NationStates Jolt Archive

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002236233_usjapanmil09.html
Military watchers may note that the US is in its biggest military realignment since the end of WWII. As the article states, the realignment of troops in Japan will not be nearly as big as elsewhere, but it will happen. However, I do have questions that maybe a few of the gun-ho military mavens on the board may answer (forgive me for saying that).

First, Okinawans have reason to celebrate. After 60 years, US Marines are leaving the island. Yet they are not leaving Japan, but moving to its northernmost island: Hokkaido. Okinawa, I believe, is far more strategic for the Marine Corp to use. It is about 1,500 miles from Taipei, the Phillipines, South Korea, and Honshu. Hokkaido seems distant, unless they expect to protect Alaska from a Russian attack (as the Russians are so threatening). Any reason why they may relocate there?
Second, the USS Kitty Hawk may relocate further south. However, if it does, where might it go? The Philipines might be good, but that is off limits to all but about a thousand US troops. I'd personally think Thailand or Singapore, though I'm not sure. And finally, if the Kitty Hawk moved, would the entire 7th Fleet move with it?
I'd love to hear some thougths on this.

On the economic side, I would note that Okinawa's economy actually relies heavily on the influx of capital that the marine base provides. With it gone.. well, I'll be curious to see how Okinawa's economy handles that kind of hit.

Also! Hokkaido is kind of close to the Korean Peninsula; wouldn't you say that is our last and largest concern in that area of the Pacific, especially since we already have troops stationed in the Phillipines to deal with Southeast Asian threats?

On the economic side, I would note that Okinawa's economy actually relies heavily on the influx of capital that the marine base provides. With it gone.. well, I'll be curious to see how Okinawa's economy handles that kind of hit.

Also! Hokkaido is kind of close to the Korean Peninsula; wouldn't you say that is our last and largest concern in that area of the Pacific, especially since we already have troops stationed in the Phillipines to deal with Southeast Asian threats?
I haven't seen a map lately, though I remember it being a bit far.
Anyhow, there are signs that Kim Jong Il's government may collapse in a decade or so. If not from a revolution, then it will definatly be a coup. If so, it may cease to be a threat. There would be no reason for the Marines to be in NE Asia, so I wonder where they may move to. Then again, a lot can change in twenty years. Look at how different the world was twenty years ago.

I haven't seen a map lately, though I remember it being a bit far.
Anyhow, there are signs that Kim Jong Il's government may collapse in a decade or so. If not from a revolution, then it will definatly be a coup. If so, it may cease to be a threat. There would be no reason for the Marines to be in NE Asia, so I wonder where they may move to. Then again, a lot can change in twenty years. Look at how different the world was twenty years ago.Well, it seems to me as though a military coup could be far more dangerous than Kim Jong Il. Much like the Soviets after the Tzars.

Well, it seems to me as though a military coup could be far more dangerous than Kim Jong Il. Much like the Soviets after the Tzars.
Perhaps. More likely, the new leaders can't maintain the toltalitarian state of Kim Jong Il, leading to a total collapse of the nation, and dumping millions of reffuggees on China, and maybe South Korea. It may even make the DMZ an imaginary line.

1) Marines are mobile forces by nature, so relocating them a few hundred miles to the north doesn't really affect their ability to mobilize by a large degree.

2) The talk is of moving fighter groups from the Kitty Hawk down south, not the Kitty Hawk itself. Seventh Fleet is based in Yokosuka, on Honshu, near Tokyo.

3) By 2003 the US was considering moving most of the 20,000 Marines on Okinawa to new bases that would be established in Australia; increasing the presence of US troops in Singapore and Malaysia; and seeking agreements to base Navy ships in Vietnamese waters and ground troops in the Philippines. For the Marines based on Okinawa, most for months without their families, the US is considering a major shift. Under plans on the table, all but about 5,000 of the Marines would move, possibly to Australia.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/okinawa.htm

I imagine they're still considering the same destinations for the move south.

On the economic side, I would note that Okinawa's economy actually relies heavily on the influx of capital that the marine base provides. With it gone.. well, I'll be curious to see how Okinawa's economy handles that kind of hit.

Bingo.

Also! Hokkaido is kind of close to the Korean Peninsula; wouldn't you say that is our last and largest concern in that area of the Pacific, especially since we already have troops stationed in the Phillipines to deal with Southeast Asian threats?

How about the PRC and Taiwan? Okinawa is far more strategic in that context.

[QUOTE=Mystic Mindinao]I haven't seen a map lately, though I remember it being a bit far.
Anyhow, there are signs that Kim Jong Il's government may collapse in a decade or so. If not from a revolution, then it will definatly be a coup. If so, it may cease to be a threat. There would be no reason for the Marines to be in NE Asia, so I wonder where they may move to. Then again, a lot can change in twenty years. Look at how different the world was twenty years ago.

http://www.freemap.com/images/INTERNATIONAL%20WALL%20MAPS/NG-Japan-Korea-600%20copy.jpg

Hokkaido's closer to the DPRK.

Hey, so long as they're gone.

Once I read Chalmers Johnson's Blowback I began to realize just how unwelcome, economic boon or not, my country's troops really are. It's sometimes aggravating to live in such a chronically oblivious nation.

bump

Maybe we are preparing to invade NK, hmmmmmmmmmm?

Hey, so long as they're gone.

Once I read Chalmers Johnson's Blowback I began to realize just how unwelcome, economic boon or not, my country's troops really are. It's sometimes aggravating to live in such a chronically oblivious nation.
Whether or not they are welcome, we need them there. I'm actually a bit sad that Okinawa is being abandoned, considering that it is the most strategic point in NE Asia.

Maybe we are preparing to invade NK, hmmmmmmmmmm?
If we did, I personally couldn't be happier. Everyone overestimates the North Korean army, but they really are a hot air ball, like every communist nation.
Of course, if they're right and I'm wrong, the US can always use nukes. But I suspect it will simply be a few tactical nukes on heavy concentrations of troops should it come down to that.

bump

I am glad to see the realignment but wish it would go much furthur. I would prefer almost all US troops in Japan and S. Korea to be brought home.
S. Koreans, if we are to believe the media, seem to blame us for the war in 50-53 and want us to leave. Fine, giv'em what they want, let's stop wasting money and time worrying about them and their northern bretheren. As far a ol Kim is concerned, nothing would enrage him more than if we were to simply ignore his existence.
It is time for Japan to grow up as a nation and take care of most of its defense. I think we should remain in an alliance with them but that they should should cover this region defensively. We've been here too long.

I am glad to see the realignment but wish it would go much furthur. I would prefer almost all US troops in Japan and S. Korea to be brought home.
S. Koreans, if we are to believe the media, seem to blame us for the war in 50-53 and want us to leave. Fine, giv'em what they want, let's stop wasting money and time worrying about them and their northern bretheren. As far a ol Kim is concerned, nothing would enrage him more than if we were to simply ignore his existence.
It is time for Japan to grow up as a nation and take care of most of its defense. I think we should remain in an alliance with them but that they should should cover this region defensively. We've been here too long.
I agree that some withdrawl is needed, but those troops aren't all there for Japan's sake. The US has interests in the region, too. It no longer has to deal with containment in the region, but it now has to serve a diplomatic role. It is a great incentive for the North Koreans not to act up. Also, notice how China ibacks down from trying to take Taiwan when the US gets involved.
I do agree, however, that Japan needs to do much more in its own defense. I'd like to see it build a decent army, navy, and air force capable of territorial integrety at least. The Japanese can well afford it.

There is a movement in Japan to turn it's defense force into a force capable of offensive action. But I can understand the opposition to such a move. Japan doesn't exactly have a good history with industrialized armies, you know?

I agree that some withdrawl is needed, but those troops aren't all there for Japan's sake. The US has interests in the region, too. It no longer has to deal with containment in the region, but it now has to serve a diplomatic role. It is a great incentive for the North Koreans not to act up. Also, notice how China ibacks down from trying to take Taiwan when the US gets involved.
I do agree, however, that Japan needs to do much more in its own defense. I'd like to see it build a decent army, navy, and air force capable of territorial integrety at least. The Japanese can well afford it.

Actually, the Japanese already have one of the finest Navies in the world-even under the restrictions they've been under for so long. It wouldn't take much for them to develop a full-blown Capital-Grade strategic Navy, since they already have the Destroyers, Cruisers, Frigates, and Cutters covered-all they need are bomb-magne- I mean, Carriers. All they need are carriers, and they're in business. Likewise, the JSDF isn't too shabby a group of young people-it would not take much for the nipponjin to develop a full-blown Army out of that core of troops it has had... and the Japanese field the 767 variant AWACS and Fuel Tankers already in support of F-16J's and F-15J's, both of which are product-improved versions of what the U.S. already has.

The Okinawa redeployment is probably overdue, a lot of the local hostilities come about because of misbehaviours by individual servicemen, and the unpleasant reminder that Okinawa was actually invaded before the Emperor surrendered. Nobody likes being reminded that they were conquered-it's a human thing.

There is a movement in Japan to turn it's defense force into a force capable of offensive action. But I can understand the opposition to such a move. Japan doesn't exactly have a good history with industrialized armies, you know?
I don't know-they did a fine job on the Russians in 1905, and had most of Asia subjugated to Tokyo's authority by 1942-on a practical level, I think they did fine with Industrialized Armies, they just didn't do so hot on the "How to handle your prisoners" angle, or the "Picking your foes before you pick a fight" angle.

Second, the USS Kitty Hawk may relocate further south. However, if it does, where might it go? The Philipines might be good, but that is off limits to all but about a thousand US troops. I'd personally think Thailand or Singapore, though I'm not sure. And finally, if the Kitty Hawk moved, would the entire 7th Fleet move with it?
I'd love to hear some thougths on this.
I'd say Guam or the Marianas would be the most likely place...

I don't know-they did a fine job on the Russians in 1905, and had most of Asia subjugated to Tokyo's authority by 1942-on a practical level, I think they did fine with Industrialized Armies, they just didn't do so hot on the "How to handle your prisoners" angle, or the "Picking your foes before you pick a fight" angle.From a purely pragmatic angle, yes, the Japanese did fine. But if you look at it as a compassionate human being, you realize just how monstrous the Japanese were when they had a powerful military.

From a purely pragmatic angle, yes, the Japanese did fine. But if you look at it as a compassionate human being, you realize just how monstrous the Japanese were when they had a powerful military.

They were as monstrous as the French, or the other European Colonial Powers were during the same period, Trammwerk. Remember, the Opium Wars were so that the Euros could sell Heroin and Opium to Chinese civilians!
The Powerful Military isn't why the Japanese Empire was so brutal, that traces back to the local fascist-equivalents that were in power at the time in Japan-who were, in real and practical terms, no worse than Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.
It wasn't the Powerful Military that made them monstrous-merely successful.

There is a movement in Japan to turn it's defense force into a force capable of offensive action. But I can understand the opposition to such a move. Japan doesn't exactly have a good history with industrialized armies, you know?
It's different these days. Japan is an extremely passifist nation. My guess is that they will use their force for self defense, regional detterance, and peacekeeping. They will not go on empire building trips like in the past.

I'd say Guam or the Marianas would be the most likely place...
Maybe. But I personally think that we need one in Australia, maybe in Darwin or Townsville. Or perhaps the New Guineans will allow for bases on their coast. Though we really need two carriers in that region, including one in Guam.

They were as monstrous as the French, or the other European Colonial Powers were during the same period, Trammwerk. Remember, the Opium Wars were so that the Euros could sell Heroin and Opium to Chinese civilians!
The Powerful Military isn't why the Japanese Empire was so brutal, that traces back to the local fascist-equivalents that were in power at the time in Japan-who were, in real and practical terms, no worse than Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.
It wasn't the Powerful Military that made them monstrous-merely successful.You're right, of course. But that doesn't change, I think, the association a military tradition has with atrocities in the Japanese psyche.

It's different these days. Japan is an extremely passifist nation. My guess is that they will use their force for self defense, regional detterance, and peacekeeping. They will not go on empire building trips like in the past.See, that's what their Defense Force does already. So why have a force capable of offensive action, which might tempt the government to act like it has in the days of yore?

They were as monstrous as the French, or the other European Colonial Powers were during the same period, Trammwerk. Remember, the Opium Wars were so that the Euros could sell Heroin and Opium to Chinese civilians!
The Powerful Military isn't why the Japanese Empire was so brutal, that traces back to the local fascist-equivalents that were in power at the time in Japan-who were, in real and practical terms, no worse than Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.
It wasn't the Powerful Military that made them monstrous-merely successful.
Most East Asians will agree that the atrocities committed by Japan during the first half of the 20th century are far worse than any European imperialism. Asians will allow a few good words about the European technology and cultural legacy left behind among the people formerly colonized by Europeans, but Japan's acts have been viewed exclusively as criminal. Opium smuggling was despicable and ruthless, but the holocaust perpetrated by Japan against Asian civilians deserves its own special category of inhumanity. Your comparison of Japan with Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia is apt... these three states were exceptionally brutal among all the ruthless and brutal empires in history. For all the atrocities that Britain or France committed, these were tamer than the crimes of Japan in Asia, ranging from the most brutal and efficient forms of slavery, exploitation, rape, massacre for sport, tortures, etc.

See, that's what their Defense Force does already. So why have a force capable of offensive action, which might tempt the government to act like it has in the days of yore?
Because it would need to defend its region. A remilitarized Japan would, for example, further help to keep China at bay over Taiwan. It would also help to clear the Pacific of pirates, as more and more of them are starting to pop up. They are even allying with some local terrorist groups, such as Jemal Islamiah.

The Okinawa redeployment is probably overdue, a lot of the local hostilities come about because of misbehaviours by individual servicemen, and the unpleasant reminder that Okinawa was actually invaded before the Emperor surrendered. Nobody likes being reminded that they were conquered-it's a human thing.
The current American military base benefits the local economy and the locals keep that in mind when approaching the issue of a US redeployment. Personally I think the US should save money and resources and leave only a skeleton crew in Japan. But a large scale pull out from Okinawa would be politically complicated and not be as eagerly welcomed by Okinawans as one would think from watching the media about Japanese hysterics over abuses by American servicemen. Poor Okinawans, trapped between two giants - Japan and America. They were invaded once before WWII - by Japan, which annexed the native Ryu Kyu Kingdom in the 1870s. The mental shock of American conquest is probably not as strong among Okinawan people in WWII, considering that the Okinawans, being a people colonized by Japan, didn't even speak Japanese, were not considered Japanese, and were abused by Japanese soldiers and administrators. American occupation was to many Okinawans just another chapter in the greater picture of Japanese occupation, which dragged the islands into the horrifying experience of WWII. Of course, nowadays 100 years of forcible assimilation has basically made Okinawans culturally similar to any other Japanese. But even today some Okinawans refuse to fly the Japanese flag and view the Emperor as an evil symbol of imperialism.

Most East Asians will agree that the atrocities committed by Japan during the first half of the 20th century are far worse than any European imperialism. Asians will allow a few good words about the European technology and cultural legacy left behind among the people formerly colonized by Europeans, but Japan's acts have been viewed exclusively as criminal. Opium smuggling was despicable and ruthless, but the holocaust perpetrated by Japan against Asian civilians deserves its own special category of inhumanity. Your comparison of Japan with Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia is apt... these three states were exceptionally brutal among all the ruthless and brutal empires in history. For all the atrocities that Britain or France committed, these were tamer than the crimes of Japan in Asia, ranging from the most brutal and efficient forms of slavery, exploitation, rape, massacre for sport, tortures, etc.

don't get me wrong, here, the Japanese were all-that and worse... but one could look at it another way-the Japanese Empire was all about 'improving' what the rest of the 'civilized' world was using-be it technology, organizational structures, tactics... Considering that France did some right ghoulish things in "Indochina" in the late 19th century (even made postcards, grim stuff...) and the Vichy-French governors collaborated with the IJN and IJA units in that area during the war...(Kind of like their bosses in Europe did at that same time) one could come to the conclusion that the Japanese were simply improving on the record of atrocities the way their engineers in the late 20th century improved on automobiles or computers.
( think this becomes an even more apparent point when you consider that Japan used German advisors to train their army, and British advisors to develop their Naval capacity between 1868 and 1914. they simply employed the extant techniques used by the majority of Colonial Powers, coupled with a racist dogma and aggressive ethic.)

In Short: Japan saw what was working for others, and perfected it-to the horror of all who observed or experienced the results.

To presume that Japan would go back to that-having seen that it doesn't really work all that well if you don't like being invaded or atom-bombed by the Americans, Australians, or New Zealanders, I suspect the formation of a fully proper Offensive capability would be coupled with a strong view of defensive, rather than aggressive, doctrines. Having a city vapourized and generations of cancer tends to leave a mark on the National Psyche.

Because it would need to defend its region. A remilitarized Japan would, for example, further help to keep China at bay over Taiwan. It would also help to clear the Pacific of pirates, as more and more of them are starting to pop up. They are even allying with some local terrorist groups, such as Jemal Islamiah.What you're talking about is proactive military action, which is inherently offensive. Defensive military action occurs only when an imminent threat is looming. Containing China and fighting terrorist-pirates in the Pacific does not really count as defensive activities.

If we did, I personally couldn't be happier. Everyone overestimates the North Korean army, but they really are a hot air ball, like every communist nation.
Of course, if they're right and I'm wrong, the US can always use nukes. But I suspect it will simply be a few tactical nukes on heavy concentrations of troops should it come down to that.


Like all communist nation? Like Vietnam, which pretty much kicked our butts in the 60's, like the Chinese armies that drove us back to the paralell in the 50's? Like the Soviet armies that beat both the white russians and later Hitler? Oh ya, communist armies are just hot air bags.

Mindinao, if you had picked up a newspaper in the last few months, you'd know that North Korea has nukes too. I really don't want to take the chance of an American city, or even american troops or a South Korean city, going up in a mushroom cloud.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002236233_usjapanmil09.html
Military watchers may note that the US is in its biggest military realignment since the end of WWII. As the article states, the realignment of troops in Japan will not be nearly as big as elsewhere, but it will happen. However, I do have questions that maybe a few of the gun-ho military mavens on the board may answer (forgive me for saying that).

First, Okinawans have reason to celebrate. After 60 years, US Marines are leaving the island. Yet they are not leaving Japan, but moving to its northernmost island: Hokkaido. Okinawa, I believe, is far more strategic for the Marine Corp to use. It is about 1,500 miles from Taipei, the Phillipines, South Korea, and Honshu. Hokkaido seems distant, unless they expect to protect Alaska from a Russian attack (as the Russians are so threatening). Any reason why they may relocate there?
Second, the USS Kitty Hawk may relocate further south. However, if it does, where might it go? The Philipines might be good, but that is off limits to all but about a thousand US troops. I'd personally think Thailand or Singapore, though I'm not sure. And finally, if the Kitty Hawk moved, would the entire 7th Fleet move with it?
I'd love to hear some thougths on this.


Fleet numbers are not designated by carrier.

Also the KH is due to be decomissioned soon.

Like all communist nation? Like Vietnam, which pretty much kicked our butts in the 60's, like the Chinese armies that drove us back to the paralell in the 50's? Like the Soviet armies that beat both the white russians and later Hitler? Oh ya, communist armies are just hot air bags.

Mindinao, if you had picked up a newspaper in the last few months, you'd know that North Korea has nukes too. I really don't want to take the chance of an American city, or even american troops or a South Korean city, going up in a mushroom cloud.
My fmr. teacher has a pen pal in Russia that she occaisonally visits. He was a soldier in the Soviet Union, and worked on missile repair. He filed false reports to his superiors all the time, as he was afraid to even touch the missile, fearing that it may explode. That wasn't all that rare in the military.
The Soviet military was also the best of its kind. Most of the others rely almost exclusively on manpower. That may work for some enemies, but for the DPRK, it is suicide.

Like all communist nation? Like Vietnam, which pretty much kicked our butts in the 60's, like the Chinese armies that drove us back to the paralell in the 50's? Like the Soviet armies that beat both the white russians and later Hitler? Oh ya, communist armies are just hot air bags.

Mindinao, if you had picked up a newspaper in the last few months, you'd know that North Korea has nukes too. I really don't want to take the chance of an American city, or even american troops or a South Korean city, going up in a mushroom cloud.

We were fighting Vietnam? I thought we were fighting N. Vietnam and a small contingent of Vietcong. They did not kick our butts in the 60's. In fact, we kicked theirs. Militarily the NVA and Vietcong did not win a single major battle. Tet was in fact a disaster tactically for them as it decimated their forces and forced them into a probe/defense mode for about two years.
Yes, strategically they wore moral down. They refused to give up because they believed so strongly in their cause. The American people, led by the press and by some of their leadership lost hope for victory because complete victory was not achieved and in fact could never be achieved using the methods of fighting we were allowed by our own government.
Yep, the Chicoms did drive us back to the 38th. Massed men qill do that to ya. Truman had gutted the military after WWII, I can't stand him for doing so but I can understand why he did. My next door neighbor was infantry in Korea in 52 and 53. He talked about Chinese attacks. Waves and waves of men running, screaming, most of them not armed. They would pick up rifles from their dead comrades. He told me about shooting til he ran out of ammo and then bugging out to the next line and shooting til he ran out again and repeat. Defense in depth eventually would stop the attacks.
The Red Army defeated the White. Except there really wasn't a White army and that is why the White side lost. They were a motley collection of forces that fought against each other as much as they did against the Reds. The Reds remained untied and so picked off the differing White groups one at a time.
Yep, the Reds did kick some German butt. Took'em awhile but they did a good job against the Germans eventually.

So I wouldn't call communist armies paper tigers, they could definently fight but their capabilities in the field didn't match professional western militaries. Numbers counterbalanced deficencies.

Also regarding the 38th parallel, keep in mind that MacArthur's army had just pressed the Koreans all the way up to the Yalu River, before the Chinese made their massed attack. MacArthur proposed attacks into China to destroy bridges and bases to deal with the new threat. His proposal was rejected, and when he pressed, he was relieved of command.

A good contrast of the comparative abilities of the US and Chinese forces could be seen at the Chosin Reservoir. A freezing, poorly-supplied group of 25,000 US marines found themselves at the bottom of a reservoir, surrounded by Chinese forces outnumbering them by about 5:1. The marines broke through and escaped, inflicting horrible casualties on the Chinese on their way. Including those slain by the weather, the Chinese lost 72,500 there.

Also keep in mind that the Chinese pushed the UN forces past the 38th parallel, but they regrouped and pushed the Chinese back again.

Even with numbers on their side, the Chinese really weren't a match. Only politics kept MacArthur from taking the fight into the Chinese heartland.