Project Reality Forums

interesting that some americans would actually badmouth the french considering that the french was one of the main reason that america managed to become independent from the british.

Actually, consider the fact that the Malaysian NATO troops saved the people in somalia (Black Hawk Down)

Yeah, the stupid movie forgot to put us in.

Malaysia produces the steyr aug. But now, it's kinda going out of commission, not producing for the australian army anymore.

driftist wrote:Malaysia produces the steyr aug. But now, it's kinda going out of commission, not producing for the australian army anymore.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_Aug):

"Steyr AUG is a family of firearms, first introduced in 1977 by the Austrian company Steyr Mannlicher."

No offence there bro, but this kickass assault rifle is Austrian-made

I'm sure Malaysia and tons of other countries produce the Steyr AUG as well.

Aside from the nationalism going on here, I don't see alot of researched comments. In all reality, in order to introduce the Canadians into the game, all you'll really need to do is create a CADPAT skin. As for our accents and the whole "eh" thing, voice procedure is voice procedure, end of story. We all sound the same over the net.

Unless you're british. "Range control, this is one one charlie...I've rolled my land rover over...over"

As a note to those who were discussing Japan's "defensive" status, you should know that the JSDF really is a misnomer. It's called that in order to follow the rules of the American imposed constitution after WWII. Luckily, most people agree with the constitutional rule maintaining quasi-neutral status, so there haven't been any problems since.

However, on a nation by nation basis, Japan is second only to the US in terms of military expenditure. [URL="http://http://www.mapsofworld.com/world ... s-map.html"]

In terms of military strength, it is considered number 7 world wide. [URL="http://www.globalfirepower.com/"]

Take a look at its military strength here.
Aircraft: 1,957
Armor: 2,040
Artillery Systems: 5,760
Missile Defense Systems: 960
Infantry Support Systems: 1,460
Naval Units: 172
Merchant Marine Strength: 683
[URL="http://www.globalfirepower.com/country_ ... ntry_id=20"]

Japan could certainly hold off an attack, though not a prolonged one. But it could also take out quite a few of the countries proposed already in a face to fce battle.

Compare Japan to the other countries that have been suggested and the ones already present;

COmpared to the USA,
Aircraft: 18,169
Armor: 29,920
Artillery Systems: 5,178
Missile Defense Systems: 35,324
Infantry Support Systems: 2,441
Naval Units: 1866
Merchant Marine Strength: 470

And China,
Aircraft: 9,218
Armor: 13,200
Artillery Systems: 29,060
Missile Defense Systems: 18,500
Infantry Support Systems: 34,000
Naval Units: 284
Merchant Marine Strength: 1,700

Now look at Oz and Canuckland.

CAN
Aircraft: 399
Armor: 2,194
Artillery Systems: 362
Missile Defense Systems: 713
Infantry Support Systems: 2,118
Naval Units: 34
Merchant Marine Strength: 175

AUS
Aircraft: 471
Armor: 645
Artillery Systems: 385
Missile Defense Systems: 36
Infantry Support Systems: 947
Naval Units: 56
Merchant Marine Strength: 53

And Israel;

Aircraft: 1,230
Armor: 14,200
Artillery Systems: 2,783
Missile Defense Systems: 3,153
Infantry Support Systems: 7,520
Naval Units: 18
Merchant Marine Strength: 18


Who should be added? Maybe Israel and Japan, but certainly not Canada or Australia. Japan and Israel could both hold off an assault for a period, but neither Canada nor Australia could do so.

There. Done. Sorry it was so long, but I was bored.

Thats an extensive post but TBH it is unnecassary, Japan has no military ambitions beyond its borders - its society still carries a VERY heavy burden following WWII in regards to usings military force.

This is why they have never seen combat since 1945 and have only very recently even been deployed for peacekeeping/nation building. Expenditure does not have comparison to your ambitions. Japan is simply creating a high tech defense force - she does not want to attack anywhere. Yes, if she was attacked she would defend herself but WHO is going to attack Japan.

Oh and just to clarify, if you sum the other 9 countries on that list they still don't meet the US's expenditure.

Actually, I think it was necessary.

People have this thought that the Japanese Self Defense Force is for self-defense. You don't need 6000 artillery pieces for self-defense on an island. The self-defense part of the constitution was imposed upon Japan, and quite a large number of people think it should change. (Most don't want it to change, but that's because Japan is quite a peaceful society, regardless of what history shows us.) Japan has PLENTY of military ambition beyond its borders, but you wouldn't know that if you didn't live there.

Also, to most Japanese, they carry NO burden because of WWII. And why should they? They didn't do anything, their crazy grandparents did it.

Anyway, just to clarify to you, I only put the US in as a comparison to the others. I also know how to add and knew that they outspend the next countries in the list.

The JSDF is for defense purposes, you do need artillery pieces for a defense force. IF you are attacked are you simply going to sit and take it? No, the JSDF would begin aggressive measures against their aggressors to help defend their island. Cutting off supply lines, strategic invasion etc. The WHOLE point is that they would never be the aggresors. "The best defense is offense"

If Japan didn't have scars it would have been involved far more in international military actions. Also, it is not irrational to believe there are social scars, look at Germany.

And show me signs of Japanese aggression.

The JSDF is for defense purposes, you do need artillery pieces for a defense force.

It is presently being used for defensive purposes, but it is not designed for just defense. As I said, if you lived there, you'd know this.

No, the JSDF would begin aggressive measure against their aggressors to help defend their island. The WHOLE point is that they would never be the aggresors. "The best defense is offense"

Can you prove that? That the best defence is offence? How would you show that this is correct? I don't think that saying means very much. It's basically used by nations that want to be able to do whatever they like wherever they like and not have their populace get angry at the senseless killing.

If Japan didn't have scars it would have been involved far more in international military actions.

No. If Japan wasn't occupied by the United States for the last 60 years it would have been involved in far more military actions.

Also, it is not irrational to believe there are social scars, look at Germany.

Japan and Germany are completely different. Germany voted Hitler into power. Japan was a neo-feudalistic society that just happened to have lots of hightech stuff. Germans feel responsible for their part in WWII because they WERE responsible for it. Japanese were not, they had no choice in the matter.

The only scars Japan bears are the ones that other people see, Japanese don't have them.

And show me signs of Japanese aggression.

Sure. Read any Japanese newspaper and you will find plenty.

bakarocket wrote:It is presently being used for defensive purposes, but it is not designed for just defense. As I said, if you lived there, you'd know this.

You have a rather nieve view of what is 'defense' and what is 'attack'. If you are creating a defensive force you equip it with the ability to a) defend itself (the Japanese Empire) and also b) to strike back against aggressors. There is NO REAL difference between the US Army and Japanese army in way they create military preparedness however the usage of the army is HUGELY different. This is why it is a true defense force not because of certain armaments.

bakarocket wrote: Can you prove that? That the best defence is offence? How would you show that this is correct? I don't think that saying means very much. It's basically used by nations that want to be able to do whatever they like wherever they like and not have their populace get angry at the senseless killing.

I would disagree, look at the French after German incursion under the Shleiffen (spelling) plan in 1914, they reacted by counter attack and also by using the BEF to counter attack too. In Korea, WWII, practically every conflict I have studied, when a defensive force is under stress the ONLY way to be successful is to counterattack and take the initiative. That is why the JSDF has attacking capabilities.

bakarocket wrote: No. If Japan wasn't occupied by the United States for the last 60 years it would have been involved in far more military actions.

American troops were staitioned in Japan from 1951, not 60 years ago. And also the presence of US troops does not stop a country being involved militarily. US troops are stationed in Britain for example and a whole chunk of other countries and yet the UK still engage in conflicts.

bakarocket wrote: Japan and Germany are completely different. Germany voted Hitler into power. Japan was a neo-feudalistic society that just happened to have lots of hightech stuff. Germans feel responsible for their part in WWII because they WERE responsible for it. Japanese were not, they had no choice in the matter.

The Japanese created the cult of the Kamikaze - and the Japanese scars are scars of abuse, the nuclear bomb etc, and also the horrific treatement of Allied POWs.

bakarocket wrote: Sure. Read any Japanese newspaper and you will find plenty.

I clearly meant military aggression. Your smart alec response does you no favours.

This is why it is a true defense force not because of certain armaments.

Only because of international pressure. This is what I've been saying. The Japanese government wants to use it for lots of things, but the international community will not let them.

In Korea, WWII, practically every conflict I have studied, when a defensive force is under stress the ONLY way to be successful is to counterattack and take the initiative. That is why the JSDF has attacking capabilities.

What you are saying is, "They succeeded by using offensive tactics, therefore offesive tactics are the only true method of defense." That's a logical fallacy. What about pretty much every battle of WWI?

American troops were staitioned in Japan from 1951, not 60 years ago.

Do you know where Okinawa is?

And also the presence of US troops does not stop a country being involved militarily. US troops are stationed in Britain for example and a whole chunk of other countries and yet the UK still engage in conflicts.

That's an irrelevant example. Britain wasn't defeated by the US and forced to change its constitution. Japan was OCCUPIED. In Britain, the US are tenants, the rents being paid for back in WWII through the lend-lease program. Apples and oranges.


The Japanese created the cult of the Kamikaze - and the Japanese scars are scars of abuse, the nuclear bomb etc, and also the horrific treatement of Allied POWs.

How many Japanese do you know? Do you live in Japan? Do you speak Japanese? I think I may know more about this than you do.

I clearly meant military aggression. Your smart alec response does you no favours.

And I just as clearly was pointing out that military aggression starts with changing public opinion. There was nothing smart alec about it. Some nations in the world have strategic plans that have longer time scales than the time between congressional elections, you know.

Anyway, never mind. Obviously you are just much smarter than me.

Wait wait wait. I have to say this.

Do you understand the difference between "occupation" and "stationed"? 1951? I suggest you read more about the occupation of Japan.

You've just made quote of the week and we clearly have divurgent views on the political ambitions of Japan which mean are views are polarised on this debate

Sweet! Do I win a prize!?!

You get your name under my sig for a week (or more)

'[R-PUB wrote:maverick'] Yes, if she was attacked she would defend herself but WHO is going to attack Japan.

Have you listened to anything I said. CHINA for god's sake. Do I have to say this again? The United States Marine Corps 3rd Marine Divison is stationed in Okinawa Japan!. DOn't believe that? Heres the official source and I'm pretty sure any other person with some military expertise could confirm that.

http://www.3div.usmc.mil/

And I highly doubt that China of all nations would just simply leave Japan alone. Not only does it feature U.S presence (A large one to say at least), but between China and Japan you have thousands upon thousands of years of conflict behind them. I can't find anything that says China and Japan have any sort of mutual relatationship or anything. Even without U.S presence I'm willing to bet that China would invade Japan regardless.

Okay engage your brain.

China is an introspective nation - she does not want excessive external contact, at the moment, her troops are not well equipped (they are in process of overhaul) and despite the Taiwan issue (which you failed to present) I do not think China has any immediate territorial ambitions in Japan.

Also, the presence of US troops (a nation with which China has ties) would make any aggression VERY unlikely.

Plus tbh I don't care - and don't flame

Terranova wrote:Sides worth noting are Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, North Korea and Israel. Those are the main forces that are a must involved in the war. Taiwan, Japan and South Korea all feature U.S presence and support. Obviously China isn't just going to ignore the 3rd USMC Division stationed in Okinawa Japan and head straight for Wake Island.

I know for a fact that China and Taiwan have some very tense relations. Since China considers Taiwan still apart of their territory, yet there are people in Taiwan who think of themselves as a soverign nation. Taiwan is U.S backed, thats why I think its the main reason the war starts.

The korean war is technially still not over, so why wouldn't North Korea team up with China in taking down South Korea?

Israel is just a middle-east target. Middle-East peoples would go on a crusade to retake the holy city of Jerusalem (Map idea anyone?).

The Philipines could get involved too. I've been readin up on some communist problems they have been having in the south. Perhaps China comes down to take over the seris of islands and restructure the government with communism. Makes for some nice pacific theatre maps too.

I don't know about Russia though. They just seem too poor to get involved on a large scale. Perhaps they use their special operations and intelligence to protect their own interests or something. Yet they may deny any military intervention with the conflict.

Another thing we might want to consider. There could be some western alliance or something. If the U.K and U.S are involved, why wouldn't the French, Polish and other European nations not. I'm pretty sure European countries do have some oil interests in the middle-east.

No, I did mention the Taiwan issue earlier. In game the United States and China are at war. It would not be strategic to simply ignore Japan and let the USMC gather their forces for a counter-attack. We have to assume that China has take up an imperial role. We do in fact have a map that indicates that under the name of Wake Island, which is way out in the pacific ocean.