via Alert 5 from Sankei.jp
But what happens if they refuse to land?
Do you shoot the planes down?
This thing will get out of control and people will die. The State Dept and Pentagon need to be all over this or we will see a regional war before my 5 year prediction.
the 28th, it was found that it has embarked on the development of corresponding documentation at the time of the Air Self-Defense Force is an airspace violation to foreign aircraft. Development of the manual for the first time.I have in mind the information collector fighters and China to repeat the airspace access and overflight in the air of the Senkaku Islands (Ishigaki, Okinawa Prefecture) nearby. Manual is focused on increasing the effectiveness of forced landing, review of the use of weapons authority also become an urgent issue.Google translate doesn't do a very good job but it appears that they're going to force planes to land and hand the crew/passengers over to police.
In response to the December two years ago, propeller-driven aircraft of the China State Oceanic Administration has overflight in the air around the Senkaku, ASDF went into the development process of the manual.
Japan Coast Guard to address the territorial sea intrusion, but to deal with the overflight It 's ASDF fighter. However, the authority of the pilot is limited to forced landing instructions and warning shots. Certain that 1987, we fired warning shots in the Soviet Union military aircraft is ASDF, but there is no case that was a forced landing.
But what happens if they refuse to land?
Do you shoot the planes down?
This thing will get out of control and people will die. The State Dept and Pentagon need to be all over this or we will see a regional war before my 5 year prediction.
If anyone violate your airspace and refuse to land you have that rights to shoot his sorry ass from the air. But for the political corrections you can only "escort" it from your airspace... but indeed what if someone will refuse to turn or just fly and give the fuck ? What then ? I'm almost sure that US airspace is violated many times by some low flying narco courier planes but I don't hear that yanks shoot them down if they refuse to land... or they did that in couple of cases ?
ReplyDeleteAccording to the manual, F-15Js will use warning shots and a close side by side flying formation to escort the Chinese fighter(J-10 mentioned) to Miyakojima landing field.
ReplyDeleteBut this only assumes that the Chinese pilot would not want to be shot down; what if he's actually looking to get shot down so that China could claim Japan attacked first? Or the Chinese pilot collides his jet to F-15Js and blame Japan's aggressiveness for the incident, like the US spyplane mid-air collision near the Hainan Island back in 2001? Once the Chinese jet goes down, other Chinese jets in the area can now open BVR fire on F-15Js, and the PLAN warships can move into Diaoyu Islands' territorial water in search of their downed pilot.
For the record, the EP-3 was not a "spyplane". It operated openly, there has never been any concealment of what its mission is, and it was in international waters
DeleteHi, my take on this is, the Japanese is trying to bait China to take the first shot & ultimately force the US to defend Japan against "Chinese attack." They have to do it right now before the PLA has grown to its full potential. Very sneaky & very smart but will they succeed?
ReplyDeleteThe US may not come to Japan's aid if the military conflict is seen as having been started by an aggressive Japanese action like this one. This is because the US officials are getting really angry with the Japanese rightwingers trying to drag them into Japan's diplomatic mess.
Deletehttp://world.time.com/2014/01/29/comfort-women-japan-us-wwii-katsuto-momii-nhk/
"U.S. Rejects Japanese Broadcaster’s Claim It Used ‘Comfort Women’ in World War II
In remarks he now says he regrets, Katsuto Momii, the head of Japan's main public broadcaster, said Japan was hardly the only nation whose soldiers forced women to work as prostitutes during World War II. It's a claim U.S. officials in Tokyo reject."
Obviously, the US officials are furious that the chairmen of Japan's national broadcaster would defame the US like this, and the US officials are taking increasingly harsh stance toward Japan behind closed doors.
And this is the fear of Japanese foreign ministry; according to their analysis, Obama is against a US intervention, while the US DoD stands firmly behind Japan in the Diaoyu War. So the Japanese foreign ministry officials fear that Obama may declare that any military conflict arising from Japanese enforcement may not be covered by the US-Japan defense treaty and bail out.
Yes, the US position is for Japan to cool it.
DeleteMs. Psaki, State Dept, yesterday:
"In general, we communicate and we convey to the Japanese Government, just like we convey to other governments in the region, whether that’s South Korea or China, that we think that there’s an importance – we think there should be an increased focus on dialogue, and we continue to encourage that and we continue to discourage actions that would cause tensions in the region. So that’s the message we would have to any of those countries."
Japan is claiming the disputed islands are now part of Okinawa prefecture.
ReplyDeleteThis may trump the Super Bowl.
Here's a map.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/71299000/gif/_71299031_china_sea_dispute.gif
Japan is definetly the instigator here just look at how far they are reaching with all sorts of zones ,same goes for the islands they lost to the Russians in WWII ,i don't know how they think that territory lost in war is still theirs.
Deleteyou don't want to crawl into the weeds on this one. we're talking about old grudges that stretch back to WW2 and waaaaaay beyond. additionally the US, UK and the rest of the powers after WW2 had a hand in shaping the pacific and once everyone remembers that, this thing will truly get messy. don't forget Hong Kong....so we might need to be on the sidelines and just respect treaty obligations.
DeleteSolomon,
DeleteYou mean the US military must take a part in a shooting war started by Japan's aggressive confrontations because of the treaty. According to Japanese news reports, Obama's trying to bail out of exactly such situations.
And then what happens when a shooting war breaks out at the Liancourt Rocks, a battle in which both sides are covered by the US mutual defense treaties?
So the US the security insurance seller must hand Japan a document listing specific coverage, like a shooting war started by China is covered, but not by the Japanese attempt to force land the Chinese planes, etc.
its not that simple. pre-emptive war has been codified as a legitamite defensive measure..especially since it can be pointed out that China has engaged in provocative actions. if your neighbor tells you that one day he is gonna break into your house, rape and kill your wife and slaughter your children would you be justified in being fearful and taking appropriate measures? yeah its a simplistic example but you get the greater point.
DeleteThe Senkakus were assigned by the victorious US to the WWII losers Japan after the war despite China's historic claim, China not even being invited to the conference because it had transformed from an ally to an enemy (Red China). Everything was cool with the Senkakus privately owned until recently when Japan bought the islands and started its saber-rattling, expecting the US to support it.
DeleteJapan is also surveying other islands in the area to do the same. The big advantage to open ownership is Exclusive Economic Zone, or EEZ rights. An island is an inhabitable, though not necessarily inhabited, feature. Whichever country owns it also own 12 miles of territorial sea plus a 200 mile EEZ – even if the island is hundreds of miles from the mainland. So a remote speck of land can potentially yield a huge EEZ, complete with all the resources it contains.
i support the Japanese in this vs. the Chinese. the Brits caved in to Chinese demands with regards to Hong Kong...oh well. that's their weakness. what happens if the Japanese cave? i can tell you. more demands from the Chinese. their will be conflict no matter what concessions are made.
Deletedon't you guys study history? we have a communist nation making expansionist claims. nothing short of force or the threat to use force will stop them.
Solomon
Delete> i support the Japanese in this vs. the Chinese.
Actually you should support Taiwan's claim, because the Diaoyu Islands are peripheral islands of Taiwan and the Republic of China was supposed to regain the post-war control of it as per the Potsdam Declaration.
Another strange observation is that the standard name for the islands in East Asia is Diaoyu Islands; everyone but Japan calls the islands by their native pronounce of the same Chinese character name for over a hundred years. It is the Japanese that is using the direct Japanese translation of the English name "Pinnacle" Islands as first shown on British navigation maps. So surprisingly, the rest of Asia is on China/Taiwan's side because of the very traditional naming used. So Japan's case of having it discovered off the British navigation chart is considered "weak" in Asia.
This is not the case with Japan's the other island conflict, the Liancourt Rocks. Although internationally called the Liancourt Rocks, Japan and Korea have their native language names(Liancourt Rocks is never used), which means they knew about the islands long before the Europeans discovered it. So the very name Senkaku being the direct Japanese language translation of English word "Pinnacle" shows the weakness of Japan's case.
> what happens if the Japanese cave?
Doing the right thing is not caving.
> i can tell you. more demands from the Chinese.
China has no more valid territorial claims against Japan. The Chinese demand on Okinawa will be laughed by the International Community for sure.
It wasn't the Potsdam Declaration (1945) it was the Treaty of San Francisco of 1951.
DeleteChina was excluded from it, and hundreds of islands south of Japan were ceded to Japan, including the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.
This action was in contradiction to the Cairo Communiqué (or Cairo Declaration of 1943) which is regarded as one of the most important documents concluded by the Allies prior to the end of World War II. In particular, it stated that Japan should be stripped of all territories it had taken in the Pacific and that it should return Manchuria, Formosa and the Pescadores to China.
For its part, China decried the deal, but elected to shelve the dispute and maintain the status quo, at least until the recent crisis.
http://japanese.china.org.cn/jp/txt/2014-01/30/content_31349928.htm
ReplyDeleteThe PLA officials already gave back their response to the Japanese interception manual; they would not follow Japanese orders to land, and what happens thereafter is Japan's fault.