Japan Threatens To Fire On Chinese Fighters, China: There Will Be No Second Shot

[dps]

To get a better picture of the situation, imagine that one kid has a 20-foot long nerf bat, but it's in such bad condition that if he actually swings it, probably about 3/4 of it falls off, and the other kid has a really really high quality but rather fragile mechanical pencil.

This seems to imply that the Japanese and Chinese won't be able to actually kill one another in any numbers, which I doubt to be honest. I mean, even the North Koreans manage to kill South Koreans every so often.

Are there any operational or logistical constraints that prevent either party from projecting force to the islands in question? And once they're there, is there anything that makes it so that they can't actually kill one another?

I get that neither side possesses anything like American capabilities, and that a scenario where either side utterly destroys the other country's infrastructure and ability to wage war is unlikely.

However, if there's some sort of Falklands War like scenario, how do the sides stack up against each other? If both sides send some sort of task force to the area and they start trying to kill each other, who will come out on top?

Oh, sure both sides could wipe out any force the other sends to the disputed area (who would win would depend on exactly what forces were sent, as well as other factors), but short of China nuking Japan, neither can really do much damage to the other's home territory, I don't think.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

It's pretty meaningless anyway.  The Nips already recognize self defense as consistent with their constitution, and only wacko renegade countries fight wars of conquest in this day and age.

There is a pretty big gap between self-defense and wars of conquest.  The Japanese, and others, see any kind of projection of military power outside Japanese territory as contrary to their constitution.  Hell, there was a minor flap when Japan wanted to send warships to protect their own merchants from Somali pirates.  They are absolutely not allowed to deploy their military to defend other nations, as NATO routinely does, nor are they allowed to build the assets required to do so[1].  Therefore, throwing off the pacifist provisions would not be meaningless or merely symbolic.

[1] Hence the reason their helicarriers are "destroyers".

[Admiral Yi]

I agree with everything you've written Moldy, but by the same token I think the subtext on the discussion about Japan being compelled to rewrite their constitution was the risk of them turning into murdering, conquering dickheads again.

[jimmy olsen]

The situation continues to escalate.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324445904578285442601856314.html

Updated February 5, 2013, 12:02 p.m. ET

Japan Accuses China of Aggressive Military Moves

By YUKA HAYASHI in Tokyo and JEREMY PAGE in Beijing

Japan accused China's navy of locking weapons-guiding radar onto Japanese naval forces twice in the past three weeks—a serious escalation in the two countries' long-running territorial dispute that has heightened fears of a looming military conflict between the two Asian giants.

Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera spoke to reporters Tuesday.

"These were cases that could have led to an extremely dangerous situation with just one wrong move," Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera told reporters in a hastily arranged news conference in Tokyo Tuesday evening.

Mr. Onodera said that Chinese frigate ships aimed fire-control radar at a Japanese naval destroyer on Jan. 30 and a navy helicopter on Jan. 19. While neither incident involved firing of shots—a step that can follow use of such radar—the minister described the incidents as "highly unusual behavior" that occurs "only in extreme situations."

"We intend to push China very hard to restrain from engaging in such dangerous act," Mr. Onodera said.

The worsening dispute has drawn particular concern in the U.S., which has 37,000 troops stationed in Japan, with a majority on the island of Okinawa, just 260 miles from the disputed area.

Maj. Cathy Wilkinson, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said Tuesday morning that the U.S.'s commitments toward the islands were "longstanding and have not changed." A 1960 bilateral security treaty between the two countries would commit the American military to help defend both Japanese territory and islands administered by Japan, including the East China Sea islands in dispute.

"We have seen and are concerned by the reports of this incident," Maj. Wilkinson said. "We have long encouraged all sides to avoid steps that raise tensions and increase the risk of miscalculations that could undermine peace and stability in the region. We encourage claimants to resolve this matter peacefully through dialogue."

U.S. officials have said privately they have no desire to enter a war over a few rocks with little in the way of economic value—and the Obama administration has made clear it is intent on winding down the wars the U.S. is involved in, not starting new ones. Any military action with China over the islands would devastate the world economy and serve little purpose, those officials have said.

The latest development throws cold water on the emerging hopes that Japan and China may be close to resuming diplomatic talks to ease the tensions that have strained the ties between Asia's two largest economies since this past fall. The long-standing dispute flared up in September after the Japanese government purchased some of the islands from a private owner, triggering Beijing's anger. Last week, a senior lawmaker from Japan's ruling coalition visited Beijing and personally handed a letter from Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to China leader Xi Jinping, raising expectations that the two leaders might be open to holding summit talks.

The Chinese government had no immediate public comment on the Japanese government's accusations.

Ni Lexiong, an expert on maritime and military issues at Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, said Japan's claims were likely overblown, and intended to put international pressure on China to scale back its maritime patrols in the area. "The Japanese side did not explain what happened before these incidents—what caused the action from the Chinese ships," he said. "If this was between navy ships on both sides, then it's normal activity. I think they're exaggerating the incidents."

Independent analysts portrayed the behavior as more provocative. Beijing's use of fire-control radar "is certainly regarded as an 'escalatory' act because it infers that someone could be about to start shooting at you," said Richard Scott, IHS Jane's naval consultant.

Tokyo on Tuesday lodged complaints with Beijing through two channels, the Chinese embassy in Tokyo and China's foreign ministry in Beijing. Mr. Onodera explained that the decision to complain and unveil the tussles came after Japan analyzed the record and data and determined that illuminator radar used to search targets was indeed used in these cases.

Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida told reporters that the Chinese government responded to the protests "that they would first like to confirm the facts."

The addition of warships is the latest new dimension added to the tussle, which recently spread to the air with the introduction of military jets. Until now, the confrontation mostly took the form of a cat-and-mouse chase between civilian patrol ships, with Japanese Coast Guard cutters trying to fend off boats from China's maritime and fishery patrol agencies from the territorial waters around the contested islands, known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China.

While Chinese naval flotillas passed through Japan's Okinawa island chain at close distance in recent months, Japanese defense officials had stressed that Tokyo kept its naval ships at distance to avoid unintended clashes from escalating into military conflict.

Japan's defense ministry said in its Tuesday news release that the fire-control radar that targeted a Japanese naval destroyer—the 4,400-ton JS Yudachi based in the Sasebo port—was launched from the Jianwei II class missile frigate, a smaller ship. Targeting the helicopter that had taken off from the JS Onami, a 4,600-ton Yokosuka-based destroyer, was a Jianwei I class frigate.

Japan didn't disclose where exactly the incidents occurred in the East China Sea, and didn't say how close they were to the disputed islands.

"This was shocking behavior," said Sugio Takahashi, a senior fellow at Japan's National Institute for Defense Studies, a research arm of the defense ministry. "It was an intentional act aimed at escalating the situation or provoking Japan. I don't think there is a consensus within China that there is no place for the military in this dispute."

Some military analysts said it was hard to tell if this was a top-down strategy from China's military, or a dangerous improvisation on the high seas.

"What's unclear is whether the captain of the PLA Navy ship was acting of his own volition," said James Hardy, Asia-Pacific editor of IHS Jane's Defense Weekly. "It's a situation where the room for maneuver is narrowing—and acts like this don't help calm the waters."

The new tensions on the water follow worrisome exchanges that took place in the sky near the disputed islands. On Dec. 13, a Chinese maritime patrol plane flew into the airspace above the islands undetected by Japanese radar, prompting Japan to scramble eight F-15 fighters from Japan's air force. On Jan. 10, China scrambled its own military jets after Japanese fighters chased after a Chinese patrol flying near the disputed islands, Japanese officials say.

Within weeks of the Dec. 13 airspace intrusion, the first in decades by China, Prime Minister Abe unveiled the first increase in Japan's military spending in 11 years. In the budget was a new radar to replace the dated equipment near the islands that had missed the Chinese plane. A hangar at an Okinawa airbase to house radar-equipped reconnaissance planes was also added.

"We face continued provocations against our inherent land, waters, skies and sovereignty," Mr. Abe told troops this past on Saturday as he surveyed a military base in Okinawa. He pledged to "confront the clear and present danger."

As officials from the two nations stepped up their rhetoric against each other, Washington has grown increasingly worried.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have dedicated significant time to try to diffuse the dispute. It has been a delicate balancing act for the U.S. as it refocuses its attention toward Asia, under the Obama administration's military plans.

Defense analysts have cautioned that if the U.S. forces Japan to back down in the island dispute it will weaken its strongest ally in Asia. And some U.S. officials want Japan to be taking a more prominent and multilateral role in Asian security affairs. Forcing Tokyo to back down over the East China Sea could make persuading Japan to cooperate on other security matters—like joint exercises with the South Koreans—more difficult.

More importantly, analysts have warned that forcing Japan to back down could potentially give China a boost in its territorial claims in the South China Sea, disputes in which U.S. officials believe China is overreaching.
—Julian E. Barnes in Washington contributed to this article.

[Admiral Yi]

Japan's defense ministry said in its Tuesday news release that the fire-control radar that targeted a Japanese naval destroyer—the 4,400-ton JS Yudachi based in the Sasebo port—was launched from the Jianwei II class missile frigate, a smaller ship.

The fire control radar was launched?? Where the hell do they find defense corespondents anyway?

[jimmy olsen]

Couldn't it just be a translation issue?

[Ideologue]

  If we nuke China, who will buy our debt?  The shit will really hit the fan if that happens.

Yeah, but we could write off all the debt they already hold.

who would you borrow from then? Not many national piggy banks that can float America along.

People who fear being bathed in cleansing fire.

I read somewhere that Japanese possession of nuclear weaponry is not considered unconstitutional, as the Japanese Supreme Court determined in the late 1960's that a "nuclear deterrent" is defensive in nature and therefore not defined as offensive, particularly in the event that the United States abrogated its treaty responsibilities of providing for Japanese nuclear security. 

Huh.  I guess some countries don't have prohibitions on advisory opinions, unless the Japanese had an active nuclear program at some point?

[CountDeMoney]

Huh.  I guess some countries don't have prohibitions on advisory opinions, unless the Japanese had an active nuclear program at some point?

What's your point?

[Ideologue]

No point, just an aside.  The USSC is not allowed to give advisory opinions of that nature.

[CountDeMoney]

There was substantial debate within the Japanese government in the late 60s concerning nuclear armament, and the government did its due diligence in determining what could and could not be possible under their constitution, which specifically prohibits weapons of an offensive nature. 

[LaCroix]

i understand politically why japan cannot let go of the islands, but by all rights they belong to china (or taiwan.. tomato, tomato..). they were possessed in 1895 along with the rest of japanese territorial acquisitions, which have since (rightfully) reverted back to their original owner. why should they remain in their possession?

[Tamas]

i understand politically why japan cannot let go of the islands, but by all rights they belong to china (or taiwan.. tomato, tomato..). they were possessed in 1895 along with the rest of japanese territorial acquisitions, which have since (rightfully) reverted back to their original owner. why should they remain in their possession?

Let me explain the situation.

Everybody here backs the Japs on this except Martinus. Which clearly proves justice is on Japan's side.

[Grey Fox]

i understand politically why japan cannot let go of the islands, but by all rights they belong to china (or taiwan.. tomato, tomato..). they were possessed in 1895 along with the rest of japanese territorial acquisitions, which have since (rightfully) reverted back to their original owner. why should they remain in their possession?

Because Fuck China, half of Asia is not theirs.

[LaCroix]

Let me explain the situation.

Everybody here backs the Japs on this except Martinus. Which clearly proves justice is on Japan's side.

well, naturally, most on this board hold anti-china views (or in the case of a collective, pro-japanese), so of course that would be the case. but that does not make it right!

honestly, japan should have squashed this whole incident by retreating way back when it started. i imagine they figured the whole incident would settle itself; when it did not, and their populace awoke to the issue, it was already too late

[LaCroix]

Because Fuck China, half of Asia is not theirs.