Japan asks US Marines to deploy F-35’s on their largest warships

August 27, 2019, 11:57 PM

Rey HRH

quote:
Originally posted by rpm2010:
Would not a stationing nuclear subs be much a more powerful deterrent response to N.Korea/China in event of a hostile attack on Japan? If missle happy N. Korea missiles ever fell short and stuck Japan, would firing missiles back be more appropriate or no? Although I do kinda remember a lot of protests about US Naval Ships (Nuclear) being sent to port there.

They already have submarines in the area. And using submarines are definitely a couple of levels above just skirmishes between planes.

"It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life – daily and hourly. Our answer must consist not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual." Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning, 1946.

August 28, 2019, 04:57 AM

BansheeOne

quote:
Originally posted by Hound Dog:
"Japs," "Nips," and "Krauts" are slurs. "Jerrys," "Tommies," and "Yanks" are not slurs.

quote:
Originally posted by rpm2010:
I'm Japanese. My mom and her family were sent to the Camps (Tule Lake) during the war...no hard feelings. My dad served in Korea. Better for all to let go and move forward.

quote:
Originally posted by kkina:
I'm half Japanese. I actually wish time would forget the stigma of a word from WWII. "Jap" is the most convenient shorthand for the entire word Japanese, so why not use it? I don't get offended unless the person is clearly using it in a derogatory manner.

Funnily, I'd consider "Japs" a slur because it certainly is in German, but not "Kraut", even though the all-knowing Wiki claims it is considered such "by Germans". From my impression it's just some folkore from war movies, and almost a term of endearment among former enemies turned friends today. It certainly is in uses like "Krautrock".

OTOH, I always sense a derogatory tone when Germans refer to Americans as "Amis", which is definitely the case when used in phrases like "Ami go home". Of course like "Japs" it's also a convenient contraction that has been in use since at least WW I. I guess you can be more sensitive about terms for other nationalities than your own because you lack the personal insight how they really feel about it. And as always, context matters.

On the actual question that was posed: Allied forces cross-train and exchange personnel all the time, particularly at sea. The USMC already has an F-35B squadron (VMFA-121) deployed to Japan since 2017. For the US side it probably makes little difference if they operate aircraft from MCAS Iwakuni, deploy some further forward on temporary assignments throughout the theater, embark them on an American or a Japanese ship.

If anything, using the latter would give the US access to two additional decks they don't have to buy and maintain. Though I expect they would have to pay for fuel etc. from Japanese stores they use aboard; at least that's the way it's being done among NATO partners. E. g., when Germany deploys aircraft to the US for training, of course it pays for the fuel provided by the US forces, including any aerial refueling in crossing the Atlantic.

August 28, 2019, 11:49 AM

rpm2010

quote:
Originally posted by Rey HRH:
quote:
Originally posted by rpm2010:
Would not a stationing nuclear subs be much a more powerful deterrent response to N.Korea/China in event of a hostile attack on Japan? If missle happy N. Korea missiles ever fell short and stuck Japan, would firing missiles back be more appropriate or no? Although I do kinda remember a lot of protests about US Naval Ships (Nuclear) being sent to port there.

They already have submarines in the area. And using submarines are definitely a couple of levels above just skirmishes between planes.

It must be all about the image Japan wants to project, more of a "in your face approach" with the fighters, or with the money Japan has could they "rent" from the US...a Carrier fleet on a "as needed basis"? That would project power like nothing else, subs are not seen and not heard I suppose.

August 28, 2019, 11:52 AM

rpm2010

quote:
Originally posted by BansheeOne:
quote:
Originally posted by Hound Dog:
"Japs," "Nips," and "Krauts" are slurs. "Jerrys," "Tommies," and "Yanks" are not slurs.

quote:
Originally posted by rpm2010:
I'm Japanese. My mom and her family were sent to the Camps (Tule Lake) during the war...no hard feelings. My dad served in Korea. Better for all to let go and move forward.

quote:
Originally posted by kkina:
I'm half Japanese. I actually wish time would forget the stigma of a word from WWII. "Jap" is the most convenient shorthand for the entire word Japanese, so why not use it? I don't get offended unless the person is clearly using it in a derogatory manner.

Funnily, I'd consider "Japs" a slur because it certainly is in German, but not "Kraut", even though the all-knowing Wiki claims it is considered such "by Germans". From my impression it's just some folkore from war movies, and almost a term of endearment among former enemies turned friends today. It certainly is in uses like "Krautrock".

OTOH, I always sense a derogatory tone when Germans refer to Americans as "Amis", which is definitely the case when used in phrases like "Ami go home". Of course like "Japs" it's also a convenient contraction that has been in use since at least WW I. I guess you can be more sensitive about terms for other nationalities than your own because you lack the personal insight how they really feel about it. And as always, context matters.

On the actual question that was posed: Allied forces cross-train and exchange personnel all the time, particularly at sea. The USMC already has an F-35B squadron (VMFA-121) deployed to Japan since 2017. For the US side it probably makes little difference if they operate aircraft from MCAS Iwakuni, deploy some further forward on temporary assignments throughout the theater, embark them on an American or a Japanese ship.

If anything, using the latter would give the US access to two additional decks they don't have to buy and maintain. Though I expect they would have to pay for fuel etc. from Japanese stores they use aboard; at least that's the way it's being done among NATO partners. E. g., when Germany deploys aircraft to the US for training, of course it pays for the fuel provided by the US forces, including any aerial refueling in crossing the Atlantic.

It is a slur, so best not to use it my white, black, yellow, brown, green, orange brothers. We're all in it for the long haul, so may as well make the best of it. Purple too...forgot!