Sorry but based on the Nippon Steel controversy we cannot trust Japan with a steel company so therefore we cannot trust them with advanced missile tech.
This is probably relevant:
Japan says China airspace incursion ‘serious violation of our sovereignty’
Japan wouldn’t be interested in an increased US military presence if they weren’t feeling threatened by their aggressive neighbor.
See the map at the bottom of this article: https://www.newsweek.com/china-responds-japan-airspace-violation-danjo-islands-1944781
The plane circled over an area near the islands, then dipped a toe into Japanese airspace. China says it was unintentional.
Responding with an escalation of missile deployments is not exactly proportional. Escalation in general is a very risky thing and doing so casually is reckless and can get people killed.
China is full of shit about it being unintentional, they’ve been playing grey zone games for quite a few years now and the nations around them have caught on. I’d argue missile deployment is exactly proportional to an unplanned breach of airspace by a military asset. It’s historically a pretty good idea to build up your defense when a neighbor is brandishing their military on your borders
A plane with no weapons circled near some islands and dipped a toe into a tiny sliver of Japanese airspace - over water - in a single pass. Check the map.
China is full of shit about it being unintentional, they’ve been playing grey zone games for quite a few years now and the nations around them have caught on.
Your intellectual insight is to claim that this flight path was entirely designed around that one pass entering Japanese airspace? Perhaps you can share your spy recordings where they say, “surely this is how we will advance our cause”.
I’d argue missile deployment is exactly proportional to an unplanned breach of airspace by a military asset.
That flight path with a toe dip into airspace over ocean vs. missiles designed to carry nukes. Do you not understand the difference between offensive nuclear weapons and maybe hearing a plane flying offshore?
It’s historically a pretty good idea to build up your defense when a neighbor is brandishing their military on your borders
Are you afraid of that plane and its flight path? You’re using language as if it is a weapon and threat.
Lol, fuck off tankie. I’m not interested in debating apologists asking for asinine burdens of proof and resorting to childish personal attacks in their first response to my words. Go whine about me on grad or to your handler.
Sounds like you have no counterarguments. And I did not issue any personal attacks, though clearly your comment is just a hackneyed attempt at insulting someone with a realistic political understanding. Or do you think it is a personal attack to lightly make fun of absurd claims? One can only guess.
I do have one counterargument. Get ratio’d, dumbass. To be clear, that is a blatant personal attack made because I have no respect for you or your suspiciously pro chinese shit-takes. You make the claim that a y-9 military Reconnaissance plane isn’t threatening because the lethal part of the weapon systems they enable are not physically located on said plane. How the fuck do you think target acquisition and guidance for mid to long range weapons works? Weapons like the Chinese df17, which is comparable to the US typhon system and already in position to fire on Japan. Any opinions about that one? Does Japan not have the same right to territorial defense as China? Enlighten me with your “realistic political understanding”
You sound upset and are not saying particularly coherent things. It’s okay if you want to take some time to collect yourself, I don’t care about the timeline on which you respond.
For example, you seem upset about perceived personal attacks even though I made none, but seem giddy to be insulting me. Ask yourself if this is correct and good behavior and if you believe you are following the golden rule. Presumably you were taught these things growing up.
Re: it being a reconaissance plane, this is still not an actual offensive weapon nor is it comparable to something banned because it was meant for nukes.
Re: DF17s, if your argument is that parity is justified then you would presumably justify Chins increasing the size of its military and weaponry about 10X and establishing several large bases circling the US, right? Or would you interpret this as a threatening escalation that must be met with even more weapons and capabilities encircling China?
Yeah, the person above you seems to be ignoring the fact that them breaching their air space for the first time is an escalation, not to mention China has generally been escalating it’s rhetoric recently.
It could be argued that China is feeling pressured to escalate (due to external events or US escalating trade/policy stances), but threatening a missile system is more signaling “keep this up and we’ll respond”.
Yeah, the person above you seems to be ignoring the fact that them breaching their air space for the first time is an escalation, not to mention China has generally been escalating it’s rhetoric recently.
Surely this makes offensive missiles designed for nukes a proportional response to a plane with no weapons briefly dipping a toe into Japanese airspace over ocean on one of its several circles.
I haven’t ignored anything, I’m just aware of how absurd this is. No one saying this is a reasonable response can claim to care about escalation.
It could be argued that China is feeling pressured to escalate (due to external events or US escalating trade/policy stances), but threatening a missile system is more signaling “keep this up and we’ll respond”.
By nuking them?
Just because a weapons platform is capable of using nuclear warheads doesn’t mean we are going to hand said warheads over. The system has plenty of conventional warheads. Deployment of a weapons system as a deterrent is proportional.
You’re spreading Chinese lies.
Just because a weapons platform is capable of using nuclear warheads doesn’t mean we are going to hand said warheads over. The system has plenty of conventional warheads.
The weapons system was prohibited specifically because of its use with nuclear weapons. This is its distinguishing feature. This is the “message” being sent, though it also isn’t just a message because it is an actual offensive weapon.
Deployment of a weapons system as a deterrent is proportional.
It is obviously not.
You’re spreading Chinese lies.
I am? Which ones? Are Chinese lies a special kind?
Sounds to me like you are flirting with xenophobia.
In the context of this particular discussion, China = The CCP ≠ The Chinese people.
As far as which one are lies? Your entire post history is nothing but Chinese propaganda and lies.
It’s not xenophobic to call out CCP bullshit like the shit you are spouting. That’s called being a good human.
They don’t have to pay for it and in a rapidly aging country with a very low birth rate they may not have enough people of military age to put together an army at this point.
Its really easy, stop poaching your neighbors territorial waters & threatening Tawain with invasion and you wouldnt need to care about this at all.
Taiwan, the island occupied by Japan during the war then the nationalists ran off to it and declared themselves independent because Mao didn’t have a navy? Imagine if the republicans ran off to Hawaii and declared independence then China formed a military alliance with them.
