Smarr penis? Big Shippu!

[matsuki]

Japan has unveiled its biggest warship since the second world war, again raising concerns about government plans for new defence guidelines.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-07/a ... ed/4870856

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

A Chinese naval flotilla has moved into Japanese waters for the first time in recent weeks, and there has been what Ashley Townshend describes as a tit-for-tat employment of coastguard and self-defence forces by both sides.

Bodes well...with most places in Japan taking a strong line that shuns tats, that only leaves us with one option...

[matsuki]

A Chinese naval flotilla has moved into Japanese waters for the first time in recent weeks, and there has been what Ashley Townshend describes as a tit-for-tat employment of coastguard and self-defence forces by both sides.

Bodes well...with most places in Japan taking a strong line that shuns tats, that only leaves us with one option...

Neither cuntry is exactly well stocked with tits...

[Coligny]

One small helicarrier, no carrier based planes whatsoever. Nobody trained to fly them since WWII.

Can we stop the wankage ? It's even more ridiculous than when thr chinese repainted that Russian rusty hull previously used as a waterpark last year...

Hell, one of our most famous helicarrier the "Jeanne D'Arc" was a floating training school for sailor ran rescue operations all over the world and when they arrived in any harbour the only thing waiting for them was lines after lines of tourist bus ready to drive the sailors to local brothels...

[matsuki]

China is crying about it already: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-0 ... -asia.html

Bunch of really hypocritical vomit but this is interesting:

The English-language China Daily newspaper said in an editorial today that Abe has adopted a “militaristic approach to building national pride.” The editorial said the Izumo was “provocatively named after” a World War II ship involved in the invasion of China.

[Coligny]

Yea, and we named the Aircarrier Foch after a general who said in 1914 that planes were just toys that would never see or have significant use during war... Still don't know if i should laugh or cry on this one...

[matsuki]

I guess it could have been worse...Garapagosu3000 or the Hikikomori4000

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

...one of our most famous carrier...

The Charles de Gaulle is a complete and utter clusterfuck...

[yanpa]

I guess it could have been worse...Garapagosu3000 or the Hikikomori4000

Or Shinjuwan.

[yanpa]

China is crying about it already: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-0 ... -asia.html

Bunch of really hypocritical vomit but this is interesting:

The English-language China Daily newspaper said in an editorial today that Abe has adopted a “militaristic approach to building national pride.” The editorial said the Izumo was “provocatively named after” a World War II ship involved in the invasion of China.

More of a Russo-Japanese war ship which spent most of World War II (the US-Japanese version) laid up. But did manage an interlude oppressing the Shanghai region.

Second Sino-Japanese War and World War II

Designated as flagship of the IJN 3rd Fleet under Admiral Kiyoshi Hasegawa during the Japanese invasion of China during the Second Sino-Japanese War, Izumo was attacked during the Battle of Shanghai by a Chinese torpedo boat, which it sank. Izumo was also attacked on 14 August 1937 by Chinese Air Force aircraft led by Captain (later Major General) Claire Lee Chennault. During the attack, his floatplane was shot down.

Still in Shanghai after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor at about 0400 on 8 December 1941,Izumo opened fire on the United States Navy gunboat USS Wake, forcing its surrender, and sunk the Royal Navy gunboat HMS Peterel (1927) (whose crew refused to surrender). This was one of the first combat actions of the Pacific War following Pearl Harbor.

Despite her antiquated age, Izumo was retrofitted with anti-aircraft guns at Kure Naval Arsenal and re-classified as a 1st class cruiser on 1 July 1942. However, throughout the duration of the war, she was used as a training vessel, and never departed from the safe confines of the Seto Inland Sea. Izumo was sunk at dock in an American air attack on Kure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cruiser_Izumo

[Coligny]

...one of our most famous carrier...

The Charles de Gaulle is a complete and utter clusterfuck...

Says who, little bitch ? Not the actual service history anyway...

Keep your insights to sheep fucking...

[Yokohammer]

I'm kind of ambivalent about this new dinghy.

Japan probably needs it, and I can see how it would be handy in a disaster, but it does look really bad on a PR/diplomatic level. It sort of lays the groundwork for more and larger scale armament in the future too, which I think is what people are really worried about.

Damn, you know, if it weren't for that bothersome history thing hardly anybody would even notice. Maybe we should just stop teaching it in schools and then ... oh wait ...

[Russell]

If Japan needs the ship, they are fully in their rights to add it to their arsenal. It is not as if they are violating some international treaty.

The reactions of China and the Koreas are predictable. I would have been surprised if they would have kept silent.

[Coligny]

If Japan needs the ship, they are fully in their rights to add it to their arsenal. It is not as if they are violating some international treaty.

Helicarrier are a bit of a must have for disaster relief. This + hospital ship = water based awesomeness

[matsuki]

does look really bad on a PR/diplomatic level. It sort of lays the groundwork for more and larger scale armament in the future too, which I think is what people are really worried about.

Which is why they're idiots for the timing and ceremony for it...

[Samurai_Jerk]

does look really bad on a PR/diplomatic level. It sort of lays the groundwork for more and larger scale armament in the future too, which I think is what people are really worried about.

Which is why they're idiots for the timing and ceremony for it...

Please let me know a time in the next 100 years that Korea or China wouldn't get their panties in a bunch over this.

[Yokohammer]

One of the big problems with this is that seen in combination with other recent actions/non-actions by Japan it appears to be a trend.

This, for example:

Japan refuses to sign international document describing nuclear weapons as inhumane

Despite being the only nation to have suffered atomic bombing, Japan has again refused to sign a document that describes nuclear weapons as inhumane.

The document is a joint statement that was presented April 24 at the second session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons being held in Geneva.

The speeches by the mayor of Hiroshima and PM Abe at the 68th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing last Tuesday were quite revealing. The mayor stressed that nuclear weapons were "absolute evil" and inhumane (this is after Japan had refused to sign), but Abe didn't go anywhere near that far. He did say that "we must do everything possible to eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons," but he stopped there, leaving enough loopholes to backpedal in a plethora of politician-speak ways.

Some of the old guys in charge are determined to keep their rearmament options open. I think that's pretty clear. But of course not everyone agrees with them, so hopefully the level-headed bunch can keep the hawks at bay until they get shuffled out of power or die off.

Maybe it's just sabre rattling, but if there actually is a real sabre in the sheath it's worth taking notice.

[matsuki]

does look really bad on a PR/diplomatic level. It sort of lays the groundwork for more and larger scale armament in the future too, which I think is what people are really worried about.

Which is why they're idiots for the timing and ceremony for it...

Please let me know a time in the next 100 years that Korea or China wouldn't get their panties in a bunch over this.

Of course those two will always get upset over Japan doing anything they can warp into a "dis"...I'm just sayin' they didn't need some huge fancy ceremony with fanfare, fireworks, and Aso in attendance. I don't remember any such attention grab with the previous 2 carrier launches. (2009 and 2011)

[Samurai_Jerk]

Japan refuses to sign international document describing nuclear weapons as inhumane

That probably has more to do with their relationship with Washington than anything else.

[Yokohammer]

Japan refuses to sign international document describing nuclear weapons as inhumane

That probably has more to do with their relationship with Washington than anything else.

That's their excuse, but once again how does that jibe with Japan's Three Non-nuclear Principles?

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/非核三原則
(For some reason I can't get all of the above to appear as a link. C&P please.)

In English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan's_non-nuclear_weapons_policy

And the US has signed the NPT.

It doesn't add up. It seems that quite a few people (many Japanese included) feel the same way, and are calling the J-gov't on what they say is just another bullshit excuse for not committing to a non-nuclear future. Masters at the art of the waffle.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Japan has signed the non-proliferation treaty too.

[Yokohammer]

Japan has signed the non-proliferation treaty too.

Very true (pardon my confusion) ... but this:

The statement, drafted by South Africa, will also be endorsed by Denmark and Norway, North Atlantic Treaty Organization members that are dependent on the nuclear deterrence provided by the United States.

... also kind of makes Japan's excuse sound a little weak.

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

Just to weigh in on the nuclear debate, Diet committee meetings are the places to hear what's really on the mind of Japanese officials. I was really, really, really shocked (several years ago now) to go to the House of Reps Standing Committee on Defense and hear frequently, across party lines, aggressive suggestions that Japan arm itself with nuclear weapons. These calls were almost exclusively coming from politicians in their 40s/50s, so it was the younger pollies who were most hawkish.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Japan has signed the non-proliferation treaty too.

Very true (pardon my confusion) ... but this:

The statement, drafted by South Africa, will also be endorsed by Denmark and Norway, North Atlantic Treaty Organization members that are dependent on the nuclear deterrence provided by the United States.

... also kind of makes Japan's excuse sound a little weak.

How many US troops are stationed in Denmark and Norway?

[Coligny]

Japan has signed the non-proliferation treaty too.

Very true (pardon my confusion) ... but this:

The statement, drafted by South Africa, will also be endorsed by Denmark and Norway, North Atlantic Treaty Organization members that are dependent on the nuclear deterrence provided by the United States.

... also kind of makes Japan's excuse sound a little weak.

How many US troops are stationed in Denmark and Norway?

I don't get where you are going. Unless you miss the 'one for all, all for one' part on NATO's treaty... Nato's countrys military installation are more or less hippy like common properties in SHTF situation.

[Samurai_Jerk]

I don't get where you are going.

There isn't much you don't get.

[Coligny]

I don't get where you are going.

There isn't much you don't get.

Not my fault if you're too cheap to buy real viagra instead of the cheap chinese knock offs huney...

[Yokohammer]

Japan has signed the non-proliferation treaty too.

Very true (pardon my confusion) ... but this:

The statement, drafted by South Africa, will also be endorsed by Denmark and Norway, North Atlantic Treaty Organization members that are dependent on the nuclear deterrence provided by the United States.

... also kind of makes Japan's excuse sound a little weak.

How many US troops are stationed in Denmark and Norway?

That's a good point.

On a diplomatic level that might make a difference, but in principle it really shouldn't.

I'm sure there are plenty of ways to justify it on the surface, but as SDH points out there are just too many clues that a significant number of J-pols would love to join the nuclear club to ignore that angle. Personally, I don't necessarily think that Japan should be left entirely reliant on the US, unable to stand up for itself if the shit really did hit the fan. But it's easy to understand why some other countries in the neighborhood might be very worried ... and why many Japanese might be worried as well. So many Japanese felt deceived and betrayed by their own government after the last war, not to mention the recent disasters. Japan's slow armament and increasing military assertiveness combined with its reluctance to commit to any substantial restrictions on it's ability to expand militarily in the future could quite easily lead to an escalating arms race with China, and that has got to be worrying the US as well (in reality this seems to be the case).

I think relations with Washington is a convenient excuse. Wouldn't be the first time.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Japan has signed the non-proliferation treaty too.

Very true (pardon my confusion) ... but this:

The statement, drafted by South Africa, will also be endorsed by Denmark and Norway, North Atlantic Treaty Organization members that are dependent on the nuclear deterrence provided by the United States.

... also kind of makes Japan's excuse sound a little weak.

How many US troops are stationed in Denmark and Norway?

That's a good point.

On a diplomatic level that might make a difference, but in principle it really shouldn't.

I'm sure there are plenty of ways to justify it on the surface, but as SDH points out there are just too many clues that a significant number of J-pols would love to join the nuclear club to ignore that angle. Personally, I don't necessarily think that Japan should be left entirely reliant on the US, unable to stand up for itself if the shit really did hit the fan. But it's easy to understand why some other countries in the neighborhood might be very worried ... and why many Japanese might be worried as well. Japan's slow armament and increasing military assertiveness combined with its reluctance to commit to any substantial restrictions on it's ability to expand militarily in the future could quite easily lead to an escalating arms race with China, and that has got to be worrying the US as well (in reality this seems to be the case).

I think relations with Washington is a convenient excuse. Wouldn't be the first time.

Japan's probably looking at the direction the US is heading and realizing it needs to have a more robust military to defend itself before it's too late.

[Yokohammer]

Japan's probably looking at the direction the US is heading and realizing it needs to have a more robust military to defend itself before it's too late.

Could be. And I can't really disagree with that sentiment. In principle.
It's just that the checks and balances necessary to control that kind of power don't seem to be in place.
Too many loose canons with short fuses.