Japan needs to stay as a pacifist. I don't support the idea of a militarised Japan. Their defence is under our umbrella. They should focus more on their country. Many Americans are still sensitive about Pearl Harbour.
Being a pacifist and have the right to defend themselve as the need arise is two different idea. You can get all the defensive hardware you can get to get ready for a rainy day but not Militarize yourselve.
The very notion of Defense is to deal with the thread presented by the surrounding.
Yes, Japan is under our defensive umbella now but you cannot gurantee that There are time US have to care about its own interest but rather play guardian to Japan. (say Guam and Japan are being attacked at the same time) We do not want to militarize Japan but we also do not want them to fall without our help. There is a fine balance between two and it's about people who are better than you and me to fine tune this balance.
I'm clear about what you said, but it's a pity that you can hardly get what I meant. PLAN is still under its development, rapidly but still has long way to go to catch up with USN, that's the fact everyone can see. Who would be that stupid to be trapped in that "pure naval engagement" before completely prepared to become a blue water navy? So it's useless to show off your naval power and expect us to have a duel fight with you in the open sea area at least not for another 20 years (well that's my estimation of the time that PLAN could become real blue water fleet). But even with all of your 10 carrier fleet combined together plus Japs and S.Koreans, still you have no chance to fight against our entire army. Believe it or not.
Then come back to me in 20 years, we are talking about the situation now.
Again, if there's a war, it never will be a pure naval engagement as you expect. At least not within next 20 years. So still useless to count how many carriers, cruisers whatever you've got.
Again, come back to me in 20 years, do you really think only PLAN get upgrade in this 20 years but not the Japanese Navy nor ROK Navy nor US Navy??
YOU are talking about naval engagement in open sea, but never me! Don't drag me into your track please, what I am talking is if we Chinese have to fight with US somewhere in the near future. We won't be beaten as easily as you think, we still have our ace in the hole. Please don't compare those fundamental rocket bombs used by Hamas with our DF missiles, even the Iron Dome system cannot be and not even close to 100% successful. How many chances do you think you've got to destroy our almost 8 mach fast missiles before we destroy your carrier? I don't know that and neither do you, just wait and see! I know you just wiki it and got those data advocated by western media, however, Chinese military power is still under the hook that nobody could estimate accurately about exactly how many missiles we've got. I never say DF is unstoppable, even the most sharp sword might be stopped by a more solid shield, how can I say our missiles are unstoppable. It's also the same story for your military power, don't ever think you are unstoppable, especially only with a single fleet
Dude, it's no point if i talk about a naval engagment and you talked about a full on war with Joint operation. Those are 2 different things. Either you come back to my level or i will just ignore you. Those 2 things cannot be compared
Well, you can even treat it as a firework like the S.Korean's rocket, so what? Maybe you can just wiki out the DF-21D we developed several years ago, the newer version is DF-25 and I guess you can hardly google out anything about it. As for the helicopter carrier in Japs navy, it's really a good target for us to make a test shot. If we can catch it, no wonder that your supercarrier should be more cautious, we'll see!
I am not talking about S Korean Rocket, i am talking about Ageis System. DF-21D is a Ballistic missile, so does Scud, the only differnet is SCUD is a land based Surface to Surface missile. In the US Navy, we have talked about making Ship borne Anti-ship ballistic missile but we ruled them out because
1.) We have enough ship and cruise missile to dominate open Ocean
2.) It's would just be a waste of money as a class 2 air defence system can intercept ballistic missile, so even MIM-104 Mod 3 can stop them dead on track, it does not worth developing a Ship Borne Ballistic Anti-ship missile.
Maybe you know the definition of this term but clearly that you haven't got the point of its spirit, what you list there are just certain forms of the asymmetric warfare, but absolutely not all! One single concept may have hundreds of derivative forms based on who is the operator. You won't expect Chinese army act exactly the same as Iraqis right? That's also why I keep saying that your way of thinking seems very linear and your judgement is arrogantly arbitrary. But if your think some ambushed trawlers are all we're gonna play, maybe you are just insulting your own intelligence. I am from one of the military background engineering institutes in China, all you gotta know is our nontraditional underwater robotics are under rapid development. Nothing can JUST happened in land warfare, the tactic ideas share lots of nature in common only if you can see it and make good use of it. Well, you can say I'm just bragging or bluffing or what, if that makes you feel better.
I started to think you even don't know what it mean by "Asymmetric Warfare" it's a warfare based on a smaller defender Force fight against an overhelming force, it does not work in Naval engagement. As the core of Asymmetric warfare is to hide your own troop strength and manuver your core of the force and attack and chip away a larger force.
Think about it in Navy term, how are you gonna use a smaller number of ship to engage a larger number of ship with the same technology? This cannot be done as
A.) In the open Sea, you have no place to hide the bulk of your force
B.) Warships is rather big, you cannot pretent your warship is something else..
C.) Intel Gathering is easy and it's very easy to detech a column of ship, in open ocean.
I don't know what you are talking about PLA and Iraqi, may i again remind you the scope of agrument is 7th Fleet + ROKN + JSMDF can fought off Chinese Navy as of now. If you want to Compare PLA and Iraqi Force or Land warfare, you can do it in your own time, as i am not after this.
I ain't got any interest in your personal life, it's you brought the humanity of Chinese people living in western countries here. And your political diploma from boulder ain't come from nowhere, how could I tell where did you get your education if you didn't show it off somewhere else in this forum? If you dare to show it and use it to back your biased opinion, you must prepare to be questioned. If you are really mad at this point, surely I can let it go. It's nothing to do with the topic after all, I don't want Mr. Hu Songshan warn me again.
Dude, if you do not care, Don't Ask or don't post it in yourt post. Waste of god damn time.
I ain't the one who say education is important to express your view here, if so, i guess the administrator should start asking people scanning their qualification and assign rank accordingly.
You are the one who hung up on Education or background, it's not me, and if you really do not care, DON'T ASK
lol i ain't trolling you are.
Where does this ill logic come from? The large population means larger amount of nutcase? You treat human beings just like a sample of bacterial or what? Don't try to steal and replace the concept, nutcase exists lends nothing to support your judgement on that so called "difference".
dude, getting a nutcase in your country is based on probability, it's a combination of factor on how many people got in touch with Nutcase theory, which is a probability, or how many people act on it, which again is a probability, say every country have the same influence and same mentoring of nutcase, which ever country have a larger population will indeed have the biggest chance to get more people converted as there are more people expose to this theory. it's simple mathematics.
Well, if I took you wrong on this Nazi thing, I apologize!
whatever dude, i didn't say those thing for you
Dude, from the begining to the end i say Nutcase is everywhere, if you fail to see it, that's hardly my problem.
Well, actually I played MUN when I was undergrad for quite a long time. I can clearly see what you mean by citing all these resolutions from security council though I haven't got the time to do the detailed research on that. It's time consuming and I don't want to tangle on this issue. What I would like to say is, it's not China that fire its arms all around the world, it's US! Fair enough?
It is not that Chinese don't have their point, just like I said, maybe it's just because of the language barrier and cultural gap. While on the other hand, plenty of insults from viets, indians, filipinos. We are busy in fighting those SHTs back and surely it's hard to make a point out off nowhere when you're arguing for actually nothing!
Dude, you ask me where in UN gave premission for US to invade, i quote those Resolution and the answer lie within those.
I don't know what you do in model UN, but Real UN act very differently. You can agrue there are no specific clause in 1441 to support the
military operation, but having said that, omission does not mean not accepted so you can agrue all you want, it did not say they authorise military action does not say it cannot accept Military action as a apporiate course of action.
I did not say CHina have fought the Iraqi, i am simply saying the UN resolution is passed by all the Permanent Member as well as SC member. Are those enough proof for you?
I did see a lot of investigation warranted for Legal challenge for Iraqi war, yet there are none succeed, did it already say the war is not illegal? Or ICC is so imcompentent that they need more than 11 years to have a final finding?? Long after the war is finished.
70 Years dude, you need to let go. A militarized Japan is also good for the US (Your country can put less troops on the Asia Pacific & minimizes your expenses in the region)
lol, i too cannot accept a militarized Japan, increasing the defense output is enough for them to independently defend themselve.