PDA

View Full Version : Japan won't defend allies



joe sixpack
March 25th, 2005, 03:58 AM
This is the 2nd time of heard about there missle defense program in 3 months.
Both articles stated that under Japan's constitution they would not shoot down
a missle targeting an allie unless passing directly above them.

Thats crap! lets here your opinions, Who wants an ally that wont help protect you?

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-japan-missile-defense,0,1948129.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines
i dont have a link to the 2nd article it was a few months ago and said pretty much the same thing.

Jorg
March 25th, 2005, 08:51 AM
This is the 2nd time of heard about there missle defense program in 3 months.
Both articles stated that under Japan's constitution they would not shoot down
a missle targeting an allie unless passing directly above them.

Thats crap! lets here your opinions, Who wants an ally that wont help protect you?

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-japan-missile-defense,0,1948129.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines
i dont have a link to the 2nd article it was a few months ago and said pretty much the same thing.

Think about it. Who is responsible for the Japanese constitution being as it is? Well?

Terry Yager
March 25th, 2005, 11:08 AM
I think it's a non-issue, as missiles are obsolete technology anyways, what with all the satelite-mounted "blackout bombs" that are floating around in space. Any future attack on the US will prob'ly come in that form, if at all.

--T

joe sixpack
March 25th, 2005, 02:12 PM
I think it's a non-issue, as missiles are obsolete technology anyways, what with all the satelite-mounted "blackout bombs" that are floating around in space. Any future attack on the US will prob'ly come in that form, if at all.

--T

I think a low yield nuke detination on the ground is the most likely.
so i would agree that it's prob a moot point, Plus whos to say there missle defense system
would be any better then the one the U.S is planing with 50% success rate.

My point being don't call someone an ally if they are not really such. An ally
is suppost to be a friend in the worse of times. Ah but what an idea world we would live in.
Governments lie to there own people and they sure as hell are not open with
the rest of the world. Humans are greedy by nature, But still.

The whole fact that they would not help avoid an attack even if they have
the power to due so speaks volumes. How hard would it be to hit a button?

And im not just talking about Japan and the U.S this applies to every one's so called allies.


Think about it. Who is responsible for the Japanese constitution being as it is? Well?
There is only two answers i can come up with, Im unsure what your thinking.
No matter what calling someone an ally overrides all else history included. (in my book anyway)

Terry Yager
March 25th, 2005, 05:22 PM
Jorg wrote:
Think about it. Who is responsible for the Japanese constitution being as it is? Well?

There is only two answers i can come up with, Im unsure what your thinking.
No matter what calling someone an ally overrides all else history included. (in my book anyway)

I thought the article in question, Article 9, was MacArthur's baby, but he attributes the idea to someone else who suggested it to him:

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Article+9+of+the+Constitution+of+Japan&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1


The Japanese constitution originally abolished thier military, but under pressure from the US & it's allies, they were eventually forced to form Self-Defense Forces, but which are severely limited. (I think the latest figure I've seen limits them to about 180,000 standing troops). This number is just barely enough to hold a single beachhead in the event of an invasion, and then only long enough for the US to mobilize and come to thier rescue. Anything that is not an immediate threat to Japan is beyond the scope of Self-Defense, and therefore, unlawful for them. It isn't necessarily that they don't want to help, they just are not allowed to do so. It is the US's responsibility to defend the Japanese, not the other way around. (Although if I were the guy in Japan with the thumb on the BigRedButton, I might be tempted to "accidently" bump it at an opportune moment).

--T

Terry Yager
March 25th, 2005, 06:13 PM
I think a low yield nuke detination on the ground is the most likely.


Actually, a higher-yield (multi-megaton) device detonated at 250 miles above Omaha, Nebraska would generate an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) which would bring down the entire power grid of the North American continent, not to mention every satelite in the hemisphere. Every electronic device within range will be rendered permanently unusable, so that even if the power were brought back on-line in a timely manner, it'll do very little good, as nothing will be working. Even our transportation system will be brought to a standstill, as the computers upon which modern conveyances are dependant will be destroyed too. This scenario is much more likely, given the number of "communications" satelites <wink, wink> orbiting the planet at any given moment. Sure, we have our own satelite-mounted nukes too (shhh, it's a secret), but a country like China can do a lot more damage to us than we can do them, because we are more dependant on our high-technology than they are. (It would take a very strong EMP at a very close range to kill a water bufflo, it's nervous system is a lot more hardened than our electronic systems).

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm

http://www.tfd.chalmers.se/~valeri/EMP.html

http://www.nuclearpress.com/view.lasso?id=0012&-token.f=3

http://www.chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2004/07/11209.php

...etc.

--T

vic user
March 26th, 2005, 02:27 AM
i know canada just said no to the american defence shield, and that has pissed off the american government, and now they are playing hard ball with the cattle embargo and softwood lumber against the canadian gov't.

i wonder what the big bully has in store next for canada.

chris

mbbrutman
March 26th, 2005, 05:57 AM
Don't mistake this for an insightful reply.

I'm glad the Canadians declined to be part of our missle shield. It's lunacy, and it's expensive lunacy. We'd be better off addressing why people hate us in the first place.

As for Canadian beef, I won't feel good about any beef util it's all tested. And the US will only do random testing, so it's going to be a while. Nobody has reported a US case of mad cow, but the one or two documented cases were from Canada, so that has people upset, and rightfully so.

That being said, feeding animals things like other animals is a seriously bad and disgusting practice. And I'm sure the US pioneered it. I don't know why we haven't been hit with any domestic cases of mad cow.


Mike

joe sixpack
March 26th, 2005, 08:24 AM
I think a low yield nuke detination on the ground is the most likely.


Actually, a higher-yield (multi-megaton) device detonated at 250 miles above Omaha, Nebraska would generate an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) which would bring down the entire power grid of the North American continent, not to mention every satelite in the hemisphere. Every electronic device within range will be rendered permanently unusable, so that even if the power were brought back on-line in a timely manner, it'll do very little good, as nothing will be working. Even our transportation system will be brought to a standstill, as the computers upon which modern conveyances are dependant will be destroyed too. This scenario is much more likely, given the number of "communications" satelites <wink, wink> orbiting the planet at any given moment. Sure, we have our own satelite-mounted nukes too (shhh, it's a secret), but a country like China can do a lot more damage to us than we can do them, because we are more dependant on our high-technology than they are. (It would take a very strong EMP at a very close range to kill a water bufflo, it's nervous system is a lot more hardened than our electronic systems).

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm

http://www.tfd.chalmers.se/~valeri/EMP.html

http://www.nuclearpress.com/view.lasso?id=0012&-token.f=3

http://www.chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2004/07/11209.php

...etc.

--T

Yup that looks like a whole lotta reading. Obviously you have done more
research then me, Here's what i know (or think i know)

low yeild nuke is 3megaton.
weapon grade plutonium 95-98% purity.
reactor grade plutonium less then 4% purity needed
full size nuke radius aprox 3 miles.

from what i understand it's very difficult to refine plutonium into weapons grade.
There for i say low yield because even a radius of half mile would be utterly devistanting in a downtown area.
It' would take far less matieral to make a low yield.

EMP? hmm well it is true that it would *$#% most electronics they can be shielded.
But im sure the fact still stand that almost no electronics are.
The government has been trying to develope a EMP weapon but has not
be able to match a nuke by any means.

It's also true that every thing has some magnetic properties wood,glass,plastic you me everything.
Im unsure what the effect would be, It seems like the iron in our blood
would just rip our bodies to shreds. Then again if it's that stong you must
be close enough that you'll just melt away long before the magnetic field gets you (speculation)
Then again there is a certin amount of electricity in our bodies so who knows.

As a side note i once seen them levitate a frog in a special magnetic tube. pretty cool.

"Even our transportation system will be brought to a standstill"
Ha! thats not to difficult now, where i live a few well placed parked cars
would due the trick.

As for japans millitary i knew it was not there stong points (least not anymore)
but i had no idea it was so small. Im reminded of a saying my mother use
to tell me, Im sure she was quoting someone else but i dont know who.
"A kingdom is only as strong has the knights that defend it!"

Oh by the way i think china would kick some major ass if they ever fought the US
China would lose in the end but they'ed do a lot of damage, but it will never happen in my lifetime.
They just out number by so much, Assuming they could find the weapons to equip all of them for battle.
But im even more worryed about north korea. They scare the living hell out of me.
I seen this documentry on PBS, I can't even list all the shit that goes on.
Im not so much worried they will attack out of the blue no no. Im worried
bush is going to keep running he's mouth and try to bully Kim jong Ill or how
ever you spell his name. That fact is the guy is scared of bush.. and with good reason.
Bush is a shoot first ask questions later kinda guy and i think N.Korea would
rather kill them selves off fighting rather then surrender.

Ok anyway except for a few nations the world is now one big economy.
For example: the U.S will not fight China anytime soon why? because
about 25% of there total economy is auto manufacturing, China asked
a lot of US auto companies to come invest some years ago late 80's i think
anyway they are to worried about growing as an economy to want to fight.

In fact the US is the largest economy on earth and the rest of the world
begins and ends there. With Japan being about half as large ranking 2nd largest in the world.

Everyone has something to offer and there no real way you could fight
a full scale war with any two major powers it would just be to detrimental to the world economy.
As i always say people are greedy by nature, Hit them in there wallet and things change.

Of the obvious problem with this is terrorist dont giva shit bout economy doing bad.
in fact thats half there goal.

Last thought: if japan has such a push over military it seems to me it would
be in there best intrest try and protect it's allies such as the US if it has the
power to due so. If a missle is headed for, say the US and they have a chance
to intercept it, Would'nt it be in there intrest to due so? if the missle goes by
them and they do nothing, It wont cost them any men to shoot it down.
But they let it go on by anyway, It hit's just as you have said and well say
that everything that could go wrong does. Then are'nt they a little F*#$ed If the person
who shot the first missle wants to invade? Ha missle defence system is prob about as
worthless as throwing rocks.
Well being such a push over that they are there major protector is gone
they get stomped... at least they did'nt violate there constitution i guess.

Terry Yager
March 26th, 2005, 12:08 PM
It's kinda like depending on your little brother to beat-up the neighborhood bully who's been pickiing on ya...

Yah, Dubya is a lot scarier to me than Kim-whatsis-name. I know he's itching to invade Iran, he just can't think of a good excuse to do so.

--T

Rolf
March 26th, 2005, 02:02 PM
Joe: If a Missile passed overhead on it's way to the U.S., I wouldn't shoot it down either. Cos it means, I'm closer (ergo, more vulnerable) to the assholes who launched it. :)
All: Historically Japan stayed within it's own shores. The one time it ventured out, it's purpose was to rename the whole of Asia, Japan.
Point: Japan doesn't have a history of helping anybody. :roll:
Mike:Forget addressing HATE! When somebody gets to the point of hate, they are acting purely emotionially, not rationally, and you cannot reason with emotion.
All U.S.What you need to address is TRUST!
In your Proud and Noble history, I believe you have made 3 Major foreign policy blunders.
1)Trying to withhold the Bomb from the Russians. You've told them "Hey we now decide the Way Of The World!" Cos we got the gun!
To Stalin, that probably didn't appear a whole lot different than Hitler!
2)Vietnam. The Domino Theory. (FTR. I am a Veteran)
Hey we're taking over your backyard, to stop your neighbor getting into ours. If I'm another neighbor, I got Serious doubts about your real agenda!
3)Iraq. Even though I fully support what the U.S. is doing in Iraq, it does not alter the fact that it was an UNJUSTIFIED invasion of a Sovereign Nation! We've seen no Smoking Guns! and no proof that Saddam had anything to do with 911.
When France, your friend since 1776, publicly stood against you on this, Washington should have seen what much of the rest of the world was thinking.
And therein lies the Crux of your Problem.
It's probably safe to say that most of the English speaking World (and for that matter most of the Western World), does know you and generally understands your motives. But consider the following:
Since March 2003, a little part of me has been worried about the self appointed Sheriff of the World. Cos all your Movies, TV, etc, have a common theme. Sheriff "In my town boy, you do what I say!"
If I, as an Australian, have that concern. How much trust is there in the minds of the 3 Billion+ who do not know you and understand you?

So how to build the Trust.
1)Lose the Capone Foreign Policy: "You get more with a kind word and a gun, thanyou do with a kind word."
2)Adopt a Defensive military policy. Most of the world does not see 14 Aircraft Carriers as DEFENSIVE!
3)Let your Youth Culture be your Foreign Policy. Your dominance of the Global Media (includes the Net), means that the world's youth is putty in your hands.
My girls, 20 & 18, are addicted to Video Hits and The OC. Both girls are total Americaphiles. I'll punt that heaps of Iranian, Nth Korean, Chinese, etc, kids feel the same way.
This guarantees the way of the future, is your way! So don't let these kids see you as agressors!

mbbrutman
March 26th, 2005, 02:46 PM
Rolf - I understand that once it is at the point of hate, but if we don't stop what we are doing here in the US it will just continue. It only takes a few years to lose all trust; it takes generations to build it. I'm afraid that a few foreign policy decisions in the last 50 years have turned us from the nice country people over the pond to the neighborhood bully.

Unknown_K
March 27th, 2005, 12:01 AM
US policy is the same as any other leading nation througout history.

A nation gets industrialized to boost its economy. Once the economy (manufacturing) is going along you end up having resources overseas you need to keep things going and end up getting into fights with the locals over those resources. So you invest in alot of guns to defend your resources. Sooner or later you have such a large military that the military gets bored and picks fights with other countries wearing you down, slowing your economy, wearing you down farther untill you don't need the resources you were fighting over anymore.

What the US is going through now happened to France, Spain, England, etc 100's of years ago. Supporting the military and its adventures is slowly destroying the US economy (because of debt) which will eventualy destroy the military itself (or at least turn it into a defensive instead of offensive force). All we have to hope for is that there is a slow decline instead of a big bang.