while the same could be said for the US regarding eventual lawsuits from Taiwanese victims of J-10

[edit: and so is this]

This discussion about intellectual rights over Gunpowder is plainly ridiculous.

BTW> When is China going to pay the US for the design information on the J-10 strike fighter. Yes, I know the information came from Israelis canceled Lavi program, but the US funded 90% of that program. Fair is fair.

This is the first time I've heard something like this. The Chinese purchased an incomplete blueprint of the aircraft from the Israelis. Though the US funded the program and offered some technical assistance, the Lavi Design did not have any paperwork for licensing or leasing so therefore this aircraft was in complete control under Israel. Therefore Israel has all the right to sell the Lavi Program.

Originally Posted by PershingOfLSU

The main constraint on how fast Japan can go nuclear is based on how long it will take them to get the Uranium refining facilities built and running. In other words, not long at all. If Japan saw the need they could go nuclear in two or three years.

As for why Japan is militarazing; well sorry to say it but Japan is neighbor to two of the most militant countries in the world. China and North Korea.

China is not a peaceful matriarch of the east. China has invaded India, Vietnam, almost got in a war with the USSR, brutally invaded and occupied Tibet, and proven its government fairly unstable. The first peaceful transfer of power in China since the Emperors only occured within the past couple of years.

In fact, Japan has been far less beligerent in the last half century then China and Japan's populace is far more pacifistic.

Japan has to rearm because when you're a country with no military, people treat you like a country with no military. Japan realizes that it cannot continue to rely entirely on the United States for protection with two very aggresive neighbors.

Lastly, Japan has apologized no fewer then a dozen times to China for conduct during the Second World War.

Edit: Added an 'er' to 'few'.

Pershing, you really need to take some Asian studies courses. I am not picking on you but I simply find it astounding you can say things that are in clear opposition to the facts. Have you lived in China or Japan or is your opinion second-hand spoon fed information? Japanese are NOT pacifists anymore than the Chinese are. The roots of militarism in Japan run long and deep. And there have been peaceful transfers of power in China since the revolution. When Mao died, there was no armed struggle for succession nor with Zhou Enlai nor Deng Xiaoping nor Jiang Zemin and neither with Hu Jintao. You're flying in the face of facts.
About being nuclear, the Pentagon itself has declared in reports to congress that China is the ONLY nuclear power that keeps its meager nuclear warhead arsenal with the rockets unfueled and the warheads NOT attached. And you claim THEY are beligerrant? You want to talk about being beliggerant? How about the over 300 military actions around the world since 1945 where the US was the aggressor? This is dangerous territory to tread into from the US mate.

Alright, now that I know you're going thread to thread argueing with everything I say. The kiddy gloves are wearing thin.

How about I list the countries China has invaded in the last fifty years.

Tibet
Vietnam
India

Not to mention a division sized engagement with Russia after the Chinese decided to ambush a Soviet patrol. Which ended up almost leading to a nuclear war except for Soviet efforts to cool down tensions.

Now, let's list the countries Japan has invaded in the last fifty years:


Alright, now that we're done with that; polls show that most Japanese don't want to change article 9 of their constitution. While the Chinese certainly haven't show any inclination to go about things non violently.

And by the way, I lived in Japan for 4 years.

How about I list the countries China has invaded in the last fifty years.

Tibet
Vietnam
India

The Sino-Vietnam, Sino-Indian, Sino-Soviet Conflict were border clashes quite similar to what we seen during the Indian-Pakistani Conflict. However none of these countries deployed troop beyond foreign consolidated Boundaries and often fight in Diputed Areas so in this case China or its opponents did not invade any country of such sort.

Secondly, the Tibet Discussion is a seperate issue and have been discussed too many times, hence I will not go into that any further. Using Tibet as one of your supporting example does not apply to the situation between Japan and China.

As Bulldog have correctly stated, I recommend you to take several Asian Studies Courses if you wish to understand the situation more in depth.

Alright, now that we're done with that; polls show that most Japanese don't want to change article 9 of their constitution. While the Chinese certainly haven't show any inclination to go about things non violently.

Instigating for war with China is not a smart thing to do. Simple as that. And sadly the Right-Wing Faction of Japan is doing so during China's Military Buildup.

With China already hosting the 2008 Olympics and attempting to aim for a "Peaceful rise" in the international community, the new generation of China's Leadership is much more subtle and internationally open than it was 30 years ago. I fully recommend U.S. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's commentaries on China.

Lastly, China still remains a low profile country for military aggression as in comparison with other Militarily Industrialized Nations around the world during the Modern Age.

I'm not supporting any of these nations here, I'm providing a balanced view based on Facts.

The Sino-Vietnam war was hardly a border clash. The Chinese invasion cost them some 60,000 casaulties and 20,000 dead with an equal number of Vietnamese military casaulties as well as 10,000 civilians.

The reasons for the Sino-Vietnam were not related to territorial borders. The war was China's way of punishing Vietnam for siding with the Soviet Union.

Now, if you choose to believe that China is a pacifistic giant incapable of hurting a fly, while Japan is still secretly plotting to conquer all of Asia. Then obviously nothing I say will be able to change your mind. And if you honestly believe that Japan should depend on the good will of China to keep it safe, nothing I say will be able to change your mind.

But, Japan itself knows that it cannot depend on the United States to protect it forever.

Originally Posted by PershingOfLSU

The Sino-Vietnam war was hardly a border clash. The Chinese invasion cost them some 60,000 casaulties and 20,000 dead with an equal number of Vietnamese military casaulties as well as 10,000 civilians.

The reasons for the Sino-Vietnam were not related to territorial borders. The war was China's way of punishing Vietnam for siding with the Soviet Union.

Vietnam's decision to side with the Soviet Union does not appear to persuade much of Mao Zhedong to declare war. Mao Zhedong's decisions were based on his concerns over Vietnam's actions against Cambodia, which was China's strategic ally.

Now, if you choose to believe that China is a pacifistic giant incapable of hurting a fly, while Japan is still secretly plotting to conquer all of Asia. Then obviously nothing I say will be able to change your mind. And if you honestly believe that Japan should depend on the good will of China to keep it safe, nothing I say will be able to change your mind.

I'm sorry, but your assumption is incorrect. I believed none of your conjecture above.

Personally, I believe that Japan and China are both stubbornly uncooperative. Japan will need to follow the examples of post-war Germany and China will need to tone down its Anti-Japanese Sentiment in their own country. Otherwise this stupid nonsense will never seem to end. That is what I believe. You read?

Yeah. But last I checked West Germany rearmed once the western allies were willing to at least consider the idea.

Vietnam invaded Cambodia because Cambodia was murdering ethnic Vietnamese within Cambodia as well as launching raids into Vietnam. And yes, I'm aware that one of China's stated reasons for invading Vietnam was persecution of Chinese in Vietnam.

Even to this day Vietnam maintains one of the world's largest armies for fear of what the Chinese might do. They certainly aren't expecting a Cambodian or American invasion. With all of the ominious anti-Japanese rumblings comeing out of China it is foolhardy for Japan to just hope that China won't do anything and that if they do America will come and save them. You read?

But last I checked West Germany rearmed once the western allies were willing to at least consider the idea.

Germany was allowed for re-armament on a limited defensive role. Japan on the other hand allowed itself to deploy troops off-shore independently (ex. Iraq) , something Germany cannot possibly do right now. Though, I'm beginning to question Japan's motives and its definition of Defense. Why send troops to Iraq if the Japanese military poses to be a defensive force? Was it necessary for the security of Japan itself? Absolutely not, instead it was a political action rather than a strategic one.

With all of the ominious anti-Japanese rumblings comeing out of China it is foolhardy for Japan to just hope that China won't do anything and that if they do America will come and save them. You read?

The presence of the US military in Japan is not for the defense of the island. Instead, they are there to continue to upheave the US Political/Military dominance in Asia or in other words to Expand US Military Capabilities in the region.

Speaking of America, the neo-conservatives and Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are lobbying for preparations for war with China, claiming it would be a primary national security threat in the future from now on. Again, this is another form of Instigation. From this point of view, most Politicians and Analysts can easily spot this. America will have to admit it some time later, but they are attempting to Contain China by all means. And as Kissinger have warned, it will negatively impact America instead.

Japan's troops in Iraq are there entirely on a non-combat basis. Sending engineers to help rebuild a country is hardly what I'd call an act of wanton aggression.

However Germany deployed troops to Kosovo where they had a combat role and indeed saw fighting. And according to Globalsecurity.org Germany also has troops deployed in Kenya, Djibouti, Kuwait, and Poland. And how many thousand German troops are in Afghanistan? I believe those would count as political deployments as well.

As you apparently don't want United States troops in Asia, are you proposing that the United States withdraw entirely? Because that would simply idiotic. The purpose of having troops in that area is, believe it or not, to preven nations from getting into a shooting war. Without United States support Taiwan would be gone in short order.

No one wants to get into a shooting war with China. But sometimes the best way to prevent that is for the belligerent to know that any war would not end favorably for them. Dangling a defenseless and juicy treat infront of their nose is not how you create peace.