Nanjing Arms Control Summit

[Triyun]

The Emperor offers all nations of the Pacific Rim a chance for peace in these trying time.  We offer all a chance to visit our glorious capital to discuss the terms of a following treaty:

 

Treaty on Conventional Forces Pacific:

 

Nations in the Pacific Agree to Here in By Follow these deployments within the Pacific Theatre to be defined as Oceans and land within 290 kilometers (exact range of a missile exported under the MTCR) of this [url= http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/woce/woce_v3/wocedata_1/woce-uot/images/obound.gif

]map:[/url]

 

Article I:  Naval Forces

1) Active duty suggests to be combat ready within 2 months or less

2) No Nation shall station more than five active duty carriers in the Pacific Ocean. 

3) No Nation shall station more than eight active duty battleships in the Pacific Ocean.

4) No Nation shall station more than 15 Amphibious Ships displacing over 6000 tonnes in the Pacific Ocean

5) No Nation shall station more than 8 conventionally armed guided missile (SSGN) or boomer SSBN submarines in the Pacific Ocean

 

Article II:  Land Based Forces

1)  No Nation shall maintain a standing force of more than 800, 000 in the Pacific Ocean Theatre

2)  No Nation shall develop new conventionally armed land attack and ship attack ballistic missiles who do not currently possess them outside the range of the MTCR export control.

3)  Nations which currently possess them will be capped at levels at the time of this treaty.

4)  No Nation shall develop new land based land attack  or anti-ship cruise missiles in the Pacific theatre outside the MTCR 290 kilometer range. 

5)  No Nation shall export missiles or missile components to third party nations for use beyond 290 kilometer range.

 

Article III:  Space

1)  Nations will not deploy new satellites for military purposes into space except to replace existing satellites.

2)  Nations shall not deploy space to space weaponry to conduct kinetic attacks or test weapons that can create space debris.

 

Article IV: Confidence Building Measures and General Maritime Agreements

1)  All nations are entitled to a 200 nautical mile economic exclusion zone and a 100 mile military exclusion zone starting from their shore or their continental shelf.

2)  When Nations meet beyond this the line is drawn equidistant.

3)  The exception to these rules are in doctrines unchallenged and dictated at time of this treaty.

4)  Nations will allow the inspection of all WMD sites with the exceptions of nuclear armed submarines by any other nation.  Nations will be permitted to inspect sites of nuclear armed bombers, only during peace time.

5)  All nations shall refrain from conducting cyber campaigns against 16 critical infrastructure areas of fellow signatories using military forces outside of wartime, and shall prosecute non-governmental actors doing this. 

6)  Nations shall conduct biannual inter military dialogue including crisis simulation exercising utilizing domestic security, diplomatic service, and military branches of each nation on topics of space, cyberspace, and maritime security.  

[Evangeline Anovilis]

Not public

 

As the invitation with draft was received in Tokyo, a lengthy cabinet meeting ensued, to discuss the matter and to reconcile the demands of the Ministry of the Army, the Ministry of the Navy and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Views as to what this treaty was and how to respond to it varied greatly and the mood ranged from careful optimism among the civil ministries to scepticism among the Army and almost outrage in the Navy. In the end however, the Minister of the Navy had to face that they were virtually alone and even they could not argue for ignoring the treaty. Thus, Ambassador Shiramine was ordered to signal Nanjing that Japan was going to send a delegation, given that while it had its reservations on some matters, in principal it was interested.

 

The delegation itself consisted out of Minister of Defence, Kato Akira, who headed the Japanese delegation, together with a four military attachées, representing various services, General Nogizaka Masao (Army), Lt. General Hasebe Kozo (Naval Land Forces), Iida Shinosuke (Air Force) and Vice-Admiral Akubana Katsumi (Navy).

[Dillon1102]

President of Oregon, Joseph Lane would be sent to represent the Pacific Northwest.

[Mr Director]

Minister of Foreign Affairs Yun Byung-se would be sent.

[Justinian the Mighty]

Russia's Prime Minister arrived in Nanjing and it was glorious. Tianxia is truly a beneficent master!

[Triyun]

The Empire would put the delegations up at the Shangri-La Nanjing World Hotel, providing each nation with a bloc of rooms to stay at, situated between the Imperial Palace and the Imperial Grand Assembly.  The town itself would be placed on lock down with uniformed Imperial Soldiers doing patrols through the street to make clear that any attempt to disrupt the proceedings would be met with force.

 

While the iron fist of the Imperial Government was on full display, so was hospitality.  Traditional entertainments of dancing, acrobatics, and high Chinese cuisine were on display.  Large banquets were held.  Chinese Opera and modern pop ballads were mercifully spared from the guests.  

 

Drafts of the agreement would be sent out for delegations for submission with suggested revisions before the opening ceremony would begin, a dinner at the Imperial Palace, Yuan Shizi, himself leading the proceedings.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

The Japanese delegation soon took to their provided quarters, in order to prepare for the dinner. While it was not the main political issue, it was still important that Japan be properly represented in the presence of the Emperor of Tianxia and it was also the first contact with the other delegations. As they prepared themselves for this event, a list of suggestions was handed in, given there were certain significant concerns and reservations on the Japanese part.

 

 

The Japanese delegation would kindly request that the map be provided that is referred to in the first paragraph of the draft.

 

On Article I, we suggest the following amendments to be made:

• Carriers should be counted solely if they displace above 40,000 tons and carry at the most 20 fixed-wing combat aircraft. Light carriers, auxiliary carriers and helicopter carriers which don't meet these standards are not counted as carriers. We would suggest them to be counted towards amphibious landing ships though, as a compromise. Additionally, we suggest that amphibious warfare ships not carry more than 20 fixed-wing fighter aircraft, so as to not circumvent the carrier limitations.
• Guided Missile submarines be defined as any submarine which has a missile launch system that is seperate from the torpedo tubes and is not solely for the purpose of air defense.
• The Japanese delegation would like to note that (provided the map of the Pacific area coincides with the common perception of what is the Pacific region), Article I would require exactly three nations to limit their naval forces, with two of the three being capable of stationing active duty forces outside the theatre well within 2 months travel time into the theatre, while Japan has no such option and thus objects to this point. We thus suggest as a counter-offer that limitations apply in general for the entire fleet, but that Tianxia's and Russia's global committments be taken into consideration and they be allowed to posess greater quantities of capital ships. Japan suggests the rate of 3:3:2 for Tianxia:Russia:Japan naval strength ratios, but makes it clear that such is a first suggestion which we are willing to discuss and amend in further debate, following valid and reasonable arguments.

On Articles II and III, we have no complaints at the current time, provided that the issues in Article I are adressed.

 

On Article IV, we inquire as to the exact meaning of point 3), as well as what 16 critical infrastructure areas are adressed in point 5).

[Triyun]

• To point one.  Tianxia would say that any warship with a ski-jump or a catapult and a flat deck is a carrier, limiting the capability of other ships doesn't make sense.  Tianxia will not agree to limit the size of its amphibious ships which may need additional flat top space for other missions that don't involve fixed wing aircraft, but by definition of simply volume also carry more than 20 STOVL aircraft.
• Tianxia cannot agree to the submarine proposal as our entire fast attack nuclear force has VLS missiles, as does the commonly seen Virginia, Seawolf, and Los Angeles class.  Guided missile subs in our view are boomer size boats which carry cruise rather than ballistic missiles.  There is no room for negotiation on this point.
• We won't cap our total navy, because security issues that face the Empire in territories outside the Pacific are not subject to treaty by nations inside the Pacific.  Tianxia holds territory in the Atlantic and Indian, any agreement of a treaty limiting what we can do there based on here makes not sense.
• Point 3, some nations already have claims.  For instance, the entirety of the East China Sea is Imperial Territorial Waters under the Jia Diktat.  Similar doctrines exist for the South China sea
• Google

[Evangeline Anovilis]

• By point 1 any amphibious warfare ship operating anything but VTOL aircraft in support of the amphibious capabilities would automatically fall under the carrier category. Alternatively, it would allow amphibious warfare ships to act as light carrier aircraft circumventing limitations on carriers. As the Japanese Navy operates several helicopter carriers and light carriers which differ from such an amphibious warfare ship most of all in the lack of a well deck and thus are actually less capable, we would like to see such ships counted towards the number of amphibious warfare ships, not towards carrier numbers.
• If Tianxia is unwilling to cap entire fleets, an alternative proposal is to raise carrier numbers in the original draft to 8 and battleship numbers to 12. Japan cannot sign any agreement which merely further jeopardises its national security by dramatically shifting the balance of military power further.

 

[Triyun]

• We can agree to STOVL not VTOL
• Japan has made a point of complaining about a imbalance between itself and other power.  However its counter proposal is really a 1.5:1.5:2 in favor of Japan and not addressing other navies.  Because other navies have global responsibilities Japan only has one.  We cannot really agree to such a thing.  And the 8 12 cap is so ridiculous as Japan knows there is no chance of other navies reaching it.  Give a real offer.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

• So helicopter carriers would still be counted as carriers?
• The original proposal leaves Japan at best at 5 carriers and 8 battleships, against at least as many other such ships in the theatre by Russia and Tianxia. However, while in the case of an Imperial or Russian renunciation of such an agreement, they can ferry in ships within weeks to achieve an overpowering advantage, Japan would need at least 2 months for reactivation. Our 3:3:2 proposal could lead to a slight Japanese regional superiority, but we deem it far less decisive and it is rather doubtful that Japan could reliably win a first battle and a second battle against the remainder of the Imperial fleet or Russian Fleet. Not to mention that both, Tianxia and Russia enjoy no minor advantages in land-based systems to make up for the difference. On the account that an 8-12 limit cannot be reached, it may be pointed out that Both Tianxia and Russia do posess these kinds of numbers. The sole naval powers that are as of now unlikely to meet these limitations anytime soon would be the states apart from the three of us, for which however even 5-8 would be beyond their ressources. Overall, Tianxia may argue that it has global comittments to fulfill and Japan only one, but the 5-8 ratio with the current provisions would make it unlikely we could even take care of that one, came it down to it.

[Triyun]

The arguments Japan make seem difficult to take as serious proposals because of the nature of the assets we are talking.  The Empire would note than unlike land warfare units that are dispersed and difficult to wipe out within minutes, Japan is refering to large warships which both take longer to build and are quicker to sink.  It may take 2 months to defeat an army, but as Japan [i]well knows[/i] battleships and carriers can be sunk in hours.  Further Japan can't really argue they are necessary for homeland defense of Japan because Japan could just as easily launch planes off its islands.  By contrast Russia and Tianxia with much larger far flung holdings across the Pacific have a legitimate use for more carriers.

 

While Tianxia does have a significant land based system, Japan knows full well the range of those systems and their limitations in protecting far flung expanses.  Japan by contrast is seeking to redress the balance by requesting arms limitations on the very systems that are needed for it to project power on the far flung islands which it has shown an interest in and recently undertaken aggressive campaigns to acquire.

 

In short little can be argued that Japan has any legitimate interest other than increasing its offensive power in what its proposing.