Nuclear warships in Japan touch a nerve

Monday 16th February, 06:14 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 48 Total Comments Show All

meanmutha at 06:10 PM JST - 16th February

3dogs, well said.
Nessie at 06:18 PM JST - 16th February

Nuclear powered ships are both safe and green.

That's just the glow, 2020.

http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html#subs

http://spb.org.ru/bellona/ehome/russia/nfl/nfl8.htm
888naff at 08:47 PM JST - 16th February

Nuclear military safety...did you hear the one about the french and britsh nuclear subs / nuclear deterrents crashing into each other recently in the Atlantic. whoops could have been a rather large bang.
ca1ic0cat at 09:46 PM JST - 16th February

You have a better chance of getting hit by a train. And, contrary to 888's musings, a power reactor can not go critical and cause a nuclear explosion. I am always amused by people banging on about things they don't understand and so are therefore afraid of. Until it interferes with my life. Why don't you guys go back to monsters under the bed and leave the rest of us alone?
888naff at 10:15 PM JST - 16th February

"Contrary to 888's musings, a power reactor can not go critical and cause a nuclear explosion." .. I didn't suggest or write that.
SHOGUN54 at 05:52 AM JST - 17th February

Well, let's see...

If Japan had to go to war tomorrow, it would undoubtably the most ready country in the world. You take a look at its neo-impeiralist school system and wonder how the country got around amending article 9 of its constitution, oh yeah this was it. They won't have a military, just a military-like school system based on absolute obedience.

If Japan would have discovered the nuclear bomb first,had the delivery capability, it would have nuked San Francisco and LA, maybe Seattle too.
It is a fact.

Nuclear powered Aircraft Carriers are here to stay. Deal with it.

Just because Japan is hush hush about its military buildup and calls it Self Defense Force doesn't make their bullets any less lethal. Rather than through force, Japan has been conquering the globe one investment at a time.

Let's be realistic.
2020hindsight at 10:39 AM JST - 17th February

Nessie

That's just the glow, 2020.

Nuclear subs, I agree are a different matter. Not as safe as nuclear powered ships. However, they are all green compared to alternative energy sources.
nigelboy at 11:39 AM JST - 17th February

Three dogs,

I'm sorry to say that I was never a person to buy into the assertion that aircraft carriers here in Japan in general, are "left to protect this region...protecting Japan". especially in light of the fact most all of the missions involving aircraft carriers are mostly done in the Meditteranean, Persian Gulf (Operation Southern Watch, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, Operation That Had Nothing To Do With East Asia (OTHNTDWEA) And this of course is expected since aircraft carriers as a rule are used to support air power at "great distances" something which isn't applicable to Japan's so called enemies (i.e. NK, China) who they themselves don't own one. One could further argue that since Yokosuka/Japan is the only foreign home port for Nimitz class, they've become much more of a target to these terrorists.

So, your " U.S. carrier is needed" is exactly the "red, white and blue flag waving patriot" argument I addressed before.

U.S. WANTS Nimitz class carrier based in Yokosuka because of it's the most cost effective from the standpoint of fixtures (Japan's high % of support in terms of costs), logistics,(Yokosuka closer to Persian gulf than any other U.S. ports) and very little political hurdle(thanks to Govt. of Japan) so that they can carry out their adventures which has virtually nothing to do with Japan.

Sorry threedogs but I don't think Goto and his people are arguing whether U.S. military should be in Yokosuka or any part of Japan or not. What's concerning Goto and the people he represents (some concerned citizens of Yokosuka) is the safety concerns of having a nuculear reactor in such proximity to a densly populated area. For this, the U.S. officials (the one who was educated in diplomacy) at least addressed that issue along with song and dance routine (manga/town meeting/tours etc.)
earthcreature at 01:35 PM JST - 17th February

Who care just get that out of here! Its Japan no the U.S I think its about time the US shows Japan some respect and remove there entire military at asap!
kwatt at 01:44 PM JST - 17th February

The US government wants to post Air Bases and Naval ports all over in Japan because Japan support billions of money to the US. Japan is also convenient place for strategical missions to watch NKorea, China, South Asia, Russia, Persian Gulf, etc. If the US post all Air Bases and Naval ports in Guam instead of in Japan, She does not support more than the US expects.
Midnightpromise at 01:44 PM JST - 17th February

The U.S. Navy has accumulated over 5,400 "reactor years" of accident-free experience, and operates more than 80 nuclear-powered ships..

Source Wikipedia
threedogs at 03:35 PM JST - 19th February

earthcreature...are you serious?... the US military is here by invitation of the government of Japan whom reserve the right to kick them out at anytime by virtue of the bilateral agreement signed in 2006...half of the US military here couldn't be more pleased with that choice ...but most of the posters here actually live in reality… so why don't you let us adults continue our discussion without these ludicrous posts

Nigel boy...I didn't realize you were such a Pentagon strategist...while I agree that you may be fairly close on your general assumptions: a large part of the US's military's motivation in stationing in Yokosuka is financially motivated... and most all "Operations" that actually get press are (OTHNTDWEA) as you coined. However you make a serious logical fallacy... cum hoc ergo propter hoc To conclude that placing a carrier group in Japan (densely populated area as let’s face it there are no ports in rural areas equipped to handle a ship the size of carrier) is nothing more than war mongering move to save money then by your logic a football coach could conclude that because all the goals were scored by the right forward in a football match that that the left forward is or will not be needed or for that matter the left midfielder even (for the sake analogy) since they only touched the ball a couple of times. An aircraft is naval battle group which most all modern navies are organized around...from submarines to destroyers. The placement in Japan is essentially because unlike the US Atlantic allies which have their own carriers and corresponding battle groups and facilities to accommodate US carriers (FYI more Atlantic based carriers support the US exploits in the Middle East than the sole carrier here in Japan) for port calls and minor repairs with capable militaries that Japan by law does and can not have....(one could argue does have it… save the carrier…and in that case they may be right… but by virtue of appearances Japan can not have any deterrent/offensive form of military) So if the US is in a bi-lateral defense agreement then it seems that the US has to supply the bulk of the hardware…since Japan can’t, whether that be the actual reality or not.
And you may wish to double check you stats on whether China who do[es]n't own one"...oh they own one, bought Varyag from the Ukraine though it is debated in intelligence circles as to whether this is to used as model to build more or is to actually to be outfitted is a matter of debate... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/cv-phase-2.htm

but let's say for the sake of argument they don't and have no attention to own one...their there are several other reasons the Japanese feel the need to hire the US mercenaries China’s defense spending has increase 17% and that is what they admit… http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSPEK307417

any Sinologist will tell you that figure is 1/3 of their actual spending…so depending on how you rate militaries (is the EU a nation) they are #2 or #3
I would beg to offer that the reason the carriers have never been used in any conflict with regard to Japan’s defense is because of the simple fact that they are here…but I too would be making the same logically fallacy of cum hoc ergo propter hoc. But seeing how the government of Japan hasn’t seemed to ask the US Government to leave and the citizens haven’t installed a government that will… I would wager a bet that the reality of the situation, while yours is definitely has merit, based more on mine than yours
nigelboy at 08:53 AM JST - 20th February

threedogs.

You didn't touch on the issue this isn't about foreign nuclear aircraft carrier making brief port calls to another state.(even this is met with opposition ie India). What we're talking about here is the issue of said aircraft making Yokosuka their "HOME BASE", hence the concerns among her nearby citizens.

And you may wish to double check you stats on whether China who do[es]n't own one"...oh they own one, bought Varyag from the Ukraine though it is debated in intelligence circles as to whether this is to used as model to build more or is to actually to be outfitted is a matter of debate... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/cv-phase-2.htm

Oh that piece of garbage?

Like I said, aircraft carriers aircraft carriers as a rule are used to support air power at "great distances". If China was to build one, their purpose is support air power most likely at South China Sea where they have vested interested in oil/gas fields all across that area, (even fought with Vietnam resulting in casualties) not to mention the fact that it touches South of Taiwan. But what were're talking about is "potential" neighbor enemies of Japan (NK and China). If we were to cite an example from Japan in prior conflicts, the major naval battle utilizing aircraft carriers were all done against non-China nations (Battle of the Coral Sea, Midway, Battle of East Solomons, Battle of Phillipine Sea,Battle of Leyte Gulf) reaffirming the fact that aircraft carriers as a rule are used to support air power at "great distances". And in case of China, the same rule applies. (Great distances=South China Sea)

but let's say for the sake of argument they don't and have no attention to own one...their there are several other reasons the Japanese feel the need to hire the US mercenaries China’s defense spending has increase 17% and that is what they admit… http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSPEK307417

No. They are "reasons" that Japan should commit more on its own military which has been stagnant at less than 1% of GNP/year.
Kijimuna at 08:10 AM JST - 21st February

Look, all I know is that I mentioned this article at my drum circle and my girlfriend had to put down her macrame and clear the dreads out of the way to wipe tears from her eyes. GET THAT EARTH HATING MONSTROSITY OUT OF THIS PEACE LOVING COUNTRY.
threedogs at 03:53 PM JST - 26th February

Nigel Boy: You get no argument from me on that point...but again you still haven't ever addressed the issue of how Japan can nor how that would work for cooperative relations with South Korea, NK and China...last time Koizumi then later Abe tried to skirt Article 9 the country went into a conniption fit...needless to say Fukuda and Aso haven't bothered

My whole point is the USS George Washington's home port is Japan because the Japanese want air superiority in this region...as an island nation it is prudent and inline with the US's general military strategy this be achieved by naval air power. Yes there is Air Force in Yokata, Kadena and Misawa but the overall superiority Japan has is based on Naval and Marine Forces here.

Re-read my posts I did touch on it, Japan is a democratic government...the US is here by obligation, if the citizens of Yokohama doesn't want them there then they know how to get rid of it take it up with the central government...or better yet put someone office that agrees with their view...alas it appears their viewpoint is a minority so far... You are so high on your horse to be bothered to address you own fallacies of logic (just because they have been used in other operations does not negate their primary operation is a deterent)...second your understanding of carrier strategy rules is...20th century, actually read something about carriers before you start spouting off "rules". Of course if China was to build one it would be deployed to the South China Sea, or to protect their oil interest in the Middle East because the 1300 short range fighters and 600 bombers can easily make the trip across the Sea of Japan, if the US is going to assist in the defense of Japan it makes more sense to do it with a carrier group that is flexible and a difficult target rather than a fixed base such as Misawa. Bottom line is China by sheer numbers is the dominant air power in Asia. http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/default.asp

A whole another can of worms which you did mention was Taiwan which if you weren't aware Japan has signed a mutual defense agreement of Taiwan from the mainland on Oct 29, 2005 (argued in both Koreas and China as a back door rearmament of Japan)...so the point of Chinese forces being directed to Taiwan is moot anyway since an attack by the PRC on Taiwan would be the equivalent of attacking Japan under current defense agreements between the US, Japan and Taiwan.

Fine don't trust an unclassified source but fairly accurate...that's your perogative...but arguing from theories pulled from your oh so infallible logic shows your ignorance to the issue of military power in this region. Do you actually know how many members their are in the SDF with out googling it (which by the way is inaccurate I checked)...yeah I didn't so. Stop theorizing and actually study the issue...but then again that would require you to see the ugly reality of Japan.

Kijimuna: awesome post! My SDF girlfriend wanted to billy club her senseless