All Asian Maritime Disputes

Maybe not a war, but they're definitely worth fighting for in the eyes of some people, considering the resources hidden underneath and around them.

L Dragon and Tara Mai (Greenmantle and Achaemenid as well), you seem to know a good bit of the political situation between the three countries. I would like to know two things, if you could answer:

1 - Weren't there a couple of Japanese prime ministers who apologized for Nanjing?

2 - South Korea has better/closer relations with China than with Japan, but if the North issue had an influence in the positions regarding the maritime disputes, would South Korea cooperate with Japan (and, by extension, the US) regarding China's ADIZ and the various waters of the respective countries?

edited 13th Feb '14 9:57:49 AM by Quag15

Hey, I totally get that, and I too really wish Japan would face all of the facts. I just don't think that China is gonna get them to do that via sending racist remarks and using propaganda, as that just makes the former deny it even more.

edited 13th Feb '14 9:57:13 AM by LDragon2

Said tiny islands given a proper legal claim to any resources under the water up to 212 miles offshore. Just one island could give you a claim to over 141,000 square miles of water. a chain of islands some what more.

They apologized for their conduct of the war in general terms in 1995. They've never sent a written apology, however, which is apparently more important. The key thing is that Japanese negationism is ongoing, and it is especially prevalent on Japan's political right. The Chinese people see in the new Japanese government a return to the old denialism.

As for the North issue - the USA probably doesn't want to tie their continued support for South Korea to a Southern acknowledgement of Japan's claims or a forced reconciliation between the two nations, because all that would do is piss off both their main regional allies.

The Chinese are at fault here too - very much so. But it isn't entirely one-sided, though Abe at least has the advantage - at least in my eyes - that someone actually elected him.

edited 13th Feb '14 10:06:44 AM by Achaemenid

Ok, got it. Thanks.

I believe that Japan has also given compensations for their actions as well. So at least they aren't entirely in denial for their past actions. Though I agree that an officially written apology would be better.

Still though, I can't help but see China (and South Korea for that matter) as being overly sensitive. Like, do we really need to be reminded of what Japan did to them every other week? I get that we need to learn from those actions, which is why I raise my eyebrows at Abe's recent decisions, but I don't think China is going about it in the right way.

I see. And yet:

Japan Seeks Chinese Compensation Over 2010 Boat Collision Incident.

On a different and slightly related note to the whole thing: The Maritime Silk Road Vs. The String of Pearls.

edited 13th Feb '14 11:59:54 AM by Quag15

Yeah, that's one in which both sides are to blame. I was mainly talking about WWII.

That said, I really hope that the three main Asian nations can come to an agreement one day soon. For if Japan's denial, China's propaganda, and South Korea'a grudges continue, we are gonna have all of them, in the words of Team America, "all covered in s**t."

edited 13th Feb '14 12:37:34 PM by LDragon2

• A new arms race is exploding into Asia, with an expensive and extensive shopping list of new weapons. Who’s buying what — and where does Australia stand?

• Asia‘s Killer Submarine Boom

Remember reading some articles on the submarines. Don't think the Philippine Navy can afford them due to their budgets and the fact that they have an insurgency or two to take care of.

An interesting article from The BBC on China and Japan: Seven decades of bitterness.

@Taira: T Hanks for the link. I wasnt aware that Australia had so thoroughly de-militarized itself.

Then again, it does sound like someone from the "Australian Air Power" side of things...

Well since their navy snuck those two carriers through...

How capable would those 2 ships be at actual air craft carrier duties anyway? I know they don't have a hanger deck, which is usually Kind of important , but with the ramp it's clearly design with operation of planes in mind.

The only way for the Hyugas to have jets is if VTOL/STOL-based aircraft are operational there.

That much I knew, I was just curious as to the effect of not having any below-decks area to stow them would have, when most other carriers have it.

edited 14th Feb '14 8:00:27 AM by Joesolo

It wouldnt stop them from deploying with jet planes, but it would shorten the operational life of the aircraft. If they dont even have a sheltered maintainence area, then they probably cant operate very far from home base.

So they'd work if they needed to get air support somewhere NOW, but not much good for long term use.

They sound like coastal patrol vessels.

usually coastal patrol stuff is light ships with a small deck for a helicopter or two though. a proper helicopter carrier is getting into force projection. especially given they're designed to deliver landing craft, what with the well deck.*

Well they are "trying" their darnest to adhere to Article 9.

And from the pics of the Hyugas (especially in the interior), they can be used by helis or VTOL/STOL aircraft.

...Are we talking about the japanese carriers or the australian ones? because I thought we were talking about australia's.

edited 14th Feb '14 9:06:32 AM by Joesolo

Oh, dang. I thought you were talking about the Hyugas...

Well, I'll pretend that I'm just giving out more info on the Hyugas case anyone's wondering.

They're fairly similar really. Primary difference is the Japanese ones lack a ramp but have a hangar, while the Australians lack a hangar but have a ramp, plus a well deck.

Australia's light carriers: too small for overseas missions yet too large for coastal patrol?