Fojar38 posted:

This but unironically.

Willie Tomg posted:

Thats a dumb thing to think is necessary or worth defending.

Willie Tomg posted:

Please outline the scenario in the year 2015 where absent the US garrison on Okinawa, China invades Japan for reasons that make sense and it is for some reason not a component of an ongoing nuclear exchange as the US weighs in on the matter anyway.

Since that's an absurdly tall order, you could also try explaining how such a situation would come about by, say, 2040, trying your best to not sound like John Titor. Or at least sound like John Titor unironically.

Bip Roberts posted:

So unless a base is the lynchpin that without it the strategic defense of the US and it's allies will unravel then it serves no purpose at all?

Willie Tomg posted:

No it could serve a variety of purposes that make no actual sense when you think about them and their presumptions.

Bip Roberts posted:

Defensive pacts between multiple countries actually make a lot of sense.

Willie Tomg posted:

Please outline the scenario in the year 2015 where absent the US garrison on Okinawa, China invades Japan--e; or whoever--for reasons that make sense and it is for some reason not a component of an ongoing nuclear exchange as the US weighs in on the matter anyway.

Since that's an absurdly tall order, you could also try explaining how such a situation would come about by, say, 2040, trying your best to not sound like John Titor. Or at least sound like John Titor unironically.

Willie Tomg posted:

Diplomacy is cool. I really like diplomacy, in the abstract. This thread is not about diplomacy. This thread is about the base at Okinawa.

Willie Tomg posted:

Diplomacy is cool. I really like diplomacy, in the abstract. This thread is not about diplomacy. This thread is about the base at Okinawa.

Willie Tomg posted:

Please outline the scenario in the year 2015 where absent the US garrison on Okinawa, China invades Japan for reasons that make sense and it is for some reason not a component of an ongoing nuclear exchange as the US weighs in on the matter anyway.

Since that's an absurdly tall order, you could also try explaining how such a situation would come about by, say, 2040, trying your best to not sound like John Titor. Or at least sound like John Titor unironically.

Jarmak posted:

Its not an absurdly tall order, its just so absurdly dumb that its almost impressive. The fact that China would invade mainland Japan but for very last line of defense that is the Okinawa garrison has never been anyone's argument as to why the base benefits Japan, why would anyone waste their time defending that strawman?

Fojar38 posted:

On the other hand those bases are there for the purpose of making it easier and more effective for Americans to fight and possibly die in the defense of the Japanese home islands including Okinawa if it ever comes to that, so I think that the US military presence there should be forgiven the inconveniences.

Willie Tomg posted:

Please outline the scenario in the year 2015 where absent the US garrison on Okinawa, China invades Japan for reasons that make sense and it is for some reason not a component of an ongoing nuclear exchange as the US weighs in on the matter anyway.

Since that's an absurdly tall order, you could also try explaining how such a situation would come about by, say, 2040, trying your best to not sound like John Titor. Or at least sound like John Titor unironically.

VitalSigns posted:

Willie Tomg posted:

Please outline the scenario in the year 2015 where absent the US garrison on Okinawa, China invades Japan for reasons that make sense and it is for some reason not a component of an ongoing nuclear exchange as the US weighs in on the matter anyway.

Since that's an absurdly tall order, you could also try explaining how such a situation would come about by, say, 2040, trying your best to not sound like John Titor. Or at least sound like John Titor unironically.

Willie Tomg posted:

Please outline the scenario in the year 2015 where absent the US garrison on Okinawa, China invades Japan for reasons that make sense and it is for some reason not a component of an ongoing nuclear exchange as the US weighs in on the matter anyway.

Fojar38 posted:

You know that you can impede on a country's sovereignty/territorial integrity without rolling tanks into their capital right? Just ask Putin.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Well, without the US security presence in Japan, (which Oki is a lynchpin of, and since no one else is volunteering to have new airbases constructed in their prefecture, deleting the US presence on Okinawa would severely limit the United States' ability to project power in the East and South China Seas,) Beijing would feel free to take a stronger hand in exerting military pressure on Taiwan, as well as attempting to enforce its claims to the Senkaku Islands, which are Japanese territory. US forces in Korea (who would also have to reassess their position with the loss of a major regional airbase) would not be able to provide the same guarantees of security for Japan, since Korea would rightly want to have a say in military operations conducted from its territory to intervene in a war between two third parties, and military cooperation between Korea and Japan is minimal to non-existent. Japan's most logical course of action would be to revoke Article 9 of their constitution, and embark on a rearmament drive in order to give them an ability to unilaterally deter Chinese military adventurism and secure their regional interests without US assistance. Japan re-militarizing would go over with their neighbors about as well as Angela Merkel starting to mention Lebensraum a whole lot in her speeches. Since every country in the region, including Korea, is either actively concerned with Beijing's increasingly muscular foreign policy or remembers getting invaded and brutalized by the Japanese military or both, the most likely outcome would be an arms race as each country in the region takes increasingly sharp measures to defend their territorial claims in the seas around China. Without the strategic deterrence that frankly only the United States can provide, Beijing's military calculus would change, because their massive military overmatch would mean that any conflict with a regional power would likely be far more costly to any of their neighbors than it would be to China. This would greatly increase the likelihood of a regional war, due to either miscalculation or provocation. You moron.

Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

This is a bad thread.

Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

Willie Tomg posted:

Nuh uh!

VitalSigns posted:

I feel like you should just apply to mod this forum already, since you seem to want to do it so badly. Reach for that rainbow

Dead Reckoning posted:

He did for a weekend, and it was great.

Discendo Vox posted:

I've still not seen any evidence that Okinawan objections to the base are popular and apolitical.

quote:

Amid claim and counterclaim by activists and politicians over the planned relocation of the U.S. Marine Corps Futenma Air Station, one factor is often ignored: what ordinary Okinawans think about the move.

There was a testy exchange at a news conference Tuesday between Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga and a reporter from the Okinawa Times, one of the prefecture’s two largest newspapers.

The newspaper’s latest poll found that 76.1 percent of residents are opposed to “the construction of a new base” off Henoko in Nago as a replacement for the Futenma base.

The sample size was only 610 respondents, but it nevertheless points to a majority of Okinawans opposing the plan.

The poll, conducted Friday through Sunday, also showed an approval rating of 83 percent for Okinawa Gov. Takeshi Onaga, who has pledged to use every available measure to block the plan to move the base to Henoko.

Suga insisted the move is still on track, saying local leaders elected by Okinawans and who were in power at the time gave the green light.

He ran through the history of the relocation plan. In 1999, he said, then-Gov. Keiichi Inamine and Nago Mayor Tateo Kishimoto agreed to moving Futenma to Henoko, and that the relocation plan drawn up by Tokyo reflects their agreement.

Suga also cited Gov. Hirokazu Nakaima as accepting the plan and agreeing in December 2013 to landfill work off Henoko. That work is now beginning.

“The (central) government listened to opinions of people who are said to represent Okinawan residents,” Suga said.

But if the Times poll is anything to go by, most Okinawans now disagree with their previous leaders’ decisions and want the base moved out of the prefecture altogether.

Onaga ousted Nakaima last November with an unambiguous campaign promise: to block the relocation.

Nago Mayor Susumu Inamine, a fellow opponent of relocation, was re-elected in January 2014, beating Bunshin Suematsu, a pro-base candidate who supported the Henoko plan.

Observers say it is difficult for Abe to make any compromise over the Henoko project before going to Washington later this month and meeting with President Barack Obama.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Yea huh!
He did for a weekend, and it was great.

Willie Tomg posted:

Name a few that could actually happen in the absence of the Okinawa base that would definitely not happen with the Okinawa base.

Bip Roberts posted:

So unless a base is the lynchpin that without it the strategic defense of the US and it's allies will unravel then it serves no purpose at all?

Chomskyan posted:

from the Okinawa Times, one of the prefecture’s two largest newspapers.

The sample size was only 610 respondents,

Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

It sapped my will to live