In the game of international relations, every decision is like a chess piece thrown into the game, causing ripples around the world. Recently, the United States announced that it would deploy medium-range missiles in the Asia-Pacific region, and this news set off an uproar on the lake of the international situation like a heavy bomb. What is striking is that US allies Japan and the Philippines have shown very different attitudes towards this.
In a statement by a spokesman for the US Army in the Pacific region, the strategic background of the US move was clearly pointed out: After the United States withdrew from the INF Treaty, the global deployment of intermediate-range missiles has become possible. It is expected that in 2024, the United States will deploy such missiles in the Indo-Pacific region, more precisely in the Asia-Pacific region. This decision undoubtedly had a profound impact on the military balance and the balance of forces in the region.
It was revealed that the missiles deployed by the US military are included in the "Typhon" combat system, which is a land version of the MK41 system launched by the US Navy. It is noteworthy that the Typhon combat system is supported by two types of missiles: a Standard 6 missile with a range of several hundred kilometers, and a land-based Tomahawk cruise missile with a range of up to 2000 kilometers. What is even more alarming is that the US military also plans to equip the "Typhon" system with other types of missiles, including the PRSM missile with a range of 1,000 kilometers and the Dark Eagle missile with a range of 2,700 kilometers. This series of measures shows that the United States is building a powerful medium-range missile combat network in the Asia-Pacific region to strike at countries hostile to it.
However, this strategic adjustment of the United States provoked mixed reactions among its allies. Japan and the Philippines have unanimously expressed their opposition to the presence of a new type of U.S. military force on their soil. Their position is that the conventional army, navy, and air force of the United States are sufficient to ensure their security, while the deployment of medium-range missiles is overprotective, and there is no need to introduce such a kind of ** that may arouse opposition from neighboring countries.
While both Japan and the Philippines oppose the deployment of U.S. missile forces, their motivations for opposition are very different. The refusal of the Japanese side was mainly based on its pursuit of military independence. As a country that has long sought to become a "normal country", Japan has been striving for the independence of its military forces. The Japanese side believes that these missiles must be in the hands of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces, and not controlled by the US military. This reflects Japan's sense of military autonomy and vigilance against possible US military control.
At the same time, the Philippines' position reflects more of its pursuit of diplomatic independence and its concern about getting involved in a major power conflict. Marcos Jr. of the Philippines faces the challenge of maintaining an independent diplomatic course with the United States, both to maintain relations with the United States and to avoid over-dependence on the United States, which could lead to the loss of the country's sovereignty. Therefore, the Philippines rejects the deployment of US missiles mainly to avoid being targeted in a conflict between major powers and to protect its people from the ravages of war. This is in stark contrast to Japan's attitude.
The reaction of all parties to this US decision fully demonstrates the complexity and delicacy of international relations. America's allies do not fully support its military buildup, but make independent judgments based on their own national interests and the international situation. The United States, on the other hand, needs to carefully weigh its global strategy against the interests of its allies to avoid triggering unnecessary international conflicts as a result of its actions.