Equation
Lieutenant General
Good question Popeye, of course my answer would be I wouldn't like it. But than again the Y-8 occurred on "contested territory" meanwhile the E/P-3 incident happens directly upon or near China's territory.
Japan intercepts PLAAF Y-8 near Japan
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Good question Popeye, of course my answer would be I wouldn't like it. But than again the Y-8 occurred on "contested territory" meanwhile the E/P-3 incident happens directly upon or near China's territory.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Well, I certainly wasn't suggesting you were trying to deliberately mislead anyone.
Well I think it would depend entirely on the circumstances that led to the plane having to land in Japanese territory.
If the Japanese intercepted the plane in international airspace and forced it to land, then that would be a clear violation of international law and amounts to an act of war.
If it was an accident, its just bad luck. But to be honest, I seriously doubt in the event of an accident that a PLA plane would ever try to land at a Japanese air base.
As others have pointed out, in terms of geography, Chinese bases would not be much further, and may well indeed be closer than any Japanese air base. Even if a Japanese air base was closer, the PLA crew would never willingly land there. They would much rather try to make it home regardless of the risk to themselves.
To sum up, I think the only way a PLA plane would land at a Japanese base was if it was forced to do so at gunpoint. Even then, I would not be surprised if the PLA plane refused to comply and tried to return home, in effect calling the bluff of the Japanese and daring them to actually shoot the plane down in international airspace.
A more realistic scenario that could result in a serious stand off would be if a Y8 and F15J collided and both crashed in international waters and both sides sends out salvage operations trying to recover the down planes.
Japan to mull pre-emptive strike ability
(Reuters) - Japan is likely to start considering acquiring the ability to launch pre-emptive military strikes in a planned update of its basic defense policies, the latest step away from the constraints of its pacifist constitution.
The expected proposal, which could sound alarm bells in China, is part of a review of Japan's defense policies undertaken by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's government, an interim report on which could come as early as Friday. The final conclusions of the review are due out by the end of the year.
The hawkish Abe took office in December for a rare second term, pledging to bolster the military to cope with what Japan sees as an increasingly threatening security environment including an assertive China and unpredictable North Korea.
Article 9 of Japan's constitution, drafted by U.S. occupation forces after its defeat in World War Two, renounces the right to wage war and, if taken literally, rules out the very notion of a standing army. In reality, Japan's Self-Defense Forces are one of Asia's strongest militaries.
The Defence Ministry will call in the interim report for a study of how to "strengthen the ability to deter and respond to ballistic missiles", the Yomiuri newspaper and other media said on Thursday.
But in a sign of the sensitivity, the report will stop short of specifically mentioning the ability to hit enemy bases when the threat of attack is imminent, the Yomiuri newspaper said.
The ministry will also consider buying unmanned surveillance drones and creating a Marines force to protect remote islands, such as those at the core of a dispute with China, media said.
"The acquisition of offensive capability would be a fundamental change in our defense policy, a kind of philosophical change," said Marushige Michishita, a professor at the National Graduate Institute of Policy Studies.
Obtaining that capability, however, would take time, money and training, meaning any shift may be more rhetorical than real. "It's easier said than done," Michishita added.
The updated guidelines could also touch on Abe's moves toward lifting a self-imposed ban on exercising the right of collective self-defense, or helping an ally under attack, such as if North Korea launched an attack on the United States.
The defense review may also urge replacing with new guidelines a self-imposed ban on arms exports that has already been eased to let Japanese contractors take part in international projects.
Clear guidelines for companies as to what and to whom they can sell could help Japanese defense contractors such as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd, Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd, and Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd seek business overseas.
Some experts stressed that the changes were evolutionary rather than a sudden transformation in Japan's defense posture.
"It's all part of a process of Japan edging away from the most restrictive interpretation of Article 9," said Richard Samuels, director of the MIT-Japan program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Still, given Japan's strained ties with China over disputed isles and how to frame the narrative of Japan's wartime history, China is likely to react strongly to the proposals, which come after Abe cemented his grip on power with a big win in a weekend election for parliament's upper house.
"No matter how Japan explains things, China will attack it pretty harshly," said Michael Green of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Although China has been a nuclear power for decades and North Korea is developing nuclear arms, Japan says it has no intention of doing so.
Support has grown in Japan for a more robust military because of concern about China, but opposition also remains.
Japan last updated its National Defence Programme Guidelines in 2010 when the Democratic Party of Japan was in power.
Those changes shifted Japan away from defending areas to its north, a Cold War legacy, to a defense capability that could respond with more flexibility to incursions to the south, the site of the row with China over tiny, uninhabited islands.
Japan has for decades been stretching the limits of Article 9 and has long said it has the right to attack enemy bases overseas when the enemy's intention to attack Japan is evident, the threat is imminent and there are no other defense options.
But while previous administrations shied away from acquiring the hardware to do so, Abe's Liberal Democratic Party in June urged the government to consider acquiring that capability.
Just what hardware might come under consideration is as yet unclear. And with a huge public debt, Japan may be in no position to afford the bill.
Japan already has a very limited attack capability with its F-2 and F-15 fighter jets, mid-air refueling aircraft and Joint Direct Attack Munition guidance kit. Tokyo also plans to buy 42 Lockheed Martin's F-35 stealth fighters, with the first four due for delivery by March 2017.
Acquiring the ability to hit mobile missile launchers in North Korea - the most likely target - would require many more attack aircraft as well as intelligence capability for which Japan would most likely have to rely on the United States, Michishita said. Cruise missiles might also be considered.
Obtaining the ability to strike missile bases in mainland China would be an even bigger stretch, experts said, requiring for example intercontinental missiles. "It would cost lots of money, and take time, training and education to acquire a robust and meaningful capability," Michishita said.
(Reuters) - Japan is likely to start considering acquiring the ability to launch pre-emptive military strikes in a planned update of its basic defense policies, the latest step away from the constraints of its pacifist constitution.
The expected proposal, which could sound alarm bells in China, is part of a review of Japan's defense policies undertaken by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's government, an interim report on which could come as early as Friday. The final conclusions of the review are due out by the end of the year.
The hawkish Abe took office in December for a rare second term, pledging to bolster the military to cope with what Japan sees as an increasingly threatening security environment including an assertive China and unpredictable North Korea.
Article 9 of Japan's constitution, drafted by U.S. occupation forces after its defeat in World War Two, renounces the right to wage war and, if taken literally, rules out the very notion of a standing army. In reality, Japan's Self-Defense Forces are one of Asia's strongest militaries.
The Defence Ministry will call in the interim report for a study of how to "strengthen the ability to deter and respond to ballistic missiles", the Yomiuri newspaper and other media said on Thursday.
But in a sign of the sensitivity, the report will stop short of specifically mentioning the ability to hit enemy bases when the threat of attack is imminent, the Yomiuri newspaper said.
The ministry will also consider buying unmanned surveillance drones and creating a Marines force to protect remote islands, such as those at the core of a dispute with China, media said.
"The acquisition of offensive capability would be a fundamental change in our defense policy, a kind of philosophical change," said Marushige Michishita, a professor at the National Graduate Institute of Policy Studies.
Obtaining that capability, however, would take time, money and training, meaning any shift may be more rhetorical than real. "It's easier said than done," Michishita added.
The updated guidelines could also touch on Abe's moves toward lifting a self-imposed ban on exercising the right of collective self-defense, or helping an ally under attack, such as if North Korea launched an attack on the United States.
The defense review may also urge replacing with new guidelines a self-imposed ban on arms exports that has already been eased to let Japanese contractors take part in international projects.
Clear guidelines for companies as to what and to whom they can sell could help Japanese defense contractors such as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd, Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd, and Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd seek business overseas.
Some experts stressed that the changes were evolutionary rather than a sudden transformation in Japan's defense posture.
"It's all part of a process of Japan edging away from the most restrictive interpretation of Article 9," said Richard Samuels, director of the MIT-Japan program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Still, given Japan's strained ties with China over disputed isles and how to frame the narrative of Japan's wartime history, China is likely to react strongly to the proposals, which come after Abe cemented his grip on power with a big win in a weekend election for parliament's upper house.
"No matter how Japan explains things, China will attack it pretty harshly," said Michael Green of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Although China has been a nuclear power for decades and North Korea is developing nuclear arms, Japan says it has no intention of doing so.
Support has grown in Japan for a more robust military because of concern about China, but opposition also remains.
Japan last updated its National Defence Programme Guidelines in 2010 when the Democratic Party of Japan was in power.
Those changes shifted Japan away from defending areas to its north, a Cold War legacy, to a defense capability that could respond with more flexibility to incursions to the south, the site of the row with China over tiny, uninhabited islands.
Japan has for decades been stretching the limits of Article 9 and has long said it has the right to attack enemy bases overseas when the enemy's intention to attack Japan is evident, the threat is imminent and there are no other defense options.
But while previous administrations shied away from acquiring the hardware to do so, Abe's Liberal Democratic Party in June urged the government to consider acquiring that capability.
Just what hardware might come under consideration is as yet unclear. And with a huge public debt, Japan may be in no position to afford the bill.
Japan already has a very limited attack capability with its F-2 and F-15 fighter jets, mid-air refueling aircraft and Joint Direct Attack Munition guidance kit. Tokyo also plans to buy 42 Lockheed Martin's F-35 stealth fighters, with the first four due for delivery by March 2017.
Acquiring the ability to hit mobile missile launchers in North Korea - the most likely target - would require many more attack aircraft as well as intelligence capability for which Japan would most likely have to rely on the United States, Michishita said. Cruise missiles might also be considered.
Obtaining the ability to strike missile bases in mainland China would be an even bigger stretch, experts said, requiring for example intercontinental missiles. "It would cost lots of money, and take time, training and education to acquire a robust and meaningful capability," Michishita said.
Quickie
Colonel
The 2 incidents are not comparable. This incident is different from the Hainan incident in that it happened near disputed territories. Besides, the EP-3 was not forced down but was involved in an accidental collision with the J-8.
One thing is for sure, if the Japanese move even a tail in such a hypothetical incident, Japanese cars and other products would be the first prime targets in China.
One thing is for sure, if the Japanese move even a tail in such a hypothetical incident, Japanese cars and other products would be the first prime targets in China.
Er... if the Japanese really make a moves like that, they are ready for war, and they would not really care if their car industry in China would be affected, most probably, they would really have evacuate their people from China... thus I was actually doubtful that the Japanese will actually do such a thing.
However, if an 'accident' happen, then everything will be different. whatever the case, I believe one of the biggest player in here would be US. The US would not want to be forced into taking side (which I believe they must if Japan and China went into war) and the US would not want to be involved. So before the Japanese could take the first shot, US would surely object and their objection might still be powerful enough to stop that moves.
I also believe that the Chinese would not be the first to take the first shot, because, lets face it, unless the Chinese resort to the use of nukes or their strategic weapons like SLBM and ICBM, conventional force wise, the Chinese do not have 100% confident in winning against the Japanese (taking US into consideration too).
SinoSoldier
Colonel
In the event of such a conflict the Japanese may not have time to pull their people from China fast enough.
The United States will most likely side with Japan, if not for their military alliance then for the fact that their military bases in Japan will likely either join the fight or be attacked along with Japanese bases. They will probably restrain the use of force as much as possible and try to broker a peace deal, but seeing how that policy worked out in the Middle East, a US-lead peace treaty is very unlikely.
The Chinese reasons for non-escalation is not a military one. China knows that it has time on its side and at this stage of crucial economic development it surely does not want any risk to it. That being said, the Chinese also take its national integrity seriously and probably would be willing to go out on a foot to defend that. "The first shot" could be anything from one side actually launching an attack or one side landing forces on disputed territory, which will surely be met with a credible military response. No war can have 100% certainty of victory, but the United States did strike Iraq first even though a victory could not be guaranteed, and Vietnam to a lesser extent.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
If the Japanese move a tail it is in the best interests of China to simply ignore Japan and continue its practice. Japan knows that it is incredibly endangering its own interests when it escalates such events.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
Re: Japan to mull pre-emptive strike ability
Excellent. Not only does this give China invaluable insight into Japan's future potential strategy, but also gives it a pretext to accelerate the upgrades of its military.
Excellent. Not only does this give China invaluable insight into Japan's future potential strategy, but also gives it a pretext to accelerate the upgrades of its military.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Re: Japan to mull pre-emptive strike ability
In addition, stronger Japanese military, coupled with renewed nationalism, will make its neighbors nervous. Everyone knows what happened the last time Japan had a strong military (except it's young people), and none of her neighbors has forgiven it for its massive, widespread, and unspeakable crimes against humanity in antebellum and during WW2.
In addition, stronger Japanese military, coupled with renewed nationalism, will make its neighbors nervous. Everyone knows what happened the last time Japan had a strong military (except it's young people), and none of her neighbors has forgiven it for its massive, widespread, and unspeakable crimes against humanity in antebellum and during WW2.