- Joined
- Jun 15, 2014
- Messages
- 29,201
- Reaction score
- 9,729
- Location
- Florida The Armband State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
The whole ball of wax revolves around Japan building an MIC like the US. That's not a good thing. The USA uses Japan as a forward operating base as well. An strong MIC, military industrial complex, is not a good thing. As Eisenhower warned, ti can usurp policy and exert control over the Nation. Why do you think we always have so much military action going. If you're naive enoug to think we are the World's policemen, the MIC/NeoCon/Corporate narrative is resident and working within your cerebellum. I don't see Japan threatened by NKorea, China or Russia, but I do see Japan threatened by an ascendant MIC.
/
The whole ball of wax revolves around Japan building an MIC like the US. That's not a good thing. The USA uses Japan as a forward operating base as well. An strong MIC, military industrial complex, is not a good thing. As Eisenhower warned, ti can usurp policy and exert control over the Nation. Why do you think we always have so much military action going. If you're naive enoug to think we are the World's policemen, the MIC/NeoCon/Corporate narrative is resident and working within your cerebellum. I don't see Japan threatened by NKorea, China or Russia, but I do see Japan threatened by an ascendant MIC.
/
Japan is to the USA now what Britain has been. The two are same or similar to USA national security and global stability.
That is, just as Britain the island nation is the US closest ally off the continent of Europe and the Atlantic, Japan is the island nation closest ally of US off the continent of Asia and the Pacific. The western Pacific most specifically but also at the East Sea through the South China Sea on out to India. India is now a US strategic defense partner btw. SK is the US close ally peninsula nation situated next to Japan, Russia, NK, China. Then there's Taiwan which is well self-defended and prepared to burn CCP Boyz on their own land should they attempt and invasion.
Don't look now Fagan but Woodrow Wilson promised to make the world safe for democracy yet we're still at it. The reason can be found by looking around the world from then to now, to include Russia for a hundred years now and China, NK plus Iran. A major reason you're not a prosperous man Fagan is that you keep going short. And coming up shorter.
I haven't seen CCP threaten anyone. Why didn't Woodrow Wilson install democracy in the USA? The World's not safe from the USA. Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Panama, Haiti, Honduras, Guatamela, Philippines, Vietnam, Chile, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, just to name a few. You need to take a look at the Real World.
/
Well the effectiveness would all the depend on the F-35, which is the most expensive warplane ever built and still full of problems.
You first Dave.
Take your phone with you cause you'll need to hit 911.
I fail to see the value in just two rather small aircraft carriers compared to the dollar value they represent in comparison to say something like A Burke Destroyers. In small conflicts, they will do ok (ie vs countries like Vietnam, Malaysia) the probable lack of anti ship missiles and aircraft will allow the small carrier a freedom of operation. But in a conflict with a larger major power these carriers would be prime targets, and will have to operate quite a distance from threats which will limit the effectiveness of the F35B which will have the lowest op range of the F35 variants. Japan would be better served by focusing on land based fighters and expanding its stockpile of missiles (ie getting lots of long range cruise missiles)
Carriers as cool... Chicks dig them.
Perception of power rather than power.
MIC - Everybody drink!
A sound of gas passing, an instant of silence, followed by a splash. Another fieldmouse dropping.
/
I fail to see the value in just two rather small aircraft carriers compared to the dollar value they represent in comparison to say something like A Burke Destroyers. In small conflicts, they will do ok (ie vs countries like Vietnam, Malaysia) the probable lack of anti ship missiles and aircraft will allow the small carrier a freedom of operation. But in a conflict with a larger major power these carriers would be prime targets, and will have to operate quite a distance from threats which will limit the effectiveness of the F35B which will have the lowest op range of the F35 variants. Japan would be better served by focusing on land based fighters and expanding its stockpile of missiles (ie getting lots of long range cruise missiles)
With reports of the Chinese developing an anti-carrier long range missile I'm beginning to wonder if the carrier itself has gone the way of the battleship.
There have always been surface to surface anti-ship missiles. What makes one especially 'anti carrier' I don't know.
Japan is to the USA now what Britain has been. The two are same or similar to USA national security and global stability.
That is, just as Britain the island nation is the US closest ally off the continent of Europe and the Atlantic, Japan is the island nation closest ally of US off the continent of Asia and the Pacific. The western Pacific most specifically but also at the East Sea through the South China Sea on out to India. India is now a US strategic defense partner btw. SK is the US close ally peninsula nation situated next to Japan, Russia, NK, China. Then there's Taiwan which is well self-defended and prepared to burn CCP Boyz on their own land should they attempt and invasion.
Don't look now Fagan but Woodrow Wilson promised to make the world safe for democracy yet we're still at it. The reason can be found by looking around the world from then to now, to include Russia for a hundred years now and China, NK plus Iran. A major reason you're not a prosperous man Fagan is that you keep going short. And coming up shorter.
I fail to see the value in just two rather small aircraft carriers compared to the dollar value they represent in comparison to say something like A Burke Destroyers. In small conflicts, they will do ok (ie vs countries like Vietnam, Malaysia) the probable lack of anti ship missiles and aircraft will allow the small carrier a freedom of operation. But in a conflict with a larger major power these carriers would be prime targets, and will have to operate quite a distance from threats which will limit the effectiveness of the F35B which will have the lowest op range of the F35 variants. Japan would be better served by focusing on land based fighters and expanding its stockpile of missiles (ie getting lots of long range cruise missiles)
That was always the intention: they had their eye on the F 35 for a while
It also seems to be the plan with Australia's ski ramp carriers, though I'm not sure it's been announced yet.
With reports of the Chinese developing an anti-carrier long range missile Im beginning to wonder if the carrier itself has gone the way of the battleship.
There have always been surface to surface anti-ship missiles. What makes one especially 'anti carrier' I don't know.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?