Article

2009-10-21 China-Japan-Koreas

Gates says Japan deal on US airbase must stand

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2009-10-21 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 CHINESE MILITARY FORUM > JAPAN MAY NOT LET US USE OKINAWA AIRFIELDS [Nippon expectin' flexibility = compromise wid SecDef Gates in Base talks].

Posted by JosephMendiola">JosephMendiola 2009-10-21 00:20|| na]">[na] 2009-10-21 00:20|| Front Page Top

#2 Now there's a thorny question for the One's administration.
If Japan is still an ally, then their "presumptions" can be dealt with the appropriate harshness.
However, if Japan is no longer an ally, then their ass must be kissed.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2009-10-21 03:03|| 2009-10-21 03:03|| Front Page Top

#3 We paid for that base in 1945 with 12,000 souls; they can't have it back unless we don't want it anymore.

Posted by Glenmore 2009-10-21 08:03|| 2009-10-21 08:03|| Front Page Top

#4 You don't want to get into "our mountain of corpses is taller than yours" pissing contests with the Japanese over Okinawa, Glenmore. Theirs is taller and has more civilians in it, regardless of the other aspects of the matter.

I don't know much about modern-day Okinawa besides its status as Japan's Hawaii - IE, an island-shaped South Seas-themed tourist trap. What is it that makes it such a leftist peacenik wonderland? Is it the sunny weather that attracts all the goddamn hippies?

Posted by Mitch H.">Mitch H. 2009-10-21 08:19|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]">[http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/] 2009-10-21 08:19|| Front Page Top

#5 You could also tell the Japanese Government we'll discuss it after the Russians return the northern islands back to their jurisdiction just like we have already returned Okinawa. Which would be, like, never. [Ask the German Prussians and Silesians about that one too].

On the other hand, I think we should be out of there anyway, along with South Korea. They're big enough boys now to take care of their own security. Fall back on Guam for local presence and forward staging.

Posted by Procopius2k 2009-10-21 08:46|| 2009-10-21 08:46|| Front Page Top

#6 What is it that makes it such a leftist peacenik wonderland?

The Chinese.

Posted by Pappy 2009-10-21 09:30|| 2009-10-21 09:30|| Front Page Top

#7 Our military bases and naval rights in Japan are the result of bilateral treaties of mutual friendship and military cooperation with the Japanese. If they don't wish to be friendly and don't want to cooperate, we're out of there.

Posted by Steve White 2009-10-21 09:49|| 2009-10-21 09:49|| Front Page Top

#8 Okinawa's like 1200 miles closer to the Taiwanese Straits and a bunch of other Asian theatres of probable future strategic relevance than Guam. Guam is *not* a good replacement for the Okinawan bases.

China's a pretty important strategic dilemma. They're square in the Imperial Germany sour spot of:

- rising economic power
- catastrophic demographic profile
- revanchist know-nothing popular sentiment

I wouldn't be surprised if we give them Taiwan before 2012. Just flat out - on a platter, here's your dinner and go back to the kiddie's table and be a nice boy, junior. All the song and dance for the ChiCom 60th anniversary is surely signaling *something*.

Posted by Mitch H.">Mitch H. 2009-10-21 12:10|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]">[http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/] 2009-10-21 12:10|| Front Page Top

#9 I agree Okinawa is much better positioned. But we can't use it if the Japanese don't want us there. We're friends, not (anymore) occupiers.

Posted by Steve White 2009-10-21 12:48|| 2009-10-21 12:48|| Front Page Top

#10 B-52 missions out of Anderson AFB on Guam to points in SE Asia were 13 - 15 hours depending on where you went. To go anywhere strategically relevant today would take much longer and require multiple aerial refuelings. That would be ugly if you couldn't launch tankers out of Kadena.

Posted by rwv 2009-10-21 12:48|| 2009-10-21 12:48|| Front Page Top

#11 They seem to have completely blanked their minds as to WHY that base is there, They already started and lost one world war, we WILL watch them, closely.

And their mouthy politicians will NOT do squat about it. Politicians got them in this mess in the first place.

(Yes I know they were called Royalty, if you think Royalty isn't political you need history lessons.)

Posted by Redneck Jim 2009-10-21 13:09|| 2009-10-21 13:09|| Front Page Top

#12 I wouldn't be surprised if we give them Taiwan before 2012.

The senior Chinese have figured out already they can essentially buy Taiwan. Why fight for it?

And with the present administration along with the the ancient regime at State, they won't do anything. They'll vote present. So why posture for nothing. It wastes resources and makes you look foolish.

Posted by Procopius2k 2009-10-21 18:49|| 2009-10-21 18:49|| Front Page Top

#13 **BREAKING ** GUAM PDN > JAPAN: US TROOPS MUST GO [prefer any + all USMC, etc. leave OKinawa]; + GUAM K57 RADIO > GATES: NO FUTENMA RELOCATION, NO RELOCATION OF TROOPS TO GUAM. Includes NO FOLLOW-ON US-LED CONSOLADAT OF US FORCES IN JAPAN-OKIN, + NO RETURN OF LAND TO OKINAWA.

Posted by JosephMendiola">JosephMendiola 2009-10-21 18:51|| na]">[na] 2009-10-21 18:51|| Front Page Top

#14 Lest we fergit, CHINA > wants to include historic autonomous pro-CHIN Vassal kindgom RYUKYU KONGDOM = OKINAWA as part of its desired OFFSHORE CHIN EEZ/SPECIAL EZ ["continental shelf" diplomacy]. It does want to see a strong REARMED = MILITARIZED NUKULAAR JAPAN AS A REGIONAL + GEOPOL COMPETITOR TO THE FTURE CHIN SUPERPOWER ["weak Japan"].

* NET > CHIN MIL FORUMS > Now thru Year 2020, possib even 2025, is the DECISIVE PERIODS FOR CHINA TO PREVENT THE RISE OF A STRONG NUCLEAR ANTI-CHIN JAPAN, or in altern to DOMINATE/CONTROL SAME.

SAME > CHIN NETTERS-ARTICS > to defeat or stop the USN, espec its Aircraft Carriers + Subs in war, CHIN MUST BE ABLE TO THREATEN IFF NOT TAKE OVER GUAM-CNMI + MICRONESIA, EVEN THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS + PARTS OF ALCAN-NORAM IFF NEED BE.

The above is EXCLUSIVE of RADICAL ISLAM'S ENTRY INTO PACOAS [ e.g. Uighurs in PALAU = SYMBOLIC GATEWAY] as per its REGIONAL-UNIVERSAL JIHAD [fight one andor both the US + CHINA, etal.].

Posted by JosephMendiola">JosephMendiola 2009-10-21 19:07|| na]">[na] 2009-10-21 19:07|| Front Page Top

#15 PAKISTANI DEFENC FORUM > TAIWAN SAY CHINA CONTINUES ITS MILITARY BUILDUP [1500 Missles],

versus

CHINESE MILITARY FORUM > TEN YEARS TO TACKLE THE TAIWAN EQUATION. 1990's "YEAR 2020" BENCHMARK raises its head again.

ARTIC > GEOPOL-MILPOL "SECURITY OF TAIWAN" IS DITTO ALSO THE "SECURITY OF JAPAN".

Posted by JosephMendiola">JosephMendiola 2009-10-21 20:43|| na]">[na] 2009-10-21 20:43|| Front Page Top

#16 Our military bases and naval rights in Japan are the result of bilateral treaties of mutual friendship and military cooperation with the Japanese. If they don't wish to be friendly and don't want to cooperate, we're out of there.

It's not quite that simple IMO. For one thing, we've invested heavily in facilities there. And the legal agreements were put in place to allow long term planning, both with regard to materiel and also with regard to where else we have forces.

Would you like to see, say, agreements signed with Israel, in which they invested money and agreed to forego alternative defense methods, abrogated unilaterally by the current White House? Sudden denial of technologies they contributed to, or that we promised in exchange for them not investing in equivalents of their own?

I agree we're not occupiers there. But the precedent of quietly going home at this point has significant implications that should not IMO be accepted without objection.

Posted by lotp 2009-10-21 20:46|| 2009-10-21 20:46|| Front Page Top

#17 When I saw this article, I realized that the security implications for Japan and the US were huge. Yes, there are problems having the base in Okinawa. There have been problems in the past and there will always be problems in the future.

IMHO, this is a defining moment in US/Japan relations. How Obama handles this one will send messages to other allies with other bases. Japan must realize that closing off Okinawa bases has great implications to its own security. And all the while China is watching the whole thing. And so is Taiwan.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2009-10-21 21:06|| 2009-10-21 21:06|| Front Page Top

#18 Lest we fergit II, WMF > US-CHINA CONFLICT = To defeat the USN = US AIRCRAFT CARRIERS + SUBS, CHINA should UNILATER PREEMPTIVELY destroy JAPAN wid its nuclear missles, then turn same towards incoming US Milfors.

In any case, HAWAII being a de fact US STATE WID FORMAL SAY + PRE-DETERMINED SHARE IN US = USDOD BUDGETS, + GUAM being only an UN-INCORPORATED TERRITORY whose local Budget $$$ must be anually submitted, debated, and approved by the US Congress, + whose Leadership can't decide on what kind of LR Relations = final Political Status it wants wid the USA, HAWAII THE ALREADY-A-US-STATE-WHILE-GUAM-IS-NOT [US West Coast States]STANDS TO $$$ BENEFIT IFF THE MARINES STAY OR LEAVE JAPAN.

This scenario also inclusve if CHIN taking over GUAM + HAWAII, ETC. STRATEGIC AREAS; or inducing the NUCLEAR DESTRUCTION OF SAME AS PERTINENT.

E.g. CHINESE MIL FORUM THREAD [DER SPIEGEL Artic] > IIRC CHINA'S PLA SECOND ARTILLERY HAS 400-KILOTON DF-31/31A's LRBMS AIMED JUST AT GUAM PER SE, + exclusive of HAWAII + other major targets.

Just one more reason, among many, why Guam is only hurting itself by waffling + NOT having a formal vote of SELF-DETERMINATION/POL STATUS.
THE LONGER IT KEEPS PUTTING IT OFF, THE MORE IT RISKS LOSING EVERYTHING.

E.g. GUAM PDN Artic this AM > ANTHONY GODWIN [a top Guam realtor] > [paraphrased]MANY IN GUAM'S BUSINESS SECTOR ARE ENDANGERING THEMSELVES $$$ BY "PLACING THEIR BETS" ON THE MARINES BUILDUP/RELOC FROM OKINAWA.

I've been saying this for a long time now.

But. once again, I digress...

Posted by JosephMendiola">JosephMendiola 2009-10-21 21:06|| na]">[na] 2009-10-21 21:06|| Front Page Top

#19 CHIN MIL FORUMS > Now thru Year 2020, possib even 2025, is the DECISIVE PERIODS FOR CHINA TO PREVENT THE RISE OF A STRONG NUCLEAR ANTI-CHIN JAPAN, or in altern to DOMINATE/CONTROL SAME.

Japan does accept military but not financial domination by the U.S. I'm not at all certain they'd accept even the attempt at either by China.

Posted by trailing wife 2009-10-21 21:11|| 2009-10-21 21:11|| Front Page Top

#20 They may not have the means to really resist. Their demographics have totally tanked. The elderly want stability and the young are tired of the old politicians who aligned with the US. They are heavily export driven and resouce poor in the midst of a serious recession that could tip into a full depression.

Posted by lotp 2009-10-21 21:33|| 2009-10-21 21:33|| Front Page Top

23:58 JosephMendiola
23:54 JosephMendiola
23:46 JosephMendiola
23:39 JosephMendiola
23:36 JosephMendiola
23:31 Glenmore
23:12 tipper
22:55 gorb
22:37 KBK
22:07 lotp
22:05 lotp
21:53 A_Rovian_Disciple
21:48 phil_b
21:47 Barbara Skolaut
21:43 Anonymoose
21:38 Pappy
21:33 lotp
21:29 trailing wife
21:23 trailing wife
21:18 trailing wife
21:15 trailing wife
21:11 trailing wife
21:07 trailing wife
21:06 JosephMendiola