So an aircraft carrier would be threateningly offensive, but a destroyer is less frightening. Got it.
I don't get why Japan would want or need a full blown aircraft carrier, the whole country is within fighter range of The South China Sea. It seems smarter to just spread your aircraft around on various land bases than concentrate them on one hard to defend target.
South China Sea, yes but not much of mainland Asia. That is the big fear of Japan's neighbors is that things like this allow for offensive capability. Anyway though a platform like this is more valuable marine operations dependent on helicopters and for at least the foreseeable future I am pretty sure this ship will be used for that.
Because what is going on with Article 9 is that the debate hasn't been so much "toss it out completely", though that is what the conservatives ( and myself) want. The debate has been more through the lens of collective action through the UN or as a part of a multilateral coalition such as the Second Gulf War, where Japan did send soldiers, albeit in an massively limited way. The idea is that if the UN sanctions an attack on some nation, ( say what occurred during the First Gulf War), then Japan as an example of peace has a duty to support the UN yadda yadda yadda. But they can't do it with what they currently have right now ( even though I will point out that when it comes to pure number of ships, the JSDF Navy is actually bigger than the Royal Navy). That sort of argument lends towards building ships which can let Japan project its power globally. For now, it's a step. Hopefully we can get that first step dealt with, and then take the next step towards making Japan a normal nation.
On that note, one thing I think I will point out just as an example of comparative politics. For better or for worse, the debate over Article 9 isn't really about amending it, and the American failure to understand this is due to their different systems of government. Namely, that the Japanese supreme court is far weaker compared to the American one, and while it can declare things unconstitutional, it really never does. So you don't have the courts determining which interpretations of law are valid like occurs in America. Consequently, this means that the politicians have huge leeway in interpreting laws as they like. Japan's military has changed significantly over the years, even as Article 9 hasn't changed. That is just because the politicians can interpret Article 9 to basically however they want, and as long as the people buy it, they can get away with it. This is harder than it sounds, because the Japanese are pretty cautious about it ( aka the Japanese are not just itching to fight the world again like the Chinese and Western media love to depict Japan doing), but as the attitude towards pacifism worsens, the more politicians can do. Now, if Japan is going to go towards building a regular military, they will probably just go ahead and scrap it, but when people talk about Article 9, changing it really isn't that big of a political topic. How it should be interpreted is, because the courts certainly aren't going to do it.
Well why should the US have aircraft carriers when we can just spread out our planes on land? As an aside I have seen numerous articles referring to how the US is unhappy Japan is not spending lots more on weaponry. So whose complaining now?
First, it's not just "one." and Secondly, aircraft carriers are much, much harder to attack than land bases....see Pearl Harbor. A carrier task force is about the most impenetrable thing on the planet.
This is a 21st century aircraft carrier -- 800+ feet long -- designed for VTOLs/ STOLs... the only thing it doesn't have is a nuclear power plant. Does Germany have any aircraft carriers?
What's interesting to me about the story isn't that Japan built itself what is essentially going to be a small aircraft carrier, with the eventual addition of several F-35B's, but how this shows the impact of having a short takeoff, vertical landing 5th generation fighter/bomber in our toolbox. We have 8 Wasp class amphibious assault ships, which carry 6 Harrier jets each today, but could carry at least that number of F-35B's in the future. That alone gives us 8 small carriers with which to contruct a viable option for strike forces that could easier operate closer to the coast of a possible adversary, and without having to involve a multi-billion dollar Nimitz class boat, which could stay safely out of range, but possibly be a backup over the horizon. So look at which of our allies have similar ships. The Wasp -
It's amazing how little regard the average American has to the concept of having control in someone else's country.
Seriously. Imagine the uproar if any other country suggested building military bases within US borders.
You may be forgetting a bit of history, Mathloom. Japan attacked the United States, along with several other nations that became our allies, and that's after they'd been raping and pillaging China for years, not to mention Korea. A consequence of their own actions was their ultimate defeat and occupation. As part of that occupation, we established numerous bases in various parts of Japan and her possessions, the ones she had remaining, and the millions that had suffered from Japan's actions in the region weren't all that displeased about what we did there immediately after the war. As for Japan, we were more lenient with them than we could have been. Germany still has thousands of allied troops within her borders, and bases, as well. It isn't like Japan has been singled out. Over the decades, we've saved Japan countless billions of dollars that they would otherwise have had to spend on defense. They were able to concentrate on building their economy, while we picked up the tab for keeping her safe. After nearly 70 years, it's about time, past time, for Japan to be able to defend herself. I don't have a problem with that, but we will have those bases for a long while yet. Japan's government would freak out if we just packed up and left, which we aren't doing anytime soon. You talk like those bases just materialized. Open a work of history about how our bases came to be there. With all due respect, you sound clueless about the context.
Your post makes you seem jealous that your people are unable to assert their influence around the world -- the US does far more good around the world than bad -- you should show more respect to the country that has given you so much.
Please spare me your condescension; I know perfectly well the history behind those bases. In the modern day, there is one simple reason that the US retains bases in Japan: self-interest. If the US left it's Japanese and Filipino bases, they'd have no way to influence geopolitical events in East Asia.
Wait a minute You're not one of those people who takes hollow pride in his country's accomplishments while contributing nothing of importance himself, are you?
