By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
Discussion in 'Navy & Maritime' started by fylr71, Jul 1, 2006.
You're more on topic than a lot of the previous comments, but sorry I don't know!
Well, then Japan does admit that the existence of SDF was from the
start a viloation of its own constitution? It shouldn't have existed in the
first place if Japan wanted to lay a true claim to being an entirely pacifist
However SDF has existed with the constitution for the last 5 decades.
No reason it can't be done now. Amending the constitution only
sounds as if it wants to move on from being a pacifist nation to a more
Obviously there is a some gap btwn how things are viewed regarding this matter. While I do understand your points, I am not fully convinced. I
expect you feel not much different.
Since the points seemed to have gotten across at least, please let us leave
it at that and return to the topic.
This should be a ROKN news and discussion not int'l politics
Here's what I could scrounge on it.
Standard Displacement : 7,800 tons
Full Displacement : 11,394 tons
Dimensions : 122m x 22m x 6.7m
Propulsion : 2 STX-MAN B&W 8L28/32A
Speed : Max 15.72kt,
Original design comes from a hospital ship, that perhaps explains
its speed limitations.
Can carry 2 LCU-23M, 14 8-ton trucks and 400 troops.
Total of 4 ships have been ordered with one of them with modifications
to be a Command and Control ship. Initial 2 are to be built in Korea
the others to be completed by PT PAL under license agreement.
That's just being daft. Japan wasn't allowed to point that out when the Constitution was drafted for it. Everyone has the right to defend themselves.
No, amending the Constitution sounds as if it wants to become a normal nation. If you think changing it makes Japan seem more aggressive then according to your logic South Korea is already aggressive because it has always reserved the use of force against another country. On the other hand Japan would still be prohibited from having things like cruise missiles, so it would still be less aggressive than someone like South Korea.
Same goes for Korea.
No offence but you have very unique view on Korea-Japan politics. You insisted Korea is aggressive because she is building its small navy, then now insists it again with her cruise missle?
Don't you think Japan has more things to say about Chinese buildings (including recent Satelite-killer or CV) or N. Korean missles rather than another fellow US-allies' defence increase?
I mean, do you think Korea should not have cruise missle nor build any latest warships just to please Japanese?
I don't know why, but your view sounds so biased to believe that japanese are pacifists and koreans are aggressive, how weird! Don't read too many mangas!
I did not say South Korea (it is South Korea, not "Korea") is aggressive. I said that if one regards Japan modifying its Constitution as being aggressive, then surely the ROKN placing cruise missiles on its ships is also aggressive.
Do you believe Japan should not rationalise its Constitution just to please South Korea?
Japan has been at peace with the world since 1945 - that is a fact. As to South Korea being "aggressive", please read my posts more carefully. You will see that I was using daewon's own logic to make points.
thx daewon for the infos:cheers
aren´t there any weapons?i mean esspecaially CIWS,sth like a goalkeeper perhaps?
and the others:
PLZ,this is getting too political
My point was that Japan was able to maintain a very capable defence force
well within their constitution. If it has no intention whatsoever to expand the
roll of JSDF to anything more than the protection of its immediate survival the
constitution need not be changed.
I can see you have a certain fondness for Japan and truly believe that
Japanese are pacifists at heart. I am sorry to say that I do not feel the same.
Japan unlike Korea is a war criminal nation. True, that was 50 years ago but
they just never owned up to it. Also if you take a look at their culture the
Samurai Spirit lives on. With literatures and animations praising desires of the
glory they had 60 years ago, it is unnerving to see as a neighbour. So please
forgive me if I cannot quite believe that Japan is a perfectly friendly nation.
I also cannot understand how you view ROK as aggressive. We have a constant threat of war from the North, if we are a bit overpacking our
gears, I think it's understandable.
I know I have prejudices of my own, perhaps you do too?
Please, I know differences of opinions don't get resolved easily.
Doesn't mean you have to crush the other.
I acknowledge your point as being valid and will admit my certain bias
against the Japanese.This will be my last reply on the matter.
Let's move on.
There is no such thing as a "war criminal nation". There are "war criminals" - you cannot transpose the actions of people onto the whole country, especially when those alive today had nothing to do with those crimes. It would be like me saying that because some people from your home committed arson in my neighbourhood, your neighbourhood is a "criminal" one. Somehow I doubt you would accept that position.
It's not for me to forgive. But you need to accept that there is freedom of speech in Japan, and the government can't lock people up because they upset others. You shouldn't just focus on the views of some people - you need to look at the majority. Many people see a lot of xenophobia in South Korea (towards almost all foreigners), so according to your logic foreigners should not see South Korea as a perfectly friendly nation.
You could also do with trying to learn something about Japan by reading some impartial books. Saying things like "the samurai spirit lives on" can only be born through ignorance - I doubt you actually understand what the "samurai spirit" possibly could be.
SIGH, read my post #84.
Well, if the people in his neighbourhood protect the arsonist from prosecution, deny that the arsonist did anything wrong. Would you get the impression that the people there are potential arsonists as well and be suspicious of them ?
If the actions of the arsonist occurred 60 years ago and there had been no arson since, I would trust the people who now live in that neighbourhood.
Even if today they deny that the arsonist did anything wrong ?
No right or wrong answer here. It's after all how you feel, as long as you're being truthful.
Help me out here. Why do the Germans make it a crime to deny or glorify what the Nazi did even now ? Last I checked, the Germans alive today sure didn't commit the crimes.
I don't see the whole of Japan denying such a thing - not even a majority.
That hasn't stopped the rise of neo-Nazism in Germany. Besides I disagree with their laws. It isn't for government to legislate on history - it sets a bad precedent for the future. It's for the academic community to discuss history.
Same with Japan - thanks for helping us with our arguments.
Well, the government, who make those comments, is elected by the people. Abe may have low approval now, but I don't think it was due to his comments on history. We'll see if the 'peace loving' majority of Japan punish him and other politicians who made similar comments in the next poll.
What I meant was the Germans see the need to stop making similar comments about history as the Japanese did despite, just like the Japanese,they too didn't commit the crimes. How could you have misunderstood what I said as help to your argument ? Perhaps you're too desperate for help that you grabbed anything without fully understanding them.
There is not more or less neo-Nazism in Germany than anywhere else in Europe.
And we have these laws because we learned out of our history.
I see no problem in making glorifying or denying the warcrimes of the past a crime.
Or do you think it helps when neo-nazis give cd's with nazi music to kids in the school?
Doing both is the right way.
You have to talk in your society about such themes, you have to teach your children in school what happened and you have to prevent neo-nazis from publicising their ideology especially to protect the youth.
Enough here. Go on any longer and this will turn into shayte.
To answer eckherl,
let me start by describing ROKN's current status and planned reforms.
Current ROKN fleet structure(see link below)
1st Fleet(East Sea)
2nd Fleet(Yellow Sea)
3rd Fleet(Southern Seas)
Under Each Fleet
Submarine Corps(9th Flotiila)
Aviation Corps(6th Flotilla)
*5th Flotilla : Landing/Logistics/Mine Operations
7th Flotilla : Base Protection
8th Flotilla : Training and Research
Planned Future fleet structure.
Fleets here are Regional Fleets consisting mainly of
FFK(Ulsan class 9 ships) and PCC(Pohang class 24 ships) and numerous PKMs
The changes will be
: Flotillas under each Fleet will be disbanded and Fleet HQ will assume
direct command of its squadrons.
: Submarine and Aviation Corps(or Flotillas) are to be expanded into
individual commands.(On par with fleets)
: Establish a mobile group consisting of 1 LPX, 3 DDGs(KDX3), 6 DDH
Mobile Fleet being reduced to current plan was a major set back.
Initially the navy wanted 6 DDGs and 12 DDHs and 3 LPX to form 3 Mobile
Groups to make up a Mobile Fleet. The National Assembly didn't approved
the plan as budgets were getting tight with "Defence Reform 2020" in
action. Army drew up some huge budget plans and navy plans got cut.
So for the time being Navy has only 3 DDGs and 6 DDHs and a single
LPX to play with. Amphibious assets might be supplemented with introduction
of LST-IIs, which will be closer to an LPD than a traditional LSTs.
Regional Fleets will be reinforced as FFX and PKX will replace current Ulsans
and Pohangs and PKMs.
There has been talking of reviving the Mobile Fleet plan but ROKN has
officially denied it so that's that.
This is the plan till 2020.
FFX and PKX in service with the Regional Fleets will ensure that command of
the sea is maintained regarding our northern neighbours. 18 strong Submarine
Command providing asymetric measures. DDGs and DDHs and LPX/LPDs forming
If you can prove he was elected because of his views on the war, please do so. Otherwise that argument is irrelevant.
You're still not making that much sense.
I think the one who is desperate is you, bringing in nonsense about how Abe is elected so that means the Japanese people support his views on the war. No one with any credibility would make the sort of statement you did.
That is debatable.
So today it's Nazism. But what if someone else takes power. What's to stop them changing the law to saying it's illegal to criticise the Nazi era? If you can have a law to hush-up Nazism you can have a law to protect it - the Constitution cannot help because it was rendered powerless by the first law. Or maybe it will be a law against arguing the European Union is a bad idea. Who knows - the possibilities are endless.
Irrelevant ? If it's a dictatorship, one may be able to blame the lunatic at the top. But in a democracy, the leader must have known that he can get many votes in the population thru the comments on history.
If not Abe, how about Koizumi who was quite popular despite his regular visits to the war-shrines etc etc.
You are still not providing any evidence for the fact a majority of people voted for Abe because of his views on history. There are many issues that influence elections - history is right at the bottom of voters' list of priorities.
Again, you have no evidence that he was voted for because of his visits. He was popular because he shook up the country after years of failed economic policies.
And your evidence that history is at the bottom of the voters' list or that Koizumi's popularity was due to the economy & not the visits ? The voters sure didn't punish Koizumi for his visits.
You're playing games with asking for evidence. In a democracy, the leaders' actions are representative of the people's wishes.