Your immediate neighbor is going on an imperialist streak right now, and Xi says he wants the fireworks to start in his lifetime. I don't know if F35s are the right answer for Japan, but Xi isn't that young. Get ready however you can.
If you want a better understanding of which world events China is not happy about, tuning in there to see what they cover unfavorably has been useful for me.
They seem to be very unhappy about Japan building up its war fighting capacity.
Maybe because of Japan's history of horrific war crimes and occupation in China? You know, the actual imperial conquest for which their constitution prohibits them from having a standing air force?
Pretty sure China is unhappy not for history reason, but because of the current situation, which is that China tries to establish military dominance in the region and wants to invade Taiwan.
It's maybe not part of the public discourse so much, but I regularly hear ordinary people express their concern about this
There was no Kniefall von Warschau for Japan.
1. Japan pissed off other countries and therefore does not need to defend itself from this greater threat?
2. Japan pissed off other countries and therefore should not be allowed to defend itself from this greater threat? It should just be conquered as a type of moral punishment (wasn't Japan already nuked, conquered, and occupied? Wasn't that enough? If not, why not?)
3. There is no greater threat. That Japan pissed off countries in the past has no bearing on the level of threat facing Japan today, in which case they should be allowed to spend as much as their neighbors on defense and the past is a non-issue.
4. There is a negative threat -- that Japan pissed off countries in the past means that they are now more secure and therefore less in need of defense?
Which of these are you arguing?
I am a little lost about how Japan committing war crimes in the past means they do need to spend as much on defense today, as this is a very counterintuitive claim, and it appears you are arguing for 4 or, if a dark personality, for 2. In which case, I'd like you to spell it out for the community to hear.
it's not a statement on what should be and shouldn't be, but rather attempting to provide reasons as to why China might not like this move, without resorting to claims of propaganda or the fear being illegitement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicity_Department_of_the_Ch...
Nations don't make security decisions based on the hatred of other nationals, or whatever hurt feelings they might have, they make spending decisions based on their own security needs.
In the case of Japan, it has serious security needs because the US is much weaker now and cannot provide a defense shield, whereas China is both much stronger and also is making expansive territorial claims in the South China Sea. That calls for more defense spending just as a rational response. It also calls for Japan to update its constitution as the postwar arrangement comes to an end, which they will do, and they will also develop nuclear weapons.
Honestly it makes no sense for South Korea to not have a nuke if North Korea does. When you have a conflict between two nations, and one acquires nuclear weapons, the other side is driven to do the same. Look at India and Pakistan. In the past, the US kept a lid on things because it had such overwhelming dominance that it could be a global policeman and in that environment, individual nations didn't need to provide for their own defense, they had a policeman to back them.
But that era is now over, and as much as people complained about the US strutting around like a global cop, they are about to see the consequences of a world without a global cop -- that is, the world as it normally exists. In that world, it makes no sense for Japan to not have a nuke if North Korea and China does, and soon South Korea will, too. My guess is that South Korea will go nuclear first.
Just as it makes no sense for Iran to not have a nuke if Israel does. This is not a matter of hurt feelings, it is a matter of security balancing. It doesn't matter if you don't like Iran, or if you do like it, it's just a question of nations taking care of their own survival.
All of this will happen, and we will look back on the period of non-proliferation as being an artifact of US global dominance, understanding that as US military dominance fades, nations will turn to measures of self-help in a hostile world.
The whole world is changing, and we should face it with clarity and wisdom, not with hurt feelings. There are all sorts of repercussions to global trade, to global security arrangements, that are changing right now, and it helps to have your eyes open and think "well, how would each nation respond to this new threat environment" in a deliberate and realist perspective, rather than whether you like a given country or not.
One example is what is happening right now in Saudi Arabia. The US promised to be Saudi's security guarantor in 1945, and historically the US has done this, but this is a role that the US can no longer play, so Saudi Arabia is now being beaten by Yemen, and is desperately appealing to the US for help, but there is little the US can do. Now Saudi Arabia is in a pickle -- it will also turn to nuclear weapons.
One thing to think about is the moral hazard of these types of security guarantees - they incentivize client states to provoke their enemies, in this case Saudi Arabia invading and occupying Yemen, installing a puppet government, and blockading the nation. When you have the US at your back, you can take these provocative actions. But then comes a moment when you look behind and the Big Brother is no longer there.
Then we can look at Europe, you have this demilitarized continent that is doing things like seizing Russian ships because they are confident that the US will step and fight a war with Russia on their behalf. Well, they are going to learn that reality has changed and the US no longer has the power projection capability it once did. And what will they do? My guess is that at least one European state will nuclearize.
We are going to see major shifts happen as nations regionalize, many nations nuclearize, and new regional trade blocs form that disrupt global capital flows that we have taken for granted, especially if you formed your view of reality in the era when there was a Global Cop that had your back.
I was nodding along to your post until this point. Where are you from? Russia is not an innocent party in all of this, which is what your post is implying. Secondly, there are already two European states (who are not Russia) with nuclear weapons.
I'm sure Uyghurs and Tibetans have an opinion on the pot calling the kettle black.
These sort of things can work as a deterrent as much as power projection, and they don't have to get into direct violent/physical conflict for there to be diplomatic tension/worsening of relations as a result. I'm not saying this is most effective use of Japan's resources or focus or that China is for sure going to do anything or making any other such claims, just explaining the potential rational for why China would be non-plussed at Japan over F35 purchases even if they don't feel Japan is gunning for them.
Of course, if china has no actual wartime intentions in Japans sphere of influence, then yeah, they probably give much less of a shit. So depends on what their intentions really are as to how they feel about it. The fact that they're publicly broadcasting displeasure is probably not a sign that they're cool with it though.
What has China done new?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghurs
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_border_dispute
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_conflicts_(197...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Chinese_military_exercise...
* https://www.channelnewsasia.com/east-asia/philippines-south-...
Also, China does regularly attack other countries' navies around the South China Sea with no legal justification.
Because they ultimately are managing better in the 21st century than any other country. America had its peak from 1945 to 2001. Britain ran the world in the 19th century. China is the new global superpower.
In an ideal world America would have managed to keep a bipolar world going, but it has decided to abandon that in favour of short term boosts.
It does, and I already wrote about western countries being just as guilty of invading, if not more so. None of what you wrote contradicts my point that China is actively expanding and using mainly economic tactics to do it.
Also that attack happened on Sept 18, this very day, in 1931.
It was the western colonial powers & most importantly the USA that they attacked & could not have realistically won against.
That's why fascism doesn't work btw. They end up believing their own lies and do the most egregiously idiotic shit.
Except against Taiwan, Korea, Russia (1905), Manchuria.
My wife is from Manchuria and my father is from Singapore. As much as my wife and I like the Japan of today, Japan appeared less favourably in our family history.
Could be a strategy going on here.
Before they invaded Ukraine, Russia criticized Ukrainian military buildup as "destabalising". Probably with full knowledge of their own plans to invade.
https://antimaydan.info//opolchenie_novorossii/svodki_ot_opo...
https://www.osce.org/sites/default/files/2021-04-06_SMM_Dail...
This specific example was reported by afp. There was no evidence of it being a drone or a shell, and no evidence of who fired.
Much in the same way the same people are upset about Taiwan, the Phillipines, the USA, etc. are building up their military capacity.
Also much in the same way russia is unhappy about Ukraine building up its war fighting capacity.
The unhappiness could come from multiple things, but given China has themselves built up their own war fighting capacity to a much greater degree, it seems the primary motivation is seeking hegemony.
There's indeed a neighbor (albeit with a large ocean in between) that have imperialist streak of abducting a head of state with its military and starting a war that is actively causing global economic damage. You never know what this one is planning to drag you in to, maybe provoke another big neighbor and get yourself dragged in to the lose-lose quagmire
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=kamikaze+&ia=images&iax=ima...
Democracy is important and it isn't free.
In other words if Japan were in a position where they were willing to use drones to indiscriminately attack soft targets an F-35 would be about a trillion times more effective.
Absolutely incorrect.
- The purpose of these drones is to establish deterrence.
- US is not capable of reaching every inch of Iranian airspace with F-35s unless it is willing to accept a significant casualty rate among pilots.
- Even if they could, the US has not been able to decimate Iran's drone stockpile even in the areas it can ~safely reach.
The age of the fighter jet is over.
And so the cycle is completed. The only real question seems to be if the pilot in the fighter jet will remain a benefit when the drone is increased to that scale.
With the modern tech level, silicon-based systems can react faster, make fewer mistakes and feel less fatigue. So it all circles back to the relative wetware price.
The casualty rate would not be high at all, though all casualties are significant. There would be some, but again this is why I said in a serious war, pilot casualties would be expected. It also would not be as if they need to hit the whole country at once. There would be fronts and lines and structured approach.
Right now the US is working around internal issues with the IRGC. The US doesn't even want to destroy all of Iran's stockpile or production facilities. They only want to destroy those which are in the possession of the IRGC factions actively engaging in combat. Even more pressing than destroying the drones is eliminating the particular IRGC faction heads that are responsible for attack. The US isn't conducting any sort of sweeping campaign at all, every attack has been precisely targeted to hit certain commanders. Even the ones making headlines for civilian casualties. It's just more palatable to let everyone assume you made a mistake than to come out and say, "We determined there would be less collateral damage over an extended horizon if we conduct this strike now."
Trump and Hegseth may be bumbling idiots but so far they have been showing restraint. The jets seem to be pretty effective at making big holes in the ground, I wouldn't call their demise just yet.
Their economy would implode within days.
Of course, this would be a horrific crime against humanity, comparable in impact on civilians to dropping a nuke on a capital city.
Speaking of which: my partner knows next to nothing about warfare and while watching the news I had to explain that the US Navy submarine mentioned by the presenter isn't just for taking out enemy ships, it is a nuclear-armed "world ending" weapon that could simply... erase... a country. Or two. Probably three. In under an hour.
The fighter jet is not capable of destroying every power plant in Iran without risking pilot casualties, an endeavor for which the US lacks political capital. The drone has no such issue. A rational nation would have shifted primary investment into medium-range drones many yesterdays ago.
I don't think this is true. Sure if you count nuclear weapons, but that's not on the table.
Russia has already used IRBMs. Even Putin tacitly admitted they failed to hit their targets. It's entirely likely that Russian ICBMs simply do not have the accuracy required to strike something as small as a power plant with a conventional payload.
Even China is building stealth jets and aircraft carriers. The people making these decisions know more about their capabilities than you or me.
Shipping through Hormuz is already up to about half prewar levels. I don't think Iran's strategy is working very well for them.
Additionally, Iran had deterrence that you're not giving them credit for. If they destroyed Saudi and UAE's water desalination, it would be a mass casualty event.
Yes, I imagine deterrence is part of that equation.
Nevertheless, it's too early to declare the end of the jet. We will probably get there someday, but that day is not today.
Economics matter.
the current admin does not care about civilians casualties. remember the tomahawk on school girls? so what are they waiting for if it was that easy?
Realistically this happened due to high confidence with regard to the presence of a high value target. It's awful, but there was assuredly a calculus and the goal is less collateral damage over the long term. There wasn't just an oops missile or multi-year old intelligence.
OTOH attack the drone capacity would require undetermined strikes on logistical networks and downstream suppliers. It wouldn't be hard, but there would be far more civilian casualties and many of the strikes would be non-beneficial.
Sure, we could easily wrap this whole thing up a couple days but the admin is choosing to remain stuck in a quagmire that's dooming GOP in the midterms. Based on a moral red line, of all things. Makes perfect sense.
The countries acquiring them are doing so because they are best strike fighters on the planet, and it's not even close. Unless you know something that Norway, Japan, England, the Netherlands, etc don't know?
it is 2026 now, partially de-industrialized US no longer has the best weapons in the world. that is why it is struggling to even beat Iran.
What makes it bad is how hard the cooling is, its range without range extenders (that break stealth) and the maintenance.
Clearly the Americans are just dumb. Or, maybe, just maybe, a stealth strike fighter uses an internal weapons bay? While the planes flying with the PL-17s strapped to it have the radar cross section of a city bus?
Why would Japan mass produce an inferior product when they would easily be able to design and build a far superior one? "Shahed" isn't just another word for drone, it's a specific company's name.