US, Japan agree to two defense pacts amid China worries

Isa Khan

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
3,172
Reactions
4,424
Nation of residence
Japan
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
WASHINGTON ― The U.S. and Japan are close to signing a new five-year pact for Japan to support U.S. military forces in the country and a new agreement to research and develop new defense technologies, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Thursday.

Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin met virtually with their Japanese counterparts — Foreign Minister Hayashi Yoshimasa and Defense Minister Kishi Nobuo — on Thursday amid rising tensions between the allies and China. Austin participated from home as he recovers from COVID-19.

“We’re launching a new research and development agreement that will make it easier for our scientists, for engineers and program managers, to collaborate on emerging defense-related issues: countering hypersonic threats, advancing space capabilities,” Blinken said ahead of the meeting. “When Japanese and American researchers bring their complementary strengths to bear, we can out-compete and out-innovate anyone.”

Austin reaffirmed the importance of the alliance and said the two countries are taking “bold steps” to strengthen its readiness and deterrent power. Thursday’s meeting was to set a framework for future action, he added.

“This framework will include: enhancing alliance capabilities across all domains; evolving our roles and missions to reflect Japan’s growing ability to contribute to regional peace and stability; and optimizing our alliance force posture to strengthen deterrence,” Austin said.

Under the terms of the hosting deal reached in principle two weeks ago, Japan will spend approximately $1.82 billion annually to support the U.S. military presence. The United States has about 55,000 troops in Japan, including a naval contingent, which makes it the largest forward-deployed U.S. force in the world.

That emerging agreement ends a Trump-era row over the the costs of deployments of U.S. forces abroad by agreeing in principle to a new formula for paying for the American military presence in Japan. Blinken said the alliance “will invest greater resources to deepen our military readiness and interoperability.”

Though it went unmentioned publicly on Thursday, the two sides have reportedly drafted plans for a joint operation amid fears China is gaining the ability to invade and hold Taiwan. At the initial stage of a Taiwan emergency, the U.S. Marine Corps would set up temporary bases on the Nansei (or Ryukyu) island chain, which stretches southwest toward Taiwan.

Japan’s armed forces would reportedly provide logistical support in areas such as fuel and ammunition, according to the Kyodo news agency.

Japan is also reportedly deploying more than 500 Self-Defense Force personnel, as well as surface-to-ship and ground-to-air missile batteries, on one island in the Nansei chain, Ishigaki. The westernmost island, Yonaguni, hosts a radar and surveillance station, and is reportedly adding an electronic warfare unit by 2023.

The operational plans were expected to draw a backlash from China, which considers democratically-governed Taiwan part of Chinese territory.

“No one should underestimate the strong resolution, determination and capability of the Chinese people to safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said at a Dec. 24 news conference.

Japanese civilian officials have been issuing public warnings about China’s pressure on Taiwan and the need to protect the island as a democratic country, marking a major political shift from just a few years ago, said Eric Sayers, an Asia-Pacific defense expert at the American Enterprise Institute.

“Since we’ve seen Japanese civilian military leaders talking about this, that really opened up possibilities for thinking about the problem and more joint planning,” Sayers said, adding: “Japan’s recognition of the importance of Taiwan is also recognition that their geography just doesn’t allow them to avoid this problem.”

Blinken also said the two countries militaries “are improving their capacity to conduct complex joint operations,” as evidenced by a November’s naval exercise in the Philippine Sea, which saw forces from Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan and the U.S. conduct complex exercises with multiple aircraft carriers.

The pact comes less than a year after Blinken and Austin visited Tokyo, and the countries joined forces to criticize China’s “coercion and destabilizing behavior.” in Asia. The leaders, at that time, also stressed “the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.”

On Wednesday, Japan’s new Prime Minister, Fumio Kishida, and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison signed a reciprocal access agreement to make it easier for their respective militaries to visit each other’s countries for exercises.

Amid stepped up tensions with China, Japan’s parliament has approved a record extra budget of nearly 36 trillion yen (U.S. $317 billion), with additional military spending to speed up deployment of missile defense systems and other military preparedness measures. Kishida said in November he was open to acquiring enemy-base strike capabilities.

 

RogerRanger

Well-known member
Messages
419
Reactions
293
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
So the US worked to destroy the British/Japanese alliance after WW1 because it saw it is a threat. Now the US supports a British/Japanese alliance when we literally can't support each other at all and it isn't a threat to the US. Well that's just great, go to hell America.
 

Ryder

Veteran Member
Messages
5,193
Reactions
8,895
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
So the US worked to destroy the British/Japanese alliance after WW1 because it saw it is a threat. Now the US supports a British/Japanese alliance when we literally can't support each other at all and it isn't a threat to the US. Well that's just great, go to hell America.

Didnt Japan and Britain have tensions in late 1920s to all the way to the start of ww2.

Japan and Britain had interests that clashed.

Even Churchill talked about a upcoming war against Japan. Japan wanted to expand its territories so it can aquire resources. Japan did not like the British dominating parts of Asia. They wanted that piece of action to themselves but they knew it would take time to compete with British and American ambitions hence why they turned their attention towards China.

I just found out that both the British and the Americans drew up plans of having war with each other called War Plan Red during the 1930s. Damn!!! Im learning new things everyday.
 
Last edited:

RogerRanger

Well-known member
Messages
419
Reactions
293
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
Didnt Japan and Britain have tensions in late 1920s to all the way to the start of ww2.

Japan and Britain had interests that clashed.

Even Churchill talked about a upcoming war against Japan. Japan wanted to expand its territories so it can aquire resources. Japan did not like the British dominating parts of Asia. They wanted that piece of action to themselves but they knew it would take time to compete with British and American ambitions hence why they turned their attention towards China.

I just found out that both the British and the Americans drew up plans of having war with each other called War Plan Red during the 1930s. Damn!!! Im learning new things everyday.
Yeah in the late 20's after the Washington Naval treaty basically ended the British/Japanese alliance. And most of those tensions were because Britain sided with the Americans against the Japanese after WW1.

We didn't though, Japan had its area in east Asia, we had tiny outposts in the region of Hong Kong and Singapore. Our interests didn't clash until the Americans come in and say Japan can't do this and that, so the British then stupidly side with the Americans. I don't think the British had plans for war with the US, Canada did and the US did with Canada/Britain.

The US is to this day and since its founding an expansionist power, which wants to dominate the world and everybody in it. Britain was never like that, we just wanted our area and Empire and everybody else could do whatever. That Changed post WW1 or in fact during WW1 which was basically fought to steal the German imperial colonies.

Churchill did more than any other person to cause Britain to become a dominion of the US, a slave state to the US. With his American mother and banking connections. He was utter scum as for as I am concerned now. He was crap in WW1 and WW2, strategically inept, didn't see the Japanese attack coming and sent in sufficient forces. So screw him and the false narrative around him. Chamberlain was a good guy and he was destroyed by historians for his much more sound policy of peace with German and conflict with Japan. I hate Churchill at this point.😤😤😤😤😤
 

Ryder

Veteran Member
Messages
5,193
Reactions
8,895
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
Yeah in the late 20's after the Washington Naval treaty basically ended the British/Japanese alliance. And most of those tensions were because Britain sided with the Americans against the Japanese after WW1.

We didn't though, Japan had its area in east Asia, we had tiny outposts in the region of Hong Kong and Singapore. Our interests didn't clash until the Americans come in and say Japan can't do this and that, so the British then stupidly side with the Americans. I don't think the British had plans for war with the US, Canada did and the US did with Canada/Britain.

The US is to this day and since its founding an expansionist power, which wants to dominate the world and everybody in it. Britain was never like that, we just wanted our area and Empire and everybody else could do whatever. That Changed post WW1 or in fact during WW1 which was basically fought to steal the German imperial colonies.

Churchill did more than any other person to cause Britain to become a dominion of the US, a slave state to the US. With his American mother and banking connections. He was utter scum as for as I am concerned now. He was crap in WW1 and WW2, strategically inept, didn't see the Japanese attack coming and sent in sufficient forces. So screw him and the false narrative around him. Chamberlain was a good guy and he was destroyed by historians for his much more sound policy of peace with German and conflict with Japan. I hate Churchill at this point.

Churchill was American from his mothers side a lot of people forget that.

That explains why the Americans have ships named after Churchill i was wondering why until I found out he has an American mother.

Chamberlain was just trying to keep the peace a lot of people can accuse him of appeasement but I think its because Britain was not ready for war afterall ww1 weakened it was best to play the waiting game and try to bring Britain back to strength and then fight when the time was right.

I can see his point of view it was always better to avoid a destructive war while at the same time many accused him of passive when Germany, Italy and Japan were on the rise. People forget that the Soviet union was also on the rise which presented another challenge.

I always believed Usa and its isolationism was a myth. Usa expanded from Washington to california and had wars with its neighbours they also had their own colonies like the Philippines while allowing African Americans to build their own colony in Liberia which led to them enslaving the natives.

Usa even took Hawaii. Usa has never been a isolating country or power.
 

RogerRanger

Well-known member
Messages
419
Reactions
293
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
Churchill was American from his mothers side a lot of people forget that.

That explains why the Americans have ships named after Churchill i was wondering why until I found out he has an American mother.

Chamberlain was just trying to keep the peace a lot of people can accuse him of appeasement but I think its because Britain was not ready for war afterall ww1 weakened it was best to play the waiting game and try to bring Britain back to strength and then fight when the time was right.

I can see his point of view it was always better to avoid a destructive war while at the same time many accused him of passive when Germany, Italy and Japan were on the rise. People forget that the Soviet union was also on the rise which presented another challenge.

I always believed Usa and its isolationism was a myth. Usa expanded from Washington to california and had wars with its neighbours they also had their own colonies like the Philippines while allowing African Americans to build their own colony in Liberia which led to them enslaving the natives.

Usa even took Hawaii. Usa has never been a isolating country or power.
Britain picked the wrong allies. We allied the US and France. Rather than Japan and Russia. Germany wasn't the major threat in WW2, the USA and France were.

As we saw during the war the French folded, the Germans took over a weakened France/Poland and low countries. The British should have allowed that to happen and not sent a single round in support of Poland or France. Then allowed the Russians and Germans to fight it out, then came in at the end with a strategic force of around 300,000 men to decide the war. Another thing is Britain should have never ever had any issues with Italy, they could have been our allies too. So you would have the British Italian Alliance and the British Japanese Alliance, then the British could support either side in the battle for the core of Europe. As we did in the Napoleonic wars. You would have had 3 of the 5 major naval powers allied against the French and Americans.

There is also the ideological stuff as well, the British were more aligned with the French and Americans. However what that shows me is that the geo-political theory of history is wrong and incomplete. The ruling class theory of history makes more sense. The British ruling class was wrong and bad at this time and its still crap to this day.
 
Top Bottom