By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Japan has deployed long-range missiles in its southwestern Kyushu region, specifically Kumamoto, a move that places parts of the Chinese mainland within striking distance. This deployment, alongside a “hyper velocity gliding projectile” in Shizuoka, signifies Japan’s effort to bolster its defense capabilities in response to China’s increasing naval activity in the East China Sea and broader regional military build-ups by neighboring countries. The initiative is framed as strengthening deterrence and response capabilities, allowing Japan to counter invasion threats and ensure personnel safety while adhering to its self-defense policy.
Read the original article here
Japan’s recent deployment of long-range missiles, positioned closer to China, has certainly stirred the pot and sparked considerable discussion. It’s important to unpack this move and understand the context, as the details can sometimes get a bit lost in the initial reactions. When we talk about Japan deploying missiles close to China, it’s worth noting that, geographically speaking, virtually all of Japan is relatively close to China. However, this specific deployment to Kumamoto in Kyushu Island signifies a calculated shift, even if it’s not as close as an option like Okinawa might have been. The notion of it being “much closer” to China if it were in Okinawa highlights the nuances of geographical proximity in these discussions.
The conversation often turns to the range of the missiles themselves and whether the exact location matters when you possess long-range capabilities. The underlying sentiment is that if your entire country is already situated near China, the incremental difference in distance for a long-range missile might seem less significant. Yet, the choice of Kumamoto, while still on Kyushu and not precisely the closest point of Japan to China, is being presented as a strategic decision, perhaps for specific targeting advantages rather than just proximity for its own sake.
There’s a palpable undercurrent of concern regarding ultranationalism, particularly on the far-right, and its potential influence on these kinds of military decisions. The sentiment is that such ideologies are generally viewed as problematic, but there’s a sarcastic observation that this stance sometimes shifts when it involves confronting China. This leads to a playful, albeit tense, imagined dialogue where China questions Japan’s missile production capabilities, and Japan responds with a somewhat understated number, suggesting a readiness that belies the public pronouncements.
The discussion then delves into the practicality and effectiveness of these missiles in modern warfare. Some observers question whether these systems are becoming obsolete, likening them to “old relics” in the face of advanced drone technology. The idea of underground launchers, as seen with Iran, is presented as a more potentially survivable approach, prompting reflection on the broader implications of escalating military posturing. The specter of nuclear conflict, reminiscent of films like “Threads” and “The Day After,” looms large for some, underscoring the gravity of these geopolitical maneuvers.
On a more pragmatic note, the deployment is seen by some as a logical response to China’s own military build-up. The presence of Chinese military bases on disputed reef artificial islands and the development of extensive ICBM fields are cited as reasons for Japan to bolster its defenses. This perspective frames Japan’s actions as a countermeasure, an attempt to maintain a strategic balance and prevent China from having an unchecked advantage in the region. It’s viewed as a tit-for-tat strategy, where China’s perceived territorial assertions are met with corresponding defensive deployments.
The idea of a “denial of access” strategy, previously seen as China’s forte, is now being mirrored by other nations, including Japan. This suggests a shift in regional dynamics where countries are actively seeking to limit the maneuverability and operational freedom of potential adversaries. Amidst this heightened tension, there’s a darkly humorous, yet potentially serious, undercurrent of fatalism, with some suggesting that perhaps a global conflict is inevitable, and the sooner it happens, the sooner it will be over, with a bleak outlook on survival and societal implications.
The specific location in Kumamoto is highlighted as being particularly advantageous for targeting Beijing, but even more critically, for intercepting targets heading towards Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion. This points to Taiwan’s precarious position as a significant factor influencing Japan’s defense strategy. There’s a wish expressed that Japan might redirect its resources from military posturing towards more direct economic support for Taiwan, rather than engaging in what some perceive as provocative military displays.
The move also prompts questions about communication and signaling. By placing missiles in Kumamoto, Japan is making a clear statement to China. However, the publicity surrounding such deployments also means that the general locations are widely known, potentially diminishing any element of surprise. There’s a skeptical view that such deployments might be sensationalized by pro-China news outlets to portray Japan as overly aggressive.
The vulnerability of such missile launchers to drone attacks, especially in open areas like Okinawa, is also a concern raised. Kumamoto’s Camp Sengun is identified as a strategic western SDF base, making it an ideal location, but the effectiveness of land-to-ship missiles, like the Type-12, in defending Taiwan or the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands is debated. The narrative around Japan’s actions is often complex, with some interpretations suggesting that ultranationalist sentiments, particularly those that align with historical grievances or expansionist ideas, are at play, juxtaposed against a perceived anti-imperialist stance when it comes to China.
The notion that China is not actively invading Japan is countered by historical arguments referencing World War II aggression and the significant loss of life. The Pearl Harbor attack is brought up as an example of past Japanese actions that fuel contemporary distrust. The idea of current media outlets, such as Taipei Times, being pro-CCP is met with skepticism, suggesting a broader concern about propaganda and the manipulation of information in geopolitical disputes.
There’s a cynical perspective on the current geopolitical landscape, particularly regarding the United States’ role, with a hypothetical scenario involving former President Trump leveraging seized Venezuelan oil for China. This highlights a view of pragmatism over ideology in international relations, especially concerning powerful nations like China. The discussion also touches on the perceived disconnect between the desire for peace and the actual implementation of military strategies, suggesting that the rhetoric of avoiding war might not always align with actions.
The comparison to a movie like “The Road” or “Threads” emphasizes the profound anxieties surrounding potential conflict and the devastating consequences it could unleash. There’s a strong discouragement from experiencing the unsettling nature of these films, suggesting they offer a grim and disturbing glimpse into potential futures. The idea that democracies are inherently violent is also floated, though this is a complex and contested assertion.
The strategic imbalance is highlighted by comparing Japan’s significantly larger Exclusive Economic Zone to China’s, suggesting that territorial disputes over small islands contribute to this imbalance. The historical context of the atomic bombings of Japan is also invoked, leading to a seemingly ironic observation about Japan’s current political leanings and its relationship with figures like Donald Trump. The mention of Prime Minister Takaichi and a perceived humiliation regarding Pearl Harbor points to the lingering sensitivities and historical narratives that continue to shape the present. Ultimately, the deployment of these missiles is a multifaceted issue, reflecting a complex web of historical grievances, current geopolitical tensions, and strategic calculations in the East Asian region.