Are China and Japan going to war?

[ananda]

And how will Russia react?

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Disputed-islands-could-lead-to-a-disastrous-war-for-everyone-27155.html

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21571466-dangerous-dance-around-disputed-islets-becoming-ever-more-worrying-locked

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/02/16/asia-pacific/china-digs-in-history-to-bolster-isle-claims/#.USDgfUpzA7A

http://stratrisks.com/geostrat/10823

http://stratrisks.com/geostrat/10770

Tanks, one by one, moving along a main road in China’s coastal Fujian province. Driving up speculations that the Chinese military may be warming up for war.
[...]
And it wasn’t just in Fujian province. These military vehicles were spotted further up the coast, in neighboring Zhejiang province. According to dissident website, molihua.org, these tanks in Hubei province are being transported from a military base to the coast.

The troop movements come after months of escalating tensions between China and Japan over the disputed territory of the Diaoyun, or Senkaku islands and they’re known in Japan. It’s caused international worries that the two countries may be on the cusp of war. Both sides have scrambled jets and warships in the region. In January, during naval exercise near the disputed waters, Chinese warships reportedly directed their targeting radar at a Japanese vessel.

On February 7, State-run Global Times published this article saying there is a “serious possibility” a military conflict may flare up between China and Japan. It continues to say that fewer and fewer people are hopeful for a peaceful resolution to the Diaoyu Island crisis.

[ananda]

1. Major concern.

If the USA has promised to intervene on the behalf of Japan if hostilities with China escalate, will it honor that promise? This possibility is very worrisome to me. The question is: how far are Japan and China willing to go? There's a long history there, particularly in regard to Japan's treatment of the Chinese during WWII. I just can't bear the thought of a WWIII stemming from this, and I don't think Russia will be much help either with Putin in charge.

[NickB79]

2. Without US intervention, Japan would lose, badly

The Chinese military would crush them. Japan, for all it's technological prowess, has very little in the way of military tech and equipment. It has a small Self-Defense Force, not much different from the US National Guard, but for almost all external threats it relies on the US for protection. And under the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan, the US is obligated to defend Japan from attacks. China is well-aware of this.

So, a more accurate title for the post would be "Are China and the US going to war?" I would say, no.

[OldDem2012]

3. China may feel that the US is in such a weakened state that it will not back up Japan....

....despite their Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. But, if China has miscalculated, any conflict between China and the US will be equally damaging because of the major trade/financial links between the two countries.

One would hope sanity prevails, but I'm not real optimistic.

[Berlum]

23. the UN should declare the islands to be International Peace Parks

Shared by all the peoples of the world.

Beat the freaking swords into plowshares and make the islands environmental showplaces !

[Light House]

30. A very noble suggestion,

but I'd wager that China and Japan would tell the U.N. to f**k and mind it's own business.

[OceanEcosystem]

4. Very, very untrue.

Quote: "Japan, for all it's technological prowess, has very little in the way of military tech and equipment."


Japan, despite the moniker of "Self-Defense Forces," has a very powerful military. Its JASDF with F-15Js and F-2s comprise one of the most capable air forces in East Asia, and it may soon have F-35s on the way as well. Japanese submarines such as the Oyashio-class are of very high caliber, and Kongo-class destroyers have Aegis or an Aegis-like system. SM-3 could allow Japanese Kongos to interdict certain Chinese ballistic missiles, I think. Tankers based off of the Boeing 767, some AWACS, and also Japanese-made antisubmarine aircraft give Japan good C4ISRT and maritime/antisubmarine capability.


China would be in for a real fight if it were to ever go to blows against Japan in this day and age.

[hack89]

20. Japan is the dominant military power in the region after the US

Their air and naval forces are far superior to China's.

[OceanEcosystem]

26. Well, China does have nuclear-powered submarines and nuclear weapons.

Neither of which Japan has.

[hack89]

27. I was referring to conventional military forces - I don't foresee a nuclear war

Nuclear-powered submarines are not actually superior to non-nuclear subs. Their only advantage is extreme long range - which is why America uses them exclusively. Compared to non-nukes they are noisy and easier to detect - nuclear reactors require large cooling pumps running non-stop to keep them from melting down. An diesel electric sub running on batteries is damn near silent - how much noise does a battery make?

Those Chinese subs are based on old Russian designs and are not state of the art - they are very loud by modern standards. They are about a decade away from building state of the art subs.

The Japanese, on the other hand, build and operate some of the most modern and capable diesel electric subs in the world. Their latest designs incorporate air independent propulsion (AIP) technology. AIP allows a non-nuclear sub to operate for several weeks without having to surface.

[Exultant Democracy]

58. Japan doesn't have nukes the same way Israel doesn't. Meaning its bullshit.

[OceanEcosystem]

68. By your logic, do Bolivia and Sri Lanka have nukes? n/t.

[Exultant Democracy]

70. It isn't a theory it is an open secret. Bolivia and Sri Lanka don't have reactor grade plutonium.

So you argument is pretty absurd.

[Romulox]

31. Japan has virtually no natural resources. It can't power those plains or ships

without a massive supply chain.

That's in large part what WWII was about, for them.

[hack89]

32. Modern wars between modern high tech opponents will be short wars

if it was an extended war then it more likely will be a regional war with more than just China and Japan.

Japan would have to uses shipping lanes well to the west of the Philippines. Between the US and Japanese navies I suspect they would do just fine in the short to medium term.

[Romulox]

37. So now you're positing a war between China on one side, and Japan AND the USA on the other.

It isn't going to happen. But you know that.

[OceanEcosystem]

38. I don't see why that's improbable.

Given the defense treaty between the US and Japan, all that would be needed would be a Chinese attack on Japan for the US to have to intervene.


If China becomes even more nationalistic in the years ahead, I wouldn't be surprised at all by such a Chinese attack.

[Romulox]

41. It's a childish fantasy. My point about Japan's utter inability to fuel its armies stands.

The US cannot and will not engage in a full blown war with China over some god forsaken rock sticking up out of the ocean. It's an impossibility for so many reasons that I don't even feel the need to enumerate them.

I mean, really.

[Light House]

44. You're missing the point.

This wouldn't be a ground war, it would be a sea and air battle and Japan's Navy and Air Force is far superior to China's.
China doesn't have the transport capability to project power very far from it's shores, it's Navy, while improving, is mostly configured for coastal defense, it's Air Force, again, while improving, is no match for Japan's in pilot quality, tactics, and aircraft technology and capabilities.

[Romulox]

48. No, I'm not missing anything. You are positing a scenario that is not now, nor is likely ever to be

This is like a discussion of whether Spiderman can beat up Superman.

Feel free to wargame this to your heart's content though. It's a political and practical impossibility.

But my original point--the one I tried to make at the beginning, that Japan has no ability to make war on China on its own--stands.

China doesn't have the transport capability to project power very far from it's shores, it's Navy, while improving, is mostly configured for coastal defense, it's Air Force, again, while improving, is no match for Japan's in pilot quality, tactics, and aircraft technology and capabilities.

[Light House]

50. I would hope that it never happens,

but then again, you never know what will happen in the future.
And my post still stands, Japan's air and sea assets are far superior to China's, that's not speculation, that's fact.

[Romulox]

54. Then you can rest easy. nt

[OceanEcosystem]

61. Japan has plenty of such ability.

JMSDF submarines can sink and interdict Chinese maritime shipping. That could have a substantial effect on China's economy.


Can Japan wage the war effectively or for long? That's another matter. But Japan can wage war on its own.

[Light House]

42. Nobody wants a war between Japan and China

but if China were to attack Japan, our mutual defense treaty would kick in and we would join in the fray, which is why I believe that China is just saber rattling, they don't want their #1 market of cheap and shoddy goods to disappear.

[Romulox]

43. Nonsense. We would find a way to demure. We cannot engage in war with China.

It is a practical impossibility.

[Light House]

45. Why would it be an impossibility?

If Japan asked for our help in a conflict, we would most assuredly honor our mutual defense treaty.

[Romulox]

47. China owns our debt and manufacturing capabilities. We do not have the ability to wage large

scale war against China.

[Light House]

52. Nobody's talking about a large scale war,

the U.S. and Japan aren't going to invade mainland China, just as China isn't going to invade mainland Japan, this would be an air and sea battle which China would lose due to their inability to project air and sea power much beyond their own country.

This is about a dispute over an island that both claim ownership to.

Behind the U.S., Japan's Naval and Air Forces are second to none in the Asian-Pacific theater.

[Romulox]

53. War is about supply chains and money, more than missiles. That's why these scenarios are silly.

Because you aren't considering how the US will fund its government, going forward, even if it only makes "a little" war on China.

[Light House]

56. The supply chain isn't a problem

we already have substantial assets in that area, and as far as the money, that didn't stop Iraq or Afghanistan or all the other little conflicts we're involved in.

[hack89]

57. It is easy to posit such a war if things get out of hand and China miscalculates.

One issue is that China cannot attack Japanese mainland military bases without endangering US personnel - the US and Japanese military are intertwined.

Secondly, I doubt that the US would permit China to wage open warfare against commercial shipping lanes - it would be seen as an attack on the US and world economy. I could certainly see the US navy being used to escort merchant convoys.

If the war stays limited in scope then you are right - however the likelihood of China having to make a choice between an embarrassing defeat or escalating the conflict is pretty high.

[Ganja Ninja]

5. I think over the next 10 years we'll see Japan re-arming ..

including full size Aircraft Carriers. I think China is being naive thinking that just because they have 3 or 4 or whatever billion people and a modern economy of competitive size that they can wage a war against the US or Japan. Hundreds of millions of troops can be wiped out very quickly without using nukes.

[Lurker Deluxe]

9. "carriers"

Well ... they better get started. We have been building the latest one for 35 years and it takes us 7 years to build one.

Thinking the first one might take a day or two more.

Of coarse, building the shipyard capable of putting it together may take a week or two as well.

[OceanEcosystem]

15. "Hundreds of millions of troops can be wiped out very quickly without using nukes"

Uh, how?


1. I don't think there is any nation in the world that has hundreds of millions of troops; hundreds of millions of able-bodied citizens yes, but not active troops;

2. Without the use of nuclear weapons, casualties of such an order of magnitude would be almost impossible through conventional means; unless you are referring to the use of other WMDs (but I don't think you were?)

[OldDem2012]

22. Just so you know, China has the following military stats....

Military age: 18–49
Conscription: None enforced
Available for military service: 385,821,101 males, age 16–49 (2010 est), 363,789,674 females, age 16–49 (2010 est)
Fit for military service: 318,265,016 males, age 16–49 (2010 est), 300,323,611 females, age 16–49 (2010 est)
Reaching military age annually: 10,406,544 males (2010 est), 9,131,990 females (2010 est)

Active personnel: approximately 2,285,000 (ranked 1st)
Reserve personnel: 800,000
Deployed personnel Overseas: ~300 anti-pirate personnel in Somalia
Paramilitary: approximately 1,500,000
Total: 4,585,000~ (ranked 6th)

Budget: US$106.4 billion (2012) (ranked 2nd)
Percent of GDP: 1.46% (2012 est.)

NOTE: China's active duty military personnel ranks 1st in the world. China has more MALES alone fit for military service than the entire US population. They have the ability to call up vast numbers of reserves to be sent into action anywhere along their borders.

[OceanEcosystem]

33. None of that matters much in a war against Japan.

The many miles of water that separate China from Japan, and China's relatively limited amphibious transport capability, means that China's ground troops would play little to no role in such a war.


Like others have said, such a war would almost certainly come down to SSKs (diesel submarines) vs. SSKs, fighters against fighters.'



We'd be looking at J-10s, J-11s, maybe Su-33s, Su-30s and some other fighter types from China going up against F-15Js and F-2s of Japan, possibly Japanese F-35As in the future.

There's also the Chinese KJ-2000 AWACs and Japanese AWACS too.

The very long range would make an air battle difficult for both sides though. Refueling will play a major role.

[OldDem2012]

46. If I'm China, I take out Japan's air bases/air force/naval units immediately using....

....their large inventory of medium- to long-range surface-to-surface missiles. I follow that up with a massive air attack on all surviving air and naval units along with Japanese land units. I then proceed to land troops on all disputed territories. Game over.

Now, if the US decides to get engaged based on treaties with Japan, things could get very ugly, very fast.

[Light House]

49. Japan would immediately invoke the treaty

and U.S. Carriers would begin offensive ops against China's sea and air assets as would U.S. bases in Japan, Okinawa.
I suspect that if that happened, China would be backing off real quick.

The last few years, Pres. Obama has been moving U.S. sea and air assets into the Asian-Pacific theater to counter China's military build up and their influence.

[OldDem2012]

59. Sorry, but that sounds like the standard right-wing propaganda that has gotten us ....

...into the last few wars.

For example:

* China didn't back off during the Korean War;
* North Vietnam didn't back off during the Vietnam War;
* "Insurgents" are still active in Iraq;
* The Taliban has refused to quit in Afghanistan, and neither has Al Qaeda.

Another thought for you to consider...in our current economic state, are we in any position to honor a treaty with Japan or any other country?

[Light House]

62. You think that the U.S, wouldn't come to the aid of Japan?

The U.S. Military and Japan's Military are intertwined and China would certainly kill American's with any strike on Japanese military units/bases.
You think President Obama would just sit by while China attacks Japan? Especially if scores of Americans were killed?

No, my friend, President Obama would order offensive military action against China's air and sea assets.

Don't forget, China's military is mainly configured for the defense of the mainland, their ability to project power beyond their borders is negligent, they have no transport capability to speak of to move troops very far and those transport aircraft they do have would be shot down PDQ by carrier aircraft.

Another thing to consider is that China knows that if they attacked Japan, they would lose their #1 market for their cheap and shoddy goods which would devastate the Chinese economy, that reason right there is why I believe that China won't attack Japan.

[OldDem2012]

65. You're welcome to your opinion, but quite a bit has changed since W lied to get us....

...into two Middle Eastern wars. We're no longer the big bad wolf, and China knows it.

We're also entangled with China in lots of different ways. W stated once that "money trumps peace", but that works just as well when stated "money trumps war". Big business is driving this train, treaties be damned.

[Light House]

66. And you're welcome to your opinion

I just believe that it's wrong, but I'll admit I could be wrong, hell, I hope I'm wrong.
Good back and forth without the rancor. Love it.

[hack89]

21. They already have a large and modern military

the are building small carriers as we speak.

[OldDem2012]

24. If you consider 250,000 military personnel as "large"....

Japan's Self-Defense Forces:

Military age 18 to 49 years of age
Available for military service 27,301,443 males, age 18–49 (2010 est.), 26,307,003 females, age 18–49 (2010 est.)
Fit for military service 22,390,431 males, age 18–49 (2010 est.), 21,540,322 females, age 18–49 (2010 est.)
Reaching military age annually 623,365 males (2010 est.), 591,253 females (2010 est.)
Active personnel 247,746 (ranked 24th)
Reserve personnel 57,899

Budget $55.9 billion (2011) (2012); $281.98 billion (2011-2015 Planned)
Percent of GDP 1% (2011)

I'm not seeing the Japanese Navy as a very formidable force, but that's just my opinion:

Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force

[hack89]

25. It won't be a land war

the Japanese Navy and Air Force is far superior to China's. Look beyond numbers. Japan has sophisticated Aegis destroyers in addition to some of the most modern and effective submarines in the world. The Chinese Navy is full of older and less capable ships - they have few ships on par with Japan's. The biggest weakness for China is their inability to project air power far from their coast - they would not be able to protect their ships from air attack nor use ASW patrol planes to hunt Japanese subs. Japan would have no problem achieving air superiority if the Chinese came out to confront Japan.

Japan has very capable anti-submarine capabilities - they would also be hunting noisy inferior Chinese subs. On the other hand, China has very poor anti-submarine capabilities to contend with one of the premier submarine forces in the world.

Japan also has a sophisticated ballistic missile defense system - they are partners with America in developing BMD systems.

[OldDem2012]

67. Numbers, numbers, numbers....China has them and Japan does not....

....the advantage of having better technologies against a vastly larger foe will eventually disappear.

As far as Japan's BMD is concerned, what percentage of an initial massive Chinese missile attack will they be able to stop?

[hack89]

69. China cannot project power far from her coast

look where the battlefield will be. China would be unable to concentrate enough forces to beat the Japanese - they would be defeated piecemeal.

And you are wrong about numbers - look no further then the failure of Soviet military hardware against Western weapons. Technology definitely trumps numbers - modern history history has shown us that.

If China starts a war with a massive missile attack against Japanese population centers then the US would be obligated by treaty to assist. That is the reason US military forces are in Japan - to protect Japan from such aggression. And since US and Japanese military forces share many bases, any such Chinese missile attack will kill Americans. The likely response would be wave upon wave of US cruise missiles heading towards China.

[OldDem2012]

71. I disagree. Let's leave it at that. nt.

[amandabeech]

6. China also has disputes with the nations that surround the South China Sea.

China claims almost the entire Sea as its territorial waters, but the others disagree. There are some small islands and some areas thought to be rich in oil and gas in dispute as well.

Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, The Philippines and Taiwan all have ongoing maritime disputes with China.

Vietnam even invited/allowed a U.S. aircraft carrier to make a port call a Cam Rahn Bay, a large harbor in central Vietnam on the South China Sea. Older DUers probably recognize the name. The local Vietnamese officials received a tour of the ship, which included a take off and landing exercise which impressed the delegation.

I was talking with a friend last night. She used to be a financial adviser and knows some fairly wealthy people. They're threatening to move out of the U.S. if their taxes are raised by more than a little bit. I asked my friend where they would go. She said that they were all going to Hong Kong. I reminded her of all the problems China has at its periphery with nations that have defense treaties with the U.S. My belief is that things could get rough for Americans in Hong Kong if the U.S. gets involved in these matters in more than just negotiating. She said that the folks she knew thought that wasn't possible because they had money. Somehow, I don't think that Beijing would be impressed with running dog American barbarians when the chips are down.

[davidpdx]

18. Add South Korea to the list as well

The Koreans have disputes with both the Chinese and Japanese. They are in a precarious situation much like the Japanese are though, but as far as I know they don't have any restrictions on the use of offensive weapons like Japan.

[amandabeech]

29. Yes, thank you for reminding me of the Korean's disputes.

Your point about their lack of restrictions on offensive weapons is very interesting in this context.

[Duer 157099]

7. If something like this happened

I wonder if that would finally spell the end of WalMart et al?

[quinnox]

8. this is a little scary

I know that China and Japan have had a hostile past, and had wars where atrocities took place. It is not far-fetched that China might be looking at Japan as a tasty morsel in terms of resources and also getting revenge for past aggression. That said, China must know that we in the USA would very likely not allow this to happen, as even I think we would have to defend Japan militarily, and I tend to be an isolationist. Which would mean total chaos and China would lose their honey pot in terms of the economic relationship between the countries. So I doubt this would blow up into a full scale conflict and China wouldn't dare. Still, it is a scary prospect. A war between the USA and China would be monumental and maybe even result in nukes being used.

[ananda]

17. Agree.

I just can't help thinking WWIII.

[DevonRex]

10. Meanwhile US corporations continue to enrich China.

On the last link there's another link about India protecting its border with China now, too, for the first time. So I guess they don't like what they've been seeing and hearing lately either. And from past experience after what happened with Tibet, of course.

[pampango]

11. China and India fought a border war in 1962. If India is protecting its border with China now,

it is not for the first time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War

[DevonRex]

12. "In a first, Indian tank brigades to defend China border"

http://stratrisks.com/geostrat/8144

Sorry, its the title and gist of the story. Maybe it just means with tanks?

[mick063]

13. When I served in the US Navy

I once toured a Japanese naval frigate moored along the same pier.

All I can say is that I was extremely impressed with the discipline of the crew, the condition of the vessel, and the cleanliness of the ship.

That was one "squared away" boat.

I wouldn't want to face a fleet of them.

[Egalitarian Thug]

14. Not likely, no. Neither side has anything to gain and much to lose.

Even a "minor conflict" would spark a global economic meltdown that would wipe out Japan's and be devastating to China's. These nations have done more idiotic things in the past, but I think it's way too early to worry.

[ananda]

16. INCSEA

Preventing an incident at sea is critical at this juncture of the tensions between China and Japan. See:

1. From The Centre for Foreign Policy Studies: Preventing Incidents at Sea: The History of the INCSEA Concept

http://www.dal.ca/dept/cfps/publications/preventing-incidents.html

2. CNN blog: How to prevent a China-Japan clash

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/20/how-to-prevent-a-china-japan-clash/

Recent developments have made it clear that an INCSEA is needed now between China and Japan.

For many years, the East China Sea was a dangerous “no man’s land.” But as I have noted before, China and Japan avoided escalating tension by refraining from extending their maritime jurisdiction and in general foregoing provocative activities. Once they extended their jurisdiction and disputes arose, they forged an ad hoc maritime conflict avoidance regime that incorporated principles of self-restraint and the sharing of resources in disputed areas. This included an agreement to share fish stocks in defined portions of their disputed area. They also agreed in principle to implement joint development of seabed resources in the central East China Sea. In addition, as I wrote in the Japan Times, after several serious incidents, they established a mutual “prior notification” regime for scientific research in their disputed area in the East China.

But this is all unraveling because of the recent resurgence of sovereignty and jurisdictional disputes.

If the two cannot quickly negotiate a military-to-military INCSEA agreement, then perhaps an agreed declaration of expected behavior would be a logical next step. But what should such a declaration cover and contain? Obviously there is a need for a clause addressing the question of arrest and detention of fishing vessels and crew of fellow claimants. It should also govern any and all other activities in disputed areas, for example, resource exploration and exploitation, marine scientific research, marine and aerial “spy probes,” and other military activities in disputed EEZs.

2. From The Centre for Foreign Policy Studies: Preventing Incidents at Sea: The History of the INCSEA Concept

http://www.dal.ca/dept/cfps/publications/preventing-incidents.html

[davidpdx]

19. As someone else in the thread pointed out many other countries are involved as well

South Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, etc. I live in South Korea and hear about the conflicts between the Koreans and Japanese all the time. Really the whole thing is fucking nuts (and I'm talking about the situation between China and Japan as well). The whole thing is tied to nationalism for China, Korea, and Japan. The others are minor players, but not in a position to do much about it as all they can do is side with one of the other nations. I think perhaps I agree that women need to be elected in some of these countries to cool off the testosterone. In fact in 4 days South Korea will have its first female president (unfortunately she's a conservative and I hate her).

As for Russia, I'm not sure what skin they have in this except for the need for oil.

[amandabeech]

51. I'm the author of the post to which you are referring.

In the context of the disputes in the South China Sea, I don't see the others as being minor players, but with respect to the East China Sea, they clearly are.

China has claimed virtually the entire South China Sea as its territorial waters, allowing all the other countries around it only a small coastal area, and certainly not the large exclusive economic zone that they claim. This includes the Straits of Malacca, through which almost all oil shipments from the Middle East enter the East and Southeast Asian ports, and the Spratly Islands, which the the U.S. EIA says hold good quantities of oil and gas. The Chinese want to make that into a Chinese Lake Michigan. They want to control all but coastal shipping in that area, and if they control shipping, they make those smaller nations into vassal states, or so the smaller nations see.

I can see Russia being interested because 1) they are sensitive about their naval role in the Pacific since the Japanese beat them up in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 and they want a couple of islands back; 2) if China sees problems with importing oil through the Straits of Malacca, then Russian oil imports by rail or possible pipeline from the northwest will become more important (Russia pumps more oil than the Saudis); and 3) it might be a chance for Putin to make trouble for the U.S., because in Putin's mind, the Cold War never ended.

Well, at least that's the best I can come up with.

There are a couple of items in the Economy group today about the situation, if you're interested.

What do you think North Korea could do to foul up this situation, aside from detonating a few more nukes?

[cloudbase]

28. Moving tanks is a show.

China doesn't have the amphibious capability to invade Japan. Any confrontation will be in the air or on the water.

[Light House]

36. Which would give Japan a decided advantage

in weapons platforms.

[OceanEcosystem]

34. The real problem in all of this

is China's unreasonable territorial claims.


Look at China's territorial claims in the South China Sea. To use an analogy, it is as if the state of Illinois were to claim all of Lake Michigan - a lake also bordered by Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan - for itself.

[1-Old-Man]

35. Be offended if you like, but this is the most inane post of the year

Japan has no substantial Army, no Navy, or an Airforce and does not enjoy an economy that allows them to crreate one. More importantly Japan is the industrial nation with the greatest age disparity, meaning they many old and no young people, which is a great obstical to entering a war. So protest this answer if you like but the notion that Japan and China are or even might some day be preparing for war is patently absurd.

[Light House]

39. Japans Navy and Air Force are far superior to China's.

China's Navy consists of mostly obsolete surface ships and their sub force is mainly designed on Soviet technology while Japan has state of the art surface ships and modern diesel electric subs and Japan's Air Force is far superior to China's in quality of pilots, technology and tactic.

China's ground forces would play no part in a short to medium conflict due to China's lack of transport capability to move troops.

[OceanEcosystem]

40. Sorry, 1-Old-Man, but your post is the inane one.

Quote: Japan has no substantial Army, no Navy, or an Airforce and does not enjoy an economy that allows them to crreate one.

Japan has a GDP of over $5 trillion - one of the largest economies in the world. How does that equal "Japan does not enjoy an economy that allows them to create a military?"


Furthermore, Japan has a fleet of over two hundred F-15 Eagles, F-2s, and may be acquiring the F-35 in the future. It also operates a fleet of over a dozen diesel submarines, and has Kongo-class Aegis-equipped destroyers. Other items in the Japanese inventory include AWACS, AH-64 Apaches, and antisubmarine aircraft.


None of this sounds like "Japan has no substantial army, no navy or an air force."


Check your facts first.

[OldDem2012]

55. Read my post #24. Do you REALLY define 250,000 military personnel as "substantial"??....

...Facts don't lie. Japan has allocated very little from their $5 trillion GDP to build their Self-Defense Force. They are currently using a sizable chunk of that GDP to rebuild from the recent earthquake and tsunami, and replace antiquated systems.

GDP doesn't mean squat when they don't have the industrial capacity to rapidly crank out military units and/or expand rapidly. Additionally, it takes time to change over from a peacetime industrial base to a wartime industrial base....Japan won't have that time in a potential conflict with China.

[OceanEcosystem]

60. Number of personnel makes little difference in a very geographically separated war.

The important thing in such a war, when the nations are separated by substantial distances of water, is the number of weapons platforms - warships and aircraft - and the quality of those platforms.

[Light House]

64. Which Japan's assets are far superior to China's.

China's military is improving, but it is still mainly configured for defense of the mainland, not to project power beyond it's borders.

You're right, in this type of conflict, it would be quality of weapons platforms and their operators over quantity.