Japan threatens tracer warning shots against Chinese aircraft if they continue airspace violations - Polidicks

[url]http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2013/01/20131206179937422.html[/url] [quote=AJE][B]Japan has said it may fire warning shots to keep foreign aircraft from violating the airspace over a set of dispuated islands, in the latest verbal exchange between Tokyo and Beijing.[/B] Japanese officials made the comments after Chinese fighter jets recently tailed its warplanes near the islands in what is believed to be the first scrambling of Chinese air force jets since the tensions began to rise last spring. According to Chinese media, a pair of J-10 fighters was scrambled after Japanese F-15s began tailing a Chinese surveillance plane near the disputed islands in the East China Sea. China has complained the surveillance flight did not violate Japanese airspace and the F-15s were harassing it. [B]Tracer rounds[/B] Concerns have grown over official comments suggesting new Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his Cabinet are considering the use of "tracer" fire as a means of responding to airspace incursions. Tracer rounds are designed to burn brightly to get the attention of a pilot who may have missed other warnings due to a radio malfunction, while also indicating that the aircraft firing them is prepared to take further action. "Every country has procedures for how to deal with a violation of its territory that continues after multiple cautionary measures," Itsunori Onodera, the Japanese defence ministr, said on Wednesday when asked if tracer shots would be fired against intruding aircraft that refuse to change course. "We have response measures ready that are consistent with global standards." Onodera said the use of warning shots has long been provided for under Japan's defence policies and is widely accepted under international rules of engagement. Japan's air force has not actually resorted to them since 1987 - against a Soviet aircraft - and none were fired last week. But Chinese and Japanese media have suggested Tokyo is publicly floating the possibility to test China's reaction. [B]US concern[/B] The escalation of tensions has worried the United States, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying on Friday that while the US doesn't take a position on who has sovereignty over the islands, it opposes "any unilateral actions that would seek to undermine Japanese administration". That brought a sharp retort from the Chinese Foreign Ministry on Sunday. The comments "ignore the facts" that the islands are China's inherent territory, spokesman Qin Gang said in a statement that urged the US to adopt "a responsible attitude". In Beijing last week, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said China is on "high alert" and suggested Japan is escalating the tensions over the islands, called the Diaoyu in China and the Senkaku in Japan. Taiwan also claims the small isles, which are uninhabited but may be surrounded by valuable underwater natural resources. [B]'First shot'[/B] "Chinese planes and ships are exercising normal jurisdiction in the waters and airspace surrounding the Diaoyu Islands," spokesman Hong Lei said. "We are opposed to the operations of Japan's planes and ships, which violate our rights around Diaoyu. We are on high alert against this escalation." Chinese media quoted military academics with a much more fiery response. "Japan's desire to fire tracer warning shots as a way of frightening the Chinese is nothing but a joke that shows the stupidity, cruelty and failure to understand their own limitations," Major General Peng Guangqian of the Chinese Academy of Military Sciences was quoted as saying by the China News Service and other state media. "Firing tracer bullets is a type of provocation; it's firing the first shot," he said.[/quote]

China would never go to war with Japan. They have too much to lose.

[QUOTE=kaine123;39291694]China would never go to war with Japan. They have too much to lose.[/QUOTE] who, china or japan? as someone with not a great understanding of world politics wouldn't Japan be at the disadvantage here?

Japans military would stomp any Chinese threat.

China can't do anything in the water, their ballistic missiles are tiny and the US has mutual defense with Japan, they should just leave this matter.

[QUOTE=Zambies!;39291872]China can't do anything in the water, their ballistic missiles are tiny and the US has mutual defense with Japan, they should just leave this matter.[/QUOTE] what is "their ballistic missiles are tiny" supposed to mean?

[QUOTE=Atlascore;39291926]China wouldn't be able to do anything against Japan, their navy is just awful, they couldn't land a single soldier on Japanese soil.[/QUOTE] How do you know?

[QUOTE=Scrimp;39292032]How do you know?[/QUOTE] Because their navy is awful?

[QUOTE=Scrimp;39292032]How do you know?[/QUOTE] First: China has not fought a full-scale war since Korea Secondly: Japan is protected by the US, who is a member of NATO. An attack on Japan is an attack on the US, which is an attack on NATO.

[QUOTE=Nipples;39292120]First: China has not fought a full-scale war since Korea Secondly: Japan is protected by the US, who is a member of NATO. An attack on Japan is an attack on the US, [B]which is an attack on NATO.[/B][/QUOTE] Sure, but what is your point? North Atlantic Treaty Organization doesn't imply Japanese claimed territorial waters treaty organization. I don't even know what is going through your head, are you thinking NATO is going to invade China or something?

[QUOTE=laserguided;39291860]Japans military would stomp any Chinese threat.[/QUOTE] Yeah they have katanas which can cut trough every metal known to man.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39292171]Sure, but what is your point?[/QUOTE] It would be a really stupid idea?

[QUOTE=danharibo;39292197]It would be a really stupid idea?[/QUOTE] But NATO has no role in Japans territory disputes. I don't see how its relevant seeing as China does not border any nato members.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39292171]Sure, but what is your point?[/QUOTE] It means that Albania Belgium Bulgaria Canada Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Greece Hungary Iceland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Turkey United Kingdom United States Japan would be at war with China. AKA: All of the people who buy your stuff is at war with you. There would be no gain.

[QUOTE=Black;39292195]Yeah they have katanas which can cut trough every metal known to man.[/QUOTE] I don't think you know much about the JDF. They're pretty well equipped and their budget is being raised afaik.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39291860]Japans military would stomp any Chinese threat.[/QUOTE] what military? you mean self defense force

[QUOTE=Nipples;39292120]First: China has not fought a full-scale war since Korea Secondly: Japan is protected by the US, who is a member of NATO. An attack on Japan is an attack on the US, which is an attack on NATO.[/QUOTE] If for some reason China were to go and invade these tiny specs of land out in the Pacific, it would probably end up like the Falklands. Everyone else would sit on the bleachers and cheer on their favorite team. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Nipples;39292240]It means that Albania Belgium Bulgaria Canada Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Greece Hungary Iceland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Turkey United Kingdom United States Japan would be at war with China. AKA: All of the people who buy your stuff is at war with you. There would be no gain.[/QUOTE] kinda like how everyone went to war with Argentina when they invaded the Falklands?

that has got to be the softest threat ever "we're warning you! if you do it again we'll warn you even more!!"

[QUOTE=laserguided;39291860]Japans military would stomp any Chinese threat.[/QUOTE] Japan has a defense force, they wouldn't be able to do much against China, and since the US would be drawn into it things would go really fucking bad.

[QUOTE=_Maverick_;39291848]who, china or japan? as someone with not a great understanding of world politics wouldn't Japan be at the disadvantage here?[/QUOTE] Diplomatic ties. China is completely dependent on trade with Japans allies, much more so than the other way around.

also i don't understand the threat of firing a tracer round warning. wouldn't a chinese aircraft that's taking the piss by testing the airspace be flying at like 15,000ft anyway?

[QUOTE=Nipples;39292120]First: China has not fought a full-scale war since Korea Secondly: Japan is protected by the US, who is a member of NATO. An attack on Japan is an attack on the US, which is an attack on NATO.[/QUOTE] This doesn't mean that they will have an awful navy or they wouldn't be able to fight a successful war. Sure they probably wouldn't be able keep control of the seas and maybe the skies but I doubt any member of NATO would want to get bogged down in a land war in Asia because they always turn out so well.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;39292310]Japan has a defense force, they wouldn't be able to do much against China, and since the US would be drawn into it things would go really fucking bad.[/QUOTE] Well by threat I mean't attack. Maybe you didn't take it in context with what was being said, oh well. Furthermore, article 5 of NATO is as follows: [QUOTE]“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."[/QUOTE] Nowhere does it say Japan, and the willingness of the US to step up for Japan in a territorial dispute could be debated on the basis of being worth going to war with China. [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] The Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force is better equipped than the PLAN. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Maritime_Self-Defense_Force[/url]

[QUOTE=laserguided;39291880]what is "their ballistic missiles are tiny" supposed to mean?[/QUOTE] [editline]20th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=laserguided;39291880]what is "their ballistic missiles are tiny" supposed to mean?[/QUOTE] Anti-Ship BM.

[QUOTE=mac338;39292349]Diplomatic ties. China is completely dependent on trade with Japans allies, much more so than the other way around.[/QUOTE] Everyone else is also dependent on China. Hell China is where we get most of out rare earth metals from and produce most of the stuff we use. China would survive a lot longer without us than we would without them.

[QUOTE=Zambies!;39292384][editline]20th January 2013[/editline] Anti-Ship BM.[/QUOTE] Pretty much consistent with every other anti ship missile.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;39292310]Japan has a defense force, they wouldn't be able to do much against China, and since the US would be drawn into it things would go really fucking bad.[/QUOTE] The US wouldn't attack China or get heavily involved unless China tried to advance past the disputed Islands. It would be retarded for the US to attack China over a silly island dispute they're not even involved in. China imports a lot of stuff into the US and is probably a sizable chunk of the US' economy.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39291860]Japans military would stomp any Chinese threat.[/QUOTE] You mean the United States forces that protect Japan would stomp any Chinese threat. And no, it'd be a blood bath.

[QUOTE=ewitwins;39292520]You mean the United States forces that protect Japan would stomp any Chinese threat. And no, it'd be a blood bath.[/QUOTE] No I don't, and as I said earlier it can be debated whether or not the US would intervene in disputed territory as its claimed by multiple parties. Plus it would mean going to war with China, and why would they wan't to go to war with China when its against their national interests? Furthermore, the PLAN isn't exactly the best of navies and I'd put Japans navy at a higher spot than China's navy.

neither of them will enter a war theres too much to lose for both sides