On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 04:42:41 +0900, Eric Takabayashi  ...
>
>Brett Robson wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>The rest of the world does not take responsibility for their own national
>defense?

You have forgotten what you have written already. Go back and check what you
were talking about not doing.


>
>> >> 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.
>
>No, they do not have to use more fossil fuels. They just chose that life.

They can use magic crystals? Yes, I've seen Star Gate on TV as well. Eric, it's
not real.


>
>> >> 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.
>
>You may have noticed the recent trend against more dam construction. There is
>not a lot more which can be done anyway.

What is your point?


>
>>>>>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.
>
>You may have noticed they decided to build one or two.
>

Let me know when they are commisioned.


>> 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.
>
>That's where more modern fighters are useful.
>

Of course Japan does not have the ability to put a modern fighter into hostile
territory. I said that several messages ago.


>> 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.
>
>Put a tank on a ship.
>

The Japanese military do not have ships that can carry tanks and land them. I
have said this several times but you don't want to think it through.



>> >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?
>
>That's what it meant before they created the SDF to public protest.
>
>> If so you would probably be the only one.
>
>No I wouldn't. A report Monday night revealed only 15% of Japanese would defend
>Japan in a war.

15% of 120million is a big army.


>But I don't believe Japan
>should not defend itself, anyway. Japan should have their own military,
>considerably more powerful than the JSDF, and not
>be dependent on the US.
>

Yes that is your opinion. Remember what happened last time they tried that. Did
you know that even the Japanese Empire at it's largest point still could not
provide the resources they needed? Even if the US had retreated to the mainlaind
and they had won the war Japan would not have gotten what they wanted. This is
where we started. Japan is not capalable physically or legally to defend itself.



>>Section 1 clearly refers to "the right to wage war" and "international
>>disputes"; an
>> invasion does not cover either case.
>
>An invasion is not an international dispute?
>

I would say an invasion is very much a domestic issue.


>> >Note even "threat" or "potential" are banned.
>>
>> I don't see the word "potential" anywhere.
>
>It's in senryoku.
>

Senryoku is one word. You can't have a word inside another one. "Potential" is a
kanji.



>> The word "threat" qualified, and as I have repeatedly pointed out no one is
>> threatened.
>
>Perhaps you would like to convince the Koreans and Chinese,

Do you really think any of them are worried about Japan? Read what they say.
They say things like a "rearmed Japan", which is what you are advocating, a NE
Asian arms race. Of course Japan would lose.

> or distrustful Middle Easterners. 

I don't think the Hino Maru is bothering too many Iraqis.

> The Maritime SDF, for
>example, could stop using the Rising Sun banner.

This is a minor point, but count the stripes.

>
>>In section 2 the key word is SENRYOKU, which I have translated to "offensive",
>> which given the context I think is accurate.
>
>My Ex word calls it "military power".

I know. I disagree, what do you think?

>
>> >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,
>
>They aren't limited to SDF equipment. They could go on a cruise ship.

And they could borrow a couple of nuclear weapons from the US. You are making up
stuff again.


>
>> maybe they could put 100 soldiers on a cruiser.
>
>People can slip into Maldives unnoticed, and they have noticed that weakness
>themselves. Maldives also lacks what they
>call an army.

Well send the Hashin Tiger with their baseball bats, I am sure you think Hanshin
is illegal under Art 9 as well.


>
>>>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.
>
>I just asked for how they compare, because you seem to take such offense at
>claiming Japan has a modern and expensive
>force,

No I didn't say that you are making up stuff again, Japan has (on paper at
least) a very potent defensive force. It has extremely limited offensive
capability.


> not whether Japan would fight lesser military powers of the world or not. 

it's not "would" it's "could", or in this case "could not".


> Would asking you to compare the
>Australian military to that of Eastern Europe also be so absurd?

Absurd, no, irrelavent.


>>>>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.
>
>So you see only war when Japan has "offensive forces"?
>

Only wars Japan starts.

>> > or even hostiles in the Middle East.
>>
>> "hostilities in the Middle East? Remind me.
>
>No, "hostiles". It is you claiming even a machine gun on a rowboat would
>threaten Japanese ships or cargo. But they don't
>do it, nor have they been motivated to do such things before they noticed more
>recently how supportive Japan is of the US
>or US policy.
>

Because Japan's friend is the worlds biggest military. The US has already fought
one war to guarrantee Japan's oil supply.



.
>> >> 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?
>
>Take an unguarded and/or largely unpopulated area. Even civilians can go to the
>disputed islands under their own power.
>
>> "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.
>
>The US can invade much weaker countries or territories which would not put up
>such a fight. Like the Maldives.
>
>>>> "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"
>
>Not to the satisfaction of the Japanese, perhaps.
>
>> >> >> >> 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.
>
>A simple yes or no would do regarding Australia.
>
>> >> 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,
>
>Then why do you not consider them a potential nuclear power?
>
>> and unlike Japan has a weapon system capable
>> of delivering them.
>
>When did rockets stop being missiles? When did nukes stop being transportable by
>ship or other methods? Most Islamist
>terrorists don't seem to have ICBMs but the US would like to prevent them from
>obtaining nuclear technology anyway.
>
>> >> >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.
>
>It is you who brought up Article 9 claiming it prevented them from taking
>responsibility to defend themselves by such as a
>"real" military.
>
>> Japan has no ability, legal or physical, to protect it's energy supplies.
>
>The nuclear fuel and MOX came and went without incident without what you term an
>offensive force.
>
>So get the ability to protect a fleet of tankers, among other things, which is
>what I said before you came in claiming
>their Constitution prevented them from doing so.
>
>> >> 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.
>
>Why is that the only issue to you? What happened to you saying Article 9 stood
>in Japan's way? Do you stand with the
>ruling coalition politicians in claiming that Japan is not yet in any violation
>of Article 9, even after deployment to the
>Middle East, with live weapons and the authorization to kill if needed?
>
>> >> 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.
>
>As soon as Japanese step off the planes with equipment in January or February,
>they can be part of an "international
>dispute". And some unlucky Japanese is probably going to make history, though
>they will not be well remembered. It seems
>such a result will be the only way Japan will learn a lesson.
>
>>>>>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.
>
>Rocks are not missiles.
>
>> Japan has no ability, legal or physical, to protect it's energy supplies.
>
>So what? If they spent that six percent of their budget better, which is an
>amount more than most of the rest of the world
>has for their military, or increased spending, they would be able to better do
>so.
>
>>>> 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?
>
>No, but it could start a war.
>
>> BTW Japan has no ability, legal or physical, to protect it's energy supplies.
>
>With a few trillion dollars? Why not?
>
>And it would seem even the US is not able to have such control over its own
>energy supply, ie, the Middle East.
>
>> >> 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?
>
>Why does a fueled rocket need a "warhead" to be a missile?
>
>> 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.
>
>So they can launch an ineffective attack, but it would somehow not be offensive?
>Is that what the Koreans or Chinese would
>agree to? And what can Japan do to foreign ships and planes much nearer?
>
>> > 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.
>
>So spend the money and risk the lives to get it. People do not want the US being
>global policeman or straining itself
>trying to defend a widening circle of allies and foreign territory, while other
>nations spent their money to benefit
>themselves like Japan. I'd like to hear how long you think the US can keep such
>behavior up.
>
>> > 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.
>
>They'd immediately know, or at least claim, that such an attack would be
>offensive.
>
>> >> 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.
>
>They are. You disagree?
>
>> >> Should they be armed with nerf bats?
>>
>> apparently
>
>--
>http://www.mercycorps.org/
>http://www.mercycorps.org/items/1398/
>http://www.mercycorps.org/mercykits.php
>
>Mercy Corps' goal in Iraq is to work with conflict-affected communities to meet
>their urgent needs while also providing a
>firm foundation for the future development of economic opportunities and civil
>society.
>
>Efficiency
>Over 92% of our resources go directly to humanitarian programs.
>
>Excellence
>Worth Magazine named Mercy Corps one of America's best charities.
>
>High-Value
>Every dollar you give helps us secure $12.71 in donated food and other supplies.
>

----

someone who wants junk mail
info@jpat.jp