U.S. turns down new Okinawa proposal

[Bonobo]

Source: United Press International

TOKYO, May 17 (UPI) -- The United States, relying on a 2006 deal, has rejected the latest Japanese proposal on relocating a U.S. Okinawa Marine Base, sources told Kyodo News Monday.

Washington informed Tokyo any new site for the Futenma Air Station should not differ much from that agreed to four years ago.

The latest development raised the likelihood the new site would not differ much from the 2006 plan, Kyodo reported.

The latest Japanese proposal called for building a new facility with a pile-supported runway in shallow waters off the coast of Nago in the same Okinawa prefecture, the report said. However, the United States objected as that might call for a new environmental assessment, which in turn would further delay the relocation, the sources told Kyodo. The United States also was not in favor of building a pile-supported runway because of risks of terrorist attacks, the report said.



Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/05/17/US-turns-down-new-Okinawa-proposal/UPI-46191274097025/

---

I don't think they will be going anywhere no matter what Japan says.

[ejpoeta]

1. can someone please explain to me why we need to keep a base in japan?

i mean, is it because we think they are going to attack us again? is it so we have troops in the area? why! because if is the latter then i think the japanese should be able to tell us where they want the damned thing.

[zipplewrath]

2. Force projection

The entire military strategy of our country is based upon the concept of "force projection". i.e. the ability to attack you anywhere around the world. Heck, it is part and partial of our entire diplomatic strategy. Truth is, it is part of our economic strategy. In order to do that, we need people, equipment, and the facilities to support them around the world. We have treaties with Japan to provide for their national defense (for which they pay us). These bases are "necessary" to support this strategy.

Now the question you probably really mean to ask is:

"Is this strategy necessary".

That's a damn fine question.

[ejpoeta]

3. i bet it is for all those war profiteers to make their money. and they have plenty of

congressfolks in their pockets. so i guess this 'strategy' isn't going anywhere. and you are right.... is this strategy necessary. it's probably why we have that big deficit the teabaggers are so concerned about all of a sudden when they weren't before.

[zipplewrath]

4. A Country Made by War

There's a good book called "A Country Made by War" by Geoffrey Perret. There are alot of arguable conclusions in the book, but the more interesting part to me was how our military, and our economy, not to mention our politics have been entwined since the very beginning of the country. This strategy of force projection is a natural outcome of our history, and now taken to an extreme limit, has never really been "argued" for its validity.

We have a few "claims" which no other country can make (although they would argue many of them) and they cost us trillions. We are about the only country that can do night, combat, carrier operations. We have something like 11 carrier battle groups, half of which are usually at their home port. We have the capacity to fight two naval wars, even though there is about only one naval threat in the world, and it isn't partuclarly "credible". We maintain an incredibly high level of stealth capability across our airframe inventory, despite the fact that in every war we've entered since Vietnam, the first thing we do is establish "air superiority" such that there is no threat to our aircraft that is defeated by stealth. The list goes on, but we are maintaining a military for a war we almost assuredly will never fight, against an enemy that no one can identify. And there hasn't been a day of debate about it in Congress, nor a single military review in the DoD.

[bongbong]

5. The Smell

"I love the smell of bankruptcy in the morning!" - war contractors, talking about the future of America that they will be (mostly) responsible for