Tora Tora Tora!!!!!

[Boris Godunov]

These carriers are puny, so no need to fret, PLATO. 13,500 ton displacement is nothing. Consider that the Titanic displaced 46,000 tons back in 1912, and it's smaller than U.S. carriers. Nimitz-class carriers displace 97,000 tons!

[Zkribbler]

The concern doesn't arise from the size of the ship but rather from the fact that Japan is deciding to "project power." It's constitution limits any military power to self defense so why the need to project power.

Once a nation commits itself to projecting power, it can justify in the name of "self defense" invading a country half way around the world because it might have WMD which it might give to terrorist organization which then might use them.

[Boris Godunov]

How much power will Japan project with two 13.5 kiloton carriers? About just enough to defend sea lanes in her vicinity. Carriers that hold around 15 planes aren't going to project much. The notion this is somehow indicative of their soon going around invading other countries is absurd.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
How much power will Japan project with two 13.5 kiloton carriers? About just enough to defend sea lanes in her vicinity. Carriers that hold around 15 planes aren't going to project much. The notion this is somehow indicative of their soon going around invading other countries is absurd.

30 of today's warplanes would be able to devestate many countries. In spite of what you think, this is major firepower. It is only minor when compared to US firepower.

WRT Japan invading other countries. It is not a matter of conquest, but of influence. Japan has a really bad rep in that part of the world due to historical factors. Asian countries appear to have very long memories. How can we try to minimize weapons proliferation when this type of ally is leading the charge?

[Panag]

hi ,

they would be better off buying second hand mothball wasp class ships from the us , loads cheaper and they can do more with it , ......

have a nice day

[Az]

Originally posted by PLATO1003


30 of today's warplanes would be able to devestate many countries. In spite of what you think, this is major firepower. It is only minor when compared to US firepower.

The countries that it would be able to devastate aren't worth devastating anyway.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
30 of today's warplanes would be able to devestate many countries. In spite of what you think, this is major firepower. It is only minor when compared to US firepower.

30 top notch U.S. planes, sure. But will that be what Japan uses? Probably not.

WRT Japan invading other countries. It is not a matter of conquest, but of influence. Japan has a really bad rep in that part of the world due to historical factors. Asian countries appear to have very long memories. How can we try to minimize weapons proliferation when this type of ally is leading the charge?

Were Japan building up to a point of challenging these other countries, that might be a point, but she isn't remotely at that level. Do these 2 carriers seriously make her military competition for China's, NK's or SK's? Not at all. Why shouldn't she be able to build up to a point where she can at least hold her own against those neighbors, which we all acknowledge as hostile?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


30 top notch U.S. planes, sure. But will that be what Japan uses? Probably not.



Were Japan building up to a point of challenging these other countries, that might be a point, but she isn't remotely at that level. Do these 2 carriers seriously make her military competition for China's, NK's or SK's? Not at all. Why shouldn't she be able to build up to a point where she can at least hold her own against those neighbors, which we all acknowledge as hostile?

Japan has the cash and the tech to get very high quality aircraft (probably will even be sold to them by us).

Why shouldn't she build up? US obligation to defend her.

Yes, all those countries you mentioned are heavily armed. Isn't that the problem? Why fuel even more of an arms race simply so Japan can project her own power? If it is simply so she won't be seen as a US lapdog then its not worth the billions that that kind of arms race could spark.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by PLATO1003


Japan has the cash and the tech to get very high quality aircraft (probably will even be sold to them by us).

Why shouldn't she build up? US obligation to defend her.

Yes, all those countries you mentioned are heavily armed. Isn't that the problem? Why fuel even more of an arms race simply so Japan can project her own power? If it is simply so she won't be seen as a US lapdog then its not worth the billions that that kind of arms race could spark.

Why should the U.S. be obligated to defend her totally? She's an ally, so we should come to her aid if needed, but I don't see why we should be entirely responsible for her defense. Frankly, anything that gets our military less involved is a good thing, IMO.

I don't think this will fuel much of an arms race, since the countries that are objecting already have large standing militaries and are going to build up anyway.

So I say the U.S. gets out as much as possible and lets Japan take over her own defense. She's an independent country, she should be able to defend herself like one.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Why should the U.S. be obligated to defend her totally? She's an ally, so we should come to her aid if needed, but I don't see why we should be entirely responsible for her defense. Frankly, anything that gets our military less involved is a good thing, IMO.

I don't think this will fuel much of an arms race, since the countries that are objecting already have large standing militaries and are going to build up anyway.

So I say the U.S. gets out as much as possible and lets Japan take over her own defense. She's an independent country, she should be able to defend herself like one.

To the first part:

http://www.niraikanai.wwma.net/pages/archive/ampo51.html

To the second part: This is the madness we are trying to stop isn't it? Surely the acceptance of the east asian arms race is unacceptable. This can do nothing to the overall security of our country.

To the third part:

Japan already has a formidale self defense force. This is not about self defense...it is about projecting power. That is an offensive stance.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Aircraft carriers are only for one thing...projecting power. Where, exactly, does Japan need to project power to protect her national interests? DPRK can be reached by current airfields. I believe China falls within range of available bombers. Where exactly will these carriers operate, and what will their mission be?

I am all for Japan providing for her own defense, but I am unsure if it is wise to reinstitute offensive capabilities.

Call yourself a sailor?

STOLV carriers are very handy for basing ASW ops. Not everyone uses carriers like the US does.

Given that Japan imports over 90% of its raw materials (not to mention the substantial fishing fleet) it would make a lot of sense to have a beefy ASW capability - bearing in mind what SLBM tech is like these days.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Cruddy


Call yourself a sailor?

Did I? Boy, that would have been a mistake!

[Cruddy]

Oops, sorry Plato - thought I was quoting Lornestar.

[PLATO]

Given that Japan imports over 90% of its raw materials (not to mention the substantial fishing fleet) it would make a lot of sense to have a beefy ASW capability - bearing in mind what SLBM tech is like these days.

Okay, I can see this as a resonable thing. I guess that it really comes down to what kind of airframes and how they are deployed.

I still think that this is pushing east asia in the wrong direction IMHO.

[:) Smiley]

Japanese naval officers call the new ships "destroyers" instead of "aircraft carriers" in an effort to dampen opposition within Japan from critics who are against enhanced defense and from China and the two Koreas.

no comment