2024: Cold Interbellum (MT/AH/OOC/Dead/Reboot Coming Soon)

[Kelmet]

Bay of Pigs 2: Electric Boogaloo

Its even funnier the second time!

Bay of pigs 2 except no cuban exiles.

[Arvenia]

China meanwhile shall legislate tax cuts and promote China as a "start-up nation".

Sounds like a meeting needs to happen.

What meeting?

[Kelmet]

Sounds like a meeting needs to happen.

What meeting?

Between the US and China?

[Sao Nova Europa]

What meeting?

Between the US and China?

Sure. We can arrange such a meeting. Perhaps a visit by the US President to Beijing?

[Kelmet]

Between the US and China?

Sure. We can arrange such a meeting. Perhaps a visit by the US President to Beijing?

Monroe's in Germany right now....How about Vice President?

[Sao Nova Europa]

Sure. We can arrange such a meeting. Perhaps a visit by the US President to Beijing?

Monroe's in Germany right now....How about Vice President?

Sure.

[Kelmet]

Monroe's in Germany right now....How about Vice President?

Sure.

Excellent, how would you like to colab?

[Sao Nova Europa]

Sure.

Excellent, how would you like to colab?

Through telegrams, though I would prefer if we would do this meeting the day after tomorrow.

[Kelmet]

Excellent, how would you like to colab?

Through telegrams, though I would prefer if we would do this meeting the day after tomorrow.

Sure thing, ill TG you then.

[Arvenia]

Should we add an UN thread for this RP?

[Deblar]

Should we add an UN thread for this RP?

Sure, I wouldn’t mind

[Bolslania]

Should we add an UN thread for this RP?

I think so.

[Sao Nova Europa]

We are going to have WWIII over some rocks? I say China and US force Japan and Korea to settle this dispute peacefully (maybe by turning the rocks into a no go zone for both sides). I also believe that both China and US should make clear to Japan that if it does not accept some kind of settlement, they won't come saving them from the Russians.

[Bolslania]

We are going to have WWIII over some rocks? I say China and US force Japan and Korea to settle this dispute peacefully (maybe by turning the rocks into a no go zone for both sides). I also believe that both China and US should make clear to Japan that if it does not accept some kind of settlement, they won't come saving them from the Russians.

Yeah I've done the best I can without military involvement. Because I'm not super diplomatically close with either, I don't have the political leverage that China and America does.

[TENNOHEIKA BANZAI NIHON]

We are going to have WWIII over some rocks? I say China and US force Japan and Korea to settle this dispute peacefully (maybe by turning the rocks into a no go zone for both sides). I also believe that both China and US should make clear to Japan that if it does not accept some kind of settlement, they won't come saving them from the Russians.

The US is committed by treaty to defend Japan. If it doesn't, it will justify further Japanese military expansion. As one of the US's longest standing allies in the Pacific, and as a powerful nation economically, it can offer financial incentives for American support. China may do what it wants, but should remember that Korea's military fired on a civilian helicopter that was within its rights to be in the area. They had other options than to escalate a confrontation.


To Arvenia since I am assuming you are dispatching the ships from a port and not right near Takeshima, and since I am waiting for a Korean response, I will wait and assume your ships enter the area several hours later.

[Arvenia]

We are going to have WWIII over some rocks? I say China and US force Japan and Korea to settle this dispute peacefully (maybe by turning the rocks into a no go zone for both sides). I also believe that both China and US should make clear to Japan that if it does not accept some kind of settlement, they won't come saving them from the Russians.

The US is committed by treaty to defend Japan. If it doesn't, it will justify further Japanese military expansion. As one of the US's longest standing allies in the Pacific, and as a powerful nation economically, it can offer financial incentives for American support. China may do what it wants, but should remember that Korea's military fired on a civilian helicopter that was within its rights to be in the area. They had other options than to escalate a confrontation.


To Arvenia since I am assuming you are dispatching the ships from a port and not right near Takeshima, and since I am waiting for a Korean response, I will wait and assume your ships enter the area several hours later.

That's true, I forgot to mention a port.

[Deblar]

Hammer's been dropped. No more Mr. Nice Government.

[TENNOHEIKA BANZAI NIHON]

The US is committed by treaty to defend Japan. If it doesn't, it will justify further Japanese military expansion. As one of the US's longest standing allies in the Pacific, and as a powerful nation economically, it can offer financial incentives for American support. China may do what it wants, but should remember that Korea's military fired on a civilian helicopter that was within its rights to be in the area. They had other options than to escalate a confrontation.


To Arvenia since I am assuming you are dispatching the ships from a port and not right near Takeshima, and since I am waiting for a Korean response, I will wait and assume your ships enter the area several hours later.

That's true, I forgot to mention a port.

Are your ships going to actually enter Takeshima waters?

[Arvenia]

That's true, I forgot to mention a port.

Are your ships going to actually enter Takeshima waters?

Maybe. Just waiting for a response from your government. It may not be needed if the situation calms down.

[Kelmet]

We are going to have WWIII over some rocks? I say China and US force Japan and Korea to settle this dispute peacefully (maybe by turning the rocks into a no go zone for both sides). I also believe that both China and US should make clear to Japan that if it does not accept some kind of settlement, they won't come saving them from the Russians.

The US is committed by treaty to defend Japan. If it doesn't, it will justify further Japanese military expansion. As one of the US's longest standing allies in the Pacific, and as a powerful nation economically, it can offer financial incentives for American support. China may do what it wants, but should remember that Korea's military fired on a civilian helicopter that was within its rights to be in the area. They had other options than to escalate a confrontation.


To Arvenia since I am assuming you are dispatching the ships from a port and not right near Takeshima, and since I am waiting for a Korean response, I will wait and assume your ships enter the area several hours later.

Defensive treaty, not with Korea and japan being mutually fucking stupid. And it won't it will just prove that US leadership didn't do a rail of coke before going straight into war.

How are you justifying this as japan? You're people unless you changed something massive in your history that you didn't put in your application they wouldn't stand for this blatant one sided aggression.

[TENNOHEIKA BANZAI NIHON]

The US is committed by treaty to defend Japan. If it doesn't, it will justify further Japanese military expansion. As one of the US's longest standing allies in the Pacific, and as a powerful nation economically, it can offer financial incentives for American support. China may do what it wants, but should remember that Korea's military fired on a civilian helicopter that was within its rights to be in the area. They had other options than to escalate a confrontation.


To Arvenia since I am assuming you are dispatching the ships from a port and not right near Takeshima, and since I am waiting for a Korean response, I will wait and assume your ships enter the area several hours later.

Defensive treaty, not with Korea and japan being mutually fucking stupid. And it won't it will just prove that US leadership didn't do a rail of coke before going straight into war.

How are you justifying this as japan? You're people unless you changed something massive in your history that you didn't put in your application they wouldn't stand for this blatant one sided aggression.

Well I don't need to really change my history to justify this. I changed parts about militarization, but what is happening in the IC has been on the verge of happening for the past few decades. Just last year the Japan Coast Guard and Korean Coast Guard engaged in a confrontation that lasted weeks over the islands.

IRL 91% of Japanese hold negative views of North Korea. Regarding South Korea, in 2014 a poll came out with 71.5% of Japanese saying that Japan "does not have an affinity" or "are on the side of not having an affinity" with South Korea. Now this was before all of Korea's recent actions regarding WW2 and the Takeshima Islands.

This Korea also developed nuclear weapons, likely tested missiles, and combined with aggressive rhetoric after decades of a more militarist education system, it is likely in this timeline Japanese negative views on Korea still exceed 90% of the population and less than 1% hold positive views.

There is a reason IRL the Japanese official Diplomatic Blue Book went from "The Republic of Korea (ROK) and Japan are the most important neighboring countries to each other, which share fundamental values such as freedom, democracy, and respect for basic human rights." in 2014 all the way to just "Their good relationship is essential for peace and stability in the Asian-Pacific region" in 2018. In 2012 the words "sharing of the basic values of basic human rights" were removed.

[Kelmet]

Defensive treaty, not with Korea and japan being mutually fucking stupid. And it won't it will just prove that US leadership didn't do a rail of coke before going straight into war.

How are you justifying this as japan? You're people unless you changed something massive in your history that you didn't put in your application they wouldn't stand for this blatant one sided aggression.

Well I don't need to really change my history to justify this. I changed parts about militarization, but what is happening in the IC has been on the verge of happening for the past few decades. Just last year the Japan Coast Guard and Korean Coast Guard engaged in a confrontation that lasted weeks over the islands.

IRL 91% of Japanese hold negative views of North Korea. Regarding South Korea, in 2014 a poll came out with 71.5% of Japanese saying that Japan "does not have an affinity" or "are on the side of not having an affinity" with South Korea. Now this was before all of Korea's recent actions regarding WW2 and the Takeshima Islands.

This Korea also developed nuclear weapons, likely tested missiles, and combined with aggressive rhetoric after decades of a more militarist education system, it is likely in this timeline Japanese negative views on Korea still exceed 90% of the population and less than 1% hold positive views.

There is a reason IRL the Japanese official Diplomatic Blue Book went from "The Republic of Korea (ROK) and Japan are the most important neighboring countries to each other, which share fundamental values such as freedom, democracy, and respect for basic human rights." in 2014 all the way to just "Their good relationship is essential for peace and stability in the Asian-Pacific region" in 2018. In 2012 the words "sharing of the basic values of basic human rights" were removed.

Not having an affinity does not translate to willingness to wage a war with them.

You should have had to change your history to re-write the pacifistic nature of the majority of Japanese people.

[TENNOHEIKA BANZAI NIHON]

Well I don't need to really change my history to justify this. I changed parts about militarization, but what is happening in the IC has been on the verge of happening for the past few decades. Just last year the Japan Coast Guard and Korean Coast Guard engaged in a confrontation that lasted weeks over the islands.

IRL 91% of Japanese hold negative views of North Korea. Regarding South Korea, in 2014 a poll came out with 71.5% of Japanese saying that Japan "does not have an affinity" or "are on the side of not having an affinity" with South Korea. Now this was before all of Korea's recent actions regarding WW2 and the Takeshima Islands.

This Korea also developed nuclear weapons, likely tested missiles, and combined with aggressive rhetoric after decades of a more militarist education system, it is likely in this timeline Japanese negative views on Korea still exceed 90% of the population and less than 1% hold positive views.

There is a reason IRL the Japanese official Diplomatic Blue Book went from "The Republic of Korea (ROK) and Japan are the most important neighboring countries to each other, which share fundamental values such as freedom, democracy, and respect for basic human rights." in 2014 all the way to just "Their good relationship is essential for peace and stability in the Asian-Pacific region" in 2018. In 2012 the words "sharing of the basic values of basic human rights" were removed.

Not having an affinity does not translate to willingness to wage a war with them.

You should have had to change your history to re-write the pacifistic nature of the majority of Japanese people.

It isn't war, it is just a minor conflict. Mind you, I used civilian ships and Korea fired first. It isn't war. Just like 75% of Americans do not support war with Iran, but just last week Biden launched strikes on an Iran-back militia. There was no willingness to go to war, but Korea forced it upon Japan.

[Kelmet]

Not having an affinity does not translate to willingness to wage a war with them.

You should have had to change your history to re-write the pacifistic nature of the majority of Japanese people.

It isn't war, it is just a minor conflict. Mind you, I used civilian ships and Korea fired first. It isn't war. Just like 75% of Americans do not support war with Iran, but just last week Biden launched strikes on an Iran-back militia. There was no willingness to go to war, but Korea forced it upon Japan.

That is not a comparison.

Iran-back militias in syria is not the same as Korean personnel on (what they view as) korean soil.

Seems pretty willing to me when triggers start getting pulled.

[TENNOHEIKA BANZAI NIHON]

It isn't war, it is just a minor conflict. Mind you, I used civilian ships and Korea fired first. It isn't war. Just like 75% of Americans do not support war with Iran, but just last week Biden launched strikes on an Iran-back militia. There was no willingness to go to war, but Korea forced it upon Japan.

That is not a comparison.

Iran-back militias in syria is not the same as Korean personnel on (what they view as) korean soil.

Seems pretty willing to me when triggers start getting pulled.

They aren't on Korean soil, they are at sea, but I digress.

Japanese forces are acting in self-defense. Korea fired the first shot, and now Japanese forces are responding. From the broad point of view, the Japanese military is trying to save Japanese civilians under attack by the Korean military.

It is likely they will lose ships. Japan may lose ships as well. But that is a conflict, not war. Now if Russian forces violate Japanese/Korean waters, then it will really be war.