i think he was making a point that even though china has a impressive fleet long ago that counts for nothing today, as a counter to ur WW2 experience theory.
Who is the better choice for publishing advice...Take a look at the source for printing presses below...
Printing press - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...And ask who would you rather contract with if you want to print for the masses in the shortest possible time?
Technology often compel radical changes in operations, if not in concepts. Sailing techniques demands the sailor to be aware of changes in wind directions, thereby affecting maneuvers, thereby influential in combat. Powered ships have no such worries. If any ship that frets over changes in wind directions are aircraft carriers as the ship would prefers to launch and land aircrafts into the wind. Another appropriate analogy is the sliderule versus a Texas Instrument scientific calculator. Which engineering company is going to be more productive in the shortest possible time?
and the PLAN has never to claim have a blue water navy, they have aspired to be a blue water navy and is actively trying to build one but the process is on going and incomplete and it remains largely a green water navy
The JMSDF has more experience in 'blue water' operations than the PLAN, even though it is primarily a self defense force with no power projection ambitions.
todays navy is very different from that of WW2 i do believe that japan will have more experience if war started out tomorrow simply because they have operated farther for longer. of course the USN is unmatched here. and if a shooting war broke out tomorrow it will depend on who started it, if japan starts it the US will find it very hard to protect japan after all at that point it is not defending an ally it is helping an ally with an attack. USN aside i believe PLAN can take on the JMSDF due to numbers and availability of weapons to attack with, of course that is not to say china will get away unscathed. but with each passing day the advantage will go father and farther over to the Chinese side as its navy continues its modernization and begins to operated farther with newer equipment.
Wrong...That is not how alliances base their foundations. What we casually called 'war' is essentially a state of hostility between two or more nation-states. The two Koreas are technically at war. An 'armed conflict' is when the state of hostility, aka 'war', moved laterally. Some would call it an 'escalation', and some call it 'deterioration'. No matter what term, when there is an 'armed conflict', the state of 'war' by then has been extensively analyzed by all sides and justifications for the state of 'armed conflict' established.
If Japan is the one to move a 'war' into an 'armed conflict' by firing the first shot, the US would most likely be an already active participant leading up to that first shot -- by Japan. The alliance's justifications would have been established for said escalation. We can use the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait for example when Iraq accused Kuwait of 'lateral drilling' into Iraqi territory. The charge, true or false is irrelevant, constitute the justification process to punish Kuwait and exact revenge. If the US, based upon said analysis, determine any justification process to escalate the 'war' into an 'armed conflict', is not worthwhile for any reason, selfish or otherwise, and Japan decide to make an 'irrational' decision and proceed with that justification process, the US would or should make a public decline to support that escalation, putting Japan into an inferior position. For Japan, losing the public support of a powerful ally would force Japan to reassess the justification process that led up to the desire to escalate the 'war'.
In any alliance, there are always disparities in capabilities and experience among alliance members and there is always at least a tacit understanding that when an 'armed conflict' involve a member who depends on a militarily superior member, the inferior must do whatever he can to reduce the burden of support by the superior. So assuming the US does support Japan in moving the 'war' into an 'armed conflict', the combined capabilities and combat experience of both navies would make short work of the PLAN without requiring the US wielding the full might of the USN into this 'armed conflict'.