Sunday May 27, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Asian countries should urge China's military to obey rules of sea: Noda

Politics Nov. 01, 2011 - 07:00AM JST ( 48 )

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

Order by Time Order by Popularity

48 Comments

1

soldaveNov. 01, 2011 - 08:23AM JST

Well I know Japan was upset at China sailing ships through international waters near Okinawa earlier this year.
0

gaijintravellerNov. 01, 2011 - 08:28AM JST

Why doesn't China rename its military? It could become a Self-Defence Force. Then everything would be all right because they would no longer have an army, navy or air force.

At least, it would be harder for Japan to complain.
0

jonobugsNov. 01, 2011 - 09:16AM JST

hm, the most populous country in the world is spending more money on building an army and you're not the least bit concerned?
3

tkoind2Nov. 01, 2011 - 09:27AM JST

China has been acting the bully for a while now. Not only with Japan but with the Philippines and other areas in Asia. When mixed with the state sponsored cyber attacks, is it any wonder that the leaders of Asia are becoming fed up?

I have long been a critic of funding China's growth given her repressive government and militaristic alter ego. Now we have funded the monster into building one of the fastest growing militaries in the world. And China has shown considerable willingness to use this power to shake the tree of neighboring countries like Japan.

While the US and the world worry about Al Qaida and Iran, the real danger to future world stability is the potential arms race that China is leading in Asia and the increasing bullying that they seem willing to inflict upon other Asian countries. We would do well to watch China carefully and to assure that any bullying or cyber attacks are met with broad condemnation and economic restrictions.
0

realmindNov. 01, 2011 - 09:43AM JST

If you want to control China, the only way is to co-operate and support India. India can act as the real leader of Asia. A strong India is the nightmare for China. US and Japan an do nothing to stop Chinese agression. It will be a war of economic weapons not with Missiles. Japan instead of barking at China raise up the next generation with more and advanced education to lead thier companies and to make more advanced technology. Once you have tech with you China will be begging to you all the time...
-1

Patrick SmashNov. 01, 2011 - 09:59AM JST

Very true. China should be encouraged to name its navy a self-defence force and work at finding definitions of international waters that suit it alongside loopholes in international law that can be exploited whenever it feels like it. "All kinds of meetings" sounds like the standard Japanese method of never actually doing anything to me.
-2

NeoJamalNov. 01, 2011 - 11:39AM JST

Why doesn't China rename its military? It could become a Self-Defence Force. Then everything would be all right because they would no longer have an army, navy or air force.

Very true. China should be encouraged to name its navy a self-defence force and work at finding definitions of international waters that suit it alongside loopholes in international law that can be exploited whenever it feels like it. "All kinds of meetings" sounds like the standard Japanese method of never actually doing anything to me.

I sincerely think this is a good idea. If Japan is a reliable precedent as you both have implied. It would be hard for China to argue for owning any military hardware capable of projecting power beyond its borders. I'm glad that both of you are actually thinking for the sake democratic interests in the Pacific Rim.
1

WilliBNov. 01, 2011 - 11:56AM JST

The mainland China rulers will be mightily impressed by such "urging", LOL
1

zichiNov. 01, 2011 - 11:58AM JST

If China, changed the title of it's military forces to Self Defense Forces like it is in Japan, then it could not justify the building of an aircraft carrier, having nuclear armed submarines or missiles with atomic war heads, since none of these would be considered weapons of self defense.

"You can't have it both ways!"
2

Spidapig24Nov. 01, 2011 - 12:02PM JST

Maybe someone needs to tell Nody (oops sorry Noda) that sailing warships in international waters is legal and that Japan doesnt own all the sea's. And while we are at it as the international community as a whole (there are a couple of exceptions) dont recognise Japans claim to Senkaku's, China is free to sail in this area too.
0

tkoind2Nov. 01, 2011 - 12:14PM JST

It is utter nonsense to suggest that China change the name of her military to self defence. Meaningless and pointless suggestion.
0

JapanGalNov. 01, 2011 - 12:45PM JST

What would happen if the Americans did not buy one Chinese assembled product a month?
2

ExportExpertNov. 01, 2011 - 01:25PM JST

Why would china care whats its neighbours say or think, it would simply shrug off any opinions and continue doing what it wants, much like what japan does re whaling, allowing its nationals to kidnap children from inernational marriages, racial discrimination within its borders etc, why listen and take in to account what the international community says or thinks?
0

PT24881Nov. 01, 2011 - 11:53PM JST

"JapanGalNOV. 01, 2011 - 12:45PM JST What would happen if the Americans did not buy one Chinese assembled product a month?"

While I donot see how the above question's link to the topic, nontheless the answer to the questiin in my opinion is : non-Chinese suppliers (80-90% of the parts used) will suffer, the Chinese will also suffer proportionally, not to mention the average families in the US that need more affordable items amid economic depression..

Alternative places to replace China could only be built up & have the assembling lines transferred over time. However, many of these lines are not only serving export markets but also the growing domestic market.
0

PT24881Nov. 02, 2011 - 12:06AM JST

The PM Noda, who put forward this kind of provocative messages, has unveiled one or two hints over his background of being raised in a 'military' family. Interesting question here is : why not targeting at Russia that has been posing more direct threats ?
0

YuriOtaniNov. 02, 2011 - 04:28AM JST

Spidapig24, Japan controls the Senkaku islands and surrounding waters. If there is going to be aggression China will have to fire the first shot. It could be the first shot in WW III and all of our fat would sizzle in that fire. Then again Japan can not just surrender these islands as Okinawa would be the next on the Chinese menu. The good thing about China is they have not back stabbed Japan like the Russians. Thus if the politicians can make an agreement it is likely to be followed by the PRC. Perhaps China and Japan can share the gas resources.
0

nigelboyNov. 02, 2011 - 04:40AM JST

And while we are at it as the international community as a whole (there are a couple of exceptions) dont recognise Japans claim to Senkaku's, China is free to sail in this area too.

I believe the statement is opposite. 48 nations officially acknowledge Japan's ownership of Senkaku. However, international community as a whole doesn't recognize China's claim to Senkaku. It's obvious since China's claim started in 1970 when it was discovered that the area had gas reserves. How convenient.
2

Spidapig24Nov. 02, 2011 - 07:39AM JST

Nigelboy,

So you say that 48 countries officially acknowledge Japan's claim. Where exactly do you get that number from? I can find no definitive number at all (can you provide a reference)? I hope you are not counting the US as one of those countries because if you read the US acknowledgment it says they recognises Japan as the administrator nothing more. In fact it is reported that the US state department believes China's claim over Japan's however Japan currently administers the island. Also even if you can show me the 48 nations that is only 48 out of 195 that would support it! Also Chinas claim didn't as you state start in 1970 it was reinstigated in 1972. Big difference
0

YuriOtaniNov. 02, 2011 - 09:01AM JST

Spidapig24, again if China wants war they have to fire the first shot.
-1

nigelboyNov. 02, 2011 - 09:09AM JST

Spidapig,

Yes. 48 nations who were signatory to the Treaty of Peach with Japan and the subsequent agreements that references to the aformentioned treaty recognizes, acknowledges, accepts, or whatever word games you want to play Japan's claim, administration, jurisdiction, or whatever word games you want to play of Senkaku.

And no. I cannot come up with the 195 nations simply because the rest of world for the most part don't take part in positioning their support for one nation over territory disputes. I'm surprised you don't know this.

As you admitted, China's claim started in 1970 while Japan's incorporation dates back to 1895. There is a precedent for such cases where if a certain state don't dispute (orally, communique, attache, letter,) against another who admnisters the territory, the decision favors the latter. Yes. Big difference.
-2

OssanAmericaNov. 02, 2011 - 09:31AM JST

"Spidapig24Nov. 01, 2011 - 12:02PM JST And while we are at it as the international community as a whole (there are a couple of exceptions) dont recognise Japans claim to Senkaku's, China is free to sail in this area too."

That's typical chinese nonsense, The entire world recognizes Japan's sovereignty (not claim, like China's) over the Senkakus and they are included in the sphere of U.S., protection. The PLA Navy don't appear to think it;s worth testing the 7th fleet over this.
-1

just-a-guyNov. 02, 2011 - 05:55PM JST

The whole world understood Japanese law over the Senkaku isles were rubbish, Chinese naval and air power just in and out that area without any problems!
1

Spidapig24Nov. 02, 2011 - 06:03PM JST

Nigelboy,

Try reading my post again, l actually said that chinas claim was REinstigated in 1972 not instigated. There is a big difference there. They had a claim long before '72. Another point to ponder the San Francisco treaty that you refer to ( peach treaty?) actually took the senkaku islands off Japan. It was the US completely separate of the San Francisco treaty that gave the island back to Japan. And of the 48 you claim support Japan's claim, that is incorrect. They signed the treaty taking the islands off Japan they never had a say in giving them back so your claim is incorrect. Several countries aust, uk to name a few who signed the document actually don't recognises Japan's claim. Furthermore the US has said while Japan administers the islands it doesn't support their claim to the islands. This is well documented if you care to look. So your claim of 48 countries supporting Japan's claim is completely false
-1

just-a-guyNov. 02, 2011 - 06:15PM JST

The big slap last year for the trawler incident was a good reminder that any 'unilateral action' as stated by Kan and Maehara will be retaliated in the harshest way by santioning rare earth! Japan maybe turning their source to othe rcountries....that doesnt matter but they have satellites in space, please urge Mr Noda to concer about this as well!
-1

just-a-guyNov. 02, 2011 - 06:18PM JST

Therew as a mistake in this article: the brief battle between China and Vietnam was happened in March 1988 and there were 74 vietnamese killed and all of them were naval combatants instead of civilian sailors!
0

ShootandScootNov. 02, 2011 - 06:32PM JST

Rules of the sea? What rules of the sea exactly is he yammering about?

What is printed here amounts to "China baaaaad! Japan gooood!" Frankenstein's monster could have been more clear.

Of course japan does not want to talk about continental shelves. Probably because they don't have any!
-1

nigelboyNov. 03, 2011 - 12:27AM JST

They had a claim long before '72

Can you suppport that?

Another point to ponder the San Francisco treaty that you refer to ( peach treaty?) actually took the senkaku islands off Japan. It was the US completely separate of the San Francisco treaty that gave the island back to Japan. And of the 48 you claim support Japan's claim, that is incorrect. They signed the treaty taking the islands off Japan they never had a say in giving them back so your claim is incorrect.

Yes. 48 nations agreed to put some of the territories under trusteeship where U.S. was the sole administrator. The said territories were subsequently returned via Agreement between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands which refers to the Article 3 of the Peace Treaty. Hence, under Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties on interpretation of treaties, the 48 nations who are signatories to the Treaty accepted the return of the territories to Japan.

Several countries aust, uk to name a few who signed the document actually don't recognises Japan's claim

?? Didn't they sign and subsequently ratify the Peace Treaty?

Furthermore the US has said while Japan administers the islands it doesn't support their claim to the islands. This is well documented if you care to look. So your claim of 48 countries supporting Japan's claim is completely false

What "certain" administration stated subsequently is subordinate to what the state had signed and ratified in the past under customary international law. In other words, the current Obama administration can state is their position at that time but when push comes to shove under the eyes of international law, the treaty takes precedence. (Supremacy clause) The current situation needs no shove from Japan simply because the administration had stated that the Senkaku falls under article 5 of the Japan U.S. Security Treaty.
0

ICBM70Nov. 03, 2011 - 05:00AM JST

It is ridiculous to bash Japan in an article regarding CHINA'S AGGRESSION toward neighboring countries!!! All these China lovers would say is "international water can be sailed by Chinese navy, and japan has no right to complain!" ASSUMING THIS: what if there is a big ugly person (CHINA) with guns (also with bad criminal, human right records) driving around your house all the time, WOULD YOU BE CONCERNED!!!?

CHINA NEEDS TO BE ISOLATED/QUARANTINED!!! And eventually, a world without China IS/will be a better world!!!
-1

YuriOtaniNov. 03, 2011 - 06:19AM JST

lordmanji, what is hawkish about wanting to defend ones one's country? It will be either out in these remote islands or in the more settled areas of the Okinawa Prefecture. Right now the national government is keeping the Okinawa people off of their own islands. The Chinese are testing our resolve for defending Japan. They are building up the nerve to attack Japan. They need to Chinese public on their side. Japan can not give territory to China in exchange for peace. Yes, I have served in my countries self defense force. I made the decision my countries welfare is more important than my own. While I wish for peace do not think Japan should meekly give up to the Peoples Republic of China.
-1

YuriOtaniNov. 03, 2011 - 06:22AM JST

nigelboy, a tiny thing...the peace treaty signed by Japan was not signed by the Peoples Republic of China. It was signed by the Republic of China. Which is still a government though abandoned by the short sighted capitalists governments. They would sell their families for more profit.
1

Spidapig24Nov. 03, 2011 - 07:54AM JST

nigelboy

"They had a claim long before '72" Can you suppport that?

Try doing a bit of research Nigelboy, Japan didnt start to administer the islands in question until 1894 and did so as a result of the peace treaty it signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki. So that in itself says that China had a claim as far back as 1894 else how could they cede the islands in the treaty?

Yes. 48 nations agreed to put some of the territories under trusteeship where U.S. was the sole administrator. The said territories were subsequently returned via Agreement between Japan and the United States of America.

Exactly right the 48 countries that signed gave the US control of the islands. It was the US not the other 47 nations that gave them back to Japan. None of the other 47 countries signed anything to hand those islands back to Japan. So to say they support Japans claim is nothing short of ludicrous as the US acted alone in handing these islands back.

"Several countries aust, uk to name a few who signed the document actually don't recognises Japan's claim" ?? Didn't they sign and subsequently ratify the Peace Treaty?

Nigelboy, you are trying to link the peace treaty to countries agreeing with Japans claim yet even the US will not agree to Japans claim of sovereignty over the islands. They agree that Japan administers the islands but and l quote "The US Department of State continues to take no position on the sovereignty of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands." So even the country who returned administration to Japan doesnt support its claim.

Also as l have said before yes those countries signed a treaty, in it the treaty REMOVED from Japan the said islands. It was a seperate treaty that was signed by Japan and the US that returned the islands to Japan therefore NONE of the claimed 48 actually agreed to their return. Again they agreed to take the islands off Japan and thats what they signed.
-2

nigelboyNov. 03, 2011 - 08:19AM JST

Try doing a bit of research Nigelboy, Japan didnt start to administer the islands in question until 1894 and did so as a result of the peace treaty it signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki. So that in itself says that China had a claim as far back as 1894 else how could they cede the islands in the treaty?

The island was incorporated prior to the Treaty of Shimonoseki. There was never a "cede" to begin with based on the survey by Japan that started nearly a decade ago.

Exactly right the 48 countries that signed gave the US control of the islands. It was the US not the other 47 nations that gave them back to Japan. None of the other 47 countries signed anything to hand those islands back to Japan. So to say they support Japans claim is nothing short of ludicrous as the US acted alone in handing these islands back.

Please read the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties. In addition, please find a definition of a trustee. To make it easier for you, the 47 nations agreed to let the U.S. do whatever in regard to these territories. Why is this so hard to understand?

Nigelboy, you are trying to link the peace treaty to countries agreeing with Japans claim yet even the US will not agree to Japans claim of sovereignty over the islands. They agree that Japan administers the islands but and l quote "The US Department of State continues to take no position on the sovereignty of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands." So even the country who returned administration to Japan doesnt support its claim

You're not reading. And you're also quoting the Executive Branch of the U.S. government. Separations of power, my friend.
-2

YuriOtaniNov. 03, 2011 - 10:11AM JST

Spidapig24, Japan holds them not China, your argument is garbage. The Republic of China might have an argument but not the Peoples Republic of China. Thus I say to China if you want them, come and get them! We the sons and daughters of Japan are prepared to give you a warm welcome. Only bad part is all of the radiation released when we sink your nuke subs. After the communists lose the battle of the South China sea, they will lose control of China.
0

smithinjapanNov. 03, 2011 - 03:45PM JST

Says a PM that has the gall to justify spending $27 million to have the Japanese Navy, under a constitution which declares Japan cannot wage war, go out and 'protect' poaching in the Antarctic ocean against protestors.

SpidaPig is bang on related to the islands -- Japan claims they are theirs for the same reason they deny Dokdo belongs to Korea and the Kuriles to Russia. So which is it, Japan? And what right to you have to ask others to obey laws you ignore yourself?

YuriOtani: "Spidapig24, Japan holds them not China, your argument is garbage."

So by your own Admission Dokdo belongs to South Korea and the Kuriles to Russia. Glad we have that in the open.
0

smithinjapanNov. 03, 2011 - 03:47PM JST

YuriOtani: "Only bad part is all of the radiation released when we sink your nuke subs."

You need only hire a bunch of old men to manage power stations to irradiate the nations, as you can see if you look to the north of this nation, since you bring it up and all. And Yuri, what on earth would Japan sink the subs with? good intentions? Lest I'm mistaken you want the US to leave, no?
1

Spidapig24Nov. 03, 2011 - 04:25PM JST

YuriOtani

Spidapig24, Japan holds them not China, your argument is garbage.

Thank you for clarifying this point. And l agree totally with smithinjapan's point, in future when the issue of the Southern Kurils or Dokdo come up you will not be commenting because to use your very words Russia holds the Kurils not Japan, and South Korea holds Dokdo not Japan. So l take it then we have agreement there based on your statement, no more of you usual comments about these countries stealing land.

Oh and while we are at it as Japan is currently ignoring Australia's claimed EEZ and fishing in this zone lm thinking maybe you will also equally be disgusted by Japan's two faced actions the, calling on China to obey the law of the sea while doing exactly the same to another nation.

And as for your hope that China starts something so Japan can destroy them, PLEASE dont make me laugh the Japanese military couldnt defend itself from a bad cold let alone an attack from China. The only thing that would save your sorry excuse of a nation is the US. The same US military that you have incesantly complained about and demanded they leave Japan. Funny that isnt it.
-2

nigelboyNov. 03, 2011 - 10:38PM JST

SpidaPig is bang on related to the islands -- Japan claims they are theirs for the same reason they deny Dokdo belongs to Korea and the Kuriles to Russia. So which is it, Japan? And what right to you have to ask others to obey laws you ignore yourself?

One missing important factor between Northern territories/Takeshima versus that of Senkaku is that the former were taken by force by Soviets and SK, respectively. Prior to that, Northern territories were never part of the Soviets and Takeshima was legally incorporated by Japan in 1905 (Same scenario as Senkaku).
0

smithinjapanNov. 03, 2011 - 10:56PM JST

nigelboy: "One missing important factor between Northern territories/Takeshima versus that of Senkaku is that the former were taken by force by Soviets and SK, respectively."

They're called the Kuriles and Dokdo, respectively. They are administered and all-but owned by Russia and South Korea, respectively. Russia took the Kuriles by force in the closing days of the war -- that's called 'spoils of war' my friend. Japan's claim is moot. Korea has claims to Dokdo dating back further than Japan, and administers and lives on the island year-round. They are South Korean.

Sorry, but YuriOtani himself even admits this with his comment, and the US reversed its position only a couple of years ago after saying it was not Korean-administered territory (much to the anger of Japanese right-wingers!).

Can't have your cake and eat it to, my friend. And once again the result is still the same, Noda is being a hypocrite, and has zero right to be asking for what he's asking so long as he remains as such.
0

YuriOtaniNov. 03, 2011 - 10:59PM JST

smith in japan, where have I wrote that those rocks off Korea belong to Japan? The northern territories belong to Japan but we will not go to war to liberate them. Japanese people use to live there until the Russians ethic cleansed them off of their islands. Ethic cleansing is considered to be a class A war crime. The Senkaku islands belong to Japan. Chinese people never lived on those islands while Japanese people lived there in the past. Oh Comrade, we can defend ourself from that an excuse of a Chinese fleet all by ourselves and the Russian fleet will be sunk mostly in harbor. Depth Charges, Depth Charges! Going after the Russian fleet will be a duck shoot. Some of their ships still carry depth charges!
-1

nigelboyNov. 03, 2011 - 11:05PM JST

Good smith.

I guess you have no problem nations taking territories from other nations by force. Like you said, "spoils of war" right? It's enlighting to see that such people exist.
-1

nigelboyNov. 04, 2011 - 12:11AM JST

Very enlightening again smith. While you simply label Soviet and Korea "spoils of war" without any condemnation whatsover, you write an entire paragraph about the misdeeds of the past Japan. Two-faced much?

You see smith. It was decided among the Allieds and the United Nations after the war that Japan return the territories they grabbed by force. That makes sense right? You think all nations should adhere to this basic principle in that states should first and foremost not take territories by force and if they did, they should return it?
0

PT24881Nov. 04, 2011 - 12:14AM JST

@Smithinjapan Objectively, do support the smart comparison over Japan's three territorial disputes & confusing basis of arguments used by the PM Noda in handling the three cases. While the status quo will very likely be the development of the three cases over the years to come unless any major & unforeseen incidents that could change it, PM Noda's recent comments ought to be part of his plan to divert the mounting internal after-quake pressure to external issues ?
-1

smithinjapanNov. 04, 2011 - 01:39AM JST

nigelboy: "Very enlightening again smith. While you simply label Soviet and Korea "spoils of war" without any condemnation whatsover, you write an entire paragraph about the misdeeds of the past Japan. Two-faced much?"

Wow, when you cannot retort the facts you really stoop to personality attacks, don't you? Used to have a bit of respect for you as many of your comments are open-minded and relatively well informed, but clearly not when you have the facts handed to you and cannot take it.

"You see smith. It was decided among the Allieds and the United Nations after the war that Japan return the territories they grabbed by force."

Because they lost. You think they would have returned the territories had they won?

"You think all nations should adhere to this basic principle in that states should first and foremost not take territories by force and if they did, they should return it?"

You never commented on my comment about the Ryukyus. Will Japan give them back? yes or no. After that, feel free to ask me your question again. Regardless, while I do believe that over time Japan will have a legal upper hand in retaining these islands (the islands in question that China goes near) they have absolutely no claim to Dokdo and/or the Kuriles. Those are gone, and the Japanese government has time and time again screwed any chance for diplomacy on the matter. Let's face it nigelboy -- you're upset that I am correct, bottom line. You don't like that I pointed out the obvious flaw that is the hypocrisy of Japanese thinking on the various islands.

That said, Japan continues to screw itself by insisting China hold to one ideal while it does not hold to the same one -- come on... the navy defending whalers in the AntArctic? So it's okay for Japan to send their military ships -- which are not allowed to engage in war -- to defend whalers? And Noda has the gall to suggest other nations 'obey the law' while they flagrantly defy what others consider to be the law.
0

nigelboyNov. 04, 2011 - 01:59AM JST

That said, Japan continues to screw itself by insisting China hold to one ideal while it does not hold to the same one -- come on... the navy defending whalers in the AntArctic? So it's okay for Japan to send their military ships -- which are not allowed to engage in war -- to defend whalers? And Noda has the gall to suggest other nations 'obey the law' while they flagrantly defy what others consider to be the law.

You mean the Japan Coast Guard, right?
0

Spidapig24Nov. 04, 2011 - 08:48AM JST

nigelboy

"That said, Japan continues to screw itself by insisting China hold to one ideal while it does not hold to the same one -- come on... the navy defending whalers in the AntArctic? So it's okay for Japan to send their military ships -- which are not allowed to engage in war -- to defend whalers? And Noda has the gall to suggest other nations 'obey the law' while they flagrantly defy what others consider to be the law." You mean the Japan Coast Guard, right?

Coast guard or not nigelboy it is still classed as a paramilitary organisation. After all it does have armed vessels. So to say different is nit picking.

Also l completely agree with Smithinjapan, the Japanese as per usual are demanding China do one thing while the Japanese do as they please which includes doing exactly what it demands the Chinese stop doing. Now that is the definition of HYPOCRISY.
0

Spidapig24Nov. 04, 2011 - 08:54AM JST

YuriOtani

The northern territories belong to Japan but we will not go to war to liberate them. Japanese people use to live there until the Russians ethic cleansed them off of their islands.

No they used to be inhabited by Japanese but they now belong to Russia. As you pointed out yesterday "Russia holds them, not Japan end of discussion"

Ethic cleansing is considered to be a class A war crime.

Yeah, l guess your glorious nation would be well aware of that fact after the decades of ethnic cleansing you conducted in the name of Japanese imperialism. Bit amusing listening to a Japanese complaining about their citizens being removed from land. At least these Japanese faired better than the Brits, Dutch, Americans, Australians, Chinese that where victims of your peace loving nation.

Oh Comrade, we can defend ourself from that an excuse of a Chinese fleet all by ourselves and the Russian fleet will be sunk mostly in harbor. Depth Charges, Depth Charges! Going after the Russian fleet will be a duck shoot. Some of their ships still carry depth charges!

Yes Yuri, definately a turkey shoot, your fighters can accidently drop their fuel tanks on them. You are kidding my friend as l said your SDF couldnt fight off a cold let alone a serious action but keep dreaming of the glory days.
0

nigelboyNov. 04, 2011 - 10:15AM JST

Nitpicking ??

Even you have to admit there is a BIIIIG difference between JMSDF, which is considered among the elites in the world versus the JCG which falls under Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, don't you think? I thought so.

In any case, it looks as though the JCG isn't too enthused with the request.

http://news.nna.jp/free/news/20111031thb001A.html
0

YuriOtaniNov. 05, 2011 - 12:28AM JST

Conrade Spidapig24, those tanks are meant to be dropped. There was a malfunction on the drop circuit. Accidents happen and it is not an issue. You keep harping about the past. So you are telling me ethic cleansing is ok as long as Russia does it?