Posted on 07/10/2015 5:24:15 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Japan is interested in joining a NATO missile building consortium that would give Tokyo its first taste of a multinational defense project, a move the U.S. Navy is encouraging because it could pave the way for Japan to lead similar partnerships in Asia, sources said.
The 12-country NATO consortium oversees development and shares the costs of the SeaSparrow missile, an advanced ship-borne weapon designed to destroy anti-ship sea-skimming missiles and attack aircraft. The missile is made by U.S. weapons firms Raytheon (RTN.N) and General Dynamics (GD.N).
In May, Japanese naval officers traveled to a North Atlantic Treaty Organization meeting in The Hague to learn more about the consortium, Japan's navy and a U.S. source familiar with the trip told Reuters.
Two Japanese sources familiar with the initiative said discussions in Tokyo were at an early stage, although joining the consortium would dovetail with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's more muscular security agenda, which included the lifting last year of a decades-old ban on arms exports.
The sources declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak to the media.
The consortium, established in 1968 by four countries including the United States, is set to develop an upgraded version of the SeaSparrow in the coming years.
Having Japan on board would spread the project's costs, but Washington also sees a role for Japan in leading multinational military industrial partnerships in Asia at a time when China's military modernization and assertiveness is alarming many countries in the region, said the U.S. source.
Such partnerships, which are rare in Asia, would create a network of security ties beyond formal military alliances that mostly involve Washington and its various regional allies.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Question: where is the North Atlantic?
You're right, I just looked out the window and it was gone....not a trace.
NATO is a stretch, but a new alliance in the Pacific is very necessary. Japan, S Korea, USA, Australia, NZ, Philippines, Thailand, possibly Vietnam.
It’s time to give the samurai back his sword. We need to militarize Japan.
The proper venue for Japanese security concerns by treaty is the South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO).
Unfortunately, SEATO has been dissolved as the United States was driven from all the member states except Australia, New Zealand, and those South Pacific states the United Kingdom and France.
This is clearly an attempt to proxy Japan into conflict with China and Russia.
Japan is unable to oppose either or settle their legitimate problem with North Korea without considerable military backing from the United States.
Noting that the US has already effectively abandoned Taiwan to China, and Japan to North Korea when they could have easily backed both, the Japanese should seriously consider the real intentions of the proposal, and the United States Obama Regime, before signing on.
The "successor" to NATO will include the five Anglosphere nations only, if the US stays together and can manage it.
It is very much alive in military and materiel support of selected Islamic radical states and groups for the glory of the Caliphate.
Like Bosnia?
Putin is invigorating NATO, and it may grow larger with Sweden and Finland.
NATO at the behest of and with the United States, has promoted and supported (including military assets) radical and organized criminal Muslim groups in Serbia, Kosovo (including insurrection, rebellion and separation), Bosnia, Georgia, Ukraine, and Greco Macedonian states.
Additionally, NATO had knowledge of the US movement of weapons (some Geneva prohibited) and materials to Islamic terrorist groups in Obama supported "Arab Spring" insurrections featuring Libya and Ambassador Stevens' murder.
No worries, while Sweden conscripts cultural Swedes to fight under NATO command against Christians, your Muslim buddies will be enforcing Sharia in Sweden and raping the Swedes wives and daughters.
Your strange ravings are just gibberish.
Did you notice the NATO response to 9/11? Technically the US was attacked by the ruling party, the government, of Afghanistan. According to the treaty, this attack required an immediate and forceful response by ALL NATO signatories.
What happened?
The Canadian military sent special forces immediately (without notifying the Canadian government, but that's another story), and regulars later on. The UK also responded. Australia, not a NATO signatory, sent special forces. The rest sent basically token forces on non-combat assignments. A very tepid response and a further nail in the coffin.
Good points, all. Other facts include 9/11 attack perps were all Saudi except one individual, funded and supplied by OBL and Saudi sources, OBL was protected in Afghanistan by higher Afghan government officials.
In the NATO response to Afghanistan, NATO member and US "ally", Turkey, refused to allow the resupply of NATO combat troops (while they were engaged, as well as generally), across Turkish territory or airspace.
Fortunately, Russia allowed the US to support and resupply NATO and US troops using their territorial land route highway and tunnel to do so. Russia additionally made considerable improvements to the route and tunnel for US use.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.