On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 21:15:43 +0900, Eric Takabayashi  ...
>
>The issue is not difficult or simple, it is that it can be done and they do not.

Just like the rest of the world doesn't.

>
>> Why does Japan have so much nuclear
>
>Because they don't know when to give up. Other nations have learned years or
>decades
>earlier.

And so they burn more fossil fuels. Carefull Eric you are going around in
cirlces.


>
>> and hydro power?
>
>Money for construction firms and political connections.
>

So your alledged motivate invalidates the benefits of hydro power. You have out
done yourself.


>>>So use a helicopter with rockets and missiles or carrying personnel. And still
>> >offensive.
>> ...
>>
>> >So use army helicopters.
>>
>> Army helicopter have less range
>
>That's what carriers are for. Are you claiming that a "crappy" Cobra is not
>offensive?

They don't have carriers. Cobras are only effective when put in favourable
tactical situation, which that Japan is entirely unable to provide outside of
Japanese terrority. For instance an ancient Nth Korean Mig 19 would tear a Cobra
into little peices of metal. To use attack helicopters offensively an entire
division (15,000+) would have to be in place.



>
>> and the pilots are wary of flying over water for
>> very good reason. Japan has crappy attack helicopters anyway.
>> http://www.jda.go.jp/jgsdf/info/so3_e.html
>
>The issue is not effective, crappy, or scary. 

No, you are wrong. To classify weapons as offensive or defensive the
effectiveness of that weapon in various circumstances is the issue. An anti tank
gun is a defensive weapon as you can't carry one up to a tank, set it up, bed it
in, then fire at the tank. A tank would be an offensive weapon, however Japan
has no ability to put them into an offensive situation.


>
>第２章　戦争の放棄
>
>第９条【戦争の放棄，軍備及び交戦権の否認】
>
>
>（１）日本国民は，正義と秩序を基調とする国際平和を誠��造亡�瓩掘す餮△糧�阿燭訐鐐�(B
>と，武力による威嚇又は武力の行使は，国際紛争を解決する��蠱覆箸靴討蓮け糞廚砲海譴鯤譩�(B
>する。
>
>（２）前項の目的を達するため，陸瘢雹海空軍その他の戦力は，これを保持しない。国の交戦権
>は，これを認めない。
>

Do you think that means Japan cannot defend itself from, for example an
amphibious invasion of Honshu? If so you would probably be the only one. Section
1 clearly refers to "the right to wage war" and "international disputes"; an
invasion does not cover either case.


>Note even "threat" or "potential" are banned.

I don't see the word "potential" anywhere.

The word "threat" qualified, and as I have repeatedly pointed out no one is
threatened.

In section 2 the key word is SENRYOKU, which I have translated to "offensive",
which given the context I think is accurate.


>
>Invasion is not the issue, though Japan could invade somewhere like the
>Maldives.
>You claim the Japanese are not going anywhere. They can and have.

"Not going anywhere" in the context of a paragraph regarding invasion. I am not
sure how they would get to the Maldives using JSDF equipment, maybe they could
put 100 soldiers on a cruiser.


>
>So let's hear your honest opinion of some of the world's lesser military forces
>and
>see how the JSDF compares to places who admit or claim to have a military.
>

Why? Japan does not threaten any of them.


>>>So try JAL's fleet, and Japan's commercial shipping fleet, full of SDF
>>personnel
>> >and
>> >equipment.
>>
>>And they will be at the bottom of the Eastern/Japanese Sea before they get out
>> of Japan's territorial waters.
>
>How? By who? The SDF has been in and out of Japan and in foreign territory
>before
>without being destroyed by such as plainly angry Koreans or Chinese, 

When they had offensive forces.


> or even
>hostiles in the Middle East.
>

"hostilities in the Middle East? Remind me.


>> Where do they land?
>
>First they secure the ground, like the US did before using Bagdad Airport.
>
>But irrelevant.
>

No it is relevant as it shows your ignorance. You secure the ground before you
even go there? How? "Excuse me but we are planning to invade you, would you mind
clearing an area so we can land our C-130s?" That would have made the Iraqi war
much easier if the US had tried that.



>> "Hey look at all these orange ships, Japan must be donating lots of Toyotas."
>> "Surprise! Hands up it's the 3rd Armoured Divison."
>>
>> >We are not talking about how scary they are or even how effective they are,
>> >because
>>>they are not going to beat China or North Korea; we are talking about how the
>> >JSDF
>> >and its capabilities are not limited to Japan, as they have already proven.
>>
>>Neither are the Michigan Militia. Given enough of your hypothetical situations
>> and resources they could invade anywhere.
>
>Read Article 9 again. Successful invasion or actually conquering a country are
>irrelevant to the issue.
>

On the contrary, an unsusccesful action wouldn't really "settl[e] international
disputes"



>> >> >> The airforce has no refuelling aircraft -
>> >> >
>> >> >Easily remedied.
>> >>
>>>>yes of course, and Australia could build nuclear weapons. It easy when you
>>make
>> >> up stuff up.
>> >
>> >You mean, Australia can't? Japan can.
>>
>> Of course we could.
>
>Is Australia a country like Japan where the government admits numerous times
>when
>new reports come out of places like Tokaimura, that it cannot account for
>hundreds
>of kilograms of nuclear material each time, claiming for example, that it must
>be
>clinging to pipes? Even more shocking than the fact the Japanese governments
>admits
>to "losing" hundreds of kilograms of nuclear material at a time, when it is
>claimed
>regarding North Korea that 5 or 6 kg are all that are required for an atom bomb,
>or
>that the Japanese media will openly report such (in English at least), is the
>fact
>the international community such as the UN or the US, take no interest in
>finding
>out what is happening to all that material, while putting so much pressure on
>communist or muslim nations simply suspected of having the potential to develop
>arms.

One soap box at a time please.

>
>> The point is you are just making up stupid scenarios.
>
>The point is Article 9 is created to prevent any scenarios of war or use of
>force.
>
>> Australia could build nuclear weapons therefor so we are a nuclear power.
>
>No it isn't. However, Japan is a potential nuclear power.
>

Australia has everything it needs, and unlike Japan has a weapon system capable
of delivering them.



>> >Claiming Japan is not in violation of Article 9 as Japan has for years is
>> >"making stuff up".
>>
>> No, that is the first time you've mentioned it.
>
>So? Japanese politicians claiming Japan is not in violation of their own
>Constitution are making stuff up.
>

I have just realised you lead me into an Article 9 argument.

Japan has no ability, legal or physical, to protect it's energy supplies.



>> You started off saying Japan
>>should not tow the US line and I pointed out practical reasons why they can't or
>> shouldn't.
>
>Like bringing up Article 9 when it is practically a dead issue, and even 70% of
>Japanese in survey believe the Constitution should be revised.
>

Japan has no ability, legal or physical, to protect it's energy supplies.


>> Obtaining offensive weapons is very different to peace keeping in
>> East Timor.
>
>Irrelevant to the issue of Article 9, and Japan has the ability to wage war.
>They
>don't need to win or conquer anyone to do it.
>

Japan has no ability, legal or physical, to protect it's energy supplies.



>> >
>>>And what have North Korean rockets and nuclear arms done in war while Japanese
>> >wring
>> >their hands?
>>
>> I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
>Expense and accuracy are irrelevant. Rockets are missiles. Even airliners are
>missiles.
>

You are insane. Rocks are potential weapons too.

Japan has no ability, legal or physical, to protect it's energy supplies.



>> Well of course they could hit Argentina for selling their oil to the US but I
>> don't think they would.
>
>What Japan would do is irrelevant, as they are never supposed to be able to do
>any
>such thing. Read Article 9.

They could crash an oil tanker a Chinese ship. No point in asking, you think
that is war potential don't you?

BTW Japan has no ability, legal or physical, to protect it's energy supplies.

>
>> While I wouldn't want an H2A crashing on my house they
>>would really have to build a warhead first. The H2A is not a weapon, and it is
>> so unreliable that it is  not even a potential weapon.
>
>What do you think of North Korean missiles, or their space program, and how is
>that
>any consolation to the Japanese or US governments, or panicky Japanese? If North
>Korea can hit Fukuyama, they are welcome to do it, and I'd like to see a North
>Korean missile with the range to strike the US.


Why even quote if you aren't addressing what I said. Are you talking to me or
the voices in your head? Did you take your medication today?

BTW Japan has no ability, legal or physical, to protect it's energy supplies.



>
>Why is an F-15 with 500 kg bombs not an offensive weapon, or lobbing grenades at
>Korea not offensive? 

I have already addressed this. It is a matter of effectiveness. Because Japan
does not have refuelling craft an F-15 would barely be able to reach Nth Korea
and then would have minimal payload.


> Were F-15s or grenades not offensive in Iraq, either? 

They were part of system that Japan is unable to replicate.

BTW Japan has no ability, legal or physical, to protect it's energy supplies.


> I'm sure
>Japan would think differently if F-15s came from Asia or Asian neighbors
>attacked
>Japan with small explosives.

They would certainly be very surprised.


>
>> In your mind any weapopn can kill therefore is an offensive weapon.
>
>No. But read Article 9.
>

Careful Eric a moment ago you were saying that airliners were weapons.


>
>> Should they be armed with nerf bats?
>

apparently










.

----

someone who wants junk mail
info@jpat.jp