Booties in Japan

#21
...which is ridiculous.

I'd suggest that defence involves having a capability of offence.

Ours is, after all, an MOD not an MOF.

Japan faces a high level of, shall we say, enthusiasm from its neighbours in terms of territorial and ideological intent. Putting F-35s on deck is a very good way of saying 'don't'.
 
#22
Guess what? Both Japan and Germany have constitutional limits placed on their use of force by their post 1945 constitutions. Japan is not allowed to have 'armed forces', hence 'self defence forces'.

Amphibious capabilities, like putting F-35B on their decks, is likely to be politically sensitive.
Putting F-35B without ejector seats, on their decks, now THAT would be politically sensitive.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#23
Guess what? Both Japan and Germany have constitutional limits placed on their use of force by their post 1945 constitutions. Japan is not allowed to have 'armed forces', hence 'self defence forces'.

Amphibious capabilities, like putting F-35B on their decks, is likely to be politically sensitive.
Its no shock at all, unless you have been hiding since 1950 that is.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#24
..which is ridiculous.
Not really, we aren't an aggressor by definition. Are we ridiculous?
I'd suggest that defence involves having a capability of offence.
tomato- tomato. semantics.
Ours is, after all, an MOD not an MOF.
My first applies
Japan faces a high level of, shall we say, enthusiasm from its neighbours in terms of territorial and ideological intent. Putting F-35s on deck is a very good way of saying 'don't'.
Hence it maintains a self defence force, the emphasis on self. I dont believe Japan is in any major alliance which could involve its troops invading even passively a neighbour for alliance peace keeping roles.
Japan did investigate deploying medical units to Iraq, I cant recall what happened.
The self defence doesn't mean its an isolationist country but its not a bad situation for the country.
 
#25
Japanese military capabilities are a sensitive issue within Japan, though they may not be elsewhere. Article 9 of the Jap constitution prohibits both aggression & the possession of military forces. The JSDF is clearly in breach of the spirit if not the letter. Circumventing A9 by calling it a Self-Defence Force & legally defining it & its membership as civilian is pretty dubious. There are a few Japanese who want A9 enforced, there are those who want to remove the prohibition on military forces, there are those who want to maintain the status quo, & the whole issue is overshadowed by the knowledge of past Japanese militarism & how that turned out in 1945. My view is that every democracy has the right to defend itself, the status quo is unsatisfactory & the prohibition on military forces should never have existed & should be removed as soon as possible (keeping the we-won't-shoot-first bit should be enough to mollify A9's supporters).
 
#28
Barring the 1941-45 unpleasantness, the connections between the RN and Japanese naval power is remarkable.
I seem to recall hearing / reading that several officers of the IJN were embarked in HM Ships at Jutland and several lost their lives.
 
#30
If there just happened to be about 100 F-35’s looking for a home due to a possible Congress military embargo on a certain country presently cosying up to Russia, and a certain more reliable ally wishing to help counter the Chinese military buil-up in the S China Sea were to suddenly wish to up its present F-35 order by 100, how wonderfully fortuitous would that be.:-D
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/29/asia/japan-f-35-fighter-aircraft-carrier-intl/index.html
 
#31
I seem to recall hearing / reading that several officers of the IJN were embarked in HM Ships at Jutland and several lost their lives.
And it was a Japanese navy ship that answered the British request for assistance and helped put down the mutiny of the Indian 5th Native Infantry in Singapore in 1915.

Not just the navy, though - years ago I was in a language class with a long retired cavalry officer who had taught equestrianship on secondment to the pre-war Japanese army.

In the other direction, the Minister of War's private secretary, a Major M. Yamamoto served an attachment in UK to the Ox & Bucks LI and another officer, Suganami, to the Irish Guards.
 
#32
Japanese military capabilities are a sensitive issue within Japan, though they may not be elsewhere. Article 9 of the Jap constitution prohibits both aggression & the possession of military forces. The JSDF is clearly in breach of the spirit if not the letter. Circumventing A9 by calling it a Self-Defence Force & legally defining it & its membership as civilian is pretty dubious. There are a few Japanese who want A9 enforced, there are those who want to remove the prohibition on military forces, there are those who want to maintain the status quo, & the whole issue is overshadowed by the knowledge of past Japanese militarism & how that turned out in 1945. My view is that every democracy has the right to defend itself, the status quo is unsatisfactory & the prohibition on military forces should never have existed & should be removed as soon as possible (keeping the we-won't-shoot-first bit should be enough to mollify A9's supporters).
To criticisms that this violates the restriction from waging aggressive war per Article 9 of its 1947 Constitution, dictating Japan should maintain a strictly defensive military posture. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is contending that this would conform to the spirit of Article 9 in simply ensuring that Japan’s defense posture remains in step with its present security environment.

The present environment includes confrontation with North Korea and its aggressive nuclear and missile development programs. A huge Chinese military buildup and confrontational approach to territorial disputes, and in particular China’s position over Tokyo’s claims and control over the Senkaku Islands, Japan’s outlying Southwest Island chain.

Vulnerability there in the face of China's provocations has already prompted Japan’s mobilisation of an Amphibious Preparatory Unit charged with responding to any attack in that region, and the use of the Izumo-class carriers to protect this area particularly where the closest air base to the Senkaku Islands is in Okinawa around 370 miles away and where a carrier’s ability to provide air cover would be vital to Japan’s defensive capability.

His government has also recently enacted new security bills allowing Japan’s SDF to provide logistical support for allies engaged in military operations and come to the aid of an ally when under attack. The recent inclusion of F-35 B’s in this new order would seem to confirm what has up till now been simply speculation. The new amphibious unit formed specifically for defence of a remote area of Japanese territory will need air-cover, and will certainly increase allied capability in an area the US and it’s allies are already becoming increasingly concerned.

It is also interesting to note that while China is continuing its expansion in the S China sea, developing it carrier program, and building more carriers, it is not so keen on Japan doing this.
China urges Japan to follow the road of peaceful development - Xinhua | English.news.cn

I can but you shouldn’t???
 
Last edited:
#33
To criticisms that this violates the restriction from waging aggressive war per Article 9 of its 1947 Constitution, dictating Japan should maintain a strictly defensive military posture. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is contending that this would conform to the spirit of Article 9 in simply ensuring that Japan’s defense posture remains in step with its present security environment.
To criticisms that the Japanese Constitution reserves interpretation of the Constitution for the Supreme Court and excludes the Executive branch, he's contended that the Supreme Court can poke it.
 
#34
Cdr Chiusuke Shimomura (KIA)
Cdr (later Adm) Suetsugu Nobumasa
Lt-Cdr (later Vice-Adm) Imamura Shinjiro
Apropos not very much, but there was, in those days, a pretty close liaison between the IJN and the RN; amongst the many things the Japanese learned from us was, it seems, an abiding taste for, er, curry...

Apparently, the Japanese diet of that era was low in vitamin B, the lack of which which triggered debilitating bouts of beriberi. The IJN, seeking a way to keep their sailors healthy, embraced good old Royal Navy curries as a remedy. The rest, as they say, is history.

How Curry Became a Japanese Naval Tradition | Atlas Obscura

Perhaps now, as they move towards turning their 'helicopter destroyers' into modern versions of the Invincibles, and start thinking of flying F35Bs off them, that old association will rekindle and curry night in the mess take on an international flavour.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#38
What's 'Through-deck Cruiser' in Japanese?
 
#40
They still revere their flagship from the Battle of Tsushima, the Mikasa, which was built in Barrow-in-Furness(where there is also a street named after it). Indeed, the British Defence Attaché to Japan has a picture of the ship in his living room.
The Royal Navy observer with the IJN at the time was one Captain Sir William Pakenham, who watched the Battle of Tsu Shima seated in a deck chair on the quarterdeck of the Mikasa. He did have to retire to his cabin at half time to change into a clean uniform, the first one being covered in bits of several very dead Japanese naval ratings.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top