• China, Japan heading towards war, says US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta
    53 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37695629]I think it's quite fine for a country outlawing the ability to declare war and leave war only in the ability to defend the homeland.[/QUOTE] It is not fine if it is the only country in the world unable to declare war. I am not sure if there are many other countries bound by treaty to never declare war.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;37695657]To be honest this actually applies to every nation that has ratified the UN charter. Considering ratified international treaties are generally considered to be on a supralegal (but subconstitutional) level an aggressive war is generally legally banned for a huge load of nations.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=person11;37695664]It is not fine if it is the only country in the world unable to declare war. I am not sure if there are many other countries bound by treaty to never declare war.[/QUOTE] The difference between all that and Japan is, [I]Japan has it in their Constitution[/I]. I'm pretty sure the law of the land trumps treaties when countries feel a conflict with them.
Fat chance. I'll believe it when I see it.
I suppose it is alright since there is probably a way for a majority government to change the Constitution. Though it has to be known that that provision in the treaty was inserted into there by American treaty makers. It was a good idea at the time, but it is not really needed anymore.
If China did attack Japan, and the US didn't have any bases there, Japan would be fucked There's like, a third of the world's population in china or something
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37695629]I think it's quite fine for a country outlawing the ability to declare war and leave war only in the ability to defend the homeland.[/QUOTE] Reminds me of the peace terms set on the Carthaginians following the Second Punic War.
Did not seem to do a good job at preventing a Third Punic War though.
The governments wont go to war. But people storming embassies and calling for a bloodbath in Tokyo is alarming enough and therefore someone had to point out the possibility of armed conflict beforehand. Now the Chinese and Japanese are probably going to be more careful and handle their crowds so that nothing as such happens which could lead to an act of war.
If China goes to war despite everything, don't worry, Japan got that life-size Gundam robot
Does anyone honestly consider this a possibility? I mean, seriously?
Any time I see a thread about countries going to war, I take it with a grain of salt. But fuck even for a defense force they can fuck my country up. 4 fucking heli carriers and 8 destroyers. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/JDS_Kirishima_-_Kongou_class_destroyer.JPEG/800px-JDS_Kirishima_-_Kongou_class_destroyer.JPEG[/img]
[QUOTE=shian;37696351]Any time I see a thread about countries going to war, I take it with a grain of salt. But fuck even for a defense force they can fuck my country up. 4 fucking heli carriers and 8 destroyers. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/JDS_Kirishima_-_Kongou_class_destroyer.JPEG/800px-JDS_Kirishima_-_Kongou_class_destroyer.JPEG[/img][/QUOTE] They've also got an entire fleet of carriers: [t]http://i.imgur.com/beaoN.jpg[/t] :v:
All three countries, the US, China and Japan have too much at stake economically and politically that it's just bound not to happen. All three relate to each other way too much today. Just at the economical level the ties are so intertwined that severing them would be a huge blow to either 3 countries.
its not whats on the islands its whats in the sea under the surface (oil)
Yarr crap! Japan has enough troubles already(the earthquakes'n shit), blowing them up wouldn't help anyone.
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;37696519]They've also got an entire fleet of carriers: [t]http://i.imgur.com/beaoN.jpg[/t] :v:[/QUOTE] That's the USS Ronald Reagan in front of what appears to be a Wasp class LHD. Further investigation reveals the photo as being from a recent RIMPAC, so there are probably a mix of nations represented, but the only carriers in the picture are US Navy. The JMSDF does have a few helicopter carriers (basically what the second ship there is) though. Unless of course you're implying that the US Navy might as well be the Japanese Navy. (Which isn't entirely inaccurate)
gooks [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Racism" - Swebonny))[/highlight]
Will Japan ever have a real army again
Two Reasons why this won't happen. 1. NATO would be on their ass within five minutes of the first Chinese solider setting foot on Japanese soil. for those of you out of the loop, NATO consist of: [quote] Albania Belgium Bulgaria Canada Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Estonia France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Turkey United Kingdom United States [/quote] in which case they don't stand anything that remotely looks like a chance at winning a ground war, or a naval war, or even a naval [B][I]ENGAGEMENT[/I][/B], even if most of the smaller member Nations don't send troops they can boycott Chinese goods which leads me to second reason this isn't going to happen. 2. China's economy is largely dependent on exports, pissing off half the civilized world isn't going to go so well for a nation half of who's GDP is flat out lies. people seem to think that China has weight in this argument because the other Nations economies (especially the US) are heavily reliant on cheap Chinese labor and goods and would fall apart without them, when in reality China itself would be the first one to go under in such an event, it's kinda hard to sell Ipads when everyone hates you and you're being embargoed because of that massive war you just started. It ain't gonna happen, and if it does China's gonna lose.
The US and Japan are militarily identical. Attack one, and you attack both. ESPECIALLY if you attack Japan. The US and China are both nuclear armed nations with ICBM's capable of reaching one another. Military conflict won't happen. You can run the numbers (China technically only has 20 ICBM's capable of reaching the US) and discuss economics (China relies heavily on continued growth from the business in the United States to prevent anyone from noticing that they are basically an economic hollow shell artificially boosting their currency by a substantial amount. Likewise the US relies on Chinese resources and products to fuel its economy) but at the end of the day, they can both nuke each other enough times to make it hurt. There will be no direct conflict.
Australia would get hurt real bad, economics wise.
[QUOTE=ScottyWired;37698427]Australia would get hurt real bad, economics wise.[/QUOTE] How is Australia relevant to this?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37695688]The difference between all that and Japan is, [I]Japan has it in their Constitution[/I]. I'm pretty sure the law of the land trumps treaties when countries feel a conflict with them.[/QUOTE] In most cases - no it does not. There's even some legal theories that ratified international treaties (usually ratified trough a specific legal process, as opposed just by a ministry) are on a supraconstitutional level and if the two were to come into conflict the international treaty (as long as it's within the scope of the treaty of versailes about international agreements) the international treaty would be recognised as the stronger force. It's actually one of the big problems of international law. For the record, the fact it is in their constitution doesn't mean that much, unless we know how static or hard to modify ther consitution is. And if that article is a nonmodifieable article or not. If it is a nonmodifeable, you'd need to replace the entire constitution, which is generally problematic. But if it's not, you'd only need to modify the constitution, which is often a lot easier. It's usually a qualified process over standard legislature, but if the support is sufficient... Admittedly I wouldn't be surpised if claiming those islands was Japan's way of putting down a stronger sea claim over China. For the record this is the Chinese claim in thge south sea. I would not be surprised if they're trying to push for similar borders elsewhere as well. [img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48951000/gif/_48951920_south_china-sea_1_466.gif[/img]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.