Japan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

joshuatree

Captain
Well, there are some significant differences.

Japan is not creating an island...only markers. No base that I can see associated with it.

Also significant similarities. Japan too is modifying the natural form of the reef in order to perpetuate their claims. In this case, they are actively preventing Mother Nature from taking away the remaining rocks above water which would happen in a relatively short time.
 
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.

I was commenting on Blackstone's comment on the original post which already stated the issue with Japan's claim which Vincent restated:

Japan spends millions building structures on uninhabited rocks 1,740 km from Tokyo to mark its territory
...
The tiny land mass is only above water because two parts of the coral reef have been protected by concrete embankments and blocks that are designed to prevent them from disappearing beneath the waves for good, critics of Japan’s claim to sovereignty say.

China has been particularly vocal about Japan’s claim, insisting that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea makes it clear that Okinotorishima is a reef that cannot support human life and, therefore, cannot be used by Tokyo to extend its continental shelf or EEZ a further 200 nautical miles.

...

Here is a more in-depth article regarding Okinotori specifically and in the context of US-Japan-China relations:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Here is a much more in-depth article regarding the legal issues surrounding artificial islands in general which includes looking at Okinotori:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

Blackstone

Brigadier
Or PRC could act based on International norm and take it to ICJ. Double standards?
What international norms are you talking about? The one in Nirvana or in the real world? If you mean the real world, then China is following well-established international norms. I say that because evidence show China avoiding the ICJ is not double standards at all, quite the opposite. In fact, history show great powers avoid international courts in general and habitually ignore unfavorable rulings with alacrity. So, the internal norm you're so fond of supports China opting-out of ICJ lawsuits and ignoring court rulings when it suits its interests.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
Basically the US has no conflicting interest concerning the issue so they are not going to spend money on it.
The real reason is US needs Japan to contain China, so it will overlook Japanese infringement of international laws for national interest reasons. Should US and Japan part ways on China, then you'll hear Uncle Sam sing a different tune.

Conversely, Japan will likely get support from China on its artificial islands getting EEZ, for Chinese national interest reasons, of course.
 

Brumby

Major
I was commenting on Blackstone's comment on the original post which already stated the issue with Japan's claim which Vincent restated:
Yes you did. However neither Blackstone nor your post referencing his comments actually stated what Japan was infringing. If you are making an accusation, isn't the decent thing to do is to state what it is? I am reproducing the two said posts immediately below as reference.

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.

Btw, Vincent did not restate as you allege and thus implying he did the same thing as you or Blackstone,. He actually stated what he believes Japan was infringing.
Here is a more in-depth article regarding Okinotori specifically and in the context of US-Japan-China relations:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Here is a much more in-depth article regarding the legal issues surrounding artificial islands in general which includes looking at Okinotori:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

There you go again. You don't position your views by providing links as a primary recourse. Common sense is that you state your views (in your own words) and reference to specific comments from sources if you want to and provide links if you have to. That is simply basic presentation and communication skills because it is your job to communicate your thoughts (not someone else as your surrogate) . It is not for the other side to try to figure out what you are trying to say or your point of disagreement.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Are they just reshuffling existing F-15s?
Right now yes but the rest in FY 16 effectively 2016 or 17 ? with one of the two F-2 Sqns based to Misawa replace this one to Tsuiki, and 2 based there.
Good infos also on Scramble, ORBAT.

Maybe SamuraiBlue know more ?

Japan AF reorganisation.png

About Huyga Class, can also refuel others ships, about 3000 m3 max disponible and used several MCH-101 for minesweeping, also can carry up to 450 troops.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Right now yes but the rest in FY 16 effectively 2016 or 17 ? with one of the two F-2 Sqns based to Misawa replace this one to Tsuiki, and 2 based there.
Good infos also on Scramble, ORBAT.

Maybe SamuraiBlue know more ?

View attachment 24781

About Huyga Class, can also refuel others ships, about 3000 m3 max disponible and used several MCH-101 for minesweeping, also can carry up to 450 troops.

I think that the F-15 is better for interception since it has a higher speed than the F-2.
 
Yes you did. However neither Blackstone nor your post referencing his comments actually stated what Japan was infringing. If you are making an accusation, isn't the decent thing to do is to state what it is? I am reproducing the two said posts immediately below as reference.

Btw, Vincent did not restate as you allege and thus implying he did the same thing as you or Blackstone,. He actually stated what he believes Japan was infringing.

I said Vincent restated what is in the original post, not that he is doing anything same as me or Blackstone. There is only one Japanese infringement mentioned in the original post, it's pretty straightforward to see that is what is being referred to.

There you go again. You don't position your views by providing links as a primary recourse. Common sense is that you state your views (in your own words) and reference to specific comments from sources if you want to and provide links if you have to. That is simply basic presentation and communication skills because it is your job to communicate your thoughts (not someone else as your surrogate) . It is not for the other side to try to figure out what you are trying to say or your point of disagreement.

I have already stated my views in my own words and also provided sources and links to share additional information. Unlike you I am not here to argue for some supposed ultimate conclusion but to share and explore perspectives and information.
 
Top