@ sentinel28a



> So the Japanese wouldn't chuck a few dozen Harpoons into Pusan or whatever marshalling point the ROKN happens to be using?



Pusan naval base is shared with USN ships, including Ohio-class nuclear subs. Attacking Pusan naval base runs of the risk of damaging US Navy warships.

We'll be shooting at you ourselves at that point.

> Because the JMSDF P-3s can carry about four ASM-1/2s each, as can the JASDF F-2s.



Anti-ship missiles are not as effective as cruise missiles in causing damages.

Explosives don' care kumquat. Neither do missiles. Another indication you don't know what you are talking about. 

> Launch on Tokyo and the ROK risks bringing in the US

Well, Tokyo missile attack is more like the third-day-of-war option, after the Grand Naval Showdown has been fought and the outcome wasn't favorable. Neither side is going to restrain themselves after dozens of ships went down...

There will be no grand naval showdown, just RoK ships sunk in a JSDF air campaign. 

> Which is, of course, why the South Koreans, except for fanboys, wouldn't be stupid enough to try it over a couple of rocks in the Sea of Japan.



You overestimate Asians.

We overestimate YOU as a person.

> So any sort of ability Japan has to retaliate, or strike first, must be discounted for the ROK to win.



It is same Japan that is debating whether they have the consitututional right to preemptively strike Taepodong-2 missile launch site in North Korea even after it is confirmed that the missile carries nuclear warhead, is fueling up, and is most likely headed toward Japan.

Japan would be fourth in line after the US, Russia, and a certain  PRC hating ally. The launch site would be a hole.

> And if they lose--negotiations?



The war would continue on Tsushima and cruise missiles would fly.

The incident would end with war crimes trials and a forced RoK change of regime. There would be no negotiations.

> For the islands?
Yes.

Japan gets the islands and an indemnity.

> Losing the war pretty much guarantees those islands remain Japanese

The probable outcome is that it would have to be exchanged with Tsushima. the sitting RoK is hanged as war criminals.

@ Hamilcar



> We'll be shooting at you ourselves at that point.



No thank you.

Tough. Its the whole package when OUR lake is threatened.

I have lived through 9/11 and people running out of buildings after spotting the Airforce One circling around in low flight earlier this year. We don't need no USAF or USN planes making kamikaze runs at Wall Street buildings now.


> There will be no grand naval showdown, just RoK ships sunk in a JSDF air campaign.

ROKN destryer's air defense is even harder to crack than JMSDF destroyer's due the their standard triple-layer air defense + electronic warfare system. JMSDF would have a better luck with sub-launched torpedos than anti-ship missiles.

No they aren't. They are US tech. WE know how to defeat it.  So do the Japanese.

> We overestimate YOU as a person.

We you exactly what you are, no overestimation here.

I can speak for myself, but refrain so, but from other comments written by others I deduce that that consider you a racist bigot, a troll and insane, not necessarily in that order. That is their opinion of you. My opinion is that you are noise. 

> Japan would be fourth in line after the US, Russia, and a certain  PRC hating ally.

Which is this mysterious PRC hating ally?

If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn'ty have to ask, now, would you?  

> The incident would end with war crimes trials



Enemy government buildings and military installations are fair games in war.

Plottung wars of conquest and aggression is a war-crime, punishable by death. 

> and a forced RoK change of regime

From democratic to totalitarian of Kim Jong Il's kind, perhaps?
If it's from democratic to democratic, then the follow-up regime would declare war again because that's the public will.

With what?  Nothing.

> There would be no negotiations.

Of course there will be negotiations. This is in the war scenario studied by Japanese DoD; Japanese DoD fully anticipates Tsushima landing following the Grand Naval Showdown and Korean demand for island swap.

There would be a demarche, then the Al Safwon treatment. There are no negotiations during a surrender.

> Japan gets the islands and an indemnity.


> The probable outcome is that it would have to be exchanged with Tsushima. the sitting RoK is hanged as war criminals.

You are confusing something here.

In various Grand Naval Showdown scenario studied by either side, there is no instance of Koreans attacking Japan first; it is always JMSDF making the assault to reclaim the islands even in Japanese studied scenarios because the islands in question are held by Koreans and the airspace around it is controlled by Koreans since 1950.

Have you paid any attention at all? Japan will not aggress anyone. Its bad for business. 

Yeah we get it.  Koreans are apoplectic over Dokdo but I don't see any Japanese protestors cutting off their fingers or sacrificing magpies in front of the South Korean embassy.  It's difficult to see how the Japanese government are willing to start shooting over this. 

And the hanged will be remembered as patriotic heros and immortalized as warships and submarines, with their faces printed on money.

 

 

Third 214 Submarine Ahn Jung-Geun, named after the Korean nationalist who assassinated Japanese statesman and Prime Minister Ito Hirobumi, ignoring the furies of Japanese who are greatly offended by this name.

> It's difficult to see how the Japanese government are willing to start shooting over this.

When someone like Ishihara Shintaro becomes the prime minister of Japan.

So what kind of political platform will appeal sufficiently to elect such a politician?  And when will this happen?  Seems to me that a right wing party would only come to power in the form of a coalition.  Even with Hatoyama's appeal, his government was formed as part of a coalition.  What sort of coalition would support the start of a war?  And if as you point out Japan is finally a true democracy where politicians fear the electorate, where is the popular support for a war?

Never mind Sinoflex. The fact he doesn't remember the ground shock at all or can name St Paul's which was heavily reported locally as a miracle is ALL the proof I need.

 

 

 

 

For a nation (ROK) that lives in grovelling pleasantry-laden deadlock with an appallingly evil and repugnant regime that has literally stamped its population (which actually is YOUR population) into the mud and carried out some of the most widespread human rights abuses of recent history, do you think we are going to believe you are likely to go to war over islands?

 

If you are happy to accept the situation north of the border (that was defined in part by a certain battle) and can live with it as a nation rather than doing what I think any other major power would (if it was in such close proximity and we had such a vast superiority in tech). 

 

I think South Korea should think about its own backyard and stop fantasising that it is strategically of greater importance than it actually is.

 

DEAL WITH THAT THEN WORRY ABOUT JAPAN.

 

The reality is you aren't even equipped or willing to deal with your own ETHNIC population.

 

Bear in mind that politics can kill 'business as usual'.  Just look at the dawn of WW1:  The world back then was at the zenith of its first wave of globalization.  As an extreme example, something like 40% of Great Britain's GNP was based on exports.  (Nobody, not today's UK and certainly not today's US even comes close to this figure, despite a plenty of self-congratulatory remarks on late 20th and early 21st century globalization.)

 

Our historical precedent is not quite optimistic.  Not to mention that WW1 broke out once the European system of alliance has reached its saturation point and they had decades after the end of Napoleon to become wealthy and one of the significant thing they did with that fruits of industrialization was to indulge in arms race which eventually flew up right in front of their faces.

 

Just because things appear peaceful and 'business as usual' in Northeast Asia right now, assuming that folks over there will stay put indefinitely is laughable.  Just think of 'hierarchy of needs' and how it changes relative to your station:  When you are hungry as hell, you want food and water; everything else is not very important.  When you are poor, you want money; everything else is not very important.  When you have financial security and therefore no need to concern yourself about physical needs, you want rank and status.