On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 20:02:44 +0900, Eric Takabayashi  ...
>
>Brett Robson wrote:
>
>>>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.
>
>So why is either selling one's soul to the US or having a force that can "rival"
>the
>US Navy to protect the energy supply going through "notoriously dangerous"
>waters the
>only ways you envision? Among other things, Japan could buy oil from Russia

How does the oil get from Russia to Japan? A very long hose?

>Argentina like the US did. 

Check that one. Right continent, wrong country. That country that starts with C,
is on the other side of the Pananma Canal and Pacific so they would be at the
mercy of the Panama Hat Company. Also they only have light oil suitable for
gasoline, and the US has got it all.

> They could also look for other sources of energy, use
>less, or use lesser defensive measures like when they safely transported nuclear
>fuel
>or MOX.

Which is what they have been doing. 

>>>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.
>
>Helicopters can reach foreign territory or foreign ships while carrying arms
>from a
>"destroyer", but that is irrelevant,

specifically what arms? A Sea Hawk has a range of 600km and flies at a very
unimpressive 180 knots and is armed with a single 7.62mm machine gun and
torpedos. Not a very scary weapons platform.

> as are Koizumi's increasing excuses over why the
>Iraq decision among other SJDF actions, are not a violation of Article 9. What
>makes
>them "naval" helicopters only, with torpedoes only, or such "non offensive"
>roles
>only? Because they are flown from a "destroyer" based at sea?

Because they are anti submarine. Anti submarine is a defensive operation.


>> > 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.
>
>Japanese ships are landing craft.

You are making up stuff. Japan has no landing craft.
this is a landing craft
http://www.navy.gov.au/ships/brunei/gallery/gallery1.htm


>
>> This Army ain't going nowhere.
>
>The same nowhere that includes the Middle East halfway around the world, where
>Japan
>has sent Japanese personnel or evacuated Japanese citizens from before by air
>and
>sea, using SDF and commercial transport?
>

so what? A 747 full of SDF personnel is not a scary propostion.



>> 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.

>
>> they would struggle to lob anything bigger than grenades at Nth Korea.
>
>Japanese rockets would make nifty missiles, as rockets have always been.

You mean the H2A Anti Submarine Rocket? Very expensive and not very accurate.


> Japanese do
>not see the irony of criticizing North Korea's missile or rocket programs while
>trying to improve their own.
>

I don't think it would be possible to hit Korea with an H2A, not even the ones
that go straight up.


>Are you admitting that Japan can attack a neighboring country?

Yes, with 500kg bombs dropped from a F15 or F4; the 5inch (?) gun on their
destroyers; or a helicopter got strafe Nth Korea with it 7.62mm gun. All of
which would get the shit blown out of them.




.





.

----

someone who wants junk mail
info@jpat.jp