View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
|
Jose Cruz
Joined: 20 Nov 2012
Posts: 1775
Location: South America
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:40 am
|
|
|
Tuor_of_Gondolin wrote: | The American presense in Okinawa is not only important for protecting Japan militarily, we are *obligated* to maintain that presence in order to protect Japan. After WWII *we* created their constitution, and *we* told them that they could no longer maintain a military (however much the "Self-defense" Force skirts this), which means we accepted that burden and have carried it ever since. I don't regret us doing so one bit.
Okinawa was conquored a long time ago by the Japanese, IIRC, and while it is considered part of Japan, it's not "as Japanese" as the home islands, as far as I understand it. So expecting things to improve there if the US pulls or even reduces its military bases (and the foreign money they bring to the region) is very unlikely to happen, IMO. This is just political posturing by people who are using the resentment of barbarians on Japanese soil to garner support.
Eventually China is going to come knocking, and when they do, Japan is going to need us there, and I hope that if and when that day comes, we *will* be there, doing what MacArthur intended for us to do. |
China's growing power means that now the US lack's the resources to actually enforce it's hegemony in East Asia. Therefore, we have two options:
1. Japan increases it's military expenditures and build's up a powerful military, given the country's large economy this is possible. As to maintain the balance of power in East Asia against Chinese hegemony.
2. Just accept Chinese hegemony and the US removes all the bases in East Asia. China might invade places like Taiwan and Okinawa. I don't think China would want to invade Japan or Korea because that would risk WW3 and nuclear exchange with the US or Russia. Mutual assured destruction kinda guarantees the physical integrity of the world today.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tuor_of_Gondolin
Joined: 20 Apr 2009
Posts: 3524
Location: Bellevue, WA
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:49 am
|
|
|
Jose Cruz wrote: | China's growing power means that now the US lack's the resources to actually enforce it's hegemony in East Asia. Therefore, we have two options:
1. Japan increases it's military expenditures and build's up a powerful military, given the country's large economy this is possible. As to maintain the balance of power in East Asia against Chinese hegemony.
2. Just accept Chinese hegemony and the US removes all the bases in East Asia. China might invade places like Taiwan and Okinawa. I don't think China would want to invade Japan or Korea because that would risk WW3 and nuclear exchange with the US or Russia. Mutual assured destruction kinda guarantees the physical integrity of the world today. |
The US doesn't need to enforce a hegemony over all of East Asia, and I suspect over time that we'll end up drawing back in some areas. We just need to make sure we have the power to support Japan and, possibly, Taiwan.
And it'll be a cold day in Hell before the US accepts #2. I don't see that being a serious possibly in the near future.
Regardless, the US isn't going to pull out of Okinawa unless it is somehow forced to do so.
Oh, and I can see a war between the US and China that doesn't devolve into a full-scale nuclear exchange. So while that's certainly a possibility, it's not a very likely outcome the way I look at things.
|
Back to top |
|
|
EricJ2
Joined: 01 Feb 2014
Posts: 4016
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:53 am
|
|
|
Tuor_of_Gondolin wrote: | The US doesn't need to enforce a hegemony over all of East Asia, and I suspect over time that we'll end up drawing back in some areas. We just need to make sure we have the power to support Japan and, possibly, Taiwan.
And it'll be a cold day in Hell before the US accepts #2. I don't see that being a serious possibly in the near future.
Regardless, the US isn't going to pull out of Okinawa unless it is somehow forced to do so.
Oh, and I can see a war between the US and China that doesn't devolve into a full-scale nuclear exchange. So while that's certainly a possibility, it's not a very likely outcome the way I look at things. |
...Or, we could just start the Bill Cosby Memorial Betting Pool about what Hayao's going to complain about next.
The sniping about the most obvious cliche'd anti-American target within such a suspiciously close proximity of Hayao's Oscar, however, may potentially put it in the category of Worst Awards Unsportsmanship since Meryl Streep got plastered at the Golden Globes.
Gee, Hayao, the "Peaceful anti-war country" thing in the acceptance speech was too subtle for our poor barbarian heads...
|
Back to top |
|
|
MarshalBanana
Joined: 31 Aug 2014
Posts: 5335
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:17 am
|
|
|
Is this base located on the island which is in dispute over sovereignty between Japan and China?
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tenbyakugon
Joined: 11 Jan 2012
Posts: 791
Location: Ohio, United States
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:45 am
|
|
|
MarshalBanana wrote: | Is this base located on the island which is in dispute over sovereignty between Japan and China? |
No, it's located on the island of Okinawa, the sovereignty of which is not disputed. The islands, actually, you're thinking of is a chain called Senkaku. (Taiwan also claims sovereignty, which geographically makes the most sense of the three.)
|
Back to top |
|
|
ParkerALx
Joined: 09 Apr 2014
Posts: 194
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:46 am
|
|
|
Hoppy800 wrote: | Getting Abe out of office will ensure peace in Eastern Asia, the man is a tyrant who wants war with China and Korea knowing all too well Japan will be curbstomped if he does, and makes unsuspecting foreigners pay his stupid 8% consumption tax. That tax needs to go ASAP, it's killing the Japanese economy and he wants to raise it even more next year, he needs some sense slapped into him. |
Exaggeration, much? The man is no tyrant. He's a democratically elected leader. A tad hawkish, yes, but I seriously doubt he actually wants a full out-war with China and Korea. Why would he?
Does he want to compete with them on the geopolitical stage? Yes, but actual shooting wars between major world powers went out of style a long time ago -replaced with economic wrangling, posturing at the United Nations, resource gathering and proxy battles fought through third parties in the developing world.
Which is why comments likes these:
Quote: | Eventually China is going to come knocking, and when they do, Japan is going to need us there, and I hope that if and when that day comes, we *will* be there, doing what MacArthur intended for us to do. |
Quote: | Oh, and I can see a war between the US and China that doesn't devolve into a full-scale nuclear exchange. So while that's certainly a possibility, it's not a very likely outcome the way I look at things.
|
are so misinformed about the current status quo of global politics. China and the United States might not like each other very much, but they are tied so closely together through globalization, that it's impossible for them to take any serious action against each other without committing economic suicide.
Military bases, like the ones on Okinawa, are simply chess pieces in a global pissing match between nations that can no longer fight each other directly, but still enjoy trying to outdo their rivals.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fedora-san
Joined: 12 Aug 2014
Posts: 464
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:42 am
|
|
|
joshjoshlol wrote: | I really should stop being surprised at the uniformity of the japanese people. Liberals and conservatives both want the expulsion of the foreign barbarian devils from their sacred homogeneous land, but are taking slightly different paths to try and make it happen. Xenophobia and racial exceptionalism makes for some strange bedfellows. |
Your sarcasm kind of indicates you are not aware of the decades long tension between US military personnel and Japanese citizens, especially in Okinawa; everything ranging from US soldiers raping underage girls to drug trafficking. It extends beyond some simple branding of "xenophobia". When it gets to the point the news has to celebrate that US military only committed 32 crimes last year, it should indicate a bigger underlying issue.
|
Back to top |
|
|
vanfanel
Joined: 26 Dec 2008
Posts: 1242
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 8:13 am
|
|
|
Japanese peaceniks...
They don't want a Japanese military.
They don't want the US military.
And they don't seem to realize that getting what they want would only succeed in summoning the Chinese military.
Quote: | and makes unsuspecting foreigners pay his stupid 8% consumption tax. That tax needs to go ASAP |
Japan's social welfare system, like the US's, started during a postwar baby boom, and optimistically relies on current taxes to pay out benefits. Such systems, we are now learning, are very vulnerable to long-term social changes affecting the number of new taxpayers getting born. Japan's birthrate has been in a nosedive for years, and coupled with the longevity of the retired population, the goverment is not going to be able to keep up its commitments at the same rate of taxation. It sucks, but TANSTAAFL.
|
Back to top |
|
|
teferi
Joined: 16 May 2006
Posts: 400
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 8:19 am
|
|
|
Fedora-san wrote: |
joshjoshlol wrote: | I really should stop being surprised at the uniformity of the japanese people. Liberals and conservatives both want the expulsion of the foreign barbarian devils from their sacred homogeneous land, but are taking slightly different paths to try and make it happen. Xenophobia and racial exceptionalism makes for some strange bedfellows. |
Your sarcasm kind of indicates you are not aware of the decades long tension between US military personnel and Japanese citizens, especially in Okinawa; everything ranging from US soldiers raping underage girls to drug trafficking. It extends beyond some simple branding of "xenophobia". When it gets to the point the news has to celebrate that US military only committed 32 crimes last year, it should indicate a bigger underlying issue. |
If you put 47,000 people on an island some of them are going to commit a crime at some point. I don't even. Kinda ridiculous given that the local crime rate is so much higher.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Twage
Joined: 29 Jul 2003
Posts: 358
Location: North Bergen, NJ
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 9:11 am
|
|
|
Our bases on Okinawa are impractical, expensive, unfair, and a blight on Okinawan society. They cost both Japan and the U.S. money we don't have. They're fiscally and morally indefensible. Study their history, and you'll see.
teferi wrote: | If you put 47,000 people on an island some of them are going to commit a crime at some point. I don't even. Kinda ridiculous given that the local crime rate is so much higher. |
The problem is not the crimes being committed. Though those are certainly a massive problem, the Japanese legal system can handle them. The problem is the US military consistently subverting or outright violating Japanese law to cover up crimes and accidents involving American servicemen.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fronzel
Joined: 11 Sep 2003
Posts: 1906
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:13 am
|
|
|
Tenbyakugon wrote: |
MarshalBanana wrote: | Is this base located on the island which is in dispute over sovereignty between Japan and China? |
No, it's located on the island of Okinawa, the sovereignty of which is not disputed. The islands, actually, you're thinking of is a chain called Senkaku. (Taiwan also claims sovereignty, which geographically makes the most sense of the three.) |
And they are, incidentally, just uninhabited rocks where no one could build anything of much significance. Like is usual these days, what these countries really want is economic rights to the sea around whatever flyspeck of dry stone is in question.
I don't think China currently would take the position that it deserves sovereignty over actual people currently living under another government(with the exception of Taiwan, of course).
|
Back to top |
|
|
12skippy21
Joined: 25 Nov 2008
Posts: 785
Location: York, England
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:37 am
|
|
|
Ultimately, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". At any rate political decisions are not based upon what people want, just what benefits the unseen economy. The global economy is to interlinked for old school cold war geopolitics, unless money can be made from the situation. Moving the base would signal agreements with China rather than Japan.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Hiro94
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
Posts: 299
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:51 am
|
|
|
I agree with Miyazaki 100% its the Japanese peoples country why let foreigners have their military bases on their soil? I sure as heck wouldn't like it if we had a foreign military strutting around on our soil.
|
Back to top |
|
|
leesahlynn
Joined: 17 Mar 2014
Posts: 81
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:20 pm
|
|
|
Hiro94 wrote: | I sure as heck wouldn't like it if we had a foreign military strutting around on our soil. |
uh... we don't have any designated foreign military bases because our military is the top. Our military power is 10x the combined power of the EU. There are handfuls of countries that would not be in existence right now if not for our military presence there, or would be constantly under attack from other territories trying to take control.
Bases in foreign countries are deterrents, and there are many. Japan itself has a base in Djibouti specifically to combat piracy.
As far as the actual topic goes, there may be a compromise in downsizing. Our base there is the largest we have because of their role in WW2, comparable to the forces we have in Germany. The naval fleet should be left as is, as their assignment is to protect the peninsulas and especially provide quick support to South Korea if need arises. But we have an awful lot of foot soldiers and dependents there who could realistically be sent back home without effecting too much politically.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fronzel
Joined: 11 Sep 2003
Posts: 1906
|
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:24 pm
|
|
|
12skippy21 wrote: | The global economy is to interlinked for old school cold war geopolitics, unless money can be made from the situation. |
The leadership of Russia may disagree, although it's yet to be seen how that really works out.
|
Back to top |
|
|
|