13,000 Japanese protest US nuclear carrier

[Newsjock]

Source: Associated Press

Thousands of Japanese rallied against the permanent basing of a nuclear-powered U.S. warship near Tokyo, saying a recent onboard fire made it unsafe.

About 13,000 protesters gathered at a park near the port of Yokosuka, just south of the capital, where the USS George Washington aircraft carrier will be based, media reports and organizers said.

The George Washington — relieving the soon-to-be decommissioned USS Kitty Hawk — will be the first U.S. Navy nuclear-powered vessel to station permanently in Japan.

The ship's arrival was originally set for August under a Japan-U.S. security deal, but was delayed because of a fire aboard the vessel in May.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/07/13/international/i065208D67.DTL&tsp=1

[L0oniX]

1. I can only wish they would kick the US out of their territory.

[Mudoria]

3. Why?

[RC]

5. WHY? What do we need all those military bases all over the world for?

The United States has 10's of thousands of military bases all over the world on other countries land. How many military bases do other countries have in this country? How many do Russia and China have out side their country? What is the cost to you and me for these bases? Who started the Cold War? (Hint, it wasn't Russia.)

[RantinRavin]

16. 10's of thousands ?

where did you get your way overblown estimate from ?

[The Croquist]

20. That's not the only overblown estimate

I've seen figures where they claim that we have bases in 150+ countries. The vast majority of these are the marine guards at US embassy.

That said I wish we would withdraw from many places. Maybe not Japan (I worry about North Korea) but certainly Europe. I'm not worried about the Russian's anymore and if things change Europe should defend themselves.

PS: The Soviets did start the cold war.

[L0oniX]

7. Why should we spend our fuel and money to be the world police?

Let the other countries step up to the plate if it's so damned important to the world.

[Megahurtz]

51. Why??? Because it's NOT our Country!

We don't belong there!

[hack89]

4. That's the last thing they want

it would be the end of their pacifistic constitution and most likely result in a serious Asian arms race. It would undoubtedly result in a nuclear Japan.

[L0oniX]

9. If we have our navy there then they already have nukes.

[hack89]

10. If they kick our navy out then they will get their own. nt

[L0oniX]

13. So we don't mind that communist China has nukes but we still don't want Japan to have nukes?

Seems silly. They should pay for their own defense, not us.

[hack89]

19. They don't necessarily want nukes

it an arrangement that benefits both sides.

[michreject]

66. Terms for surrender of Japan

8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.

(9) The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives.

(10) We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners. The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.

(11) Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to re-arm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese, participation in world trade relations shall be permitted.

(12) The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.

(13) We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all

[Plucketeer]

15. So you're saying ....

.... that if we pulled out of Germany, Italy, So. Korea, Columbia, Greenland, and others - they'd all rush to attain Nukes? We're pouring money down these bottomless pits and the real recipients of this giveaway are the citizens of those nations. Creating jobs in countries that are selling us cars, while our own citizenry watches as any meaningful employment evaporates before their very eyes! GADS! There's a formula for success!:dunce:

[hack89]

21. Japan subsidizes our presence to the tune of many millions of dollars

they pay for the bases, the housing, the salaries of the Japanese workers on the bases.

It saves us a lot of money basing a fleet in Japan instead of having to steam many miles from Hawaii - we would need many more ships to get the same amount of coverage.

Japan and S. Korea would get nukes - they wouldn't allow them selves to be vulnerable to Chinese or N. Korean nuclear blackmail. That is a tough neighborhood with a violent history that goes back centuries.

[L0oniX]

35. I doubt that Japan pays the entire bill for us to have our military there.

Do you have any links for that info?

[hack89]

39. $2.8 billion in 1990

The contribution slated for FY 1990 was increased to US$2.8 billion—nearly 10 % of the total defense budget—and by the end of FY 1990 the Japanese government expected to assume all expenses for utilities and building maintenance costs for United States troops stationed in Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_budget_of_Japan

232 billion yen in 2006

http://www.ipb.org/Japan%20Low%20Military%20Spending%20Underscores%20Dependence%20on%20US.pdf

Here is the status of forces agreement as of 2008 that lays out what the Japanese pay for. As I said, they heavily subsidize our presence.

http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/agree0801.pdf

[Romulox]

54. You've got it backwards: their country, their obligation.

Anything less than 100% of the bill is a subsidy flowing from the US to Japan, not the other way around.

[hack89]

57. You are assuming that the US has no strategic interests

in that region separate from Japanese security. Even if we had no bases, the US Navy would have a significant presence in the area because of US independent strategic interests. In the cold war it was keeping tabs on the Russian Pacific fleet. Now it is keeping tabs on China and Taiwan.

Both countries benefit from the present situation - that is why a less than 100 percent subsidy has been OK with the US government for many decades.

[Romulox]

59. No, I am asserting that.

"keeping tabs on China and Taiwan."

To what end? To protect shipping lanes for Japan's convenience?

"Both countries benefit from the present situation - that is why a less than 100 percent subsidy has been OK with the US government for many decades."

You've still got your terminology confused. If it is in Japan's interest to have troops stationed there, then paying for that privilege is not a subsidy.

[hack89]

64. OK nt

[Romulox]

65. So you can't back up your Strangelovian nonsense with any rational argument. What a surprise! nt

[hack89]

67. OK = no point in continuing the discussion. nt

[L0oniX]

34. I'm not saying that I think they would get nukes but I suppose it may be an option for them.

Who are we to tell them what they can or can't do? Let them spend their own money on defense if they want to. I object to my tax money going to the military to defend these other countries. Let them buy arms from Lockheed Martin, Ge and Honeywell so we can make money from them for a change. There's your jobs for ya.

[defendandprotect]

6. They've been trying to kick us out for decades . . . !!!

[hack89]

11. Not really

The Japanese pay millions to support the US military. They have invited us to base ballistic missile defense systems in Japan.

[Plucketeer]

14. So... this is costing us nothing?

We're in Japan, Germany and Italy - SIXTY-SOME years after we vanquished them! What the hell??? Heh - I can see where McPain gets his 100 years in Iraq prediction. :crazy:

[hack89]

18. They want us there

they pay for the bases, the housing and the salaries of all the Japanese workers on those bases.

They want us there - they don't want to compete head to head with China in an expensive conventional and nuclear arms race.

[defendandprotect]

44. "Want" is also a strange word when you're dealing with a MILITARY superpower . . .

the Japanese don't want to re-arm . . .

WE wanted them to . . . helps with weapon sales . . .


they kinda said . . . "are you kidding?" . . .

"You saw what we did the last time we were armed!" . . .

There has been lots of violence at the bases in Japan ---

rapes, murders -- lots of stuff goes on all the time.

Plus the land use --


Now, what if Japan had said, they'd just go unprotected --- or what if what

they said about getting out hurt W's feelings?


Yeah . . . they're "paying" off what looks like a protection racket ---


Also keep in mind, Operation Gladio -- immediately after WWII, our CIA worked to keep

liberals out of office -- and for decades to keep the right-wing in place.

I've no doubt that is still going on. So what kind of decisions do you think would

be coming out of Japan?????

[hack89]

48. Have you been following recent Japanese military actions?

they have one of the largest and most modern militaries in the world - take a close look at their navy. They could take on the Chinese navy with no problem. They are not reluctant to arm themselves at all. What they do not want is a nuclear arms race with China. It is cheaper to pay ten percent of their defense budget to support us.

[defendandprotect]

60. The Japanese didn't want to re-arm . . .

we pushed them to do it ---

And we also pressured for the re-arming of Germany . . . a la Hitler ---

Arm sales beat out everything else --- and how else would you keep the world divided without war?

Patriarchy = violence.

[WriteDown]

62. You obviously do not understand Japanese culture

They consider themselves the world's elite. I seriously doubt that they have any qualms about re-arming.

[Megahurtz]

52. "want us there"?

You've got to be kidding.

[hack89]

58. No

It has been Japanese policy to support a US presence for a very long time. Sure there are some citizens that don't want us there (especially on Okinawa) but it is stretching the point to say that there is widespread opposition. The Japanese government wants us for several reasons - one it saves them a ton of cash that they don't have to spend on their own military. Secondly they crave geo-political stability to keep their economy humming. They fear any potential shifts in the regional balance of power if US forces withdraw - they remember history from the 1920 and 30s. As an aside, most other Asian countries support a US presence in Japan - they vividly remember WWII and view us as a restraint on Japanese militarism. They do not want a militarily strong Japan - especially one with nuclear weapons.

[defendandprotect]

61. It's pressure . . . blackmail . . .

[hack89]

63. OK nt

[WriteDown]

22. The Germans especially....

don't want us to leave. Entire cities in Germany have grown due to the economy that the U.S. military bases promote. Anyone who's ever been there can witness this first hand. The Japanese make me a little more nervous. The Japanese are one of the most racist people on the planet. Try finding one politician who has even a non-Japanese sounding name. They consider themselves the ultimate race.

[Plucketeer]

28. That leaves the Italians

Last I heard - they were up in arms over the US building a big, new base. Given that the Japs and Germans wanting us to stay, maybe the Italians are as dumb as they were when they were one of the Axis powers! :rofl:

But seriously, WE have to buy the arms, train the men & women, etc., etc., etc.. Bring those folks HOME!

[WriteDown]

30. The Italians were the smartest...

They saw which way the war was going and made a gametime decision to switch sides. Brilliant :).

[L0oniX]

36. Yea they want us to keep throwing our money away over there. How nice for them.

[defendandprotect]

45. If I recall correctly, Asians are about half the population of the world . . .

They were advanced in arts when we were . . . what were we doing?

Probably murdering some other race of people . . . . ???

[L0oniX]

37. Yeah ...we are about to go bankrupt here but we can keep bases all over the world.

I am for pulling out all our bases out all over the world. Fuck them all. Let them support their own military if they think they need one. We should only spend money on defending our country and our defenses are sadly lacking. Are we even inspecting all the ships that come into our harbors? I don't think we are yet.

[defendandprotect]

46. I think we have bases in something like 70 countries????

Plus I was just looking at some notes in an old journal today . . .

5/31/91 . . . "Today I heard that the United Sates is now beginning to

stockpile nuclear missiles in Israel due to Middle East conflicts."


Lots of people also don't know that ... "the United States and Israel weapons

production is so intertwined, that you can hardly distinguish between them ..." !!!



Meanwhile, in Iraq, we have a Taj Mahal of a new Embassy --- how much was that --- ???

And, at least 14 new bases there --- with upwards of at least 22 to be built.

I haven't heard much on that lately -- so who knows . . . could be more by now!

[Megahurtz]

53. I agree!

And we should be doing it now!

[defendandprotect]

43. Hardly . . . there's been a lot of violence and they want us out. . ..

and they've been pushing for it for decades ---

They also don't want to re-arm . . . but at some point we were pushing it.

Selling weapons is our main preoccupation!

Meanwhile, I don't think on the planet feels unthreatened by our SUPERPOWERDOM coupled

with our stupidity . . . so "invited" is an odd word to use about the blackmailing we

are doing everywhere.

[ben_meyers]

17. Who have been trying to "kick us out"? n/t

[davepc]

55. And pay for their own defense instead of having us do it?

Why would they want to do that.

[THale2]

2. Oh thats rich

A carrier named George Washington in a foreign country causing trouble..Funny, since he was a first president and stated in his farewell address to avoid foreign entanglements,,,imagine if some of todays leaders were our founding fathers

[Thothmes]

33. They could have sent the

Harry S. Truman or the Nimitz over there.

[defendandprotect]

8. "Near Tokyo" . . . !!! How sick are we?

[hack89]

12. That's where the US navy base has been since 1945

what's so special about Tokyo?

[EFerrari]

23. You mean beside the part where we nuked it?

[hack89]

24. Didn't we nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

You do realize that Japan has their own nuclear reactors all over the country including near Tokyo. I don't understand the fuss about one more reactor.

[EFerrari]

26. I guess I fuss about all reactors, even this one more.

And when you say Japan subsidizes us, they don't. Or, they don't subsidize *me*, anyway. There may be money changing hands but I don't see it being spent in any way that profits the American people.

[hack89]

27. OK. nt

[ben_meyers]

38. Hey, come on, it's an easy mistake to make,

It's Japan for Dogs sake, they all look the same. Post count doesn't equate to intelligence after all.

[WriteDown]

25. When was that?

Must have been a war I missed.

[Posteritatis]

29. You fail history hardcore. (nt)

[EFerrari]

32. And you need logic tutoring. n/t

[Dreamer Tatum]

41. You haven't edited this post yet? Really? nt

[Andrushka]

31. Great

Just what we need here in Japan: the replacement of the old "thug boat" with a new one.

Japanese people know a militaristic empire when they see one, believe me. I'll be down at future protests (just down the road from me here) to help them out in solidarity protesting against the American one.

[Crowman1979]

40. Permanent foreign bases are obselete.

Since the US Navy's ship are much faster and have the ability to be refueled at sea, plus with having a large air transport apparatus. What is the point of having military units permanently stationed there? I say each NATO or joint agreement nations should have 3 major logistical installations in the signed countries that would be shared by all nations in the treaty. Each would have a land barracks/logistical storage facility, port and airbase. For the sole purpose of training exercises. Then if there is an actual war, have units stationed there. But the only nation that has a neccessary need for this would be south korea, otherwise desolve NATO, remove the us permanent units there and keep a DoD liason office at one of the major US embassies there.

[hack89]

47. How long does it take to steam from Hawaii

to North Korea or Taiwan? How much warning to you you think we will get in the advent of war? Have you considered the deterrent effect of having large numbers of forces forward deployed.

Removing our forces from Japan would result in a completely different balance of power - at the bare minimum it wold trigger a massive arms race as Japan and other countries tried to insure that China could not dominate the area militarily. A nuclear armed Japan or South Korea would not be out of the picture.

[Crowman1979]

49. Just keep the assigned group or squadron afloat in the sea of Japan for several months.

Then schedule a relief once the deployment is over. There isn't enough ships at Sasebo to counterstrike the chinese fleet. And like I said before, it would be best to have an air, land and sea logistics system shared either in south korea and/or Japan on a needed basis, rather than have units permanently stationed there.

[hack89]

56. I disagree

it takes three ships to keep one deploy - one on deployment, one training for deployment and a third undergoing post-deployment maintenance. The beauty of a forward deployed strike groups is that you get more operational value for each ship. With your plan the navy would either have to buy more ships (very unlikely) or reduce their presence somewhere else. Basing ships in Japan is a good value for America.

Actually, a US carrier strike group could very effectively counter strike the Chinese fleet - I think you underestimate the power of a carrier air wing and overestimate the power of the Chinese navy. Once they venture away from land based air cover they would be dead meat. In close, our nuke subs would have a field day - their ASW capabilities are very limited.

[dysfunctional press]

42. maybe they shouldn't have bombed pearl harbor...

and joined up with adolf & the nazi's in trying to conquer the world.

then they wouldn't be having these problems.

[Vidar]

50. Haha.

[Overseas]

68. Keep up the good work !! You go guys !! //nt