Comments on: Japan Considering THAAD Missile Defense

By: flying fart prodly joyned

flying fart prodly joyned — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:02:33 +0000

Japan may deploy troops near disputed islands
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gzVZzik4iRCi8oGUaVGhU1ip3dzQ

By: flying fart proudly joned

flying fart proudly joned — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:32:18 +0000

Build up a powerful navy based around missile defense ships and maybe a few carriers hell we could build them for them.–
ok.. let get my point right. i see the armed forces of the coutry being defensive and ofensive. defensive can be active and passive. that what japanese want to instal there will be no passive neither active defense. i will be the line where n-koreans and chinese will ask only how to smart it out. just like the a same with a same expensive maginot line and the idea behind.
i think japanese should start the “defense organisation” like NATO together with other countries inside of east asia (passive defense policy) and instal a system wich can not only get down n-koreans rockets but be usualy against chinese nuclear and strategical treath by striking in their homeland.
secoind point you completly misunderstand the japanese fleet development.
first of all japanese the second best fleet in the world. about carriers.. well, today cariers are shot time out of actualy sea warfare. today the multifunctional multi role and multimodular ships are the answer. and there japanese are leading at momment. (see their new helicopter destroyer)

By: flying fart proudly joned

flying fart proudly joned — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:11:20 +0000

If they were to attack japane with a underwater nuke this would then be a huge AND I MEAN HUGE international incident.–
well.. just in case but N-Koreans and others in this Area are a long, a very long time over this line. So noone cares about international incidents wich can be fixed by UN representatives there. its about the defense in a real war..

By: Valcan

Valcan — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:54:50 +0000

Fart,
As far as the Maginote Line is conserned yes i get the point fixed defense such for lack of a better word in many ways however. If they were to attack japane with a underwater nuke this would then be a huge AND I MEAN HUGE international incident. I mean kill a few people with bombs ok. Destroy cities OK. But dude your hurting mother gaia i mean come on.
But no realy as for the regional defense its like this. Say you have a person come into power in south korea who wants to make his name and end the threat from the north. Well the norks say that they want to see evidence of this change of heart so they say dismantle your defnese and well do the same to our nukes.
However the norks offer no such treaty to japan or japan doesnt believe them and want to keep theres.
Its all a matter of national security how can you make sure you wont get screwed by the person you depend on to help you? Same reason i dont like the idea of the US buying weapons overseas not to mention that it hurts our economy.
In my mind japan needs to get back to what they did undeniably well. Build up a powerful navy based around missile defense ships and maybe a few carriers hell we could build them for them.
Maybe work together on a missile defense crusier or a new destroyer.

By: BAJ

BAJ — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:21:05 +0000

Mr. FF
Tu sulstus es

By: freefallingbomb

freefallingbomb — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:01:24 +0000

To the poster “rnacquisitionq”:
You wrote: “A missile defense system is a defensive weapons platform, not an offensive one.“
On the 21st of February of 2008, a Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) destroyed a defunct U.S. American espionage satellite. What was that, a test of the SM-3’s defensive capabilites (since the SM-3 is originally a Ballistic Missile “Defense” system, just like the T.H.A.A.D. too) or of its… offensive, anti-satellite capabilites?
As range (and that includes service ceiling) grows, where is the clear dividing line between the two capabilities?
If the Russians built a very very small diesel-electric submarine but that could travel several times around the Equator, would it still be a coastal “defense” submarine?

By: flying fart proudly joned

flying fart proudly joned — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:28:49 +0000

No you have defensive and offensive weapons.–
aaand?
–WTF is the point of wining if you just say “ah F“it we dont need to protect our own shores.”—
bullshit i never said that i said that this defense should be capable to strike back inclusive the last corner of the enemys friend and spender. so i said that japanese are to much conserned about the defense of own shore instead to instal the multi-areal and international defense networks together with S-koreans and others. so whats your point again?

By: Valcan

Valcan — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:07:05 +0000

Posted by: flying fart proudly joned at July 8, 2009 09:45 PM
No you have defensive and offensive weapons. WTF is the point of wining if you just say “ah F“it we dont need to protect our own shores.“
Plus these would be more for the norks not japanese. So while they arent talking about stopping a chinese mass attack they can at least stop a few missles from korea.

By: A. Nonymous

A. Nonymous — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:51:32 +0000

“official leak” ? We call that a press conference.

By: flying fart proudly joned

flying fart proudly joned — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:45:18 +0000

@rnacquisitionq
@Valcan
i think you are the same trol.. aside i usualy do never read your comments.
@stephen russell
like i said if this defense cant reach and destroy the chinese bases (nuclear weapon and first-strike forces bases) in Tibet and East Turkestan it is useless unless… unless, you are japanese or american politican, who will make the career by ignoring the danger and using such “can defend everythig” laser/rocket/starwars-satellites/air-defense fantasy stories for excuse of own ignorance and waste of tax blillions.. see the Maginot line story.