WI: Japan seizes the Kuriles and Sakhalin during the fall of the USSR

Yeah berlin wall was the "anti fascist barrier" appearances CAN BE deceptive

Except the 'Self Defence' part is enforced via constitution and the might of the US. No way they're going to let the Japanese not!military run amok in the sea of Okhotsk without their OK, and they will not be OK with it.
 
There was talk of some kind of Second Marshall Plan after the Cold War. Japan's economy was also starting to hit the fan and there was a tremendous amount of capital flight taking off.

Why not come up with some kind of agreement in which Japan (with US assistance?) directs all that capital flight towards modernizing Russia (particularly the east) AND Japan's government is obligated to directly assist the Russians in their modernization. In exchange the Japanese get a reversion to pre-war boundaries (the Russians keeping North Sakhalin).
 
What of the southern most islands of the Kurils? They are even today disputed by Russia and Japan as Russia wasnt supposed to occupy them after WWII but they still do so even today. Japan could try to retake those and that wouldnt be against the constitution.
 
What of the southern most islands of the Kurils? They are even today disputed by Russia and Japan as Russia wasnt supposed to occupy them after WWII but they still do so even today. Japan could try to retake those and that wouldnt be against the constitution.

Once again: nobody of any significance in Japan ever advocated regaining them except by peaceful means (economic inducements to USSR/Russia).
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Once again: nobody of any significance in Japan ever advocated regaining them except by peaceful means (economic inducements to USSR/Russia).
By end of 1991 Japan has the military means to do so , and capability is far more relevant in foreign policy than stated intentions
If this was 1980 or even 1985 I would say they had neither the means nor the intention
 
By end of 1991 Japan has the military means to do so , and capability is far more relevant in foreign policy than stated intentions
If this was 1980 or even 1985 I would say they had neither the means nor the intention

My point is not the government's "stated intentions," my point is that it would have no popular support to go to war with Russia for the disputed islands, something which a democratic government can't ignore even it wanted to (which it didn't). And it also could not ignore the US government which would be totally opposed to such a war.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
My point is not the government's "stated intentions," my point is that it would have no popular support to go to war with Russia for the disputed islands, something which a democratic government can't ignore even it wanted to (which it didn't). And it also could not ignore the US government which would be totally opposed to such a war.
Ofcourse the likelihood is very low but every nation makes contingency plans and I'm sure Soviets did too about Japanese over kurils
Furthermore we discuss many " ASB" topics on most alt history forums like "operation sealion" so why not this scenario.
 
Ofcourse the likelihood is very low but every nation makes contingency plans and I'm sure Soviets did too about Japanese over kurils
Furthermore we discuss many " ASB" topics on most alt history forums like "operation sealion" so why not this scenario.

And we consider those who consider the unmentioned sea mammal feasible ignorant.
 
I agree with your assessment but some additional points to consider
Asuw capability of jmsdf in 1991 is not insignificant, there are 31 harpoon equipped surface ships and 6 submarines with harpoons this is more ASM than french or british navy in the same time period.
Before 1985 I agree jmsdf has hardly any Asuw capacity esp very few harpoons

Even without tankers the jasdf interceptors have longer range than most soviet fighters
The AAW capability of jmsdf ships is anemic I agree except the 4 standard equipped ships

The Soviet Pacific Fleet has better AAW, ASuW and Submarine capacity in 1991 and it had not deteriorated to the low point in late 90s. And the RN is better than equipped in AAW for its surface warships. The Invincible CVLs also offers RN stand-off capacity that the JMSDF still doesn't have today.

A Tu-22M regiment can do serious harm to pre-AEGIS JMSDF. Also, the JMSDF's surface ship would have difficulty in handling the Kirov class battlecruiser which was still in operation in Pacific in 1991.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
A Tu-22M regiment can do serious harm to pre-AEGIS JMSDF. Also, the JMSDF's surface ship would have difficulty in handling the Kirov class battlecruiser which was still in operation in Pacific in 1991.
How are the antimissile defences of JMSDF destroyers? A regiment of tu22M is only like 30 or so kh22 missiles ? As one tu22M can carry only one missile at a time ?
 
If your nuclear deterrent isn't for when another country invades you and begins annexing parts of your territory, what is it for?
Preventing the anexation of a few remote islands may not have been the type of existential threat the Soviets likely envisioned countering with nuclear weapons.

I suspect certain other nations are going to be horrified at the use of nuclear weapons in this context, and as a result may well do things the Soviets are not going to like. I suspect in the long run the Soviets / Russians are going to wish they hadn't used nuclear weapons in this fictional time line.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Preventing the anexation of a few remote islands may not have been the type of existential threat the Soviets likely envisioned countering with nuclear weapons.

I suspect certain other nations are going to be horrified at the use of nuclear weapons in this context, and as a result may well do things the Soviets are not going to like. I suspect in the long run the Soviets / Russians are going to wish they hadn't used nuclear weapons in this fictional time line.
Ditto
Esp when a lot of conventional options are available
Just think if US nuked Kabul after 911
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Are you asking about Japanese civilian casualties (I'd venture north of one million, maybe has high as 10 million depending on how quickly the lunatics in Tokyo who came up with its were slapped straight by the Shade of Tojo) or the likelihood or this resulting in a full out nuclear exchange (better than one in three, depending on whether the Soviets stand down without putting troops on Japanese soil)?
 
Are you asking about Japanese civilian casualties (I'd venture north of one million, maybe has high as 10 million depending on how quickly the lunatics in Tokyo who came up with its were slapped straight by the Shade of Tojo) or the likelihood or this resulting in a full out nuclear exchange (better than one in three, depending on whether the Soviets stand down without putting troops on Japanese soil)?

I wasn't really envisioning any significant numbers of civilian Japanese casualties due to immediate nuclear weapons effects when I made my prior post in this thread. Even if the Soviets decided to use nuclear weapons in this fictional time line I don't see what they have to gain by promptly killing large numbers of civilians. I can however see lot of down sides for the Soviets for any form of nuclear weapons use in this fictional time line and those down sides would likely increase by many orders of magnitude if large numbers of civilians were killed via nuclear weapons.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I wasn't really envisioning any significant numbers of civilian Japanese casualties due to immediate nuclear weapons effects when I made my prior post in this thread. Even if the Soviets decided to use nuclear weapons in this fictional time line I don't see what they have to gain by promptly killing large numbers of civilians. I can however see lot of down sides for the Soviets for any form of nuclear weapons use in this fictional time line and those down sides would likely increase by many orders of magnitude if large numbers of civilians were killed via nuclear weapons.
Problem is that just about any strike on Japanese military bases is going to cause considerable civilian casualties. The Soviets would be faced with a really bad scenario in a conventional war. When the USSR came apart they had several years of monumental supply issues that greatly impacted pilot training and naval ship upkeep (they literally had a couple Sovremenny DDG sink at the quay due to flat out failing to check for leaks), and the Japanese were in very good ship in comparison. Might well be the only way to not lose (which would have taken a sort of fractured situation and turned into 1917 Redux, except with about six sides, all with nukes) would be to go to Special Weapons.

It's like the line about police. Cop can never lose a fight.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Problem is that just about any strike on Japanese military bases is going to cause considerable civilian casualties. The Soviets would be faced with a really bad scenario in a conventional war. When the USSR came apart they had several years of monumental supply issues that greatly impacted pilot training and naval ship upkeep (they literally had a couple Sovremenny DDG sink at the quay due to flat out failing to check for leaks), and the Japanese were in very good ship in comparison. Might well be the only way to not lose (which would have taken a sort of fractured situation and turned into 1917 Redux, except with about six sides, all with nukes) would be to go to Special Weapons.

It's like the line about police. Cop can never lose a fight.
Or Soviets can obliterate a task force of Japanese ships at sea by using nuke tipped missiles ?
 
Problem is that just about any strike on Japanese military bases is going to cause considerable civilian casualties. The Soviets would be faced with a really bad scenario in a conventional war. When the USSR came apart they had several years of monumental supply issues that greatly impacted pilot training and naval ship upkeep (they literally had a couple Sovremenny DDG sink at the quay due to flat out failing to check for leaks), and the Japanese were in very good ship in comparison. Might well be the only way to not lose (which would have taken a sort of fractured situation and turned into 1917 Redux, except with about six sides, all with nukes) would be to go to Special Weapons.

It's like the line about police. Cop can never lose a fight.
Using nuclear weapons against bases near Japanese populated areas would seem a major escalation beyond simply using nuclear weapons (or more plausibly a single weapon at first) against isolated Japanese forces.

My $.02 worth is even if the Soviets couldn't immediately re take the islands in question without using nuclear weapons, their response wouldn't be to use nuclear weapons. I am sure the Soviets could find lots of ways to apply pressure to Japan while maintaing a state of war with Japan and building up their conventional forces for a re match. IMHO they would be much better off keeping the nuclear option in reserve while asking for the U.S. and others to pressure the Japanese to withdraw. I expect most if not all of the rest of the world would be quite sympathetic to the Soviets. I expect that sympathy would evaporate if they used nuclear weapons in this context.
 
Or Soviets can obliterate a task force of Japanese ships at sea by using nuke tipped missiles ?
Yes that would seem a more likely target for an initial use of nuclear weapons in this fictional time line. (I still believe any use of nuclear weapons in this context is extremely unlikely.)
 
Top