US B52 aircraft challenge China air zone

reply to post by Senduko


I and many others have said in the past the US was wrong to do things. Just as much as China is in the wrong to do this. The US had to respond to this, as Japan is involved. If we didn't then China would see it as we were ok with it, and would press things farther.

deadcalm
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

But once again, the US can't help stick it's nose somewhere it's not needed or required.

At the end of World War II, Japan reformed their nation and Government. It came with liberal help from MacArthur and Allied Command. Part of the Japanese Constitution going into the future forbade them the ability to have offensive military capability. Period. They have maintained a defense force, but nothing beyond that, by agreement dating back to the war.

In exchange for Japan keeping their end and not becoming a militaristic power again, as was the fear at the time, we have maintained defense coverage of the Japanese Islands and their primary concerns. That was the trade off. They get no military because we'll be it for them, if needed.

Well, it's needed and we are fulfilling our decades old commitments, as agreed. If we weren't doing it, people would condemn the US for breaking it's word again.

Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

reply to post by Zaphod58


This is what I don't understand, Why does the US have to respond? Why not be grown ups and let Japan handle their OWN dispute.

Okay its a wired ally from the US, still. The messed up place we are in today is partial because the US has to but into everyone affairs.

Again, i'm not doing an American bash here, I think China is far more dangerous then the US ever will be. But still this isn't their dispute.

No disrespect

reply to post by Senduko


None taken, this is just a civil discussion.

As Wrabbit pointed out, the Japanese constitution limits them to defensive forces only, and severely limits those. In return, the US provides the bulk of protection for Japan. That's why we forward base a carrier group there, as well as having several air bases, and ground units in the area.

Japan, in a qualitative sense, has one of the best militaries in the area. However, they would, at best, be able to hold off a serious attack by China long enough for a US response to arrive in the area.

reply to post by Zaphod58


*scratches head*

I suppose... be it so, it's reckless! Let the kid get a punch and then go help your friend.
Each to his own I guess :p

reply to post by Senduko


It's worked to this point, and fairly well at that. I would love to see the Japanese amend their constitution to allow a bigger military so we didn't have to protect them as much, but the chances are it will be awhile before we see that happen, so we're stuck with the arrangement for now.

reply to post by Zaphod58

Japan, in a qualitative sense, has one of the best militaries in the area. However, they would, at best, be able to hold off a serious attack by China long enough for a US response to arrive in the area.

if I am not mistaken (correct me if I am wrong), we are bound, by treaty, to the defense of Japan.

In this case, there is a dispute over these islands that might otherwise be petty diplomacy except that there is potential for energy resources in the waters around them.

It could be left to that diplomacy except that Japan and China don't do well based on the history of WW2 that still lives on strong in China of Japan's abuses during that war. In this case, I think China is exploiting those old memories to rally a cause.

We can't change history but we don't have to use it as a tool for contemporary design. That, I think, is one aspect here.

reply to post by Senduko


As an ally of the U.S. and God forbid we ever need it, I'd be grateful to know they are prepared to stand true to their word.

If you prefer China's oppressive regime and total lack of regard for international law and human rights please feel free to support it.

Whilst living in your nice comfy home being allowed to attack your government and have an opinion.

Or you could move there and try the same thing

Just saying

Cody

reply to post by redoubt


Exactly.

Japan annexed the islands in the late 1800s, and operated a fishing plant on them until the 1940s. The US returned them to Japanese control after WWII in the 70s. No one had any interest in them except Japan, until after the 1968 report was released showing large amounts of resources under them.

Can anyone explain why the United States government sits on the fence when it comes to Argentine and Spanish claims for the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar ... two British dependencies which are being constantly harassed, the populations of which having voted overwhelming to remain British ... but is prepared to defend unpopulated islands in the Pacific ?

Zaphod ... B52's are a real threat. Otherwise it's a bit pointless having them. The United States government is sending a clear signal to China that they're prepared to use military force to defend these islands. That's the only way these airplane movements can reasonably be interpreted.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


I didn't say they weren't a real threat, I said they weren't as much of a threat as a B-1 or B-2.

Does the US have a treaty with either one of those territories? Or is that between the UK and them. The US has a defense treaty with Japan that requires the defense of Japanese territory. As far as I'm aware it doesn't have anything of the sort with either Argentina or Gibraltar.

cody599
reply to post by Senduko

 

If you prefer China's oppressive regime and total lack of regard for international law and human rights please feel free to support it.

I'm pretty sure I explicitly said I think China is far more dangerous and think China is the agressor in this conflict.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


The B-52 is a real threat, but they weren't in this case and everyone involved knew it. If the B-52 had even a tiny chance of doing more than simply being a message carrier, it would never have been so blatant.

This was the B-52 in "Flying target" configuration and China would have destroyed our message without much effort, had they chosen to. Hence, no threat in real terms here. Of course, what both sides also know, the message is followed by the whole nation that sent it. If we'd have lost our bombers, they'd have lost a whole lot more within hours.

Oh the games we play as nations around the world. All in the hopes no one miscalculates, even once.

reply to post by Zaphod58


If you can't understand the value of these aircraft movements & what they mean to China, well, I suggest you have a very limited understanding of this.

This posturing by the United States in the pacific is just a clash between two empire. One empire is raising and the other empire is falling. I think the US should stick to their side of the Globe and let China handle the pacific rim. Iran is starting to become the new NKorea so that's a door that need to be closed ASAP, China can wait.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


I understand them probably better than most people on here do. I also understand the threat level imposed by them better than most people on here do. A B-52, while being a threat, is nowhere near the threat level of a B-1, which is nowhere near the threat level of a B-2. It's a question of finding the right message to send, which the B-52 fits perfectly. A fighter is too little, and a B-1/B-2 is too much. A B-52 sends just the right message.

Zaphod58Does the US have a treaty with either one of those territories? Or is that between the UK and them. The US has a defense treaty with Japan that requires the defense of Japanese territory. As far as I'm aware it doesn't have anything of the sort with either Argentina or Gibraltar.

The State Department couldn't have put it any better. You should join the Obama diplomatic corps.

Zaphod58
reply to post by LeBombDiggity

 

I understand them probably better than most people on here do. I also understand the threat level imposed by them better than most people on here do. A B-52, while being a threat, is nowhere near the threat level of a B-1, which is nowhere near the threat level of a B-2. It's a question of finding the right message to send, which the B-52 fits perfectly. A fighter is too little, and a B-1/B-2 is too much. A B-52 sends just the right message.

You set a new standard by which modesty can be judged.
We kneel before thee, in awe.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


I would say because the USA has no interest in the Falklands debate beyond not wishing to antagonise South America.

If Argentina was a rising superpower with a rapidly modernising military they might respond in a similar manner. As opposed to nation with a broken military that goes bankrupt every few years.

The USA doesn't really care about these islands either. Its entirely about sending a message to the Chinese that expansionism wont be tolerated, not even a little.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


How many members have worked on all three aircraft? I have. So I have first hand experience with all three. So yes, I'm going to say that I have more experience with it than most members do. Reading about it is one thing, actually having hands on experience is a completely different matter.