On 2001-12-09 17:31, Yanny wrote:
if Us takes a Japan first strategy russia can put his head between his legs and kiss his butt goodbye.
I agree. For logistic reasons it is far easier for Japan to defend itself than it is for the US to attack it. Japan should be able to destroy most of the USs initial navy in round 1 while retaining most of its own fleet. There is no reason for Japan to build a navy to confront the USs navy if the US goes after Japan. Japan should be building a force of tanks to go after Russia and if the US wants to go after Japan that force can easily be turned on the US if Japan has to defend NE Asia. Japan should retain several fighters that are great for defense as well and one round of buying infantry can go a long way towards providing a defense against the US if they are foolish enough to go after Japan. Remember, it only costs Japan 3 ipcs for a unit of infantry in Asia and 5 for an armor plus a one shot 15 or so for an IC or two. It costs the US 7 for a unit of infantry ((3+3+8)/2) that only attack at a 1, and 13 for a tank (5+8).
Germany would love to have to contend with two countries rather than three. US goes after Japan is a very bad move IMO.
[ This Message was edited by: xenophobe on 2001-12-10 10:42 ]
For those interested in the help and sacrifices of their allies . . .
Note - in addition to a naval force and over 2000 troops (including the renowned Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry), the Black Watch and the Joint Task Force 2’s are all in the muck. Meanwhile hundred’s of millions have been earmarked for humanitarian aid and the RCMP and Canadian army instructors are training Afghan police and military units.
Just in case you cared.