U.S. Forces in Japan: time to say good-bye?

[sabro]

Nurizeko- don't we (the US) still maintain bases at Holy Loch and Falsbrook, Scotland? I think we have an airbase further south at Suffolk also. Is the Japanese situation analogous?

 

[nurizeko]

possibly sabro, im not aware of this myself and if they do exist they must be top secret because nobody has ever mentioned to me.
Chances are their small facilities with few personel, nothing on the scale of the facilites and personel in japan.
Also being a predominantly white country, the odd american wont look too out of place.
Probably more americans working in the north sea oil bussiness then US millitary personel.

 

[zeroyon]

edit




1

 

[jonerik]

Pulling American forces out of Asia would be enormously destabilizing for the entire region. At a minimum Japan would feel obliged to beef up its navy so it could defend its trade routes. And regardless of the justification in doing so, the political facts of life are that no other country in that part of the world would be particularly happy to see Japan increase military spending. Life with the American military has certainly been something of a mixed blessing, but the fact remains that South Korea and Japan have been able to enjoy peace and prosperity for decades; partly because the North Koreans, the Soviets/Russians, and the Chinese haven't been in a big hurry to antagonize the United States by threatening its two main allies in the region. The departure of American forces in the region would create an enormous power vacuum that either the Chinese or the Russians (or both) would be more than happy to fill - with results that would probably be somewhat less welcome to the Japanese, the South Koreans, or even the US's onetime foes in Vietnam.

 

[Sukotto]

Before I read anybody else's posts,

I would guess at least part of China's tuff-guy b.s.
has to do with the current government of Japan becoming
more militaristic. Koizumi supports the Bush teams adventure
into Iraq (though from what I hear, most Japanese citizens
do not); the proposed alteration of Japan's pacifist constitution
that declares it not to be a right of the state to settle international
disputes with force; and while I probably shouldn't comment on it
because I'm not very read up on it - maybe something with that
Shrine the current PM keeps visiting but the Emperor does not even though
I think I heard its on the palace grounds.




I would defer to the "Japan Policy Research Insitute"
http://www.jpri.org/

They focus on US policy towards not only Japan, but
also China, the Koreas, that part of the world generally,
and they receive no government or corporate funding.

Other than that, keep learning about the world and discussing...
blah, blah, blah....


Personally I don't think N Korea is a threat.
It's been noted by Korean scholars and observers that they
don't think Kim Jong Ill is suicidal.
What would NKorea have gain by invading either Japan or S Korea?
The latter which they had been making exchanges with all by
their loansome in the later 90s.

 

[suirai]

Personally I don't think N Korea is a threat.

The primary reason that the DPRK is not a threat is because they don't have the petroleum it takes to flex their vast military forces. A modern fighting machine runs on its fuel supply, and then its stomach. Sorry Napoleon, times change.

Anyway, Napoleon knew he needed those many horses he had before he fed his troopers. His horses didn't go hungry.


.

 

[Sukotto]

There are times that reality is stranger than fiction. It is all too true that China of pouring far more money into developing its military--a truly offensive military--than any other country, including the U.S.

You should take a look US policy.


1st of all, the US spends more than all other countries combined.

--The US now has, as policy, the prevent any other power to even ATTEMPT
to increase its military any where close to that of the US
--The US has plans to militarize space (despite being a signatory
to a treaty to keep space free from militarization)
--The US's plans to develop its "missile defense system"
starwarsJR is an offensive weapon to protect 'forward projected
forces'.


Democracy Now! carried a 1 hour documentary titled
"Preventive Warriors"
It will give you the willies.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/30/1333210
or
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/27/154222

 

[suirai]

Communications and The Military

Considering that communications is vital to maintaining and using a military force space was "militarized" the moment a communications device was placed in orbit.

Let's see, how many nations have a communications device "up there"?

Japan?

Ah, let's see now. I think so. Yep, they sure do.

Anybody have a device for taking pictures?

Japan?

Ah, let's see now. I think so. Yep, they sure do.

Any other countries have any devices up there for communications or shooting pretty pictures?

Ah, let's see now. I think so. Yep, a whole bunch do.

First device into space was ole` Sput-baby. Now that was purely for non-political, non-military purposes, yes?

Right! Absolutely! Sput-baby was put up there simply for the fun of it.

Come on, folks! No military use of space? Right!

 

[suirai]

Oh yeah, I forgot all about GPS. Even those nations that had nothing to do with putting that in space use it for military purposes.

 

[Cupid]

Blue Tiger... you're talking out of your ***.

Either go back to school and study history, politics and international relations (preferably all at the same time), subscribe to Janes Defence (did you seriously believe China has a capacity to wage war in the pacific let alone launch an attack on mainland USA?) OR go and write your Sci-Fi fiction about your pefect world and come back when you're finished so you can legitimately flaunt your fantasy about who did what to who and when and what's going to happen next.

I don't object to what you write.. I just think you should start every post you write with "This is just a fairy tale I made up.".

 

[d3jake]

If I reacll correctly we already had this conversation a while back...

 

[moffeltoff]

The only place american soldiers belong is America it´s as easy as that. =)
No country actually needs America to "protect" them ,if they want help they will ask the Nato.But as you can read in my signature I am quite glad that I don´t really have to much sympathy for someone who thinks a country is ungratefull if it isn´t gratefull about help it nether needed nor wanted.

 

[suirai]

The only place american soldiers belong is America it´s as easy as that. =)
No country actually needs America to "protect" them ,if they want help they will ask the Nato.But as you can read in my signature I am quite glad that I don´t really have to much sympathy for someone who thinks a country is ungratefull if it isn´t gratefull about help it nether needed nor wanted.

Interesting view. I'm trying to remember what the nations of Europe did to stop the massacres that took place as Jugoslavija broke up. That was certainly within the jurisdication of NATO, wasn't it? For that matter, NATO wasn't necessary at all. Any number of the European nations could have stepped in to save lives and put a halt to what some firmly believe was the worst slaughter of innocents in Europe since WWII.

 

[Cupid]

Interesting view. I'm trying to remember what the nations of Europe did to stop the massacres that took place as Jugoslavija broke up. That was certainly within the jurisdication of NATO, wasn't it? For that matter, NATO wasn't necessary at all. Any number of the European nations could have stepped in to save lives and put a halt to what some firmly believe was the worst slaughter of innocents in Europe since WWII.

Am I missing something here?

What would be the economic benefit to Europe in preventing a bunch of rabid towlheads and barbarians from slaughtering each other?

The US only stepped in because they need a live firing range to practice on prior to the invasion of Iraq. I also don't recall uncle sam's warriors trying too hard to distinguish between tractors towing trailors full of inocent refugees versus bosnian amoured personell carriers full of blood-thirsty rapists and murderers.

 

[suirai]

Am I missing something here?
What would be the economic benefit to Europe in preventing a bunch of rabid towlheads and barbarians from slaughtering each other?
The US only stepped in because they need a live firing range to practice on prior to the invasion of Iraq. I also don't recall uncle sam's warriors trying too hard to distinguish between tractors towing trailors full of inocent refugees versus bosnian amoured personell carriers full of blood-thirsty rapists and murderers.

Could you please post a link or links to support your claims. Thank you.

 

[suirai]

And such vocabulary as "tow[e]lheads" is really, really disgusting.

 

[Cupid]

And such vocabulary as "tow[e]lheads" is really, really disgusting.

Not as disgusting as dropping missiles on a wedding party in Afghanistan or attracting small children with lollies as a shield against insurgents in Bagdad.

 

[Cupid]

Could please post a link or links to support your claims. Thank you.

I'm talking abou the real world...not everything exisit on the Internet. Next thing we'll be talking about the "Word of God" again.

 

[gaijinalways]

Hmm, I'm not sure if this is sci-fi or just a scenario that is likely a long way off in the future. Currently China's military still has a long way to be fully modernized. Most people realize, whether you have a military background or are a military research expert, that current armies need air support and are more likley to use high tech weaponry, including missle strikes. Taking out terrorists or guerillas is one thing (difficult to eradicate if you can't find them), but defeating visable armies is another. Of course, distance is a factor, but at the moment, China is far from being ready to invade Taiwan, never mind Japan.

The US probably should pull out of the bases and let Japan deal with it, but they should probably do it slowly to avoid

1) mass numbers of soldiers out of work and having to adjust to the private workforce demands

2) a power vacuum in Asia (instead allowing Japan time to buils up an adequate military

3) economic changes in Japan in the areas affected by the bases being transformed

Remember, Japan doesn't need to equal China in numbers, they need to fight smarter. The Israelis were outnumbered on all sides in the past, they are still there. They very quickly beat off superior numbers with better strategy and tactics and they ended up taking territory! Of course, Japan shouldn't just depend on another divine wind like the one that took out the Mongols.

 

[suirai]

It ain't worth the cyber space.

I'm talking abou the real world...not everything exisit on the Internet. Next thing we'll be talking about the "Word of God" again.[/QUOTE

 

[moffeltoff]

Still the fact remains ,that America continuosly uses it´s military power to press their opinion on the rest of the world.

 

[suirai]

I'm talking abou the real world...not everything exisit on the Internet. Next thing we'll be talking about the "Word of God" again.

Cupid, you were specifically responding to one of my messages, so just where did you see me post anything anywhere in this thread about anything related to God?

The answer is I haven't.

So how about you show a bit of the maturity you advised another to show and not be putting words in a fellow forumer's/forumite's mouth. That's rude. Very rude.


........................................................................................................
And something else, when you advise someone to go get an education you might want to be a little more careful about the grammar you use in that post. You don't help your case when you don't seem to know how to use an objective form when it's called for.

 

[Sukotto]

The primary reason that the DPRK is not a threat is because they don't have the petroleum it takes to flex their vast military forces. A modern fighting machine runs on its fuel supply, and then its stomach. Sorry Napoleon, times change.
Anyway, Napoleon knew he needed those many horses he had before he fed his troopers. His horses didn't go hungry.
.

Threat vs potential threat.

Perhaps I was not quite exact in my wording.

I suppose any country with any amount of military is "a threat".
Especially if one views it through the warped prism of US 'security'
policy - that of not even allowing any country to even attempt
to get close to any where near the US in military might.
If given that, then yes, any country that increases its military in
any amount, is by definition a threat.


But, back to the real world.
In which the United States is the United States (50 states and the
people - that actually make up a country), and not, say,
US "interests". Read : investements. Even Republican Rep Ron Paul
of Texas recognizes the code word of "interests". It is always somebodies interests. And he's not even an anarchist, who usually say that
governments represent some sort of domestic power structure. He's
a Republican, although with Libertarian leanings.
i digress.


petro - who's going to give it to them?
Probably no one.
...and that's where the nuclear fuel comes in.
...and the denying of nuclear fuel to N Korea.

Even if N Korea had such fuel,
The horses to invade another country,
why would they? Just because one has the ability to do something,
doesn't mean they will do it. Kim Jong Ill, with his rad hair, goofy shoes,
and hobby of movie obsession, doesn't make him suicidal.


But again,
missing the fact that South Korea & North Korea were making peace
all by themselves, on their own terms at the end of the 90s.
Working together to reunite family members that hadn't seen each other
in decades. Building business ties. Cultural exchanges.
But, no...., Madeline Albright (the Clinton administration) had to swoop
in there quickly as if to say, 'oh, no. Not without us. Not unless it is
on our terms.' How goofy and unfortunate to place something
as lame as hegemony above another, even single life.





---
edit add on--
I don't remember the numbers, but it is estimated that x millions
or however many people would die in the first weeks of fighting alone
if the Koreas fought. Something I doubt either side would goofy enough
to place their egos on.

N Korea spending of 20%-25% of its GNP (according to wikipedia's
"Korean People's Army" page) on military IS plain mad,
but so is spending 1/2 of total discretionary spending on current
and past military (not including extra off budget spending for Iraq & Afghanistan) http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

or

* The seven potential "enemies," (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria), plus Russia and China together spend $117 billion, less than 30% of the U.S. military budget.

--from World Military Expenditures from the Center for Defense Information (CDI) and their Miltary Spending: U.S. vs the World table.
via website http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=518


So....,
it does not even enter into one's mind the possibility
that countries, such as North Korea, might be stock piling weapons
for defense?

 

[Sukotto]

I like that, it's almost funny. Unfortunately the U.S. is a democracy and if you are a U.S. citizen BUSH is your president. If you don't like that then you can fix that in 2008 with the next election. It's called voting.

I"m not so sure that will work...

Journalist
http://www.gregpalast.com/
has done some research to dispute the claim to presidency in '00 or '08.
You can watch videos that are linked from the top of that page.

 

[Jim Hodges]

Very strange. When I left Japan the first time it was 360 yen to the dollar. I went back and it was 260 yen to a dollar. I just took my wife to Okinawa and the yen was even with the dollar. It seems it would be better if the dollar were stronger so that people visiting Japan could buy more. Now it is too expensive to go.