Thomson Reuters reveals a plan on how to destroy China’s navy by the Japanese (Huh?)

 Japanese vessels are seen off Genkaijima Island, north of Fukuoka on Japan's southwestern island of Kyushu in this March 21, 2005 file photo. Reuters/Kimimasa Mayama/Files

Japanese vessels are seen off Genkaijima Island, north of Fukuoka on Japan’s southwestern island of Kyushu in this March 21, 2005 file photo. Reuters/Kimimasa Mayama/Files

Apparently, as tensions between North Korea, China and Japan increase almost daily, news was released earlier this year that Japan has a “master plan to destroy the Chinese navy” in a battle if circumstances would ever warrant such a profitable catastrophe. Do people see how the media are used as a weapon of mass influence? Why even publish news like this unless it was specifically designed to be provocative towards the Chinese? This is more British posturing in this region of the world since this news originally appeared in Reuters. Thomson Reuters is of course  owned by wealthy British interests. So why would the British be posturing in this part of the world? Because that’s what the British have always done: posture for war through the central banking model. Isn’t this sort of a strange predicament for the Japanese? Thomson Reuters is revealing Japan’s plan to destroy the Chinese navy? So, are the Japanese themselves in on this plan, or are the Japanese just carrying it out?

Readers should probably be informed as to who is behind the Center for New American Security (CNAS) mentioned in the article published below, a Washington D.C.-based think tank, which include Kurt M. Campbell as CNAS’s CEO. Campbell has business interests in the Asian region so any policy shift between China-US relations would affect his business interests. Campbell is also a member of several extremely prominent and influential organizations that have a huge impact on American foreign policy the least of which are the Aspen Strategy Group and the Council on Foreign Relations.

Also with CNAS as a co-founder, is Michèle Angelique Flournoy who was the former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. That position is the seventh-ranking official in the U.S. Department of Defense. The Department of Defense has nothing to do with “defense” and everything to do with first strike. How can you make money defending shit all the time? The best way to make this profitable is through provocation making your opponent strike first.  Michèle Angelique Flournoy also came out of Oxford, so there is the British connection again. Flournoy currently serves as a Senior Advisor to the Boston Consulting Group, one of the most prestigious investment consulting firms in the world. The entire fixation and careers of people like Campbell and Flournoy is all revolved around war. And not surprisingly, Campbell is also out of Oxford so we come full circle back to the British and central banking. And just as a reminder, Japan’s central bank head Haruhiko Kuroda is also out of Oxford. So, is this a “Japan plan” or a “British-Oxford plan” to destroy China’s navy using its proxy Japan?

Japan’s master plan to destroy the Chinese Navy in battle

By AT Editor

January 2, 2016

(From the National Interest)

By Harry J. Kazianis

It seems that Japan is developing plans to craft its own Anti-Access/Area-Denial (A2/AD) strategy—or what one former Japanese official describes as “maritime supremacy and air superiority”—against the Chinese Navy.

The plan itself, detailed by Reuters, makes a tremendous amount of good sense:

“Tokyo is responding by stringing a line of anti-ship, anti-aircraft missile batteries along 200 islands in the East China Sea stretching 1,400 km (870 miles) from the country’s mainland toward Taiwan. . .

“While the installations are not secret, it is the first time such officials have spelled out that the deployment will help keep China at bay in the Western Pacific and amounts to a Japanese version of the “anti-access/area denial” doctrine, known as “A2/AD” in military jargon, that China is using to try to push the United States and its allies out of the region.

“Chinese ships sailing from their eastern seaboard must pass through this seamless barrier of Japanese missile batteries to reach the Western Pacific, access to which is vital to Beijing both as a supply line to the rest of the world’s oceans and for the projection of its naval power.”

The piece also spells out an overall larger Japanese military presence in the East China Sea, which will certainly not please China:

“Over the next five years, Japan will increase its Self-Defense Forces on islands in the East China Sea by about a fifth to almost 10,000 personnel.

“Those troops, manning missile batteries and radar stations, will be backed up by marine units on the mainland, stealthy submarines, F-35 warplanes, amphibious fighting vehicles, aircraft carriers as big as World War Two flat-tops and ultimately the U.S. Seventh Fleet headquartered at Yokosuka, south of Tokyo.”

Does this plan sound familiar? It should if you have been following the topic. Such ideas have been floated in the U.S. national security community for a few years now. Toshi Yoshihara, a past National Interest contributor and professor at the U.S. Naval War College, who is also quoted in the Reuters piece, presented a similar idea as part of a much larger Japanese A2/AD strategy in a Center for New American Security (CNAS) report back in 2014:

“the Ryukyu Islands themselves could support Japanese anti-access forces. For example, truck-mounted anti-ship and anti-air missile units dispersed across the archipelago would erect a formidable barrier. In wartime, effective blocking operations would tempt PLA commanders to nullify these gatekeepers. Such exertions, however, would tie down significant portions of China’s warfighting capacity while depleting manpower and materiel. Because the islands hold little innate value to Beijing the Chinese leadership might decide that escalation was not worth the effort.”