Japan gets Okinawa approval for U.S. Marine base move

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - The governor of Japan's Okinawa on Friday approved a controversial plan to relocate a U.S. air base to a less populous part of the southern island, but said he would keep pressing to move the base off the island altogether.

The nod from Okinawa, long a reluctant host to the bulk of U.S. military forces in Japan, is an achievement for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who has promised a more robust military and tighter security ties with the United States amid escalating tension with China.

Skeptics, however, said it remained far from clear whether the relocation - stalled since the move was first agreed by Washington and Tokyo in 1996 - would actually take place given persistent opposition from Okinawa residents, many of whom associate the U.S. bases with crime, pollution and noise.

The approval came a day after Abe visited Tokyo's Yasukuni Shrine, seen in parts of Asia as a symbol of Japan's past militarism, infuriating China and South Korea, and prompting concern from the United States about deteriorating ties between the Asian neighbors.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/27/us-japan-usa-okinawa-idUSBRE9BQ0AC20131227

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Why not just withdraw it entirely?

[Lurks Often]

2. Because Okinawa is ideally positioned

for US forces to protect or assist our important allies Japan, South Korea as well as Taiwan and the Philippines.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. Here's an idea.

Let's try moving China into the 'Friends' column.

We don't need that base. We don't even need Guam.

[Lurks Often]

7. Yes, let's ignore the treaties we've signed with our allies

I'm sure that will do wonders for our relations with those countries. In fact it will go a long way toward proving that we can't be trusted to honor any treaties or agreements that we've signed. I'm sure that will do wonders in the future when we find we need another country's cooperation with something.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Cite a treaty that requires our physical presence in that location.

The MDF treaty with japan makes PROVISIONS for a US presence in Okinawa, but does not require it. It also contains provisions we could tap that allow both nations to shift the local security burden to the UN.

We don't HAVE to be there. We do have to 'consult with Japan' prior to force level changes, but that's not an impediment.

[Lurks Often]

18. It's about perception

we oull out of Okinawa, it is going to be view as a retreat by Japan, South Korea and our other allies in the region.

[Wait Wut]

9. China doesn't want to be our friend.

China would prefer not to have any friends, at all.

Until we remove the lunatics from NK and the coldhearted, inhumane assholes from China, Japan does need those bases in Okinawa. It's a horribly sad truth. But, we don't need ALL of the bases we have in Okinawa. I think a smaller US presence would be just as effective, considering the strength of other allies. Don't forget, as the other poster mentioned, it isn't just Japan, we need to consider the security of Thailand, the Philippines, etc.

I honestly understand your feelings on all of this, but the threats, though mostly showboating, can be very real for them all.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. It think it's worth pursuing.

We were friends, once. Sharing goals is a good way to accomplish that.

I honestly question if China would be pursuing a super carrier program if we weren't leveraging ours so much. We could partner with them on many things, including security. They've come around a bit on North Korea. I think there are diplomatic opportunities we should be pursuing with them.

[Lurks Often]

13. Something that ended when the Communists took over.

Since then there have been times where both countries have cooperated with each other for mutual benefit, but I would never call China & the US friends.

We have fewer carriers now since any point since 1943 and we have always had at least one carrier forward deployed to that part of the world since the end of WWII, so I don't see how we are suddenly "leveraging" our carriers at this point in time.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Oh, very simple.

Our carriers were on call to attack Syria in a matter of days. We used them to attack Libya. To hem in Iran with a 2-carriers-on-station policy for over a year. We use them as a diplomatic stick all the time.

And please, fewer carriers since WWII, the overlap in coverage, the increase in capacity, launch rate, capability, there is very little comparison between a modern supercarrier and a carrier of WWII vintage.

And there are two Ford-Class carriers on the assembly line right now, plus a new Enterprise coming, and 8 more Ford Class carriers planned, but as-yet unnamed.

That was weaksauce.

There is no reason we can't work cooperatively with China's current government.

[Lurks Often]

15. Believe what you wish, I have seen nothing that would suggest Communist China can be trusted

We rarely have more then 4-5 carriers at sea at one time. As for the Ford class, they are replacing one for one, the currently retired Enterprise and the current Nimitz class.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. One for one replacement, and a massive increase in capability.

Speed, too, IIRC, but I'd have to look it up. (The enterprise was QUITE fast, maybe the ford isn't that fast, not sure.)

I think China bears watching, sure. If for no other reason than the bad blood that has gone between in the cold war, etc. but there is no reason not to build bridges, work together. Start to establish a positive diplomatic stance.

[Lurks Often]

17. Not really

The Ford class will cost a bit more upfront, but lifetime operating costs are supposed to be lower. Biggest improvement should be quicker turnaround of aircraft, but a carrier's combat capabilities are determined primarily by the carrier air wing and the pilots that fly them.

It's unlikely that speed will change significantly for three reasons:
1. It doesn't do much good for the carrier to be faster then it's supporting vessels
2. You hit a point of diminishing returns where to get more power you have to add more machinery, which requires more space. For example, in the Iowa class battleship, they had to add 10,000 tons, 100 feet of length and 82,000 shaft horsepower to get an additional 5-6 knots over the preceding South Dakota class battleship
3. Even if you can solve the horsepower and hull size problems, you still have to run the power through the propellers. Run the rpm's up too high and all you end up doing is creating cavitation.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-028.htm explains things in more detail

[Heywood J]

32. We'll do that right after they sign a formal peace treaty to end the Korean War. (NT)

[Wait Wut]

8. While that is true...

...we've been training their military for quite some time to be more self-sufficient (my son said that was the best part of his job, and the most fun). I seriously doubt they'd ever be able to protect themselves and our allies in any real attack (it would most likely be a widespread attack against all Asian allies), they're becoming more capable of protecting their own shores...to some extent. Sadly, their dependence on the US and other allies will always be an issue.

Compromises are being attempted, solutions applied, but there will not be an easy fix. World peace?

[Lurks Often]

12. The mythical World Peace

The human race has been killing each other large scale for thousands of years. I got bored a year ago and did some research. I went back to 1750 and couldn't find a single year where the wasn't some kind of war or civil war going on somewhere in the world.

I'm not optimistic that's going to change in my lifetime.

[Wait Wut]

31. I know.

Years (and years) ago, I read an article on the psychology of war. While many of us dream of world peace, it will never happen. We're programmed to fight, just like any other animal. We've been at war since the first caveman beat someone with a rock. The only difference is, animals don't have access to bombs and drones.

There is no harm in dreaming. Just in case.

[Wait Wut]

3. They'd like to.

At least, the Okinawan people would like to.

My son was stationed at Camp Hanson (Okinawa) for 5 years. That's where he met his wife, an Okinawan woman (and so much more than a daughter-in-law). It's a bad situation involved for everyone. The Okinawans would love to see the bases gone, but it will also be a huge hit to their economy. Mainland Japan doesn't care what the Okinawan people want, they just want the security of having American troops protecting them.

If you ask my daughter-in-law what her nationality is, she'll say Japanese...unless she knows you well enough. Then, she'll tell you Okinawan. While most people point fingers at the United States in this mess, much of the finger pointing needs to be directed towards the mainland.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Japanese and the Okinawan, both. Most of my DIL's family has moved to the mainland. I just have an emotional tie to Okinawa that I never expected. Over the past 7 years, I've learned much about the Okinawan culture and history. It's sad to see it fading away. You could compare them in many ways to our own Native Americans.

So, yes, the bases should move, but mainland Japan and the United States need to work together to ensure the Okinawan people don't suffer financially in the aftermath.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. That's fair. We've built a dependency into their economy, and we should address that.

Instead of a military base, how about a UN/US QRF for humanitarian aid. Unarmed vessels. Hospital ships. LHD's with search/rescue/food aid, etc. That area of the pacific rim is highly geologically active, and just about once a year, someone, somewhere in that area of the world takes a direct hit from a major national disaster, whether flooding, multiple volcanoes, major quakes, etc.

Swords into plowshares...

[Wait Wut]

6. That's actually a really good idea.

If only the two of us were running the show.

[davidpdx]

19. Withdrawing from Japan

whether it be the mainland or Okinawa would be a bad idea. I suppose you think we should withdraw from South Korea as well. It is such isolationist stances like those of Rand Paul that would damage the standing we have with Asian countries.

Japan for one is a pacifist nation and not permitted to have offensive weapons, only defensive. We have made promises to both Japan and South Korea to provide protection to supplement their military.

China is not the only reason we have troops in the region. The other large reason is North Korea. The North Koreans have fired missiles over Japan and launched attacks on South Korea (in addition to testing nuclear bombs).

A military response from Japan to South Korea would take a matter of minutes (Guam would take a bit longer).

BTW, I have lived in South Korea for 10 years.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Your comments are a bit outdated.

Japan has projected force recently as part of peacekeeping mission work, and just this year, started work to drop the 'defense' bit from it's defense systems. Full rearmament. Projection of force, you name it.

And you can see it in their defense expenditures, at #5 worldwide.

And fun bit of side info, those new helicopter carriers that Japan has? Those will work for drones, as well as VTOL aircraft. Meaning, F-35 strike capability. The F-35 has already been successfully tested on the USS Wasp, which means, they'll work just dandy on the Hyūga and Ise. Even the V-22 works on the Hyūga. It's done joint ops with the Wasp, and that aircraft.


Japan has the capability to project force now. It is in the process, right now, of dropping the self-defense restricted nature of it's military authorizations, and engaged in full rearmament.


Supplanting our current role in-country, with UN forces is not unreasonable nor impossible. Our government is openly supporting Japan's re-armament, and selling them more stuff.

This is 10 days old.
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/77017/us-backs-japans-re-armament-plan-kerry

[davidpdx]

21. I have seen that Japan is in the process of dropping the self-defense restriction

and I can understand why with the continued threat of North Korea and China's continued insistence that they own most of the sea. Our forces in Japan not only serve to protect Japan, but also South Korea. While they are buying more advanced systems from the US, withdrawing troops is not an option. In terms of the number of troops both China and North Korea outnumber the troops we have in Japan and Korea combined (I believe South Korea has 28,500 and Japan has about 49,000). The threat of both countries should be taken seriously. China is looking to start a war with Japan (which would leave South Korea in a very odd predicament). Also China continues to support the North Korean regime with fuel and other goods. If the US was not standing behind Japan as an ally, China would have no problem about starting a war with them. Pulling out troops is not as simple as you try to make it out to be.

As for the UN forces replacing troops, it would never happen. Both China and Russia have veto powers on the UN Security Council. Either or could object to a proposal to do so. Even if they did agree to it, putting UN forces in Japan would set up the possibility of them going up against China if they took some provocative measure (like they haven't recently, right?). The UN forces would have to fight against another UN member country. That would cause utter chaos. A vote when then have to go before the UN Security Council as to the response, then again China and Russia have veto power. So essentially you are proposing making both Japan and South Korea targets.

The kumbaya plan won't work well in my opinion.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. I don't know that it is Kumbaya.

It is not without risk, of course. However, I am willing to risk much in pursuit of the possibility of lasting peace. China views Japan as a puppet of the US, just like the US views NK as a puppet of China. And of course, both are true to a certain extent. I suspect both primary players have less control over their puppets, than either suspects.

The physical presence of US troops on Japanese soil, potentially in jeopardy in a Chinese attack, is not a guaranteed deterrent. At best, a complication. For instance, China can be relatively certain we would keep any engagement conventional. China does not possess the firepower to win a nuclear exchange with the US, but it does possess enough to pose the threat of unacceptable losses to major US cities. So that threat is off the table, IMO. So an engagement will be conventional.

What does our presence there gain us? Not much. A carrier group. 35k bodies. All in well-known locations, so they can even be avoided during a quick strike. Again, I think it just complicates matters for China, because they have to decide, whether or not to engage us conventionally, directly or not. That's all.


But what is coming right now, on our diplomatic horizon? I see it as a provocation, not a stabilizing force. Current US naval doctrine is to base 60% of the fleet 'in the area' by 2020. At the LEAST this will trigger an arms race and further tension. I think that ALSO makes Japan and South Korea targets...

I want to try the admittedly risky path. I want to try peace. I want to risk being friends. I don't see a long term solution going toe to toe with China even diplomatically. Just escalation, wasted resources, increased enmity... No good.

[davidpdx]

30. If North Korea weren't a factor I might agree with you

I think North Korea throws a monkey wrench into the situation. Also if North Korea ever fell (I hope I'm alive to see that), it will be an utter mess as the Chinese will try to stake a claim to a good portion of the area of North Korea (they believe North and South Korea IS part of China, something I heard directly from talking with a Chinese while living there). These are the thoroughly messed up notions that have to be dealt with. But I digress because the situation of North Korea falling is an entirely different topic worthy of its own thread.

I personally don't trust the Chinese Government, especially after their little stunt with changing the maritime boarders. If China believes they own territories and maritime areas outside what is currently recognized, what keeps them from moving the goal posts again? It's not just South Korea and Japan that are angry with China. Add Vietnam, The Philippines, and several others. There is a long contentious history between some of these countries and that is the reason for some of the maritime disputes. I think removing the US presence completely from Korea and Japan would allow China to dictate the region.

I would like to see peace between those three major countries (which in turn would make it easier for China to mend fences with other neighboring countries). Unfortunately I don't see it happening anytime soon. There is a deep seeded hatred between China, Korea, and Japan for many different reasons.

Korea doesn't have much of a presence in terms of the Navy as it is more Army and Air Force. The bases in Seoul are being shuttered and they are moving most of the troops South of Seoul (Pyeongtaek area). How much the bases in Korea and Japan would be sitting ducks I don't know. I think an arms build up is going to happen regardless, especially if Japan removes the defense only clause in its constitution. Korea is also suspicious of Japan's moves. While both maybe allies of the US, that doesn't necessarily make them allies with each other in term of the military. China will eventually outspend us militarily because we won't be able to afford to keep up with the huge deficits we ran the eight years before Obama was elected.

Ten years ago (this will be on Jan 2nd) when I arrived in Korea one of the first places I visited was Seodaemun Prison Seoul (I had just arrived and wanted to learn the subway system and a coworker happened to be going there). It was very depressing, but quickly gave me a taste of the history of the occupation of Korea. I've also seen some of the palaces where the Japanese built "administrative" buildings during that time period.

Unchecked power in the region is a dangerous thing. History has shown that with the Japanese empire.

[stevekatz]

22. And yours are incorrect

The Izumo class helicopter destroyer cannot have F-35s land on it, their flight decks are not capable of bearing the amount of heat generated by a VTOL aircraft.

And one can hardly blame Japan for expanding it's defense budget when you have China laying claim to it's territory.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. The coating that allowed the F-35 to be tested on the Wasp was added

just prior to the test. It works. It can be applied to the Izumo class as well.

The USS Wasp and her sister ships were likewise never originally constructed to handle that heat either, yet the coating was added, and the tests were successful.

[stevekatz]

24. Thanks for Agreeing with me!

This coating has not been applied to the Japanese Destroyers, until that time they are not capable of being used as you described.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Not necessarily true.

1. You don't know if that coating has been applied or not.
2. There have been revisions to the F-35B's exhaust cone to minimize damage to even simple asphalt tarmac. So the coating's current necessity is questionable. (The cone is now oblong, instead of round for this explicit purpose)
3. And that's a silly objection since Japan hasn't bought any F-35B's yet anyway. The A does not appear able to retrofit to the B's internal configuration, so an A is an A, period. Until Japan buys some F-35B's, the capability is there, but not being utilized on an equal basis that the ship is capable, pending a single modification, maybe.

So, no, we don't really agree.

[stevekatz]

26. ha!

You went from

"Japan has the capability to project force now."

to

3. And that's a silly objection since Japan hasn't bought any F-35B's yet anyway. The A does not appear able to retrofit to the B's internal configuration, so an A is an A, period. Until Japan buys some F-35B's, the capability is there, but not being utilized on an equal basis that the ship is capable, pending a single modification, maybe.

moving the goal posts much?

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Japan can and IS projecting force right now.

Not just capability, actual proven capacity, in use.

I would offer a modification to one statement I made upthread. Where I said the F-35 would work 'just dandy' on these ships, I would revise that to 'work after a minor/simple refit, just like the Wasp just underwent.' (Actually less than the Wasp, since you don't have to move a radar dome/array specific to the Wasp's design, on the Japanese equivalent)

"In 1992, Japan decided to send its JSDF forces overseas on U.S. peace-keeping operations for the first time. This move institutionalized Japan’s ability to dispatch units from the JSDF for peacekeeping purposes under U.N. auspices. During the 1990s, Japan also sent its naval personnel to Cambodia, Mozambique, Zaire, East Timor, and so on. In 1995, the new NDPO allowed more flexible operations for the JSDF. In the new century, Japan demonstrated an impressively expeditionary outlook. Following the September 11th terrorist attacks, Japan deployed the MSDF to the Indian Ocean in support of the U.S. and their coalition partner’s operations in Afghanistan. In 2004, Japan also dispatched 600 troops to Iraq for reconstruction work.

It is also worth noting that the cooperation between the Indian Navy and Japanese Navy has expanded over the past years. A prominent development was seen when the MALABAR 2009 exercise was held off the coast of Japan in April and May, which involved the Indian Navy, Japan JMSDF, and U.S. Navy, which was believed to be an act of expanding their maritime partnerships."

MSDF is the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force. A blue water navy, operating in the Indian ocean. That's projection of force.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Oh, I see, you think I meant Japan's ability to project force is predicated on the F-35B operating

off those Izumo class 'flat topped destroyers'. (or the two previous Hyuga class)

Untrue, and not what I was suggesting. It was simply one example of a pretty obvious long term strategy to enable additional force projection. One that represents CONSIDERABLE strategic advantage for the cost.

Edit: Also, don't think I didn't notice you just dodged the matter of the redesigned exhaust cone that reduces risk of damage to the flight deck, from the plane side of things.