Japan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

If the world is silent on Japan's action, then China could do the same. It's called what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the West say China can't do the same just because it is China, then it's might makes right.

I don't know about might makes right but definitely double standards and favoritism. In this particular case it is also Japan's geographic advantage to be located next to open waters with no other immediately neighboring state to contend its claims. It is much easier to claim parts of a physical public commons for oneself when no one else is near.
 

Brumby

Major
I don't know about might makes right but definitely double standards and favoritism. In this particular case it is also Japan's geographic advantage to be located next to open waters with no other immediately neighboring state to contend its claims. It is much easier to claim parts of a physical public commons for oneself when no one else is near.
The primary problem I have with your line of argument is presumption of quilt i.e. excessive maritime claim. Please demonstrate that your fundamental assumption is true before you make accusations.
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
If the world is silent on Japan's action, then China could do the same. It's called what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the West say China can't do the same just because it is China, then it's might makes right.

Or PRC could act based on International norm and take it to ICJ. Double standards?
 

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
The primary problem I have with your line of argument is presumption of quilt i.e. excessive maritime claim. Please demonstrate that your fundamental assumption is true before you make accusations.
Japan is claiming a 200 miles EEZ around the "island", isn't it? Last i check, there is no economy activity on that reef. How come Uncle Sam don't call out on it?
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
Japan is claiming a 200 miles EEZ around the "island", isn't it? Last i check, there is no economy activity on that reef. How come Uncle Sam don't call out on it?
Basically the US has no conflicting interest concerning the issue so they are not going to spend money on it.
 
The primary problem I have with your line of argument is presumption of quilt i.e. excessive maritime claim. Please demonstrate that your fundamental assumption is true before you make accusations.

The primary problem I have with your line of argument is your ignorance of facts already presented which either aligns with others' arguments or do not align with yours.
 

Brumby

Major
Japan is claiming a 200 miles EEZ around the "island", isn't it? Last i check, there is no economy activity on that reef. How come Uncle Sam don't call out on it?

Assuming you are correct that Japan is claiming a 200 nm EEZ around the rock/island, there are a number of parties that might have a vested interest in this situation which I will lay out how it affects them and type actions that might be available :
(a)China - China might invite Japan onto a rather exclusive club and say "Welcome. What took you so long in deciding to screw the system? Didn't you get the memo by my actions?".
(b)US - The US has no direct avenue to intervene by way of FONOP just like the US has no direct avenue to intervene by way of FONOP in the Scarborough Shoal.
(c)Others - If other countries decide to fish in that vicinity within the 200 nm and is excluded by Japanese coast guards, there might be an avenue to lodge it as an issue with the International Tribunal.
 

Brumby

Major
The primary problem I have with your line of argument is your ignorance of facts already presented which either aligns with others' arguments or do not align with yours.
If you are accusing Japan of certain infringement, isn't it fair and reasonable to actually specify what they are? Did you specify or did you merely asserted that Japan is wrong? Please contrast that with Vincent. At least he specified what he views the problem to be.
 
Top