I am surprised that this has been ignored here on BS. This is a situation that could get out of hand quickly. http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/30/world/asia/japan-north-korea-rocket/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 If Japan does shoot down this rocket, what will the response from NK be? Will they take it as an act of war? This is a situation that bears watching, especially to see if the launch takes place and if so if it is shot down.
It seems logical that if a hostile country shoots a rocket over to your own country's territory you might want to shoot it down. Otherwise what would be the point of having a missile defense system?
Yes, however NK is launching this under the guise that it is a satelite. I think Japan has the right to shoot it down, but I am unclear as to what international law says is Japan's territory in regards to a space launched vehicle. It does seem to me that this is a highly provacative move by NK, and I really wonder what they hope to accomplish by this launch.
If Japan has an operational ABM system, why is North Korea our problem? I still think us removing our troops from the region is the best solution to reducing tension. By getting the superpower out, the Koreans maybe can start acting rationally.
And there are people who would argue the opposite. The thinking is that the US presence keeps Japan in check - or at least that's China's rationale for not making noise, and likewise, the US's nominal presence in South Korea keeps North Korea from getting too edgy. Not that I expect you to agree with this take, but this is something that quite a bit of East Asia observers argue, that the US is a key player in keeping the region stable.
I would move US troops out of Japan to be sure, but I would not remove them from S. Korea at this time. If anything I would remove US troops from Europe and establish more of a presence in the Pacific over the next 5 years. I am sure we can find places to put US troops that will help check China in the area. As for Japan's ABM system, I question its effectiveness and capability at this time. But getting back to the issue of the thread, if Japan does shoot down NK's rocket, what kind of reaction will that cause from NK?
I'm not sure if North Korea can do much more than simply intimidate its neighbors. What I *would* be worried about is the reaction from China, who would not be happy about a militarily aggressive Japan. Off topic: I think US presence in Japan is essential for maintaining peace with China - it's close enough without getting too close.
It made sense during the Cold War. It makes no sense today. China has no blue water navy, Japan does. All US troops do in the region is cause China and Russia to puff out their chests, and North Korea to act crazy so we will give them things. And to top it all off, the Koreans and Japanese do not want us there. We are not supposed to be an Empire. Time to leave.
China is taking steps to change their Navy, although they are using an old Soviet era hull, they are working towards their own carriers. Russia isn't puffing out their chests due to anything in Asia as it concerns the US. Putin dreams of a return to power for Russia like they had during the heyday of the USSR. Even if the US left Asia, Russia would still go about the path they are on, if you recall China and Russia don't exactly love one another.
The Chinese reaction isn't one I thought about, and given the history between the 2 nations I think you are correct that it would cause issues. Plus it was only what a few months ago that a Japanese mayor pissed off China over comments about Najing? China won't forget that. But I don't put anything past NK at this point, you have a new, young leader, and he will need to make a strong reaction to the shooting down of one of his rockets or he may very well become a victim of the Army. Its really hard to say what the power structure is like between them right now.
I understand that rationality isn't their strong point in international diplomacy, but how exactly might China or NK have any reasonable right to call Japan's use of a purely defensive anti-missile system in their own territory in response to intentional NK intimidation tactics an "act of aggression"?
So when you look at it, all out troops there is act to further destabilise the situation. We need to extricate ourselves from this. No more Danegeld. No more idle threats. Our continued connection there makes no sense. All we should be giving is a notice that any attack on the US will be met by disproportionate force but otherwise allow the Koreans to work out their problems themselves.
The Japanese pay the overwhelming share of the costs for US Forces in Japan and I suspect Korea does the same. Leaving Japan would only lead to a growth in defence spending in Japan that will only piss both the north and the Chinese off. Besides, North Korea isn't a rationale state.The last time the US pulled out from the Far East, it helped spark the Korean War.
Exactly; no more empire. Please bring the troops home, cut defense spending and spend more on infrastructure.
American presence in Korea is the very definition of nominal, both in the number of boots on the ground and in cost. Presence in Japan is more substantial, but it's one that keeps the region stable. The cost of not being in Japan, through an agitated China, and by extension, conflicts in South China Sea that would extend deep into Southeast Asia, would be more expensive to taxpayers. Plus, infrastructure spending is not dependent on bringing troops home. It needs a Congress that doesn't see the government doing stuff as anathema.
I agree that the US presence in Asia is key to keeping peace in the region, I do think that a decreased US presence in Japan makes sense though. We can always move those troops to Aus. as part of our increase there. Where we need to remove troops is from Europe. I think keeping Ramstein open makes sense, and keeping some troops in Europe as part of NATO is fine, but we should be able to remove a large portion of troops from Europe.
Without breaking out my world map and figuring out the fuel capacities of various fighter jets, wouldn't Australia be too far from China to have the desired effect? I don't disagree here. The current financial meltdown aside, NATO should be able to keep the peace in Europe.
That is why i would only decrease the US presence in Japan not remove it entirely. Leave Kadena Air Base open, and plus we have carriers that can provide air cover, not to mention air bases in Korea. I would remove Marines from Japan and reduce other boots on the ground there, partly to appease Japan over the long standing issue of US troops there. But I would not close the air bases.
Japan now says that instead of shooting it down, they elected to pull a Nelson and just point and laugh.