Japan's Navy put on high alert due to unidentified sub

moku · Post by **moku** » 2004-11-11 01:14am

From the BBC:

Mystery sub sparks Japan alert

Japan's defence chief called for a peaceful resolution. Japan's navy went on alert on Wednesday after an unidentified submarine was spotted inside the country's waters. Surveillance aircraft detected the submarine near the southern island of Okinawa, and it left soon afterwards. Officials said the government was trying to establish the vessel's country of origin, although Japanese media said it was possibly Chinese.

The last time Japan ordered such a high alert was in 1999, when suspected North Korean ships entered its waters. apan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi called the incident "regrettable". "We are still in the process of confirming the nationality. Once we confirm it, we will disclose it," he said. Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda said the submarine was spotted by a reconnaissance plane near the Sakishima island chain off Okinawa.

He said the submarine had now left Japan's waters, but that it was being followed by a reconnaissance plane and a destroyer in the hope it would surface and show its flag. Japan's defence chief Yoshinori Ono issued the maritime alert, a very rare event in Japan, which is bound a post-World War II constitution which restricts its forces to self-defence.

"We want to resolve this issue peacefully," he said.

Competition

Japanese officials refused to speculate on the submarine's nationality. But Japan's Kyodo news agency quoted defence officials as saying it was a Chinese nuclear-powered sub. The Sakishima islands lie about 120km (75 miles) south of the disputed Senkaku islands, which are known as the Diaoyu in Chinese. The incident comes at a time of heightened tensions between the two countries, which are likely to become increasingly competitive in their hunt for natural resources to power their economies. The two sides held inconclusive talks last month on gas exploration projects in the East China Sea.

China has also reportedly been angered by a Japanese defence ministry paper which speculated on reasons China might attack. It cited disputes over natural resources and territory, as well as a wider conflict involving Taiwan.

The other possible source of the submarine is North Korea.

In December 2001, a suspected North Korean spy ship sank off Japan after a shoot-out with Japan's coast guard.

So, whose sub is this? it is nuc-powered. Anyone got an idea on what countries have any (apart from the obvious ones)...

I reckon NK's or China's.

Links:

[+] -- BBC (article above)

[+] -- The Guardian
[+] -- Japan Times
[+] -- Kyodo News
[+] -- Japan Times
[+] -- ABC News
[+] -- Asahi
[+] -- Manila Times

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-11-11 01:17am

Please don't let it be N Korea.

China is the safest bet, unless the Phillienes or Australia has something they like to share with the rest of the planet...(not likey)

moku · Post by **moku** » 2004-11-11 01:26am

Probably NK or China. Phillipines doesn't have that kinda ship, and Au would have sent their's elswhere. What effects could it have if it turns out to be NK's?

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-11-11 01:27am

It means that N Korea has a delivery platform for their instant sunrise. It expands Kimmy's range of threat, depending on how good the sub design is. It also makes it harder to contain him and keep him from selling things he's not suppose to... Like Nuclear Weapon plans and information for example.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-11-11 01:30am

moku wrote:Probably NK or China. Phillipines doesn't have that kinda ship, and Au would have sent their's elswhere. What effects could it have if it turns out to be NK's?

I personally think it's more likely to be Chinese, they're working on their boats after all.

But if it is North Korean it'll scare the shit out of plenty of people. Japan knows they're already in range of at least some NK weapons; proving they can get subs in range is only going to make a tense region that much worse. The last thing needed is more reasons for people to worry; it'll put just that much more pressure on negotiations.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-11-11 01:32am

frigidmagi wrote:It means that N Korea has a delivery platform for their instant sunrise. It expands Kimmy's range of threat, depending on how good the sub design is. It also makes it harder to contain him and keep him from selling things he's not suppose to... Like Nuclear Weapon plans and information for example.

The last I knew, North Korea wasn't even close to creating an SSBN. The chance of an instant sunrise are pretty low.

moku · Post by **moku** » 2004-11-11 01:32am

frigidmagi wrote:It means that N Korea has a delivery platform for their instant sunrise. It expands Kimmy's range of threat, depending on how good the sub design is. It also makes it harder to contain him and keep him from selling things he's not suppose to... Like Nuclear Weapon plans and information for example.

And gives Bush a good excuse to bag out NK as being more "rogue" every day. Fuck...

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-11-11 01:34am

moku wrote:
frigidmagi wrote:It means that N Korea has a delivery platform for their instant sunrise. It expands Kimmy's range of threat, depending on how good the sub design is. It also makes it harder to contain him and keep him from selling things he's not suppose to... Like Nuclear Weapon plans and information for example.
And gives Bush a good excuse to bag out NK as being more "rogue" every day. Fuck...

Well, they kind of are. I mean god forbid that North Koreans own reckless actions are taken as proof they're reckless.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-11-11 01:38am

Stormbringer wrote:
The last I knew, North Korea wasn't even close to creating an SSBN. The chance of an instant sunrise are pretty low.

Torpedoes which are within the capability of the DPRK to construct would have a range of on the order of 50km and the capability to carry a relatively primitive nuclear device. These torpedoes would be unguided, but could be potentially fired at a major American port city from outside of the 12mi limit successfully if properly aimed. The problem, of course, would be the sub's successfully reaching a firing point.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-11-11 01:40am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
The last I knew, North Korea wasn't even close to creating an SSBN. The chance of an instant sunrise are pretty low.
Torpedoes which are within the capability of the DPRK to construct would have a range of on the order of 50km and the capability to carry a relatively primitive nuclear device. These torpedoes would be unguided, but could be potentially fired at a major American port city from outside of the 12mi limit successfully if properly aimed. The problem, of course, would be the sub's successfully reaching a firing point.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a nuclear torpedo be a hell of a lot less effective than a bomb or missle?

moku · Post by **moku** » 2004-11-11 01:42am

Stormbringer wrote:
moku wrote:
frigidmagi wrote:It means that N Korea has a delivery platform for their instant sunrise. It expands Kimmy's range of threat, depending on how good the sub design is. It also makes it harder to contain him and keep him from selling things he's not suppose to... Like Nuclear Weapon plans and information for example.
And gives Bush a good excuse to bag out NK as being more "rogue" every day. Fuck...
Well, they kind of are. I mean god forbid that North Koreans own reckless actions are taken as proof they're reckless.

Yeah, but quite frankly I don't want Bush to have anything to do with it. He'll screw the entire thing over. If Bush get's involved, then Defence Chirf Yoshinori can kiss his "We want to resolve this issue peacefully" statement goodnight.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-11-11 01:43am

A forgein power is crusing a nuclear sub around your waters. What are the odds they just came to play Yahzee?

moku · Post by **moku** » 2004-11-11 01:46am

frigidmagi wrote:A forgein power is crusing a nuclear sub around your waters. What are the odds they just came to play Yahzee?

You have to be careful here: If Japan, the country whose territorial borders where infringed, and they stated they want a peaceful resolution[/b] then they surely have the right to keep it that way, meaning Bush, should it be NK and Bush found out, he should stay out of it. Japan wanted a peaceful resolution, and it is up to them to do as they wish, within adequate limits.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-11-11 01:48am

To have peaceful resolution requires two willing parties. Otherwise one side can scream all it wants has the other marches all over them. Considering the friends I have in Japan, I rather avoid any marching over of it.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-11-11 01:50am

moku wrote:Yeah, but quite frankly I don't want Bush to have anything to do with it. He'll screw the entire thing over. If Bush get's involved, then Defence Chirf Yoshinori can kiss his "We want to resolve this issue peacefully" statement goodnight.

Yeah, because Bush has just been chomping at the bit with North Korea.

Let's face it, Bush is committed to take and there's nothing at all in this that's likely to change it. We're in multi-lateral talks with them and a half dozen other nations. If it is a DPRK sub, provably so, it still won't change that. No one wants a shooting war there. If nothing else the US can't. I can understand the paranoia, but that's all there really is. Bush can't pull any cowboy shit even if he wanted to.

As for it showing up North Korea, again it might look bad to get nabbed if it's their's. But it's nothing compared to the other whack-a-loon shit that's gone on.

moku · Post by **moku** » 2004-11-11 01:50am

frigidmagi wrote:To have peaceful resolution requires two willing parties. Otherwise one side can scream all it wants has the other marches all over them. Considering the friends I have in Japan, I rather avoid any marching over of it.

Nevertheless, Japan has a right to try like it stated. I reserve them that right, and if it turns ugly, then Japan can rightly defend itself. This has nothing to do with Bush, so he should keep himself and the US out of it.

moku · Post by **moku** » 2004-11-11 01:52am

Stormbringer wrote:Yeah, because Bush has just been chomping at the bit with North Korea.

Let's face it, Bush is committed to take and there's nothing at all in this that's likely to change it. We're in multi-lateral talks with them and a half dozen other nations. If it is a DPRK sub, provably so, it still won't change that. No one wants a shooting war there. If nothing else the US can't. I can understand the paranoia, but that's all there really is. Bush can't pull any cowboy shit even if he wanted to.

As for it showing up North Korea, again it might look bad to get nabbed if it's their's. But it's nothing compared to the other whack-a-loon shit that's gone on.

Guess so...

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-11-11 01:52am

moku wrote:
frigidmagi wrote:A forgein power is crusing a nuclear sub around your waters. What are the odds they just came to play Yahzee?
You have to be careful here: If Japan, the country whose territorial borders where infringed, and they stated they want a peaceful resolution[/b] then they surely have the right to keep it that way, meaning Bush, should it be NK and Bush found out, he should stay out of it. Japan wanted a peaceful resolution, and it is up to them to do as they wish, within adequate limits.

God damn you're dumb. The US is as involved if not more so in finding a peaceful solution as anyone. We're part of multi-lateral talks over this for fuck's sake. I dare say no one is going to bang the war drums over this, least of all the US and President Bush. And if you think otherwise I suggest you loosen your tinfoil lest it cuts off the blood supply to your brain.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-11-11 01:53am

Nevertheless, Japan has a right to try like it stated. I reserve them that right, and if it turns ugly, then Japan can rightly defend itself. This has nothing to do with Bush, so he should keep himself and the US out of it.

Given the bases we have there, it might have everything to do with the US. I can understand your dislike of Bush, he's not a likable guy(this must be my month for understatments). Has for Japan defensing itself, I'm sorry, the defense force would fight well and hard, but against a strong military... Japan is boned.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-11-11 01:53am

Could always be some Americans who got lost.

moku · Post by **moku** » 2004-11-11 01:56am

i don't intend to compare who would win or loose, and yeah, well Bush is not exactly my favoured guy on the planet. I just don't want this ending with deaths.

To a degree, I feel the world has a right to know, but it could also cause damage.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-11-11 02:00am

moku wrote:
frigidmagi wrote:To have peaceful resolution requires two willing parties. Otherwise one side can scream all it wants has the other marches all over them. Considering the friends I have in Japan, I rather avoid any marching over of it.
Nevertheless, Japan has a right to try like it stated. I reserve them that right, and if it turns ugly, then Japan can rightly defend itself. This has nothing to do with Bush, so he should keep himself and the US out of it.

And never mind that the US is already involved, specifically multi-lateral talks. Despite your paranoid fantasies the US is not suddenly going to turn it into an excuse to charge in gun's blazing.

As for the US keeping out, you might not have noticed but we're still committed to defending our allies South Korea and Japan. We've got troops still sitting on the border between the Koreas. So the US has plenty of perfectly good reasons to be involved and stay involved in this situation. And last I checked we were; working towards your peaceful resolution in fact.

The bigger problem is the DPRK is run by a whack-a-loon by the name of Kim Jung Il. Heard of him? A irrational little man that insists on starving his people so he can buy shit to threaten all sorts of people in the region. For some reason he's determined not to give that up.

moku wrote:Guess so...

I despair of people such as you. Let's take off the I Hate Bush glasses and really look at the situation for once, okay?

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-11-11 02:00am

I just don't want this ending with deaths.

No one wants this to end with deaths.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-11-11 02:14am

moku wrote:
frigidmagi wrote:To have peaceful resolution requires two willing parties. Otherwise one side can scream all it wants has the other marches all over them. Considering the friends I have in Japan, I rather avoid any marching over of it.
Nevertheless, Japan has a right to try like it stated. I reserve them that right, and if it turns ugly, then Japan can rightly defend itself.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the U.S. bound to come to Japan's defense? The Tokyo Bay treaty specifies that Japan is not allowed to keep a military (that's why it's the "Self-Defense Forces"), and that the U.S. must defend Japan against outside military threats.

moku · Post by **moku** » 2004-11-11 02:19am

Rogue 9 wrote:
moku wrote:
frigidmagi wrote:To have peaceful resolution requires two willing parties. Otherwise one side can scream all it wants has the other marches all over them. Considering the friends I have in Japan, I rather avoid any marching over of it.
Nevertheless, Japan has a right to try like it stated. I reserve them that right, and if it turns ugly, then Japan can rightly defend itself.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the U.S. bound to come to Japan's defense? The Tokyo Bay treaty specifies that Japan is not allowed to keep a military (that's why it's the "Self-Defense Forces"), and that the U.S. must defend Japan against outside military threats.

I don't know - I am not that involved, or informed of the treaties.