U.S. sounds out Japan about F-16 pullout from Misawa

Saturday 12th September, 02:24 AM JST

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

› Login to comment

10 Comments

OssanAmerica at 07:42 AM JST - 12th September

Don't see why this is a problem. Japan can increase their number of JASDF F-16s and F-15s to make up the difference. Don't know about Kadena but isn't Misawa shared base? At least the locals won't complain.
pathat at 10:23 AM JST - 12th September

"Japan can increase their number of JASDF F-16s and F-15s to make up the difference."

Exactly

"Japan has shown reluctance due to concern about the situation in North Korea and the possible impact on the realignment of U.S. forces in Japan."

Nothing will really change until the Japanese are ready to shoulder the burden for their own defense.
USNinJapan2 at 12:18 PM JST - 12th September

OssanAmerica

Don't know about Kadena but isn't Misawa shared base?

Yes it is. It's shared between the USAF/USN and the JASDF. It's also a shared airfield; the military runways are also used by the civilian Misawa Airport.

At least the locals won't complain.

No, they still will. They always do.
TheQuestion at 01:52 PM JST - 12th September

Is it just me or are there some serious mixed signals coming off of Japan? They want us to move out our troops but they want us to leave our planes and at the same time they don't want to refuel our ships but they want us to cover their ass in case NK actually lives up to their threats. But I suppose it's always been that way.
apecNetworks at 05:36 PM JST - 12th September

There's options galore - reduce Misawa AND Yokota presence percentage wise and make Gov. Ishihara ecstatic. Reduce Yokosuka as well so that the US lowers presence, but not bases. Reducing budgets is probably a high priority according to some sources.
pathat at 10:45 PM JST - 12th September

Is it just me or are there some serious mixed signals coming off of Japan?

No, you have plenty of company. If Japan wants to change its constitution to at least make clear the right to self-defense, and, also call for major changes to the U.S.-Japan security arrangements and demand a major reduction in U.S. forces on Japanese soil in the near future, it is free to do so, but then again, it's a scary world out there outside of dreamy peace Japan, and paying "sympathy budget" money each year is a bargain for the country over the long haul.

If Japan wants change, as evidenced by soon-to-be Prime Minister Hatoyama and the DPJ's tough talk during the campaign season, then it's time to put up or shut up.

But there will be little or no change for the foreseeable future, because the status quo is the easiest way to go.

Rock on, Japan!
Klein2 at 11:46 PM JST - 12th September

"If Japan wants to change its constitution to at least make clear the right to self-defense, and, also call for major changes to the U.S.-Japan"

Well, considering that it is the constitution that American GQ wrote for them, I should think that adhering to that would please the victors of the last war. The US benefits from a peaceful Japan in many ways, so let's not kid ourselves that a "normal" Japan was EVER what the US wanted.

The Japanese want to have it both ways? Yeah, well so does the US. A rearmed Japan would mean a much more aggressive China and Russia in many ways, and sooner or later, that would burden the US. Can the US seriously get enough port service for its forces from Guam and Pearl and Korea? What the US might find is that Japan, if forced to, will be able to show enough teeth on its own to keep from being bullied by anyone. It remains to be seen if the US will be willing or able to keep itself extended much longer without a little help from its friends.

Suffice it to say that both parties continue to push and pull and seem generally satisfied with the arrangement. I think we have gone about 40 years now without serious conflict in the region, which is not bad.

Certainly nothing to pout about.
OssanAmerica at 01:24 AM JST - 13th September

"If Japan wants to change its constitution to at least make clear the >right to self-defense, and, also call for major changes to the U.S.->Japan" Well, considering that it is the constitution that American GQ wrote for >them, I should think that adhering to that would please the victors of >the last war. The US benefits from a peaceful Japan in many ways, so >let's not kid ourselves that a "normal" Japan was EVER what the US >wanted.

You couldn't be more wrong. Article 9 was what we came up with to satisfy the other allied powers who wanted to prosecute Hirohito. We decided that keeping the Emperor would guarantee no civil unrest that could open a doorway for Soviet intervention. The proof of this is that by 1951 in the face of communist aggresion on the Korean Penninsula we forced Japan to put together some kind of military in obvious contraction to the constitution we just handed them. The Japanese utilized a loophole by forming a defence for out of the Police, the forerunner of today's SDF. Since then our position has been to increase Japanese responsibility in it's security, and have found their adherence to Article 9 something of an obstacle.

The Japanese want to have it both ways? Yeah, well so does the US. A >rearmed Japan would mean a much more aggressive China and Russia in many >ways, and sooner or later, that would burden the US.

Disagree. Any increase in an armed Japan would be offset by a reduction in US forces so there wouldn't be any change in balance. Maintaining the balance would be in both US and Japan's interests.

Can the US seriously get enough port service for its forces from Guam >and Pearl and Korea? What the US might find is that Japan, if forced to, >will be able to show enough teeth on its own to keep from being bullied >by anyone.

It'll never happen. Not unless Japan goes Nuclear, and even then they'd only have enough teeth to keep NKorea at bay. Even if Japan went nuclear they'd still need to the US in terms of Russia and China.
alphawolf at 10:11 PM JST - 18th September

Good Idea.. I believe the JASDF is responsible for the defense of the Japanese airspace. It is time they take the front seat to their own defense.. Moving Futenma Air Base onto Kadena is an old idea but there was no space now there will be space if them 50 fighters leave. It sounds like a win win situation.. also it will expedite the move to Guam.

aw
alphawolf at 10:11 PM JST - 18th September

OssanAmerica, why wouldn't it happen? It is the US side (military) that wants it... nothing that is being demanded by the Japanese side.

aw