Comments on: MSDF can only protect Japanese ships and ships carrying Japanese-owned cargo

By: pwnstar

pwnstar — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:10:16 +0000

Good for the Somalians
When the world gives up on you you shake up the world

By: The Overthinker

The Overthinker — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 12:44:59 +0000

“Sounds like cherry picking to me…”

It’s called “politics.” Which means it doesn’t have to look rational.

By: Roger

Roger — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:27:37 +0000

There is a very mysterious island in the Gulf of Aden on google earth. Go to １２ degrees North and 52 degrees.The island has an abandoned town, roads that seem to lead to underground bases and giant mysterious buildings. Some say this is an underground alien base and that is what this is about. This is not about the pirates! Wake up and smell the coffee.

By: LB

LB — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 08:48:57 +0000

“why maintain an “armed” force?”

Um, “self-defense”? Switzerland has armed forces as well, but they don’t leave the country. Same for Sweden. And Austria. And other countries. The rationale is perfectly clear and simple. So simple even a caveman could follow it…

By: Garrett

Garrett — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:57:07 +0000

“Wish” trivializes the issue a bit. This is an issue of Japanese law, specifically the interpretation of Article 9. Now, I would agree that interpretation of Article 9 has been inconsistent and, at times, illogical. That said, for the MSDF to engage Somali pirates with force, especially the use of offensive force, and even more so when Japanese interests are not being defended, would be a huge step away from current interpretations of Article 9 and a clear case of collective defense, which is not legal under the current interpretations of the law.

Japan could change that, but keep in mind that that means Japan as a whole, not just the MSDF, the Defense Ministry, or even the Cabinet. At a minimum, the Diet would have to agree to pass a law authorizing the action. For that law to broad and open-ended, a constitutional amendment might be necessary, which would require not only a supermajority within the Diet, but passage by national referendum as well. All of that is unlikely, to say the least.

By: LB

LB — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:51:56 +0000

And the Navy that has one of the most respected submarine forces in the world, able to even get one of their diesel-electric subs within “kill” range of a US CVN during exercises. And not once, but repeatedly. Even when the exercise called for sub activity, and the CVN was on the lookout. Japan’s surface fleet is probably the most capable in the region (after the US’s), even if the ROK’s and China’s are numerically larger.

By: helical

helical — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:50:36 +0000

If you just look at the numbers it is indeed one of the greatest (spenders). Their budget is huge and they have the latest and greatest equipment up the ying yang.
The logic that great money = great navy is, of course, all on the assumption that they are like any other military force and do everything reasonable in their power (and budget) to make themselves a formidable group.

I still think “Salarymen with guns” is a great descriptor of the modern JSDF.

By: VonSkippy

VonSkippy — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:06:43 +0000

What comic book did you read that in?

You do realize you’re talking about a Navy that doesn’t have enough gas to run simple practice maneuvers. Or allow their officers to “yell” at the underlings because it might “stress” them out.

By: LB

LB — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 03:35:24 +0000

And you must, of course, know that the Law of the Sea allows countries to take actions against pirates but does not mandate they must, and that signatory nations are free to enact their own laws with regards to what their military or coast guard can and cannot do. As long as those national laws are within the limits set by international treaty or law they are valid. In other words, the LOS sets a line of what Japan can, not must, but can do, and be within the law. Japanese law sets a lower line as to what the SDF can do. Japanese law is not in contravention of the LOS, so there is no LOS-related issue or problem. If the LOS said signatory states must confront pirates, that they were legally obligatedto do so, then maybe, just maybe, your comments would have some relevance. I trust this is clear enough for you.

By: LB

LB — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:35:30 +0000

And of course you are more of a constitutional law expert than the entire Japanese Diet….

Sheesh.

By: Anti-Terror Performance

Anti-Terror Performance — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:42:09 +0000

So the entire world Navy goes to SOmalia to stop the pirates when it would be cheaper to just pay the pirates off. This is not about the pirates but it has a broader agenda. You have the Chinese Navy, Russian, American, German, English, French, Australian etc and peeople think this is still about the pirates. This is about UFOs and aliens.

By: BigD

BigD — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:11:07 +0000

I heard the JMSDF are one of the greatest Naval Forces in the world, but to be restricted like this due to their constitution…

If only they could revise it a little, the JMSDF, along with the JGSDF and JASDF, could show just how strong they are… but then that would bring alot of tension among the east asian nations, wouldn’t it? But the US does seem to support this…

By: ダビ

ダビ — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:03:53 +0000

For f*cks sake, just rewrite the constitution already…

By: Haf

Haf — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:17:31 +0000

If I remember correlty, the German marine has similar limitations in that mission against Somali pirates.