Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe shot dead

[McAvoy]

US has maintained at least one permanent carrier in Japan for a very long time. Before the USS George Washington was stationed there, Japan and the US maintained a conventional aircraft carrier instead of a nuclear one.

The US needed German forces in Europe, they didn't need Japanese forces in the Pacific and East Asia.

Even that's debatable as Stalin wasn't really interested in another war in Europe.

He wasnt. It would have been foolish to challenge the US in 1945-1947.

But the rearmament of Germany, specifically West Germany was due to the Soviets. Any kind of war where Russia invades would have Germany at the front.

[Beastro]

Japan only really became a major concern for the US in WW1. During that time they were allies with the British and the Washington Treaty, the US made it one of their points to break it. That and get a naval reduction why also provided a warship ratio between the British, the US and Japan. The US at the time was not capable of taking on both the British and Japan at the same time.

Do you not think having a strong Japanese Navy who are allies with the US during the Cold War would have suited the US? Yes it would have.

But there were so many factors with the US and Japan post-war. There was still an element of racism when it came to the Japanese. There was still a level of distrust with them and some level of anger from Pearl Harbor to a smaller extent.

They could trust Germany, a white European nation which many Americans could trace their families to. They could trust Germany would form a democratic nation of some kind like their neighbors.

It made sense for the US to play war games against Japan even if they were peaceful to each other. War games were always against the most likely opponent. Whether that was Germany or even the British at one point.

Yes, Japan became their main rival in that period and the two nations national interests began to conflict (Britain and America's increasingly ceased to, if ever). The US wanted to supplant Britain as the global hegemon, but did not want to do so in a bellicous manner which is why the end of WWI was such an opportune moment for Wilson and his "Peace Without Victors" BS. War with Britain by the turn of the century was out of people's minds beyond the idea of military games and hypothetical planning, not a serious consideration as it was with other nations.

Splitting the Anglo-Japanese Alliance was a means to that end, but it was more one to protect US interests in the Western Pacific, an area where that had no conflicting interests with Britain but did with Japan (China was a major market for the US and Japan's ambitions there caused problems, which eventually led to the embargo against Japan). Both the US and Japan wanted to be regional hegemon of that area, Britain had already relinquished that control with their treaty with Japan to focus elsewhere and was now happy to have a solid, but not overwhelming, force in the area.

The naval reduction had more to do with everyone looking back at the Anglo-German Naval Race and wincing at repeating it. Even Japan didn't despite very much wanting more warships and was already spending waaaaay too much on their navy as it was to an unsustainable degree. Britain wanted to save after WWI, Japan was going to break itself trying to keep up and Congress had always hated the Navy and the reins had always been tight on its neck. The USN wanted 16in gunned battleships as early as the New Mexico Class, but the cretin Josephus Daniels and Congress forced them to keep 14in guns for both them and the succeeding Tennessees, only relinquishing when the USN discovered the trick of demanding too much to make what they really wanted the more appealing offer and got 16iners for the Colorados.

They didn't trust the Germans. The Americans, and especially Roosevelt, were sick of "Prussianism" which they blamed as the primary cause of the world wars. German HAD to have a "Prussianectomy" to keep it from starting another world war and that meant bringing the nation to its feet and rebuilding it as they saw fit. It was only in the mid-50s that they realized the issues in Europe and that NATO needed all the help they could get. It was then that the Bundewehr was founded and they were remilitarized under strict US control. Japan, though, had no land connections at all. a Japanese military COULD be helpful, but it could also be used against the US in the way the Germany military couldn't be. It would be best it they simply remained a forward operating base and they be restricted to self-defence.

The suspicion was cultural, not racial. Had it been the latter other Oriental nations wouldn't have been armed and actively expected to fight side by side with the US like South Korea was. The issue was the Japanese seemed capable of acting very odd (which wartime experience, like sailors trying to kill themselves rather than be saved, confirmed) and it would be best they kept relatively more harmless given that the same rebuilding as in Germany was being done, but less stringently given the different dynamic going on there (MacArthur, the Emperor, the Japanese knack of learning lessons but absolutely refusing to change their minds about thing at the same time) etc.

It made sense for the US to play war games against Japan even if they were peaceful to each other. War games were always against the most likely opponent. Whether that was Germany or even the British at one point.

Japan was the only nation the US expected to have a war with in the future, and events wound up proving them right. Both nations interests couldn't prevent it and the Japanese and their mentality ensured the rivalry would go hot.

Even that's debatable as Stalin wasn't really interested in another war in Europe.

Nuclear weapons gave the Soviets pause, but the primary post-war problem was how exhausted the USSR was due to WWII and the desire to rebuild and realign before trying something. The navy especially needed rebuilding, and Stalin insisted on a surface heavy naval force.

[McAvoy]

Japan only really became a major concern for the US in WW1. During that time they were allies with the British and the Washington Treaty, the US made it one of their points to break it. That and get a naval reduction why also provided a warship ratio between the British, the US and Japan. The US at the time was not capable of taking on both the British and Japan at the same time.

Do you not think having a strong Japanese Navy who are allies with the US during the Cold War would have suited the US? Yes it would have.

But there were so many factors with the US and Japan post-war. There was still an element of racism when it came to the Japanese. There was still a level of distrust with them and some level of anger from Pearl Harbor to a smaller extent.

They could trust Germany, a white European nation which many Americans could trace their families to. They could trust Germany would form a democratic nation of some kind like their neighbors.

It made sense for the US to play war games against Japan even if they were peaceful to each other. War games were always against the most likely opponent. Whether that was Germany or even the British at one point.

Yes, Japan became their main rival in that period and the two nations national interests began to conflict (Britain and America's increasingly ceased to, if ever). The US wanted to supplant Britain as the global hegemon, but did not want to do so in a bellicous manner which is why the end of WWI was such an opportune moment for Wilson and his "Peace Without Victors" BS. War with Britain by the turn of the century was out of people's minds beyond the idea of military games and hypothetical planning, not a serious consideration as it was with other nations.

Splitting the Anglo-Japanese Alliance was a means to that end, but it was more one to protect US interests in the Western Pacific, an area where that had no conflicting interests with Britain but did with Japan (China was a major market for the US and Japan's ambitions there caused problems, which eventually led to the embargo against Japan). Both the US and Japan wanted to be regional hegemon of that area, Britain had already relinquished that control with their treaty with Japan to focus elsewhere and was now happy to have a solid, but not overwhelming, force in the area.

The naval reduction had more to do with everyone looking back at the Anglo-German Naval Race and wincing at repeating it. Even Japan didn't despite very much wanting more warships and was already spending waaaaay too much on their navy as it was to an unsustainable degree. Britain wanted to save after WWI, Japan was going to break itself trying to keep up and Congress had always hated the Navy and the reins had always been tight on its neck. The USN wanted 16in gunned battleships as early as the New Mexico Class, but the cretin Josephus Daniels and Congress forced them to keep 14in guns for both them and the succeeding Tennessees, only relinquishing when the USN discovered the trick of demanding too much to make what they really wanted the more appealing offer and got 16iners for the Colorados.

They didn't trust the Germans. The Americans, and especially Roosevelt, were sick of "Prussianism" which they blamed as the primary cause of the world wars. German HAD to have a "Prussianectomy" to keep it from starting another world war and that meant bringing the nation to its feet and rebuilding it as they saw fit. It was only in the mid-50s that they realized the issues in Europe and that NATO needed all the help they could get. It was then that the Bundewehr was founded and they were remilitarized under strict US control. Japan, though, had no land connections at all. a Japanese military COULD be helpful, but it could also be used against the US in the way the Germany military couldn't be. It would be best it they simply remained a forward operating base and they be restricted to self-defence.

The suspicion was cultural, not racial. Had it been the latter other Oriental nations wouldn't have been armed and actively expected to fight side by side with the US like South Korea was. The issue was the Japanese seemed capable of acting very odd (which wartime experience, like sailors trying to kill themselves rather than be saved, confirmed) and it would be best they kept relatively more harmless given that the same rebuilding as in Germany was being done, but less stringently given the different dynamic going on there (MacArthur, the Emperor, the Japanese knack of learning lessons but absolutely refusing to change their minds about thing at the same time) etc.

It made sense for the US to play war games against Japan even if they were peaceful to each other. War games were always against the most likely opponent. Whether that was Germany or even the British at one point.

Japan was the only nation the US expected to have a war with in the future, and events wound up proving them right. Both nations interests couldn't prevent it and the Japanese and their mentality ensured the rivalry would go hot.

Even that's debatable as Stalin wasn't really interested in another war in Europe.

Nuclear weapons gave the Soviets pause, but the primary post-war problem was how exhausted the USSR was due to WWII and the desire to rebuild and realign before trying something. The navy especially needed rebuilding, and Stalin insisted on a surface heavy naval force.

The main problem with the US during and after WW1 was that the Navy was very top heavy. Battleships and destroyers. Nothing in between. The US lacked the flexibility the British had. The South Dakota class wasnt that much of a improvement over the Colorado class. Yes, four more 16" guns and 23 know speed, but more or less the same protection. The class would be an oddball compared to the rest of the 21 knot battlefleet. The Lexington was a powerful ship with a glass jaw with too much speed. Those two designs just needed to be scrapped and done over again. Though hindsight 20/20 the Lexingtons as battle cruisers would be very useful in WW2 with a modern AA outfit as a carrier escort. They are nearly as large as the Iowa class and just as fast.

Both the British and the Japanese couldn't afford to their post-war building programs. Some suggest the new BB and BC designs the British made up were not realistically going to be built but was used as a ploy during the Washington Treaty.

The biggest blow I would say to downfall to the British Navy was the downfall of their shipyards. 20 years later, the British just didn't have the same capability they did in WW1 when it came to building battleships or anything as large. Whereas the US was untapped and had alot of open coastlines they could easily setup for shipbuilding.

Yes the US didn't really need a strong Japan in response to the Soviets. Because realistically speaking the Soviets were not going to cross the Pacific. Troops would come from the west not the east. The US would be more concerned from ballistic missiles coming from the north.

However, Japan was and is useful when it came to communist China. Perhaps not at the end of WW2 and probably for not another 20 years. Afterall, China was a mess even before when Japan invaded them. They were a mess for a long time. Granted Europe and the US played a big part of that.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The main problem with the US during and after WW1 was that the Navy was very top heavy. Battleships and destroyers. Nothing in between. The US lacked the flexibility the British had. The South Dakota class wasnt that much of a improvement over the Colorado class. Yes, four more 16" guns and 23 know speed, but more or less the same protection. The class would be an oddball compared to the rest of the 21 knot battlefleet. The Lexington was a powerful ship with a glass jaw with too much speed. Those two designs just needed to be scrapped and done over again. Though hindsight 20/20 the Lexingtons as battle cruisers would be very useful in WW2 with a modern AA outfit as a carrier escort. They are nearly as large as the Iowa class and just as fast.

Both the British and the Japanese couldn't afford to their post-war building programs. Some suggest the new BB and BC designs the British made up were not realistically going to be built but was used as a ploy during the Washington Treaty.

The biggest blow I would say to downfall to the British Navy was the downfall of their shipyards. 20 years later, the British just didn't have the same capability they did in WW1 when it came to building battleships or anything as large. Whereas the US was untapped and had alot of open coastlines they could easily setup for shipbuilding.

Yes the US didn't really need a strong Japan in response to the Soviets. Because realistically speaking the Soviets were not going to cross the Pacific. Troops would come from the west not the east. The US would be more concerned from ballistic missiles coming from the north.

However, Japan was and is useful when it came to communist China. Perhaps not at the end of WW2 and probably for not another 20 years. Afterall, China was a mess even before when Japan invaded them. They were a mess for a long time. Granted Europe and the US played a big part of that.

Makes sense considering Japan and Britain are islands and probably would need a more diversified fleet arrangement.

I'm not sure what was going on between WWI and WWII that made Britain downsize. It's probably something I should look into considering they kinda got sacked by Hitler.

I'd say the US didn't need a strong Japan since neither US nor USSR were trying to commit hostile takeovers. Both sides were privy to preying upon countries subjected to civil wars between socialist and otherwise parties with the intent of creating new trading partners. Japan would never come to such issue within their economy.

[McAvoy]

The main problem with the US during and after WW1 was that the Navy was very top heavy. Battleships and destroyers. Nothing in between. The US lacked the flexibility the British had. The South Dakota class wasnt that much of a improvement over the Colorado class. Yes, four more 16" guns and 23 know speed, but more or less the same protection. The class would be an oddball compared to the rest of the 21 knot battlefleet. The Lexington was a powerful ship with a glass jaw with too much speed. Those two designs just needed to be scrapped and done over again. Though hindsight 20/20 the Lexingtons as battle cruisers would be very useful in WW2 with a modern AA outfit as a carrier escort. They are nearly as large as the Iowa class and just as fast.

Both the British and the Japanese couldn't afford to their post-war building programs. Some suggest the new BB and BC designs the British made up were not realistically going to be built but was used as a ploy during the Washington Treaty.

The biggest blow I would say to downfall to the British Navy was the downfall of their shipyards. 20 years later, the British just didn't have the same capability they did in WW1 when it came to building battleships or anything as large. Whereas the US was untapped and had alot of open coastlines they could easily setup for shipbuilding.

Yes the US didn't really need a strong Japan in response to the Soviets. Because realistically speaking the Soviets were not going to cross the Pacific. Troops would come from the west not the east. The US would be more concerned from ballistic missiles coming from the north.

However, Japan was and is useful when it came to communist China. Perhaps not at the end of WW2 and probably for not another 20 years. Afterall, China was a mess even before when Japan invaded them. They were a mess for a long time. Granted Europe and the US played a big part of that.

Makes sense considering Japan and Britain are islands and probably would need a more diversified fleet arrangement.

I'm not sure what was going on between WWI and WWII that made Britain downsize. It's probably something I should look into considering they kinda got sacked by Hitler.

I'd say the US didn't need a strong Japan since neither US nor USSR were trying to commit hostile takeovers. Both sides were privy to preying upon countries subjected to civil wars between socialist and otherwise parties with the intent of creating new trading partners. Japan would never come to such issue within their economy.

It was economy. The first World War pretty much bankrupted the British. Combined with a feel to not experience that sort of war again, the Washington Naval Treaty and the usual downsizing of the military that happens after a war.

Basically they lost that shipyard capability that made their WW1 fleet was gone by the 1930's. So when it came time for them to build battleships again they were limited to a certain number of slips that could build battleships the size of the new KGV class. Armor production was down too. Takes time to make the specialized armor plating for battleships after all.

Let's put it this way, the British were constantly pushing for a 25k ton and 12" limit for battleships because that was what they could realistically could build in large numbers. Same goes for the heavy cruisers. They needed alot of them but couldn't afford to build the max 10k 8" gun ships the US was building.

Hell the British were limited in what they could with refitting their existing battleships. Only three, QE, Valiant and Warspite were refitted, plus the Renown. Rodney was in a desperate need to be just overhauled, bad electrical wiring. The Hood's machinery was worn out and the Admiralty figured the lifespan for that machinery would last until 43-44. Repulse and the other two QEs didn't get the full rebuilds.

And all of this due to the budget. Compare that to the US. The US extensively to a degree majority of their battleships. Removing of cage masts, elevating the guns, more armor, new machinery, etc. Only the Big Five, the Tennessee and Colorado classes did not get refitted before the war. All of that on top of building alot of cruisers, light and heavy. Even construction of carriers which include the conversion of the Lexington class into carriers.

[Beastro]

The main problem with the US during and after WW1 was that the Navy was very top heavy. Battleships and destroyers. Nothing in between. The US lacked the flexibility the British had. The South Dakota class wasnt that much of a improvement over the Colorado class. Yes, four more 16" guns and 23 know speed, but more or less the same protection. The class would be an oddball compared to the rest of the 21 knot battlefleet. The Lexington was a powerful ship with a glass jaw with too much speed. Those two designs just needed to be scrapped and done over again. Though hindsight 20/20 the Lexingtons as battle cruisers would be very useful in WW2 with a modern AA outfit as a carrier escort. They are nearly as large as the Iowa class and just as fast.

Both the British and the Japanese couldn't afford to their post-war building programs. Some suggest the new BB and BC designs the British made up were not realistically going to be built but was used as a ploy during the Washington Treaty.

The biggest blow I would say to downfall to the British Navy was the downfall of their shipyards. 20 years later, the British just didn't have the same capability they did in WW1 when it came to building battleships or anything as large. Whereas the US was untapped and had alot of open coastlines they could easily setup for shipbuilding.

Yes the US didn't really need a strong Japan in response to the Soviets. Because realistically speaking the Soviets were not going to cross the Pacific. Troops would come from the west not the east. The US would be more concerned from ballistic missiles coming from the north.

However, Japan was and is useful when it came to communist China. Perhaps not at the end of WW2 and probably for not another 20 years. Afterall, China was a mess even before when Japan invaded them. They were a mess for a long time. Granted Europe and the US played a big part of that.

Makes sense considering Japan and Britain are islands and probably would need a more diversified fleet arrangement.

I'm not sure what was going on between WWI and WWII that made Britain downsize. It's probably something I should look into considering they kinda got sacked by Hitler.

I'd say the US didn't need a strong Japan since neither US nor USSR were trying to commit hostile takeovers. Both sides were privy to preying upon countries subjected to civil wars between socialist and otherwise parties with the intent of creating new trading partners. Japan would never come to such issue within their economy.

Everyone needs a diversified navy. The USNs problem was Congress and their stinginess. Congress didn't understand why the Navy would want battleships, cruisers AND destroyers, so the USN focused on what was the most important to them and went for battleships and armoured cruisers on the side. The Dreadnought and Invincible came along and Congress rolled their eyes at the USN now asking for more to replace obsolescent pre-dreadnoughts. They accepted that but pretty much refused to replace the armoured cruisers which is why the Lexingtons had such a long development period going back to, IIRC, before Invincible was launched.

WWI made the need for destroyers apparent, but again Congress was only willing to go with the Omahas for fleet scouting. Before then they relied upon destroyers and ACs, and with the Washington Treaty, they kept with just largely destroyers until the treaty cruisers started to come into service (but even then they proved their worth by the carriers sides very quickly).

The result was that the USN had for much of the battleship era practically no scouting force of any strength or capability and would have suffered immensely had they gone to war no matter how good their battlefleet and individual battleships were.

Britain was overstretch and needed a lot of cruisers to cover their shipping lines. IIRC, 75 was the minimum they needed, ideally over 120 and they almost didn't get enough.

Though hindsight 20/20 the Lexingtons as battle cruisers would be very useful in WW2 with a modern AA outfit as a carrier escort. They are nearly as large as the Iowa class and just as fast.

That's a bit of a paradox. The Lexington's also went on to prove carrier doctrine and carrier effectiveness for the USN and were the best of the treaty carriers which spared the US much of the awkward design crap Britain and Japan dealt with, like Britain's more numerous smaller carriers that limited them past the 30s and Japan's odd design and redesigns around Kaga and Akagi. Removing them would leave a massive hole that would have been filled by some very inferior designs.

Greater hindsight is, that while they would have been good carrier escorts, Lex and Sara were even better carriers for when they came into service.

[McAvoy]

The US Navy before the conversion of the Lexington class was drawing up design studies that closely resemble the historical Lexington class.

The only difference I would say was it wouldnt be as large, perhaps be less limited in space due to the ship being built keep up.

[Frustration]

That applies to every ideology.

Well, every ideology could be made to work with enough genius saints... but I don't agree that all ideologies are incompatible with human nature, or even untrue.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

That applies to every ideology.

Well, every ideology could be made to work with enough genius saints... but I don't agree that all ideologies are incompatible with human nature, or even untrue.

I tend to view the shoehorning of communism unto society in the same vein as the comprehensive premise of the matrix.

If you had such a society that adequately distributed essential needs inclusive of all commerce through centralized initiative, you would have the very least an anomalistic minority of justly dispositioned people estranged from the system.

That being said, Communistic influence isn't confined to its holistic overturn of society. There isn't a consistent ideological basis of communism that is proposed about society in a socio-temporal reality, and that's opposite people just doing a quick logical puzzle in their head and deeming it impractical.

[Draco Dracul]

That applies to every ideology.

Well, every ideology could be made to work with enough genius saints... but I don't agree that all ideologies are incompatible with human nature, or even untrue.

I tend to view the shoehorning of communism unto society in the same vein as the comprehensive premise of the matrix.

That's a really wierd metaphor considering that the protagonists of the Matrix are anarcho-communists and the Matrix itself is a metaphor for neoliberalism.