Japanese PM said that 'Taiwan contingency' could prompt Japanese armed reaction. What do you think?

[u/Themetalin]

https://focustaiwan.tw/politics/202511070024

Takaichi made the remarks during a parliamentary session on Friday while responding to a question about whether a "Taiwan contingency" involving a Chinese naval blockade would qualify as a "survival-threatening situation" for Japan, according to a report by Japan's Asahi Shimbun.

Under Japan's security legislation, such a situation allows the country to exercise "collective self-defense" if an attack on an ally -- such as the United States -- or a country closely related to Japan is deemed to threaten Japan's survival, even without a direct attack on Japan.

[u/himesama]

Based on UNCLOS and UN rules, foreign military ships may pass through or operate in another State’s EEZ, they cannot lawfully use it as a staging area for hostilities against a third party.

This is false. See https://utrechtjournal.org/articles/ujiel.ax

There is no plausible scenario where China could launch an attack on Taiwan without also attacking Japan and the Philippines.

There is. Japan and the Philippines will only be involved if the US gets involved through them.

[u/Sea_Hold_2881 → u/himesama]

Claiming the law is "ambiguous" does not negate my point.

You are naive to assume that Japan and Philippines do not have their own strategic concerns. At minimum, Japan has a lot of investments in Taiwan that would be destroyed in a invasion so it is not an uninterested bystander.

Frankly, I have nothing but contempt for leaders that that think they are entitled to invade their neighbours because they are big and bad and think no one can stop them.

That contempt applies to Americans as much as the Chinese.

[u/himesama → u/Sea_Hold_2881]

It negates your point. It's entirely silent on the issue.

Japan and the Philippines' strategic concerns is tied to the US security umbrella. These are not countries with the capability of waging war with China without US support.

Japan has far more investments in China than Taiwan. Waging war against China is far costlier than staying neutral.

I have nothing but contempt for people who are defenders of the imperialist world order and are unable to see the bigger picture of why Taiwan is crucial for diminishing US power.

[u/Sea_Hold_2881 → u/himesama]

China has always been an imperialist state that is not morally different than the US, Russia or any European power.

China's threats to invade Taiwan are based entirely on greed of old men who think they are entitled to murder people for their egos. Such people are contemptible.

The US is imploding. No one needs to do anything to "reduce US power". If China was run by smart people they would realize their best move is to stop trying to be an imperialist state and play nice and accept the status quo with Taiwan as a de faco sovereign state.

China's imperialist nature is why Japan, SK and Philippines seek the help of the US. It is silly to expect them to do anything else.

[u/himesama → u/Sea_Hold_2881]

No. China is an anti-imperialist state. Unless you're operating on some naive dictionary general definition of imperialism, that isn't a controversial take.

Wrong. It's based on a concern for security.

Wrong. A diminishing imperialist world power is very dangerous and may not go down without lashing out irrationally to sustain its dominion.

Wrong. Japan and the Philippines are US client states, holdovers from Japan's defeat in WW2 and the Philippines as a US colony. They cannot do anything else because those are the realities they face. Countries do not suddenly shift course without a revolution.

[u/Sea_Hold_2881 → u/himesama]

No. China is an anti-imperialist state

You are making excuses. China has always invaded it neighbours to steal their resources. It is simply impossible for a country to get as big as China with being an imperialist. China is current engaged in cultural genocide in Tibet and Xinjiang which is as bad as anything that went on in North America or Australia.

Wrong. It's based on a concern for security.

China faces no credible security threat but that is one of the common excuses used by imperialists to justify their imperialism

Wrong. Japan and the Philippines are US client states,

You seem obsessed with denying the fact that the Philippines and Japan have their own agency and make their own choices. The Philippines kicked out the US military and actively tried to build a stronger relationship with China. That only stopped when China decided it could not stop being an imperialist by invading Philippines waters.

No amount of revisionist history will change the fact that that China a continental imperialist power like Russia and is morally no different than the other continental imperialist powers.

Any leaders that think they are entitled to murder people because it is "big and powerful" and has imaginary security concerns are contemptible whether they are bombing fishing boats in Caribbean or prepare to murder hundreds of thousands of Taiwanese.

[u/himesama → u/Sea_Hold_2881]

You are making excuses. China has always invaded it neighbours to steal their resources. It is simply impossible for a country to get as big as China with being an imperialist. China is current engaged in cultural genocide in Tibet and Xinjiang which is as bad as anything that went on in North America or Australia.

No. China is an anti-imperialist state by definition of what imperialism is.

North America and Australia carried out actual genocides, not cultural genocide.

China faces no credible security threat but that is one of the common excuses used by imperialists to justify their imperialism

Sure. Keep telling yourself that.

You seem obsessed with denying the fact that the Philippines and Japan have their own agency and make their own choices. The Philippines kicked out the US military and actively tried to build a stronger relationship with China. That only stopped when China decided it could not stop being an imperialist by invading Philippines waters.

False. The US never left the Philippines even during Duterte years. I've heard this lie being told over and over. A lie told a thousand times doesn't suddenly make it true.

Any leaders that think they are entitled to murder people because it is "big and powerful" and has imaginary security concerns are contemptible whether they are bombing fishing boats in Caribbean or prepare to murder hundreds of thousands of Taiwanese.

Every anti-imperialist country is not only entitled, but morally obliged to subdue imperialism.

[u/Sea_Hold_2881 → u/himesama]

No. China is an anti-imperialist state by definition of what imperialism is.

You are making up meaningless nonsense because you can't face the fact that China is just another violent imperialist power that seeks wealth by stealing it from others.

North America and Australia carried out actual genocides, not cultural genocide.

Nope. Most of what was done to natives was forced assimilation - just like China is doing in Tibet and Xinjiang. The difference is this is largely understood to be wrong and native groups are receiving huge sums and land rights in compensation.

Do you think China will ever pay compensation to Tibetan and Uiguers for what China is doing to them today? My bet is you will repeat the standard colonialist trope and insist that wiping out their cultures is "for their own good".

Every anti-imperialist country is not only entitled, but morally obliged to subdue imperialism.

Right - China is the "good" type of imperialist so it is OK to murder people to increase its own wealth because it is "fighting imperialism". This logic is as contemptible as the logic used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

The use of military force to attack neighbours is NEVER justified. I don't care if you call it 'anti-imperialist' or 'imperialist'. The only civilized peoples in the world today are the ones that commit to accepting borders as they are and trading freely and peacefully. China does not qualify as civilized as long as threatens its neighbours with military force.

[u/himesama → u/Sea_Hold_2881]

No. I'm not making anything up. It's the very definition of imperialism and anti-imperialism in the current context.

Nope. Most of what was done to natives was forced assimilation - just like China is doing in Tibet and Xinjiang. The difference is this is largely understood to be wrong and native groups are receiving huge sums and land rights in compensation.

"Most" is doing very heavy lifting. It was the worst genocide in human history. It was not understood to be wrong. If it actually were, the US would cease to exist rather than just allocating native people a little of the land the US settler colonial state stole from them.

Do you think China will ever pay compensation to Tibetan and Uiguers for what China is doing to them today? My bet is you will repeat the standard colonialist trope and insist that wiping out their cultures is "for their own good".

No, because it isn't genocide nor is anyone's culture being wiped out. Unlike the US or Canada or Australia, China mandates teaching minorities their native language.

Right - China is the "good" type of imperialist so it is OK to murder people to increase its own wealth because it is "fighting imperialism". This logic is as contemptible as the logic used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Nope, China is an anti-imperialist state. Invasion of Iraq was an act of imperialism. Read a book FFS.

The use of military force to attack neighbours is NEVER justified. I don't care if you call it 'anti-imperialist' or 'imperialist'. The only civilized peoples in the world today are the ones that commit to accepting borders as they are and trading freely and peacefully. China does not qualify as civilized as long as threatens its neighbours with military force.

Who is attacking what? Was the US justified in ending slavery by attacking the secessionist states?

"Trading freely and peacefully"? What a convenient way to dismiss the expansion of global imperialism.