Path: ccsf.homeunix.org!ccsf.homeunix.org!news1.wakwak.com!nf1.xephion.ne.jp!onion.ish.org!news.daionet.gr.jp!news.yamada.gr.jp!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!129.250.175.17!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!drn From: Brett Robson Newsgroups: fj.life.in-japan Subject: Re: Tonight's Bari Bari Value: The US military Date: 23 Dec 2003 17:24:41 -0800 Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com] Lines: 71 Message-ID: References: <3FB0ECEC.E5A78841@yahoo.co.jp> <3FE41E98.863FBAD@yahoo.co.jp> <3fe6c562$0$3181$df066bcf@news.sexzilla.net> <3FE6F541.37F6862B@yahoo.co.jp> <3FE8183C.52A04778@yahoo.co.jp> <3FE88E39.C30C5FAA@yahoo.co.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-234.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: Direct Read News 4.20 Xref: ccsf.homeunix.org fj.life.in-japan:9186 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