[LynnieS]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

I don't think you understand what I mean here. I'm not talking about US soldiers or Okinawan civilians. I'm talking on a national scale here. China or North Korea could see that as a sign the US is unable to meet it's treaty obligations in the region and cause them to take a more aggressive approach in dealing with other East Asian nations because they see a power vaccum, even if it's not really there.

Wait... I thought that the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation between the U.S. and Japan only commits both countries to assist in terms of Japan being attacked? There is a clause on the U.S. basing troops on Japanese soil, but treaty-wise and while it likely has to considered in light of the Cold War, it has more to do with how the citizens are to be treated.

The basing of foreign troops on native soil is always a sensitive subject, IMHO, and I think that recently, there had been at least a couple of U.S. bases in Central Asia being forced to close when the countries' leaders said no. The U.S. also still needs help and support for Afghanistan as well, which hasn't been moving in the "Great!" direction. Driving away Japan (a known ally in the region) is not a good way to maintain a global presence.

OTOH, if the U.S. is going to isolate itself again (think post-WWI), this wouldn't be a problem. A move out of Japan would likely cause South Koreans to want U.S. troops out as well, but that is a smaller problem given the fact North Korea isn't the best neighbor to have.

For North Korea, having U.S. troops based on Japan has not stopped it from testing its missiles or selling weapons (excl. the ship boarding bit being allowed now). Anti-missiles use is better placed, IMHO, in South Korea where it is easier to track, on ships where they can be easily moved, or in places like Alaska, Guam, Hawaii or the West Coast when the targets are better known. Having orbital weapons platforms is better, but not too likely to happen.

As for China, I don't see how much having U.S. bases in Japan that will stop it from being aggressive to countries like Russia, Vietnam or India if it wants to. Taiwan is not a huge deal, esp. if China is willing to spend the missiles to allow its marines to land onshore; Taiwan is looked more as a province that has wandered away as well, IMHO; a peaceful reunion is more preferred given they are still seen as being "one of us". South Korea... Kind of hard to say. From day-to-day fiction writings, the tone tends to be derogatory, and there doesn't seem to be much from the central government or its propaganda organs. On the "what does South Korea has to offer" front, there doesn't look to be much that it cannot get by corporate theft or purchases elsewhere? Physical threats to the Chinese mainland can be placed elsewhere, esp. with enough fuel available; having bases close by just means you need less, but then you need to deal with faster counterattacks.

On the plus side for the U.S., sales of weapons like the PAC-3 should go up, esp. when you include training, weapon reloads and maintenance contracts in the bill. A plus for the U.S. arms industry.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Once again you don't get what I mean. That aggression you speak of is not being directed at China. China is currently building it's military to try to gain superority over Taiwan in the unlikely event of a conflict. The US moving an airforce base closer to Taiwan could be taken by the Chinese as representing a direct challange to China and an aggressive act towards China.

You actually do not need as big a military presence for China to succeed in taking Taiwan, esp. if you can work out a deal with the U.S. in advance. If I was involved in the Taiwanese government, I would be looking to get as much military tech of my own as well as getting spies into China's military high command and central government. Trusting anyone else for your own safety is just risky.

A move out of Japan by the U.S. could mean a decrease in military spending by China, which the U.S. would like to see; OTOH, continued spending in that case could mean China has bad intentions elsewhere (like Russia and India). Looking like you are sacrificing Taiwan in this case, esp. if you convince the country that you are still helping it, could be worth the gamble.

I'm also not sure how much the U.S. citizens actually care these days about the treaty to protect Taiwan...

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

By at this stage I mean when the deal has already been signed and work on moving some of the troops is already underway. Do you think the people in Okinawa would be fine with leaving everything where it is for another 15 years while a new deal is worked out? Under the current agreement some US forces are being moved. Isn't it better to go ahead with that while working out a new deal for the rest which aren't?

Didn't the newly elected officials representing the area came into office on the promise that they would review the base move? It would be a shame to go back on that promise now, esp. if that just gets the voters angrier. It increases the chances of a worse hard-liner being placed into office, IMHO.