The following is from Yoshihisa Komori's regular column in today's Sankei Shimbun.
He is doing an excellent job.
There are few journalists like him in the Japanese media, which is a significant problem for our country.
It is a must-read not only for the Japanese people but also for people worldwide.
The emphasis in the text except for the headline is mine.
If China Fights, the Difference Between Japan and the U.S.
Returning to Washington from Tokyo, I noticed a difference in the focus of the China debate.
Although both Japan and the U.S. are increasingly opposed to China's threatening words and actions, Japan has not pursued the military element as much as it should in the core discussion of relations with China.
In the U.S., on the other hand, the ultimate emphasis in dealing with China seems to be on the military.
The discussion quickly evolves into specifics about how China will use its military power and what will happen in a war between the U.S. and China.
If Chinese President Xi Jinping were to ask the People's Liberation Army, 'If we start the operation to invade Taiwan tomorrow, will we achieve our goal?' they would say, 'Yes, but we may lose half of our naval forces as a result.'
Pony Glazer, who has been involved in the U.S. policy toward China in successive U.S. administrations, said these blunt words about the military at a congressional hearing of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission on August 3.
The hearing, titled "China's Policy Challenges," was heated in light of Speaker Pelosi's visit to Taiwan.
I also sat in on the hearing from morning to evening, but the subject was still the military.
The culmination of the hearing was a summary by the committee's chairman, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Randy Shriver, who said, "The biggest focus of the Taiwan issue is what kind of military strategy China is developing behind the 'fury' it has processed.
The debate titled "The Future of Taiwan" held by the Heritage Foundation, a central private research institute, on the following day, the 4th was also military first.
The keynote speaker, retired Army General Jack Keane, pointed out that "China's latest military exercise to encircle Taiwan is a sign that China has begun to change its basic strategy from the long-standing landing operation on Taiwan to a blockade; of Taiwan by sea and air."
The general, who has also served as a military advisor to successive presidents, stated that "the U.S. military has consistently maintained a war plan in the event of a Chinese attack on Taiwan.
He also stated that he had participated in several war games and simulation exercises of a war between the U.S. and China.
In fact, during my long tenure in Washington, D.C., I was frequently told about the simulated U.S.-China war exercises at the Pentagon and the National Defense University.
In these exercises, dozens of experts are assigned the roles of military-related parties from both the U.S. and China. They spend several days conducting a war and examining the results.
While the ultimate decision of the U.S. to go to war with China is a political decision at the presidential level, the essential attitude of the U.S. military authorities is always to maintain a plan to carry out war.
The U.S. military is prepared to face the possibility of a U.S.-China war, a nightmarish situation beyond Japan's imagination.
The foundation is the principle of deterrence. The former Trump administration most directly articulated in its 2018 National Defense Strategy that the best way to prevent war with China is to "maintain the ability to prepare for and win a possible war."
Many private research institutes on the U.S. side have conducted specific studies on the "U.S.-China war."
The AEI, a central research institute, also released a lengthy report in late July titled "Preparing for a Long War with China."
A 2016 research report by the RAND Corporation, "War with China," also made headlines.
Japan, which has always avoided the military, will finally have to recognize the real possibility of such a military confrontation between the U.S. and China.
(Washington correspondent)
He is doing an excellent job.
There are few journalists like him in the Japanese media, which is a significant problem for our country.
It is a must-read not only for the Japanese people but also for people worldwide.
The emphasis in the text except for the headline is mine.
If China Fights, the Difference Between Japan and the U.S.
Returning to Washington from Tokyo, I noticed a difference in the focus of the China debate.
Although both Japan and the U.S. are increasingly opposed to China's threatening words and actions, Japan has not pursued the military element as much as it should in the core discussion of relations with China.
In the U.S., on the other hand, the ultimate emphasis in dealing with China seems to be on the military.
The discussion quickly evolves into specifics about how China will use its military power and what will happen in a war between the U.S. and China.
If Chinese President Xi Jinping were to ask the People's Liberation Army, 'If we start the operation to invade Taiwan tomorrow, will we achieve our goal?' they would say, 'Yes, but we may lose half of our naval forces as a result.'
Pony Glazer, who has been involved in the U.S. policy toward China in successive U.S. administrations, said these blunt words about the military at a congressional hearing of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission on August 3.
The hearing, titled "China's Policy Challenges," was heated in light of Speaker Pelosi's visit to Taiwan.
I also sat in on the hearing from morning to evening, but the subject was still the military.
The culmination of the hearing was a summary by the committee's chairman, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Randy Shriver, who said, "The biggest focus of the Taiwan issue is what kind of military strategy China is developing behind the 'fury' it has processed.
The debate titled "The Future of Taiwan" held by the Heritage Foundation, a central private research institute, on the following day, the 4th was also military first.
The keynote speaker, retired Army General Jack Keane, pointed out that "China's latest military exercise to encircle Taiwan is a sign that China has begun to change its basic strategy from the long-standing landing operation on Taiwan to a blockade; of Taiwan by sea and air."
The general, who has also served as a military advisor to successive presidents, stated that "the U.S. military has consistently maintained a war plan in the event of a Chinese attack on Taiwan.
He also stated that he had participated in several war games and simulation exercises of a war between the U.S. and China.
In fact, during my long tenure in Washington, D.C., I was frequently told about the simulated U.S.-China war exercises at the Pentagon and the National Defense University.
In these exercises, dozens of experts are assigned the roles of military-related parties from both the U.S. and China. They spend several days conducting a war and examining the results.
While the ultimate decision of the U.S. to go to war with China is a political decision at the presidential level, the essential attitude of the U.S. military authorities is always to maintain a plan to carry out war.
The U.S. military is prepared to face the possibility of a U.S.-China war, a nightmarish situation beyond Japan's imagination.
The foundation is the principle of deterrence. The former Trump administration most directly articulated in its 2018 National Defense Strategy that the best way to prevent war with China is to "maintain the ability to prepare for and win a possible war."
Many private research institutes on the U.S. side have conducted specific studies on the "U.S.-China war."
The AEI, a central research institute, also released a lengthy report in late July titled "Preparing for a Long War with China."
A 2016 research report by the RAND Corporation, "War with China," also made headlines.
Japan, which has always avoided the military, will finally have to recognize the real possibility of such a military confrontation between the U.S. and China.
(Washington correspondent)
