDF from purchasing offensive weapons. There is no long range Air to ground weapons(excluding the ASM-2 but that is different type of weapon) , no cruise missiles, no long range bombers, no Supression of Air Defences systems and a whole host of other procurement holes. The Japanese military is a high spender, but only in areas that are defensive in nature.
In its present state, the Japanese military can't "invade" other nations, or even do anything moderately dangerous. At most it could conduct a blockade, but even that is pushing it.

And The US doesn't Colonize countries, the Utopia for the United States is if it could be isolationist, so that it does not have to undertake military adventures. There was some indication before september 11th that the bush administration would become more isolationist. September 11th changed the US's security thinking, so that it would react proactively against threats against it, or the liberal democatic system that it is trying to maintain (often called the unipolar moment). If Iraq is being colonized, then why is the US eager for an exit strategy? because it doesnt want to sustain massive casualties. But it must remain because it wants to prevent the nation being overtaken by another Autocrat, or decends into anarchy.

maji

Aug 18, 2003, 18:09

No they don't
i personally dont think that an army can be of pure defensive nature. you cant tell me that the japaneye army is incapable of theoretically attacking another country. and too, it just sounds implausable. as said i read that the name change to "defence force" allowed them to build up an army that they wouldnt have been allowed to build up under a regular armys name. so, if they already have the possibilities to do this, why would they stop here and say "yes, we can build up a real army under another name, but lets not do it". that makes no sense somehow. next, i think as well that lots of details in matters of army, weapons and such is held secret. its everywhere that way to prevent other countries from detecting weaknesses. and thus we dont know everything about the japanese "defence" force and again we cant really judge over it.
but thats just my opinion. :) if everyone would have the same opinion we couldnt discuss but just pat on our each others shoulders to tell us how great we are, right? ;)

then why is the US eager for an exit strategy?
define "exist strategy" pls.

And The US doesn't Colonize countries.
with colonizing i mean deploying military forces in other countries to change them to us americans weill.

September 11th changed the US's security thinking, so that it would react proactively against threats against it
it gave the us american government a wave of patriotism used to realize the plans which have been there before the 11th sept. incident about attacking certain countries for reasons of gaining more control in that region. but that is another topic and does not belong here. back to japanese defence force pls.

noyhauser

Aug 22, 2003, 04:31

Sure if you want to argue on a pure philisophical level, every military has an intrisic offensive value. Thats what John J Mearshimer and other Realists thinkers contend. But you completely (and they) completely discount the mindset of leaders who have poor militaries who discount military operations because of the weakness of their forces and because of other reasons.

I can tell you that they won't attack another nation because they don't have the capability. How are they going to transport their weapons? They have no way of transporting their Heavy tanks from Japan. How will they invade another nation? They have no invasion craft or maritime capability. How will they attack from the air? No ability to supress air defences means that the JASDF cannot deal with Surface to Air missiles. A logistical service designed for completely different conditions and Attacking another nation is impossible.

Everybody says that "militaries are kept secret" and you can't know what they actually have. Thats not true at all. You already read my thread in nuclear arsenals. You can't hide billions of bugetary dollars. If you have billions of dollars hidden somewhere it causes major problems in the economy. The best example is how major companies like enron and Worldcom misreported profits and it later came back to haunt them because their later earnings were based on those profits. It doesnt happen in government, because government has far more accountability. Imagine a government was charged with misreporting a budget? Companies would all run away from it because it was untrustworthy. That is not opinion that is fact.

Ill reply to the rest later.

senseiman

Aug 22, 2003, 16:55

The fact that the US wants to get its troops out of Iraq as soon as possible in no way means that it isn't acting as a colonial power. No imperial power wants to keep large numbers of its own troops overseas policing the colonies because it is too expensive. Most of the troops the British used to govern India were Indians themselves for example. The standard practice with imperial powers in the 19th century was to conquer a country with your own troops, then buy off some segment of the native population and pay them to do the dirty work of policing for you. That is exactly what the US is doing in Iraq today.

Saying that the utopia for the US is to be isolationist isn't really true as it implies that the US would do its own thing while leaving the rest of the world free to do whatever it wants. What you really mean is that the utopia for the US would be for the rest of the world to do what the US wants without the US having to go around invading countries that don't comply to its will. Of course everyone wants other people to do things for them without having to be coerced, so this isn't really exceptional at all.

Whatever you want to call it, the US is ruling the world effectively as a colonial power. It has set up a global financial and economic system from which it is able to extract about 25% of the world's wealth while giving very little to the rest of the world in return. The grasp of this system covers almost every nation on earth, which is much larger than that of any previous imperial power. The fact that most of the nations in the developing world have a nominal form of independence is rendered almost completely meaningless by the fact that the US can either economically strangle or militarily attack any country that refuses to follow its orders.

noyhauser

Aug 23, 2003, 03:09

Personally I actually think that the claims that US is a "imperial power" is a very overblown. I won't contend that the US isn't a military power par excellent. Undoubtedly the US has one of the greatest military machines of all time. But it is extremely constrained in its use of military power. Now everybody is going to cry "oh but look at Iraq". The US needs allies, no matter what they say. Imagine the US didn't have the support of the UK, and the other European Nations... Bush would of been unable to go to war. Without the UK he would of been completely isolated, and would of seen a public backlash at home. Can you see Bush go to war today after the War in Iraq? Very doubtful. The US would have virtually no support anywhere in the world to do so. Britain as a Imperial power never had those constraints, they could attack as they please, without restriction. Moreover the US doesn't have the dominance like Imperial powers to exert its will on conquered territory.

Claims of the US's economic and cultural dominance ring less true. The European Union's GDP outweighs the United States, and the EU spends far more money on Foreign Aid than the US, which has in many cases just as much effect on a developing nation as any military intervention can. If you say this is the US's world System then the OECD nations (including Japan) are complicit in its creation. And you may say that the EU is not a unitary actor, but on Foreign trade and development aid it is, since that is a pillar I competence and therefore under the normal Commission/Parliament/council system.

Furthermore the US cannot enforce a blocade without other nations support. Cuba, still trades with Europe and Canada even with the Helms Burton law in the US. Although Cuba is stagnant, it is doing far better than the Iraqis were with a full UN economic blocade. Also the US doesn't derive the same amount of its GDP off of International Trade as other nations do. the US, only 20 % is derived from Trade.

Also the US is a isolationist nation. All you have done is based your opinion of the US on recent events and ONE term of an administration. You must remember that the last 3 years are a abberation of the major trend of US foreign policy. Normally the US must be lured out of its shell to undertake interventions. But whenever the US has been directly attacked by terrorism, it has reacted to that threat. The berlin disco bombing in 1986 led to attacks on libya (operation Eldorado Canyon). The Tanzinia/Kenyan embassy bombing in 1998 would result in the Sudan/Afghanistan cruise missile strike (operation infinite reach). The War in Aghanistan and Iraq are the result of September 11th. But take september 11th out of the equasion and the US has not acted anywhere to the same degree as other Imperial powers have in history. It does not colonize or "control" any countries like the British/French/Belgians did during their reigns. Remember Bush Ran on a semi-isolationist ticket. The Second Gulf war (in 1991) and Somalia were an abberation, they were based on a New World Order of wilsonian ideals of a world community to deal with major problems, one where US was a member of that community. After the Somalia debacle, the US could not be cajoled into undertaking interventions for the longest time (even with the EU trying to get the US on board for Yugoslavia.)

I believe that after the next election, the US will revert to a semi isolationist power. I can't see the US undertaking another "imperialist invasion" as you would like to put it. This current state costs the US far too much money, and is politically damaging. If Iraq doesn't quiet down, calls about the Vietnam syndrome will come out, bush will have to decrease his rhetoric accordingly.

senseiman

Aug 25, 2003, 07:25

OF course the US isn't the only major player in the international system. The European Union and Japan are very important players in maintaining the current economic system. But it is divided politically and militarily. The US is the global political and military machine that ensures compliance with the rules, rules which the US made, perhaps with some imput from Europe.

I do not at all believe your contention that the Bush administration has been a 3 year abberation in an otherwise isolationist foreign policy. You seem to find the case of the Iraq war very objectionable, presumably because it is the one that most strongly disproves your point, so lets do as you suggest and ignore it.

For starters, your main premise seems to be based on the idea that intervention only occurs when US ground forces invade a country. You say that the US couldn't be cajoled by the Europeans into getting involved in Yugoslavia, but that is patently false. US bombs dropped on the Serbs were key in ending the Bosnian civil war, US military advisors planned the Croation offensives against the Serbs in Eastern Croatia and Clinton spent billions of dollars in bombing Serbia back to the stone age for the Kosovars. There are thousands of US troops in the former Yugoslavia to this day!

Throughout post war history there is a massive list of US interventions not related to the Bush administration that would betray your notion of an isolationist US. Iran, Guatamala, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, The Dominican Republic, Grenada, NIcaragua, Afghanistan, Panama etc. etc. None of these had anything to do with a terrorist provocation temprorarily luring the US out of its shell or anything. It is just the way the US governs its percieved sphere of influence.

Of course the US doesn't act the exact same way as the Europeans ruled their empires a hundred years ago. Times have changed since then. This isn't because the US has different interests than previous powers, its because modern society won't tolerate open colonialism the way it used to. The US doesn't directly control the countries in its 'sphere' but it has a lot of less visible means of control.

Take a look at all of the countries that supported the US in its war on Iraq, for example. In just about all of them the massive will of the public was against the war and against the US, but their leaders supported the war and some even sent troops. Was it because these leaders felt morally obliged to attack a country that had done nothing to them, or was it because they feared US retribution if they didn't fall into line? Even Japan, the second largest economy in the world with about 80% of the population opposed had to support the US because if they didn't, the US would have retaliated in some way with the Korean issue.

In some ways I think you are right about how the US will act after the next election. It certainly won't be undertaking any more Iraq-scale invasions in the near future and the war drum rhetoric will probably die down a bit. But I don't see the US being at all obliged to refrain from its many smaller-scale interventions.

noyhauser

Aug 27, 2003, 06:59

Ah... motivations for Post cold war US/European interventions...my thesis.

the intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo (definately the latter) are largely because of European initiatives. The US did not want to get involved in either conflict and were happy to leave it to the newly created European Union Common foreign and Security policy to deal with the situation. The EU failed miserably in 1991/2 to deal with the situation there, and the UN under UNPROFOR faired little better from 1992~95. When these failed and Europeans got into trouble, Major and Mitterrand/Chirac both went to Clinton for their aid in the situtation, who was hesitant to get involved. He then advocated Lift and strike, to remove the embargo on the muslims, remove UNPROFOR personel and use airstrikes to make that possible. It was the British who deployed an artillery regiment into Sarajevo.\\

Kosovo was an even more clear cut case of America not wanting to get involved and European Nations pushing the US to do so. Throught 1998 the Tony Blair cajoled Clinton to do something, and he refused. His refusal would lead to the creation of the Common European Security and Defence Policy(CESDP), the creation of a European Union military capability that could act when when NATO was not involved. There may be 1000s of troops in the FRY today, but there are far more Europeans who are increasingly taking over the burden in the region. In June the CESDP took over the Macedonian mission (operation Concordia), and now runs the police mission in Bosnia and Herzegovinia (the EU Police monitering mission.). It is likely by next summer, either the Kosovo stabilization force, or the Bosnian one will be taken over by the ESDP as well. If Europe had have the option to undertake the mission in Kosovo, they would have, but they did not have the capability to do so. As the ESDP increases its effectiveness, they are trying out this new capability. Recently the EU undertook operation Artemis in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Also I should explain myself in what I mean by isolationist. Its not Isolationist by the terms that were used in the 1920s and 30s. I mean that the US takes a far more hands off approach to the world than other nations would. Canada prides itself as being an internationalist nation, as many European states do. The US would rather not use its military forces. Now Sensei you use alot of examples in Pre-Vietnam examples. Vietnam was a watershed in American foreign policy, After Vietnam, US foreign policy became a lot more insular and it became far more careful on how it applied its military force. The new attitude is called the Vietnam syndrome in politics, reffers to the US public aversion to military casualties. Somalia we saw 20 american deaths result in the end of American involvement there. This attitude increased after the Cold War.
the Cold war period I did not consider in my statement above, because it does not fit our discussion well. During the Cold war the US had to protect its interests vis a vis what it called the soviet threat. The Soviet threat was completely unlike anything we currently see. The US needed to have a grand strategy, because if it didn't then the USSR would of been able to increase its influence and take over significant parts of the world. But this was not just in the US's interest, most western nations acceoted these sentiments. Therefore the US did use military force to undertake some situations. Nicaragua was seen as being a communist jumping off point for the rest of Central America. Although this threat may have been overstated, Russia did construct several airfields in the region that did scare the Americans significantly. Usually when the United States undertook a intervention, like Nicaragua in the 1980s, it saw a communist infiltration andundertook a military intervention to counter it.
This is just cold war politics, and doesn't work well as a example today because its a completely different situation. The USSR was an competing power, and the US AND Europe AND most of the world did not want to fall under their influence. My mother lived in Communist Czechoslovakia, and tells me stories on how horrible the state was. We should count ourself lucky that the US was sucessful.
But after the Cold war ended, the US pretty well slashed its foreign relations budget and focused inwards and this is what I am speaking to. I know that sounds like im tinkering with the dataset so to speak but I'm trying to show examples that are relevent to our discussion.

Other interventions like Iran actually serve as a better example. IRan occurred when American Interests were directly attacked. The American Embassy takeover was not being resolved through diplomatic channels so Carter attempted to rescue them. What ensued was a disaster, and that sunk Carter so that he withdrew from the next election.

I don't like Iraq as an example because it may be the first and only example in the new US docrine of preventative strike. This is a new trend that is not at all clear whether or not it will become the norm in american Foreign policy. I think it will fall to the wayside like Kissinger/Nixon's Realpolitik of the early 1970s. But the US always have cycled between periods of activism after being threatened to periods of isolationism (or near so).

senseiman

Aug 27, 2003, 11:35

If I understand correct, you are saying that when considering major trends in American foreign policy, we can't consider the cold war and we can't consider the Bush administration because they were both abberations.

The obvious problem with that approach is that it really only leaves us with the Clinton administration to look at when considering whether the US acts as an isolationist state or an imperial power. I think, as you say, that you have tinkered with the data a bit too much and are just narrowing the field of acceptable examples to suit your thesis.

I think the cold war is a perfectly fair era to look at. Just because the US had a challenger to its hegemony during that time doesn't really make it a special case. For starters, the Soviet threat was deliberately hyped beyond any reasonable level by various US administrations. Secondly, the US wasn't acting as a charity institution at that time, trying to protect independent nations from communist aggression. The whole strategy was to protect and expand its own sphere of influence, much in the same way that, for example, Britain tried to protect and expand its empire against the French. The US was not just a passive player reacting to world events during the cold war. It was the most active nation in keeping the cold war going, with various presidents at times deliberately creating needless crisis or stoking tensions to suit their various purposes.

As for the examples I listed, some of them were pre Vietnam and some were post. Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Afghanistan in the 1980s, - these interventions all occured after Vietnam. The only real effect of the Vietnam "Syndrome" is that the American public is no longer willing to put up with thousands of American GIs coming home dead from some country they've never heard of. So instead of sending massive numbers of conscripts overseas, the US now relies on either its overwhelming air power or covert military operations to attack its percieved enemies. The will to intervene is still there, even in cases where there is no real threat to American security, it is only the tactics that have changed.

The Iranian example I cited was referring to the CIA overthrow of the prime minister, Mossadeqh, in 1953, which had nothing to do with terrorism or even communism. The most interesting part about the later hostage taking crisis for me was that Reagan and his gang of crooks actually conspired to keep the hostages in captivity!

The notion that Nicaragua was some sort of communist jumping off point for a Russian take over of central America and eventually the US is pure fantasy. I'm surprised you would give it any credence. The Sandinistas had originally gone to the US to sponser them, not the Soviets, but the US told them to get lost. Any ties they did have with the Soviet Union were purely for conveniences sake, not because of some intention to get involved with the cold war.

I think your analysis of events in the Balkans is pretty sound. I don't know if Iraq is going to be the only example of this stupid 'Bush doctrine'. While there is probably going to be a short term backlash against this sort of thing, now that they've set a precedent I can see how a future president might scrub off the rough edges on the historical record of the Iraq war and use it as a justification for whatever fraudulent or unpopular war he wants to start. Its not a happy thought.

serewen

Sep 10, 2003, 01:52

are they can protect the country of allia from terrorist?

ElChe

Oct 30, 2003, 12:47

The US stay's in Japan because they have made Japan a colony.The US is nothing but a power hungry imperialistic country that wants to rule the world and keep their forces in countries they fought in.They us quotes such as 'threat to national security' or 'oppresive government' as excuses to declare war,occupy land and territory.They use an old trick used by many countries by telling lies until they become the truth.

The best way to put my words into summary,is that the US is a modern imperialist country.

senseiman

Oct 30, 2003, 13:47

I don't think Japan is a colony of the US. The LDP is more than happy to play host to US forces in Japan so long as they get something in return, even though this flies in the face of public opinion.

I think you are right about politicians telling lies until they become the truth. Like with Bush repeating his mantra about Saddam being responsible for 9/11 so many times that 70% of the US public believes it, even though it is a lie.

ElChe

Oct 31, 2003, 08:07

Well I guest Japan isn't really a colony of the US but it's government is a puppet government set up by the US.It's like a moder vassaliship which the US has established because Japan has always supported US wars not by guns and men but by money and health supplies.Like in Iraq,the Japanese set up like a red cross thing and hundreds of people volunteered for the job to help the US soldiers.I know it was voluntary but still they supported them,not just because of the crisis in N.Korea but pleasing the US.

Feral-Darkness

Jan 25, 2004, 16:45

"really just means the US having the ability to launch armed attacks on any country it chooses"

The USA can do this without a base in japan. Not only do we have ICBMs, Air craft that can bomb north korea from germany we have the most powerfull navy in the world. Korea is not that large and aircraft launched from sea can hit any location in it, Let alone the fact that cannons fired from ships off shore can hit allmost 1/3rd of the land mass off korea.

Also some facts for you.

North korea.

Military branches:
Korean People's Army (includes Army, Navy, Air Force), Civil Security Forces
Military manpower - military age:
18 years of age (2003 est.)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 6,103,615 (2003 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 3,654,223 (2003 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 180,875 (2003 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$5,217.4 million (FY02)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
33.9% (FY02)

33.9% of the GDP..... That is just stupid.

America

Military branches:
Army, Navy and Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard (Coast Guard administered in peacetime by the Department of Homeland Security but in wartime reports to the Department of the Navy)
Military manpower - military age:
18 years of age (2003 est.)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 73,597,731 (2003 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
NA
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 2,116,002 (2003 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$276.7 billion (FY99 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
3.2% (FY99 est.)
Military - note:
note: 2002 estimates for military manpower are based on projections that do not take into consideration the results of the 2000 census

Japan

Military branches:
Ground Self-Defense Force (Army), Maritime Self-Defense Force (Navy), Air Self-Defense Force (Air Force), Coast Guard
Military manpower - military age:
18 years of age (2003 est.)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 29,392,559 (2003 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 25,405,779 (2003 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 725,281 (2003 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$39.52 billion (FY02)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
1% (FY02)

As for korea not being hostil as someone said. The fact is we do not know what korea's intentions are. No one but kim jong ill does. That is where the problem lies. Right now the biggest reason we see him wanting nuclear weapons it to make money for himself and gain more power. He is not hideing it eaither, He is basicly trying to blackmail us.

Blackmailing the USA will not turn out good for him.

If he really wants to help his people he can stop spending all his money on himself and the military budget and start useing it for something usefull.

As for the US not being able to keep up with the cost. That is a JOKE. We waste and LOSE more money just in social services then we have spent on all of the iraq war. With propaganda, an aggresive pres "I don't see bush as that aggresive." and a reason "Even if its not real and is just porpaganda" we could double our military budget easy, if not triple.

I pray that we never have a reason to start the war machine rolling. The way our economy is, war just feeds it. Look at the post war economy we had after WW 2. The only thing that really hurts about war is the effects it has on fossile fules.

emperor

Apr 7, 2004, 11:54

2001 Afganistan, 2003 Iraq, 2005 is you?
US really is new power of neo-imperialism is this modern century, with her supreme military power and economic strength, no other nation can challenge with her...
In my opinion, US aim to unify the whole human and then under her sovereignty... Oh no!
I think US troop in Korean peninsula and Japanese island is invisible menace to Far East. Nowaday, Al-Qaeda, JI or other else terrorist, want to attack US allied nation ang her oversea troop. Spain is a very good example... Recently, US seems to enlarge her power at South East Asia, especially at Malacca Strait, her want to based her army at this busiest strait to 'protect' her ship and this region. Unfortunately, Malaysia has strongly opposed the US next conspiracy... HAIL!!

Mandylion

Apr 7, 2004, 14:02

Well I guest Japan isn't really a colony of the US but it's government is a puppet government set up by the US. Last time I checked, Japan runs free and fair elections. The US has zero direct say in Japan's economic, political, and military matters. If the Japanese government were a puppet government set up by the US, Washington could call Tokyo and say - "hey, your car exports are hurting our domestic market. Please stop shipping us any new cars. Have a nice day" and there would be no new cars coming to the US. It simply doesn't work that way. All powerful governments have indirect say in the goings on of others, but that is the way it has always been. Just to say that because on government is taking more than their fair sahe of the balance of global power is not to say all of that governments friends are puppet regimes.

It's like a moder vassaliship which the US has established because Japan has always supported US wars not by guns and men but by money and health supplies. I fail to see how a country coming to grips with its own foreign political self, and an economy 100% dependent on imported oil, aiding the side they feel (rightly or wrongly) will help secure their economic future counts is "vassaliship." I think this vastly overstates Japan-US relations. Japan is sending non-combat troops to Iraq mainly because it caught such heat buying its way out of the First Gulf War (and because of some UN issues and a more outward looking real-politik government).

Like in Iraq,the Japanese set up like a red cross thing and hundreds of people volunteered for the job to help the US soldiers.I know it was voluntary but still they supported them,not just because of the crisis in N.Korea but pleasing the US.The Red Cross is a humanitarian organization that, while it started to aid soldiers, now is a non-aligned movement dedicated to helping anyone impacted by war. They are in no way attached to US troops in Iraq. That is what the military medical corps if for. I think many, many Red Cross workers would be very unhappy with your linking them to the very thing they work to fix - war.

Lastly, I don't see how this -

US really is new power of neo-imperialism ... no other nation can challenge with her.

can be followed by this -

Malaysia has strongly opposed the US next conspiracy... HAIL!!

Pick a line and stick to it.

Aside - I have a lot of problems with the current US government and its policies. I do not like the decisions of Bush and his actions. However, inflammatory and irresponsible statements about any country deserve to have even their opponents stand in their defense. It might be a comfort to some to point a finger to the US and lay as much blame as they can spout. But have we fallen so far that we cannot measure our discussions with healthy doses of logic and responsibility?

BAPE

Apr 29, 2004, 01:48

I didn't have time to read all the posts here (dayum, so many words), so I hope nothing I say is too redundant. BTW, I'm new here, nice to meet you all. :D

I was stationed in Okinawa for two years from 1997-1999 while touring in the US Navy as a Fleet Marine Force field medic attached to the US Marines. I was assigned to a special training group supporting special forces and other operation groups assigned to the Asia Pacific region. Okinawa is one of the most important locations for the US Military to be positioned. There are many reasons I say this, but due to security reasons, I can't list them all. The main factor I believe is the accessibility to react to any situation in the Asia-Pacific region. Many of the troops in Okinawa support many causes for this location. Also, Okinawa is in an excellent position for any military cause when it boils down to logistics. Another factor is the training that is provided on the island. Most of my career in Okinawa was training, training, training. Not only for the field troops, but for the special operation divisions as well. I can tell you first hand, no money is wasted on that island. Good training requires a good amount of funding...believe me, most of the equipment I was issued was never new. Everything is used until it can no longer be maintained. Some may say that there are too many bases already in Okinawa, but I can tell you, we need every single one of them to operate smoothly. Every serviceman and servicewoman on that island work for an overall goal. I guess you have to experience it first-hand to understand what I'm saying. The military community is a different machine from the civilian sector. Well, that's all I have to say about that. I'm no longer enlisted in the Navy...I support computer systems in TX now, but I truly miss Okinawa Japan. I met so many wonderful people there.

One other subject I will touch lightly on are the sloppy actions of military members in the past. Marines and other servicemen acting up in Japanese establishments, causing fights, harrasing nationals and rape. It makes me sick to the bones to hear of such things happening, and this is what I believe to be a good portion of the problem with the US Military being in Japan. If those drunken idiots thought twice before acting....well, there's nothing that can be done about the past I suppose.

All in all, Japan has left me with the most memorable times of my life. I've never had more fun and joy in my 28 years of life. I never expected to go there, although it had always been a dream of mine since I was a child. I'm truly grateful that the Navy gave me the opportunity to experience Japan first-hand. I've made great friends there and even fell in love. These are things that I will never forget.

Well, I guess I got a little off the subject. Nice to meet you all again.

Ja mata ne - David Z.

KitsuneUdon

Apr 29, 2004, 14:57

I've tried reading through most of this, but its rather extensive... Maybe some of these have already been touched rather heavily... Well... Anyway, some of the questions in mind that I think are somewhat simple.

1. Article 9?

It prevents Japan from declaring war on any country. So, America gets to act as the big brother. Yeah! America! The Big Brother!!!
(don't get me wrong, I am American but...)

2. Why would China declare war on Japan?

If any country including America were to help Taiwan gain its independence, China would declare war on them. So if Japan were to help...

But a real question might be "Why would Japan help?"

3. Why does America still have troops in Japan?

America has troops in just about every allied country. It makes America feel safer or something like that. But as you probably know, it's one of the higher controversial topics due to Japan postwar occupation by American troops. No other country has/had such a situation... Except maybe soon to be Iraq... I think Iraq will become the next controversial topic.

Anyway, my two cents.

Ogumo

Jul 27, 2004, 05:36

I do not see why there are still U.S. forces in Japan, it makes no sence to me, and what are they doing, just sitting there wasting America's money?

America is simply remaining there to exploit the japanese land. What are they doing there you ask? They are using japan as their stronghold for wars in asia. Perhaps the most angering thing is that the japanese people are ok with this. "Americans are our friend". Angering indeed.

I do not see anything for them to do in Japan, the war was so long ago, we still have forces in Germany too, I do not understand why this is and I would like to know, I also want to know how many troops there are, even if it is a small number, I do not see the purpose

There is no longer any real purpose as I except for the ones above. Democracy is secure in japan and the americans are very accepting to the idea of japan building a army now. Then again perhaps I am the only one that sees what tyrannical america is all about with japan...

Flashjeff

Nov 8, 2004, 01:03

Kamisama

Nov 8, 2004, 04:05

Pretty much Bush became re-elected so he's going to do whatever he wants to make people paranoid about war.

Vanguard_Vendetta

Nov 22, 2004, 18:48

i havent read through all the thread properly except the first and senseiman and noyhouser...

from through out this discussion..i find america is a evovled imperialist colonist country who exploits every aspects of political and economical events wielding neo cold war tactics such as intelligence enfants(ECHELON) to establish track on countries and spying in their industrial and economic progress...

the true threat of the world today is america..the threats comes neither from N.Korea, China nor the potrayed Terrorist Organizations..base on logic..neither do this threats can hamper any on the world progress today but america...

I see the intention of the US is to make the whole world dependent on it... spreading influences and military power on every region on the planet.. and now it seems that the US has a personal agenda in spreading its values to every part of the world such as religion,culture and ideology to all over the world and hampering all the culture of the world..not to mention sabre rattling.. i see the US is the only one sabre rattling everybody..in response.. US deserve a little sabre rattling back too...

the US wants to turn everybody into americans..the truth is that americans cant live anywhere if they do not share american western values.. they cant live one day in a country without prostitution and alchohol..sometimes even drugs..contries like colombia and afganistan now has become bigger drug producers thanks to them...look at the philipines..and all their countries who share their values..nothing but lands for sex tourist and prostitution.. whereever the american basses are..they are sure to be prostitutes there and rape casses..not to mention in iraq rapes too...americans should know that not every do cultures can share your values..and one must learn to accept each other as they are..

what is american values really..in history american values are nothing but crap.. americans think they are the only ones with great values..but all they are but imperialist,exploitive,bigots and hypocrites with a lot of money.. all their money comes from their western imperialist colonist ancestors...slaughtering natives and enslaving blacks peaplo o build up their empire...now they shove green notes into their mouth to keep them silent and natives now become gamblers and have no heed to taxes...a racist christian white jew country who are the wealthiest and most powerful that will control the destiny of the country...

i dont want US basses to be in japan..too many of them are already in asia.. and this taiwan buisness..why are they so interested where they are so many other places who seek independence from their country...look at thailand.. US deliberatly closses one eye..they want to exploit weaknesses in contries who are powerful to weaken them and make them dependent on them...

the US is becoming a Nazi country...who thinks their lives and their peaplo are more important than others..and when it breaks down to sacrifices..they will sacrifice other peaplo like pawns to the slaughter like iraqis..and save their peaplo...

look at the Kyoto summit..the US is willing to heat up the planet for 1 million jobs...probrably they already found a way to solve the problem then annouced and publicize themselves claiming themselves hero or something so that they can extend their influences for political gain that will lead to more of its dominace...

in iraq..who ask for the US help anyway..US the jew supporter country who supports attrocities murder of women and children who live in poverish land...
iraq peaplo want freedom but not from the US and doesnt owe you debt to your actions who publicize your kindness to increase your influence all over the world...and degrade their culture..and their dignity...the muzeum destroyed..cultural history gone...the palaces once ruled by an iraqi now for paradise for american embassies...abu ghraib..fallujah and women will soon be nothing but whores for american tourist...

when the US invaded iraq..it didint cared about all of this..didint secured the 347 tons of explosive...no...they were busy securing the oil and putting puppet goverments all over the world so they can inflict their arrogance and dominance on other cultures...

i dont want US to be in Japan...i want china to be super power that will balance US..i dont support china extremly though..but given the choice at hand..america is making countries like its going to war but in reality they are all just throwing threats...but the US is the one really going to war..so who is the war monger?the one throwing threats at everybody...

i got more at hand..put i keep it short for now...

jt_

Nov 23, 2004, 14:05

..nothing but lands for sex tourist and prostitution.. whereever the american basses are..they are sure to be prostitutes there and rape casses..
...
i dont want US basses to be in japan..too many of them are already in asia.. and this taiwan buisness..why are they so interested...My feelings on the above post can be summed up as follows: (in visual form)

http://www.11-9.net/~jtownsend/img/no_basses.jpg

(edit -- Hmm, it seems like [img] tags have been disabled... how unfortunate.)

bossel

Nov 23, 2004, 14:36

afganistan now has become bigger drug producers thanks to them
Yeah, that's one of the funny side effects. The big bad Taliban almost eradicated the evil drug production & as soon as the US steps in, opium production surges to unknown highs.

nothing but lands for sex tourist and prostitution
Oh well, I think, you have that everywhere in the world. Where large military bases are, you will have quite some prostitution.

not every do cultures can share your values..and one must learn to accept each other as they are..
[...]
what is american values really..in history american values are nothing but crap..
Quite an oxymoron, hmm? Didn't you accuse the US of hypocrisy? It seems you're not free of it either.

in iraq..who ask for the US help anyway
Actually, there was some small group of dissidents who did so. The same group who provided much of the oh so reliable intelligence regarding WMD.

i dont want US to be in Japan...i want china to be super power that will balance US
I don't think, Japan would be too happy with Chinese army bases on its territory.

Mandylion

Nov 23, 2004, 14:39

Vanguard - having a lot of statements linked under the vaguest of pretenses does not a logical argument make. You seem very interested in opening a dialogue about the US and the rest of the world, but no one is a) going to take you seriously, b) bother to respond (if they have anything better to do than blow a few minutes), or c) change their world view when you hit them with one unsupported statement after another.

You seem like a smart guy/gal - take some time to study rhetoric and how to present an argument. The more extreme your position, the more important it is to write well.

engalaa

Nov 24, 2004, 11:01

I had sad story from USA soldier ....he murdered my Japanese girl friend and she was pregnant so I leave Japan with this story about how is USA military is rude and Japan police could not do any thing ...
So I think they must leave Japanese to live peaceful

Vanguard_Vendetta

Nov 24, 2004, 19:11

i personally dont care what must be said..american culture is crap..but americans dont have to force,invade and destroy other peaplos culture...so a little statement like that doesnt have that much of an infliction than you do....

I don't think, Japan would be too happy with Chinese army bases on its territory.

japan wouldnt be happy if there german,american,chinese,korean, or any god dam foreign basses on its land...

besides whats this about china a threat anyway..arent the US the threat.. you want to paint china a bad guy just because its a communist..now its doin buisness like the capitalist,you see it as a economic threat and you want to eliminate all economic competitors...isnt buisness is all about competition..who can give the best..the most and the fastest..in buisness there is no lose..its a win win policy... the US is trying to eliminate all competitors and dominate everything...thats fact...

just because china conquered tibet you want to paint it a black face...what about US? how many peaplo and countries have been conquered by their european decendants and ancestorial imperialist colonization who plunder and ravage the world for 800 years destroying so many cultures and wiping off so many civilizations...didint your ancestors destroyed the forbidden city of china and invaded and conquered china...and the south east asia...not to mention africa and middle east..india and pakistan both same race splitted by nations into nothing but bickering dogs curropted by the very conquerors... how many murder and racist genocides made by the US...the plundering and ravaging of black peaplo..red indians...hawaiians and etc...

you cannot compare to the amount of plundering and ravaging in american and european or even christian history..towards other peaplo...

you want to legitimate your righteousness because of china,japan,middle east and germany?for all history has written..youre the bloody ones who started it... if you conquer is right..but when the japanese and germans did it..its wrong?what double standard idea is that...

Oh well, I think, you have that everywhere in the world. Where large military bases are, you will have quite some prostitution

it doesnt matter what you think... not every large military basses..im livin near my countries military base..and they dont have that except US large military basses in foreign land...think about that...can you dig that...

bossel

Nov 25, 2004, 01:05

i personally dont care what must be said..american culture is crap..
& that from the same one who said "not every do cultures can share your values..and one must learn to accept each other as they are". Hypocrisy applied.

besides whats this about china a threat anyway..arent the US the threat..
Not for Japan, obviously.

you want to paint china a bad guy just because its a communist
It's not communist, only the ruling dictatorial party calls it as such.

the US is trying to eliminate all competitors and dominate everything...thats fact...
Nope. One of the biggest competitors is the EU. Haven't noticed any elimination bids yet. That the US is trying to exert influence is normal, pretty much every nation does so.

just because china conquered tibet you want to paint it a black face
Do I want to paint it black? What makes you think so? I like China & Chinese culture, but that doesn't mean that I have to adore everything China & Chinese did & do.

conquered by their european decendants and ancestorial imperialist colonization who plunder and ravage the world for 800 years destroying so many cultures and wiping off so many civilizations...
Oh man, you know, that somehow reminds me of the Islamic conquests as well.

didint your ancestors destroyed the forbidden city of china and invaded and conquered china...
My ancestors? Don't know what they did. I'm pretty sure my grandma did nothing like that, she's the earliest of my lineage I have any greater knowledge about.

BTW, the last people who conquered China were the Manchu. I'm almost 100% positive that I don't have Manchu ancestry.

you cannot compare to the amount of plundering and ravaging in american and european or even christian history..towards other peaplo...
You can compare everything, even apples & pears.

for all history has written..youre the bloody ones who started it...
The US is pretty young, it's rather improbable that it started (writing) history.

if you conquer is right..but when the japanese and germans did it..
Err... I am German.

it doesnt matter what you think... not every large military basses..im livin near my countries military base..and they dont have that except US large military basses in foreign land...think about that...can you dig that...
I'm not a digger, but a thinker. :p
Maybe in Malaysia it's better hidden than in some other countries, but I'm pretty sure it is there. Simple matter of human nature. Depending on the country where they are located, US bases obviously have a larger customer basis for prostitution than eg. Malaysian bases. Just because US soldiers have much more money to spend.

engalaa

Nov 27, 2004, 11:39

I think USA must fire from Japan USA does not has culture it is groub from poor people in the world and disoppintment in thier country consist USA and then they killed the orginal American people ..it is USA so they don't have right to prtect the world from the world they try to control in the world under the law of "freedom" and they don't have freedom in USA ..now USA it is groups from company every company has one man in Congress ....this is the great USA only so if this company need oil ...the man of this company will fight and go to Iraq or even Germany to get Oil ......!!!!!!!!!! funny

Mandylion

Nov 28, 2004, 01:39

Keep it on topic, or start your own thread.

Apollo

Nov 28, 2004, 01:49

As for why U.S. forces are still in Japan, I can narrow it down to a couple of words: North Korea.

Call me wrong or crazy, but as long as that crackpot Kim Jong Il is still in power, the threat exists that he might get a wild hair up his ass and ponder invading Japan, the reason he hasn't is mostly due to America's presence over there. And heaven only knows what China might consider doing if Japan were left to their own devices. And they have the bomb.
That's just my opinion for what it's worth. Probably not much.

I think that the United States have bases because of where the bases are situated, I agree...for example North Korea poses a threat, hence, the Americans still have base in Okinawa because of where it is situated.
However, I don't agree completely with you flashjeff that China poses a direct threat....it is more North Korea, which has a standing army of five million....

Vanguard_Vendetta

Nov 30, 2004, 15:53

Keep it on topic, or start your own thread.

WTH!!?if you want to delete our threads i made for hours and hours..why not delete the whole thing...i was beating the crap out of US ..its whole history and religion..you cant compare other peaplos history with theirs..and just when its runned down..you shove this in my face...everything here has to do with the US base..first we must describe USA first...then talk about the US base... the whole US base is all the meets the eye.. its politics..and peaplo like you dont have the right to interfere because of your lack of interpretation...

is this US way of victory by exclusion...this is not the first time..ive been to so many japan forums..and this happens.. you dare leave bossel's last post hanging there.. as it seems that i am the false one..this victory by exclusion thing is also happening to mendella, saddam hussien,zarqawi,osama bin laden,and all the freedom fighters of the world..

Miss_Apollo7..keep your mouth shut... i was describing so many things after this..you bring up this irrelavant obsolete statement..north korea the threat?the threat is america whether you like it or not.. north korea can do nothing..cant conquer nothin.. compare with your nuclear balistic tactics and the range of economic and influencial power and cold war tactics..WTH are you talking about..

americans righteous days are over..the world dont see you as a good guy anymore.. you are the threat...you are the hegaemony...as i have explained earlier.. Mandylion you american jerk..

i dont need to explain to anybody further,im leaving this thread because the unfairness of this wesite...i decribed everything and now its gone..who ever replies to me can GTH.. america is crap..what ever it does can go to hell...whether its basses is on japan ,s.korea,iraq,afganistan or any country in the world..theres only one reason for this neo-imperialist country..and that is US hegeamony..

the problem of the world is not n-korea,china,asia,al-qaeda,islam or any crap.. the problem is arrogant USA...and the racist european union... this countries who exploit every political situation for its own gain..and hide its racist and prejudice motives...

this long colonist imperialist thugs...who plunder and ravage the world..and turn it into a ghetto because of them...you want to help the world?give back what you stole from the world..if you wanted to help the world..you could already done it..but no you have your little racist groupings...you think you want to help us..but you just want to suck us out of our debt..and forever bow to you..so you can turn this whole world into your whore zoo...

i suggest you all read history..from the time the birth of civilization..to the opium war.. to the imperialist colonialist..until today..and use your brain to figure out why WW2 was born...why japan had to go to war..and why the world is like this now... the truth is more than the meets the eye..unless your brain is more than it..

Vanguard_Vendetta

Nov 30, 2004, 15:53

Keep it on topic, or start your own thread.

WTH!!?if you want to delete our threads i made for hours and hours..why not delete the whole thing...i was beating the crap out of US ..its whole history and religion is crap..you cant compare other peaplos history with theirs..and just when its runned down..you shove this in my face...everything here has to do with the US base..first we must describe USA first...then talk about the US base... the whole US base is all the meets the eye.. its politics..and peaplo like you dont have the right to interfere because of your lack of interpretation...

is this US way of victory by exclusion...this is not the first time..ive been to so many japan forums..and this happens.. you dare leave bossel's last post hanging there.. as it seems that i am the false one..this victory by exclusion thing is also happening to mendella, saddam hussien,zarqawi,osama bin laden,and all the freedom fighters of the world..

Miss_Apollo7..keep your mouth shut... i was describing so many things after this..you bring up this irrelavant obsolete statement..north korea the threat?the threat is america whether you like it or not.. north korea can do nothing..cant conquer nothin.. compare with your nuclear balistic tactics and the range of economic and influencial power and cold war tactics..WTH are you talking about..

americans righteous days are over..the world dont see you as a good guy anymore.. you are the threat...you are the hegaemony...as i have explained earlier.. Mandylion you american jerk..

i dont need to explain to anybody further,im leaving this thread because the unfairness of this wesite...i decribed everything and now its gone..who ever replies to me can GTH.. america is crap..what ever it does can go to hell...whether its basses is on japan ,s.korea,iraq,afganistan or any country in the world..theres only one reason for this neo-imperialist country..and that is US hegeamony..

the problem of the world is not n-korea,china,asia,al-qaeda,islam or any crap.. the problem is arrogant USA...and the racist european union... this countries who exploit every political situation for its own gain..and hide its racist and prejudice motives...

this long colonist imperialist thugs...who plunder and ravage the world..and turn it into a ghetto because of them...you want to help the world?give back what you stole from the world..if you wanted to help the world..you could already done it..but no you have your little racist groupings...you think you want to help us..but you just want to suck us out of our debt..and forever bow to you..so you can turn this whole world into your whore zoo...

i suggest you all read history..from the time the birth of civilization..to the opium war.. to the imperialist colonialist..until today..and use your brain to figure out why WW2 was born...why japan had to go to war..and why the world is like this now... the truth is more than the meets the eye..unless your brain is more than it..

Apollo

Nov 30, 2004, 17:03

Miss_Apollo7..keep your mouth shut... i was describing so many things after this..you bring up this irrelavant obsolete statement..north korea the threat?the threat is america whether you like it or not.. north korea can do nothing..cant conquer nothin.. compare with your nuclear balistic tactics and the range of economic and influencial power and cold war tactics..WTH are you talking about..

No, I won't keep my mouth shut, because I have the right to express my opinions. The thread said why the American forces were in Japan, and THIS was my opinion....You don't have to be rude. If you can't handle people who disagree with you, you don't belong in ANY forum.

SkippyDaStudent85

Nov 30, 2004, 17:22

Apollo

Nov 30, 2004, 17:52

Our forces are still there because we are the bully and that is our playground...

I swear the only reason they are still there is because we are the only country to have had atomic weapons AND use them on another country... twice. A show of power that large would make anyone keep their mouths closed and accept occupation (though I do not agree with it at all... I swear the US just needs to come clean and admit it because everyone else already knows its true)

Just my opinion though...
Yes, I see your point Skippy.

You are right, but the reality is that the winner always conquers. The Japanese had to accept occupation after war, as it was part of the deal when signing the terms of surrender in Aug. 1945.

The US used the bomb twice to win the war (or keep the Russians out - depending on which school of thought among historians), and revisionist historians argue that the Japanese were forced to enter the ww2 because of the American boycotting Japan economically etc...

So, the United States of course is expansionist when looking at it that way. There is a good book about it called "Rise to Globalism" by S.A. Ambrose, which is about US history from being isolationist to globalist after ww2 and especially during the Cold War.

Especially during the Cold War the United States (and the Soviet Union) were very expansionist, taking over (or convincing) some countries to join them in their ideological war e.g. African countries with the Truman Four-Point Program, Arab countries, Asian countries etc..
Another scholar called Geir Lundestad also has written about the United States as "a dog" taking over the Scandinavian countries with the Marshall Plan.

ANyway, I think I am getting off-topic, but I just wanted to express my opinions on America being expansionist. Sorry guys!

:balloon:

SkippyDaStudent85

Nov 30, 2004, 18:15

I read somewhere that looking back, many historians have argued that the bombs were not necessary for ending the war, but I guess we will never know... oh well

quakerman360

Jan 20, 2005, 20:18

why does the us military still stay stationed in Japan. Well people like to think that they are going to be stationed for eternity but since the new war on terror the us is planning a huge realignment in europe. They are shifting at least divisions of troups form germany and moving theam into eastern europe to countris like poland and romania. Also concernain Japan the US Forces Headquarters located in japan will be relocated. Also 20 thousand marines at okinawa are aso be redeployed further south into austrial. This is to put troops closes to the counties that are outside the core. The core being countires that are modern and politically stable. The countries around austrial like cambodiai and indonesia are countries were the poople have little political freedom. also about Also if u want to understand teh changing face of the us military its not about big weapons systems like the crusador program which thankfully they canceled. That is becaseu wars are going to be taking place inside the gap which the gap is nations that are 3rd world countries like most of present day africa and the middle east and parts of south asia. Its been said but i will say it again china is not going anywere and they are not about to start a war over tawaiin. Thats just china talking out of its a$$. yea chiina may have one of teh biggest populatosn but it does not have the researces or money to equip an army that could go up against the us army which is the most advanced army. i mean what country can afford to give most every soldier a armor vest and nighvision googles and other such stragetic advantages. As i will say again we are in japan as a deterance to otehr nations who might want to wage war on japan which is a succesful country. al quida would love to creat some terrism and cause japan to fall into a recession. teh day of big nation wars are over due to globalization and the us is the only country thts cable of policing the world and ensuring retards like al quada are kept at bay. we are the only nation that can devote the resources to projects like this. and no iraq was not a major war casue we rolled in and defeated it in a matter of weeks not years. threre was no real fighting in Iraq it turned into a hotbed for all teh international terrist who wanted to get back at america to get a chanch. A good book i recomend is a book called The Pentagons New Map. It outlines where our military is heading in the 21 centery and how the face of war is changing . And it discusses the impact globalisatoin has on the face of war. The reason why we are pulling out so many troops from north korea becaseu the treat if there is ever one will be something like a missle attack not some big troop attack casue that they know they can't win at cause of our surpior trained and equiped soldirs. And why is an artifial island airport being build off cost of okinwana becsue the new laser plan by lockheed martin i belive will be stationed there. and this will be the deterance for kim jong. So u see our precence in Japan is on declince. There i said it yes i am convervative incase yall were woundering. troops figures and sources all from website http://www.bjreview.com.cn/200436/World-200436(C).htm by Zan JiFang. the anaylis by a political scicne major and history major thath would be me.

DoctorP

Jan 20, 2005, 20:35

Also concernain Japan the US Forces Headquarters located in japan will be relocated. Also 20 thousand marines at okinawa are aso be redeployed further south into austrial. This is to put troops closes to the counties that are outside the core.

Please don't spread rumors on the web...this was being said about 8 years ago, and is still being said, but is very likely that it "will not" happen! There may be a training area built, but it will not be a "permanent" base!

Its been said but i will say it again china is not going anywere and they are not about to start a war over tawaiin. Thats just china talking out of its a$$. yea chiina may have one of teh biggest populatosn but it does not have the researces or money to equip an army that could go up against the us army which is the most advanced army. i mean what country can afford to give most every soldier a armor vest and nighvision googles and other such stragetic advantages.

Hmmm? do the rebels in Iraq have all of that? They are doing quite a good job against us! How about Bosnia? Back on Iraq...do you really think those fighters are rebels? Or could that really be Sadaam's army? Maybe that is why we (the US) were able to move all the way into Bagdad as we did...so that their forces could live to fight another day, causing havoc, keeping us on our toes! Ever thought of that?

we are the only nation that can devote the resources to projects like this. and no iraq was not a major war casue we rolled in and defeated it in a matter of weeks not years. threre was no real fighting in Iraq it turned into a hotbed for all teh international terrist who wanted to get back at america to get a chanch.

See above!

Shooter452

Jan 20, 2005, 22:55

Very interesting. That really sounds like a specialists' knowledge. So half of the US forces in Japan are in Okinawa, and these are the ones that would protect Taiwan. Does the Japanese government also have to support them financially, and does Taiwan also contribute to the bill ?

I struggle with this belief.

While I admit that one does not usually ask the opinion of the sword about when it is to be drawn and at what target it is to be wielded, there are things about military operations that are a constant. I find that many of those are missing when it comes to an amphibious op-plan to send forces to Taiwan.

Assuming sufficient amphibious lift to send III MEF forces from Okinawa to Taiwan (a rash assumption since there are simply not enough gray-bottomed hulls out there in the WestPac Gator Navy to do the job at this time), one would expect some of the base-plate staff work to be pre-loaded. It takes more than a CIA area study to put the (reduced strength) 3d Marine Division on the ground there, gang.

It would help if, for example, if the hundreds of detailed maps needed to coordinate air, artillery, and naval gunfire support were present. I am talking about topographic relief maps, not road maps, and finely detailed artillery maps, along with aerial photographic surveys, and so forth. And these maps would be needed in the thousands since every battalion commander would need several and each company commander would need at least one for each area of operation he would enter during the mission, and so forth.

Yes, I assume that the maps and charts could be made available, however, comma, unlikely in the numbers needed. And we are talking about an operation that would need to be spring-loaded, ready to jump off the line of departure at a moment's notice--I assume that the PRC is not likely to send engraved invitations for this dance in advance. We'll have little time to prepare.

The officers and SNCO's will need time to orient their missions to those maps, to study key terrain features, identify choke points, essential mission objectives, and a whole host of other things that you will not learn about by reading your History 101 text. To prepare a massive mount-out, you really need the dog-eared, re-folded, grease-pencil-marked copies that have been used in op-plan meetings for months/years/what-have-you. I would expect this if the sole mission of III MEF was to prepare to retake/reinforce Taiwan. Or, even if it was the primary mission. IMHO, such is simply not the case.

And we have only started with maps. There are lots of other things to consider. I believe it is safe to say that few out here on this Forum have the least bit of knowledge about what it takes to pack out and go to war, excepting myself. I have participated in this art form too many times.

The obvious signs that III MEF is engaged in preparation to imminently ship out to Taiwan are absent. Certainly, there are some plans. There is probably general planning in existance for making a landing in Antartica, but nothing in the detail one would expect if Antartica was a primary objective.

Besides, unless you are utterly devoid of historical knowledge, everyone should know that FMF forces have been given the mission to go just about anywhere and do just about anything. They are not limited to one mission of any kind, and certainly not to the extent that it is the one for which they train. Far more activity has been expended for landings in and assistance of the ROK or even the PI.

At least this is how I see it.

DoctorP

Jan 20, 2005, 23:09

Assuming sufficient amphibious lift to send III MEF forces from Okinawa to Taiwan (a rash assumption since there are simply not enough gray-bottomed hulls out there in the WestPac Gator Navy to do the job at this time), one would expect some of the base-plate staff work to be pre-loaded. It takes more than a CIA area study to put the (reduced strength) 3d Marine Division on the ground there, gang.

While I agree with your post, I think that you should know that there are other options of how they can get there:

The commercially crewed HSV is a catamaran-style ship owned by Austal Shipping and is leased by the U.S. government to transport III Marine Expeditionary Force Marines and their equipment to and from exercises and operations. Capable of carrying 970 troops and 500 short tons of cargo in a single trip, the HSV is a more efficient and cost-effective mode of transportation than airplanes,

made the first trip from Okinawa to Iwakuni, Japan, to Pyongtaek in just under 48 hours, including a five hour stop in Iwakuni to load and refuel, according to *****. The second trip, a direct route from Okinawa to Korea, took 30 hours.

Then there are also the LCAC (hovercrafts) that are in use now...so getting troops on the deck wouldn't actually take that long...and while I was still operational we deployed within 30 hours of notification and formed our plans while en route!...it's not fun, but it can and will be done! :p

Shooter452

Jan 21, 2005, 04:54

But when you are talking about a whole MEF (one MarDiv, one Air Wing, and one FSSG), you are talking about something around 200,000 tons of shipping.

While I never personally loaded more than a BLT (battalion landing team) for a MAU/MEU, I have numerous friends in the 0400 trade who loaded not only II MEF through numerous East Coast ports, and also loaded the 25th Mech Inf Div (USArmy) out of Charleston, SC so they could play during the SW Asia war games in the Persian Gulf (Gulf Wars, Part I). The Army still cannot pack their own ships, so the logistics guys in the USMC stay busy.

First, it is not gross weight that is the limiting factor, it is deck and hold space. There is almost no limit to the capacity of sea lift when it comes to weight, but the bulk of the material and equipment that sucks up the capacity of the gray-bottomed hulls (as well as leased commercial hulls) in nothin' flat.

Second, the sea lift capacity of the entire Gator Navy would not carry one MEF in a single lift. And only a portion of that capacity is in the Western Pacific. The rest supports amphib groups on the East and West Coasts and it constantly exercised by on-going operations. Even if commercial available transport could triple the lift capacity of the US Navy, we would still fall short of the transportation capacity to lift III MEF (which due to down-grading is now known as MEF-Lite) for an amphibious invasion. Differing from landing exercises, an invasion would necessitate the complete 3d Marine Division on the first lift, leaving little hull space for the FSSG support structure and the Air Wing ground support elements that would need to have immediate follow-on behind the invasion force.

So, if the PLA storms all of Taiwan before we can get there, we will find it difficult to take it back with the forces and shipping capacity we have available.

Different opinions welcome.

LCAC's do lend an over-the-horizon landing capacity, but they are not really sea-going vehicles. And they take up the well-deck spaces of amphib ships like LSD's and LHA's, along with LCM's, LCU's, AAV's, etc.