On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 03:49:28 +0900, Eric Takabayashi  ...
>
>Brett Robson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:26:05 +0900, Eric Takabayashi  ...
>> >
>> >Brett Robson wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 22:44:34 +0900, Eric Takabayashi  ...
>> >> >
>> >> >The 2-Belo wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I wonder why no one ever considers what the US would
>> >> >> think of Japan repealing
>> >> >> Article IX completely.
>> >> >
>> >> >I have encouraged it for years. They should take
>> >> >responsibility for their own country and its defense if
>> >> >necessary.
>> >>
>>>> They can't, the reality of the Pacific still holds. Japan could effectively
>> >> (sort of) defend it's territory from attack as at the end of that war. But
>>>> consider an oil tanker travelling from Kuwait to Japan. Every tin pot country
>>>> with a 50 cal machine gun strapped to a row boat could interfere with Japans
>>>>main engergy import and what could Japan do about it? Japan would have to have
>>a
>>>>navy rivalling the USN with an aircraft carrier on station near the Gulf, one
>>in
>> >> the Indian Ocean and one in the Pacific, a requirement of 6 carrriers.
>> >
>> >So do it, spending (more of) their own money and risking their own lives if
>> >necessary, instead of leeching off the US or whining to the UN. Imagine the
>> >employment opportunities for Japanese. Even gaijin in Japan would be able to
>> >cash
>> >in on this.
>>
>>First of all that would be illegal under the constitution an aircraft carrier is
>> an offensive weapon platform.
>
>And I don't know why you claim it would take six carriers or a force to rival
>the US
>Navy's to do it. It is not what many other energy dependent nations require.
>

Other energy dependent nations have sold their souls to the US, or don't have to
ship their oil half way across the world through notoriously dangerous waters.


>Japan already has decided to build one or two helicopter carriers, deciding to
>call
>them destroyers, claiming they are not offensive.

What is the range of a helicopter? What offensive weapons do naval helicopters
have? Torpedeos. Naval helicopters have 3 roles, anti sub, recon, and search and
rescue.

> As not offensive as having one of
>the more modern armed forces on the planet and one of the world's largest
>military
>budgets.

Which for instance has no landing craft. This Army ain't going nowhere. The
airforce has no refuelling aircraft - they would struggle to lob anything bigger
than grenades at Nth Korea.

----
"You don't bang it at 11:00pm but on the other hand, you don't play tribal house
when you're headlining a tech-house party"

DJ Mike McKenna talking shit