U.S., Japan to deploy new radar, drones in next year

If unmanned drones are required to monitor uninhabited islands, then what does that say about Japan's claim? China should declare them terra nullius and take them back.

The United States does not appear to very "neutral" about this issu, does it?. In fact it would take a seriously mentally challenged individual to surmise from this article that the "U.S. won't do anything" if China decides to take the Senkakus by military force.

Kerry said the U.S. continues to have frank discussions with China, laying out “lines that shouldn’t be crossed.” He added that “a rising China is welcome as long as that China wants to engage according to international standards.”

As the US does with its policy of regime change meted out to any country that cannot withstand its might? How hypocritical John Kerry is! Unfortunately, China has an arsenal of nuclear weapons and once backed into a corner by Japan and the US will most likely use them.

kurisupisuOct. 04, 2013 - 07:07AM JST China has an arsenal of nuclear weapons and once backed into a corner by Japan and the US will most likely use >them.

How exactly is the U.S. or Japan going to "back China into a corner"? Neither of these two countries have any territorial expansion ambitions in the East or South China Seas or any Chinese territory, unlike China which has openly declared it's intent to take control of them entirely with disregard for it's smaller Asian neighbors.

Entirely justified in my opinion.

When North Korea has a hissy fit and starts to threaten to nuke it's neighbours, like it did recently, it's irresponsible to merely discount it as rubbish. The North Korean regime is not stable and if things were to turn there and people get desperate to hold on to power, anything is possible.

Of course, this works beautifully for China as well. As long as China supports Pyongyang and continues it's own belligerence, it can hardly be surprised by these kinds of eventualities in it's neighbours.

Having a way out for NK makes sense. After watching what the US did to Iraq, Kim Jong Eun and the NK military leaders likely are convinced that the only way to prevent an invasion by the US and SK is to maintain a strong nuclear deterrent. While US may be able to "confront" NK in a number of ways, without a war it is highly unlikely that US will be able to bring about the dismantling of either its nuclear weapons program or its missile program. What the US needs to do is move away from it's assertive policies toward NK and move toward more of respectful diplomatic relations.

The U.S. has watched warily as tensions between Japan and China have heated up over the Senkakus,

No. The US has clearly stated it supports the status quo, and will NOT TOLERATE China trying to change through force the status quo.

This position is new. It came about after Ishihara forced the issue this past spring.

How have all these deals been passing in the last few days when the USA government has been shut down?

The ground deployment of the X-band radar system is also meant for the protection of Hawaii and the American Homeland. The present one in Northern Hokkaido (Shariki Base) is strategically fixed at an angle close to the ballistic course from the northern Korean Peninsula to North America.

None of this would be necessary if China was a good neighbor----USA has no appetite for war with China right now--- another 10-15yrs when USA economy gets back to normal and Iraq & afghan wars are a distant memory-

When did the second cold war begin?

It has been demonstrated just this year how the US 'backs countries into a corner' The case in point is Syria is it not? If Putin had not made a case against intervention then Obama would be in there now bombing and plundering! China also opposed US aggression along with Russia. The US has and wants more of a front in the MIddle East that will directly counter both Chinese and Russian power.

@OsaanAmerica - pay attention to the big picture and look at how the US acts.....

The American Regime is one which rains terror on the world and whereever it goes it will create conflict, seperation and suffering. Increase military activity by Japan / US alliance will cause the entire region to increase its military activity. Honestly, China's no threat, its more like China expanding to protect itself.

Tiger

I have a tendency to to agree with the first part of your post, but can you explain this last bit

"its more like China expanding to protect itself."

In what way is China threatened? What is it trying to protect, from whom? Do you mean that the Senkaku's are are a part of China and that China is trying to protect them?

kurisupisuOct. 04, 2013 - 10:40AM JST It has been demonstrated just this year how the US 'backs countries into a corner' The case in point is Syria is it not? >If Putin had not made a case against intervention then Obama would be in there now bombing and plundering! China >also opposed US aggression along with Russia. The US has and wants more of a front in the MIddle East that will >directly counter both Chinese and Russian power. @OsaanAmerica - pay attention to the big picture and look at how the US acts.....

Nonsense. Firstly Syria is not comparable to China on ANY level. Secondly, Russia would not have pushed Syria into getting rid of it's chemical weapons if the US had not taken the hardline position. The net result is welcomed by Syrians, Americans and Russians. Yet you find fault with the outcome? I suggest YOU pay attention to the big picture.

Better unmanned drones than sending out more manned coast guard ships.

How have all these deals been passing in the last few days when the USA government has been shut down?

Not all of the government shuts down - essential parts continue.

Arm the drones will be the next step.

Before USA shut down, Pentagon claimed that it sold upgrade airplane AWACS to Japan for almost a billion dollars. Then it got in trouble because Boeing 767 AWACS is not used anymore and the system was not sold. Some of you remember? So, this plan for upgrading is true upgrading of system Japan has been using plus more. They haven't released price tag yet. However, USA owes 1.1223 trillion dollars as of July, this year. They will release more details later.

The US has clearly stated it supports the status quo, and will NOT TOLERATE China trying to change through force the status quo. This position is new.

All talks and no action just to fool the Japanese into submission. As usual.

China will do what it needs to do to not to have direct confrontation with the U.S., but it also doesn’t want to be told what to do. There will never be an invasion by the U.S. of China. What would be the point? Would U.S. take over their country? Look how well that worked for U.S. in Iraq or Afganistan. History shows U.S. have no idea what to do once you invade. U.S. is a horrible invaders and the world is a mess wherever U.S. get involved in more than a behind-the-scenes fashion. So don’t worry about China. Worry about how U.S. can contribute to the ever tightening relationship between the two largest powers.

Guru29Oct. 05, 2013 - 05:13AM JST "The US has clearly stated it supports the status quo, and will NOT TOLERATE China trying to change through force the status quo. This position is new." All talks and no action just to fool the Japanese into submission. As usual.

Do you genuinely hope for a Chinese invasion of the Senkakus to find out if the United States means what it says? The U.S.'s word is good enough for the Chinese government but not enough for you?

sfjp330Oct. 05, 2013 - 05:49AM JST History shows U.S. have no idea what to do once you invade. U.S. is a horrible invaders and the world is a mess >wherever U.S. get involved in more than a behind-the-scenes fashion.

I guess you never heard of Germany or Japan?

sfjp330Oct. 05, 2013 - 06:31AM JST "OssanAmerica Oct. 05, 2013 - 05:58AM JST I guess you never heard of Germany or Japan?" The fundamental myth about WWII is that the U.S. gallantly won the war in Europe when, in reality, it was the Soviets >who "tore the guts out of the German military machine." The Soviets faced 200 German divisions throughout most of >the war, while the U.S. and Britain together faced 10.

Please stick to the subject. Your statement was " History shows U.S. have no idea what to do once you invade." That the U.S. defeated and occupied both nations and those two nations have become economically prosperous democratic countries is not a myth. I doubt there is any need to discuss how successful East Germany was or North Korea is today.

When it comes to handle its relationships with Japan and China, US will never stay neutral, period.

Here is why,: To Us, Japan is an old good friend, a strategically defense node in Asia and a dependable purchaser of American weaponry. China, at the other end of the spectrum, is neither a friend nor a foe. Broadly speaking, US views China as a business partner (an odd bed fellow so to speak) and a potential competitor in many stages of the world for years to come.

Now let's be back to the main question, will deploying new radar and drones fundamentally change American position ? To put it precisely, Will US now be more willing to engage a war with China if the territorial dispute over Senkaku Islands evolves into a major armed conflict ? The answer is a negative. Many nationalists here would certainly disagree with me on this regard. I can completely understand your guys emotional attachments to your own country, intellectuality. But pragmatically, those deployments will change little if any US's position forward.

Openly or privately, US has repeatedly made its position known to Japan and China - it does not want to see either Japan or China escalates the territorial dispute to the point that thing could quickly get out of hands. The rationale behind US's point is that, in part, any armed conflict involving Japan and China would push US into a moral dilemma: a) to endure thousands of death of American soldiers, hundreds of billions new debts and a long and lethal modern warfare that may endanger America's future b.) to abandon an old friend the same way as US did to Vietnam in 1970s. As you can see, none of these electives are pain-free ones for US to take. However, when the chips are down, it will leave US with little choice.

People may argue that in the cases of Vietnam or Taiwan, there were no parallel treaties. Well, it matters little, in the case that if the death numbers of American soldiers climbs in a war, Americans and American Congress will pull army servicemen out of harm's way, regardless. I am assuming that Japanese, Chinese politicians as well as Obama administration know the threshold in terms of American's tolerance to war casualties.

That being said, those broadcast deployments should not be read into too much beyond the face value. American national interests will be used as an ultimate yardstick to measure how much risks US would be willing to take. At this point, It would be next to impossible for US to alter the dynamic without weighing in American best interests.

In short, US will continue supporting its allay, Japan, to maintain the status quo, and in the meantime to forge a business tie with arising China for mutual benefits. Nevertheless, to be dragged into a war with China is highly unlikely.

Nice long post. Please see my post up at top.

This is not correct.

First of all, China is a neighbor , the USA isn't. You can defeat China for one time or two time, but not for ever, the hatred is the only thing can be left.

Is China so bad? or just because we describe he so bad?

The U.S.'s word is good enough for the Chinese government but not enough for you?

Please do not bother to reply if you do not bother to read what I write.

As I wrote, what John Kerry said here can only fool the Japanese and no one else. The Chinese won't give a damn even if John Kerry say the US will nullify all WWII peace treaties/ agreements and help Japan to recapture all the territories it lost to the Allies in WWII such as the Senkakus/ Diaoyu, Ryukyu, South Kuril islands, Taiwan, Korea, Eastern China and the whole of south-east Asia.

Do you genuinely hope for a Chinese invasion of the Senkakus to find out if the United States means what it says?

The Japanese have given up its claim on the Senkakus/ Diaoyu, Ryukyu, South Kuril islands and many other territories in all major WWII peace treaties and agreements such as the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan in WWII), Japanese Instrument of Surrender (agreement to the terms of surrender), San Francisco Peace Treaty and etc.

If Japan attacks Chinese forces to regain the Senkakus/ Diaoyu, it will constitute a restarting of WWII. And I can tell you it is very likely that Japan will be nuked again like what happened when it ignore the Potsdam Declaration in 1945 or many of its nuclear power plants will be bombed.

The best the US can do is to prevent the Japanese fascists from acting recklessly, otherwise they might lose their quasi-colony after the war.

Guru29Oct. 05, 2013 - 05:28PM JST "The U.S.'s word is good enough for the Chinese government but not enough for you?" Please do not bother to reply if you do not bother to read what I write.

Please answer the question.

As I wrote, what John Kerry said here can only fool the Japanese and no one else. The Chinese won't give a damn >even if John Kerry say the US will nullify all WWII peace treaties/ agreements and help Japan to recapture all the >territories it lost to the Allies in WWII such as the Senkakus/ Diaoyu, Ryukyu, South Kuril islands, Taiwan, Korea, >Eastern China and the whole of south-east Asia.

The Chinese have three options to achieve the goal od taking the Senkakus. One is to intimidate Jaan into simply giving them up It is clear that will not happen. Two is to take the issue to the ICJ, which again won't happen because China has too many ongoing disputes with other countries and could be takewn to the ICJ itself. Third is to take the Senkakus by military force. Again this will not happen as China is not prepared to engage the U.S. in a conflict. Proof of this is that to date, China still has not sent PLAN vessels to the Senkakus. Your going on about Japanese territories in WWII is irrelevant as today it is only China that has openly declared an intent to take control of the entire East and South China Seas.

Do you genuinely hope for a Chinese invasion of the Senkakus to find out if the United States means what it says?

The Japanese have given up its claim on the Senkakus/ Diaoyu, Ryukyu, South Kuril islands and many other >territories in all major WWII peace treaties and agreements such as the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for >Japan in WWII), Japanese Instrument of Surrender (agreement to the terms of surrender), San Francisco Peace >Treaty and etc.

Total nonsense. The Senkakus were exempt from from the Potsdam agreement. And the USSR took the southern Kuriles, which it never owned, illegally according to the United States.

If Japan attacks Chinese forces to regain the Senkakus/ Diaoyu,

Rad the Japanese constitution before making such a ridiculous statement. The only way the JASDF will engage the Chinese military is if China decides to invade Japanese territory which includes the Senkakus.

The best the US can do is to prevent the Japanese fascists from acting recklessly, otherwise they might lose their >quasi-colony after the war.

No, what's happening in reality is that the United States along with it's Asian allies is preventing Fascist China from taking over Asia. Your view teeters on fantasy.

Tjhis agreement will reduce US debts to Japan quite a bit. Not that less tan 1 billion dollar phony sales to Japan (AWACS) but quite bit more than billion. 1,1334 trillion dollars minus How much? Now iHagel will need to scheme how to reduce iits debts to China, 1.2773 trillion dollars

@OssanAmerica,

China had other choice more the three you had listed. To co-manage these islets, until chance comes.

Why

The Senkakus were exempt from from the Potsdam agreement.

?

And the USSR took the southern Kuriles, which it never owned, illegally according to the United States.

Please remember that the USA is not god. This means not all the USA said is right or legally.

if China decides to invade Japanese territory which includes the Senkakus.

Japan doesn't have the steady reason to say these islets belong to Japan. every entry is irrational if you can raise I can prove that.

what is "Fascist "? Can you define it? please make sure to use it correctly, if you are not joking.

The Senkakus were exempt from from the Potsdam agreement.

OssanJapan, that's just a lie created by the Japanese fascists to fool the illiterates and people who can't read such as you. Please read the following statements concerning Japan's territorial disputes with its neighbors carefully.

Potsdam Declaration:

"The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we ( US, UK, China and Russia) determine."

Japanese Instrument of Surrender:

"We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China and Great Britain on 26 July 1945, at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers."

Imperial Rescript of Emperor Hirohito

"Our Empire accepts the provisions of their Joint Declaration (i.e. the Potsdam Declaration)..."

San Francisco Peace Treaty

Article 2 (c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.

Article 3 Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29 deg. north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands but excluding the Diaoyu islands)...

And the origin of Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty as described by a disclosed US document:

"During a private dinner with the Chiangs on the evening of November 23, President Roosevelt asked Chiang China's intentions regarding the Ryukyu Islands. According to the memorandum written by the Chinese side (Roosevelt's special assistant Harry Hopkins was present but did not apparently take notes), "The President referred to the question of the Ryukyu Islands and enquired more than once whether China would want the Ryukyus." To this, Chiang reportedly replied that "China would be agreeable to joint occupation of the Ryukyus by China and the United States and, eventually, joint administration by the two countries under the trusteeship of an international organization. (UN trusteeship as described in the San Francisco Peace Treaty?)""

The Chinese have three options to achieve the goal od taking the Senkakus.

Your options are all redundant since the issue has already been solved by the signing of the whole series of WWII peace treaties and agreements between Japan and the Allies as I posted here.

So China just need to remain Japan to show to the world that it is a country capable of honoring its own words and comply with the peace treaties and agreements it signed with the international community.

With this agreement bringing back to USA, US Govt will be able to employ back Govt employees now. Good sales Hagel accomplished but Kerry will get credit. He will be next Presidential election candidate to oppose Hillary. Next thing, they will try to sell more bonds to China because Japan will not pay cash but use Bonds to pay the amount they have to pay for these upgrading. Just my guess. I will wait to see how and when U/SA hire back their employees.

Potsdam Agreement refers to three parties which are U.S., Great Britain, and ROC. Hence, the "we" part are exclusively for those three. Soviet Union signed later which means that they adhered to the fact that "we" party remain those three. (refer to Instrument of Surrender where it states "adhere to" when it comes to Soviet Union).

U.S. and Britain are signatories to the Treaty of Peace (signed and ratified) where they agreed U.S. becomes the sole trusteeship. As for ROC, they signed a separate Peace Treaty with Japan where it states " It is recognized that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco in the United States of America on September 8, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands." This again is both signed and ratified.

From a international agreement standpoint, PRC has no chance. ZERO. NADA.

They should just stick with their usual "xxxxx has been an inherent territory of China since beginning of time" rhetoric. At least this BS still works domestically.

＞Guru29Oct. 06, 2013 - 01:26AM JST "The Senkakus were exempt from from the Potsdam agreement."

OssanJapan, that's just a lie created by the Japanese fascists to fool the illiterates and people who can't read such as >you.

Juvenile name calling is an indicator that your arguments are utterly fallacious.

Please read the following statements concerning Japan's territorial disputes with its neighbors carefully. Potsdam Declaration: "The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of >Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we ( US, UK, China and Russia) determine."

AND SUCH MINOR ISLANDS AS WE DETERMINE. The Senkakus falls into this category. Did you miss that?

San Francisco Peace Treaty Article 2 (c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the >islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 >September 1905.

The Allied powers interpreted "Kuriles" to mean the Kuriles that were originally Russian and were taken by Japan in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904/05. When the USSR took the SOUTHERN KURILES, wjhich has always been Japanese by the Treaty of Shimoda between Russia and Japan in 1855, and habing done so AFTER Japan surrendered, the Allied powers immediately objected to the Soviet THEFT of the southernmost four islands. To this ate the United States, United Kingdom and the European Parliament consider the four Southern Kurile Islands to be Japanese Territory under Russian administration.

"The Chinese have three options to achieve the goal od taking the Senkakus.

Your options are all redundant since the issue has already been solved by the signing of the whole series of WWII >peace treaties and agreements between Japan and the Allies as I posted here.

Nope, your arguments are pointless and redundant since China is either unwilling, incapable or both, of resortiung to any of the three options. China doesn't stand an ice cubes chance in hell of taking the Senkakus through a legal process. No matter how much copy and pasting you do,

@OssanAmerica,

China doesn't stand an ice cubes chance in hell of taking the Senkakus through a legal process.

you are talking about "legal" all day, but I can't see any legal thing in your argument. And this make your statements and you more irrational.

can we stop it?

The Senkakus falls into this category. Did you miss that?

OssanJapan,

Of course any island that isn't Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu or Shikoku will fall under the category of the "minor islands as we ( US, UK, China and Russia) determine" as stated in the Potsdam Declaration:

Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we ( US, UK, China and Russia) determine."

And the Senkakus/ Diaoyu is of no exception. Of course there are jokes created by some Japanese fascists that tell you otherwise, but they are nothing but jokes. It seems you are really incapable of telling the difference between lies and facts, don't you?

The Allied powers interpreted "Kuriles" to mean the Kuriles that were originally Russian and were taken by Japan in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904/05.

Since when did the Allies say that? Why don't you show me that exact webpage of the Japanese fascists who told you the jokes?

This is exactly what is written in the San Francisco Peace Treaty:

Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.

So obviously the Japanese fascists misinterpreted the Kurile Islands as the southern part of Sakhalin which Russia ceded to Japan after the Russo-Japanese War.

nigelboy: Potsdam Agreement refers to three parties which are U.S., Great Britain, and ROC. Hence, the "we" part are exclusively for those three.

Wrong, Japan does accept Russia as a part of the Potsdam Agreement as is stated in the Japanese Instrument of Surrender:

"We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China and Great Britain on 26 July 1945, at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers."

From a international agreement standpoint, PRC has no chance.

You have no idea that PRC is the legal successor of China just like Russia is the legal successor of USSR?

Wrong, Japan does accept Russia as a part of the Potsdam Agreement as is stated in the Japanese Instrument of Surrender:

Wrong. It simply states that Soviets "adhere" to the conditions much like Japan. Hence the "we" part still contain only U.S., U.K and ROC.

You have no idea that PRC is the legal successor of China just like Russia is the legal successor of USSR?

No duh. That's exactly my point. A legal successor also adheres to the agreement made by the predecessor.