Navy Lieutenant Ridge Alkonis: American in Japanese Prison (1 Viewer)

[Rickboy]

Doesn't altitude sickness strikes after you are past a certain high altitude? And, since it is caused by a lack of oxygen, wouldn't a person feel the effects immediately? Seems implausible that this guy was A-OK hiking, got in his car, and while driving back, all of the sudden, out of the blue, had a seizure.

I think he either got distracted or was too tired tired and dozed off, and the JAG came up with their version of the affluenza defense.

The resentment part, I don't know how Japanese people feel, but it does feel like the author of the article is just stirring the pot.

WebMD says 8000 ft. It's different for everyone. I live at 5280' and drive up over 12000' all the time. Up until a few months ago I owned an acre on a mountain near Breckenridge, CO that was at 11800'. I've never once had mountain sickness.

Mt Fuji is the highest mountain in Japan, at just a hair under 12400', and is in the prefecture where the incident occurred. But you can't really drive up Fuji. You usually drive to the trailhead and hike up. Alkonis did that hike. He later drove to Fujinomiya, where the accident happened. Fujinomiya's altitude is only 417' above sea level. I've read, however, that mountain sickness symptoms can occur up to 24hours after exposure.

Honestly, the more I read, the more I'm inclined to believe Alkonis. I read on his actions afterwards and he seems to have genuine remorse for the situation and offered much more than usual for compensation to the victim's families than is normal. I'm also concerned about alleged violations of the SOFA. That's the big deal out of this IMO. If it happened, then base commanders should close the bases and require all personnel to stay on base or only travel from residence to base for work. It's been done before. Local Japanese have some understandable issues with US forces in their neighborhoods but they also depend on them for the economic contribution.

That said, I have only read one side of the argument. I haven't read the Japanese side of it yet.

Just like every nation that ever spreads its military far and wide, eventually it will come to an end. I'd like to see it deliberately closed down, slowly divest, gradually bring the troops home, pay them to defend our country from the within the borders of our country, as we assure our allies gradually increase their own means for defense.

It would only take one brave US President to take us down that path, but the more likely scenario is that US imperialism will eventually crash and burn, spin out of control, and our divestment will rise out of urgent necessity and economic collapse instead of calculated choice.

Totally agree. However, once we pull out of these other countries, someone else is going to go in. China is already building bases around the world and they're pushing for domination all over the South China Sea. If we withdraw, they will dominate the area until Japan full re-arms, and it will re-arm.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Local Japanese have some understandable issues with US forces in their neighborhoods but they also depend on them for the economic contribution.

.

stringer Bell agrees with this sentiment

 

[mjcouvi]

Totally agree. However, once we pull out of these other countries, someone else is going to go in. China is already building bases around the world and they're pushing for domination all over the South China Sea. If we withdraw, they will dominate the area until Japan full re-arms, and it will re-arm.

It's a matter of it being a mad dash -- US is simply forced to withdraw out of monetary necessity and there is a power vacuum and chaos, as the defense of US allies crumbles with an economic collapse -- or, it could be a measured draw down, slowly allowing Japan and other countries who share our values to modify their spending in a way that accounts for the US defense presence they will inevitably lose.

Currently we subsidize pretty nice social safety nets for these countries by sparing them much of the cost for their defense. They'll have to maybe figure out how to reorganize their priorities. Meanwhile, here at home we would be able to spend 100s of billions more dollars on the social welfare of struggling Americans if policy is focused towards the homeland.

I see this choice as dichotomizing the long term strategy of the United States. Either you want it to prosper in terms of millennia, or you're more interested in a couple centuries of economic dominance, which may be coming to a close in the not too distant future. The maintenance of military bases and troops throughout the world is thinking in the short term, decades, centuries. To shift the US to a purely defensive nation, not bogged down in military affairs throughout the world -- this policy, if ingrained in a culture, could maintain a political/geographic entity for the truly long haul.

 

[dtc]

It's a matter of it being a mad dash -- US is simply forced to withdraw out of monetary necessity and there is a power vacuum and chaos, as the defense of US allies crumbles with an economic collapse -- or, it could be a measured draw down, slowly allowing Japan and other countries who share our values to modify their spending in a way that accounts for the US defense presence they will inevitably lose.

Currently we subsidize pretty nice social safety nets for these countries by sparing them much of the cost for their defense. They'll have to maybe figure out how to reorganize their priorities. Meanwhile, here at home we would be able to spend 100s of billions more dollars on the social welfare of struggling Americans if policy is focused towards the homeland.

I see this choice as dichotomizing the long term strategy of the United States. Either you want it to prosper in terms of millennia, or you're more interested in a couple centuries of economic dominance, which may be coming to a close in the not too distant future. The maintenance of military bases and troops throughout the world is thinking in the short term, decades, centuries. To shift the US to a purely defensive nation, not bogged down in military affairs throughout the world -- this policy, if ingrained in a culture, could maintain a political/geographic entity for the truly long haul.

THey don't share our values because we don't really have values.

What we have is a corporate controlled government that prioritizes profit for the donors over anything else.

and, 3 years for killing people seems like a deal.

 

[SystemShock]

Totally agree. However, once we pull out of these other countries, someone else is going to go in. China is already building bases around the world and they're pushing for domination all over the South China Sea. If we withdraw, they will dominate the area until Japan full re-arms, and it will re-arm.

It isn't necessarily so that someone else will go in, but even so, it'd still be in the best interest of the U.S. to not have China build bases in Japan.

Do you really think the 5 or so military bases in Saudi Arabia are there to protect Saudi Arabia because they can't protect themselves? Or that Guantanamo is there to protect Cuba?

As for believing Alkonis, I don't know. I don't have all the facts, It seems implausible that he would experience altitude sickness hiking trails around the mountain, or that he did not feel any effects of altitude sickness up until the moment he ran over 3 people.

Still, according to the interwebz, in the U.S., someone found guilty of involuntary manslaughter can go to jail for up to 10 years in some States. 3 years for 2, seems like a deal.

 

[El Caliente]

Their coward arses? Explain.

I can only assume he means Pearl Harbor.

 

[Merl]

These views aren't new and have been bubbling underneath the collective subconscious surface of some Japanese, particularly the nationalist right-wing parties since the 1950's. Its been hotly debated and well-chronicled that close to a majority of Japanese or sizable portions of the populace, don't exactly share the same collective grief, shame or sense of individual/collective responsibility for what the far-right militarist regime did to millions of Chinese citizens, war crimes against Dutch, British, French, American, Canadian men, women, and servicemen that were shot, tortured, worked to death in POW camps in Burma, Unit 731 where hideous human test experiments were performed, Philippines with its Bataan Death March, forcing or coercing Allied Air servicemen, POWs to make pro-Japanese propoganda speeches that was committed in the name of Japanese expansionism in the 1930's and 40's, all in an attempt to create "The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere".

But as much as it might be tempting to wholesale categorize these actions as subconscious reactions to continued American occupancy or stationing on Japan, historically the real instinctive reasons go a lot deeper and a lot further back then how WWII ended, and its not always perfectly articulated, but the angst has a shared common denominator: Many Japanese, even now in the 21st century, don't like the way or methods they were forced to open up their once-medieval, closed country to the modern West.

If we're aware of modern Japanese history, we know that Tokugawa Japan was forced by American gunboats and a very arrogant, bellicose American Commodore who gave Japanese leaders an ultimatum: Open Japanese ports for International trade or I'll attack your capital, then called Edo in 1853. They, meaning the Japanese Shogunate leadership, and Japanese civilians at the time, werent given a choice to modernize, re-fashion their nation when they were ready. Japan was forced to modernize in mid-late 19th century to prevent being split up and carved up like China was over the course of the 19th century, their rapid industrialization that took European nations 2-3 centuries to perfect, Japan did it within 40-50 years. But, that mutual fear, hatred, grudging sense of respect and admiration towards their Western rivals didnt disappear and still remains visible. Many Japanese historians, Asian studies professors have commented on how some Japanese still feel a sense of displacement and anxiety towards the modern world. Japan is a nation and culture rife with many obvious, internal contradictions. On one hand, their a very progressive, forward-thinking country, society, in terms of nanotechnology, computers, commerce, industry, but also a very stoic, staunch traditionalist country where obedience, self-sacrifice, duty, and hard work are cherished virtues that carry great significance in a very hierarchal society/culture that once commanded absolute obedience to its shoguns, and emperors who many believed was a living god-incarnate 100 years eir exth.

None of that excuses their extreme racism and fascist ideals during the first half of the 1900's.

 

[Goatman Saint]

I can only assume he means Pearl

Undoubtedly. However you look at their strike on Pearl Harbor, attacking without warning is solid military strategy, and the way that things were going the United States hands were not clean in forcing Japan to take some kind of action.

Now as far as cowards. I had family members who served in the marines and the army that did clean up on those islands after the marines landed. We won’t get into the lifelong mental trauma Swede, Lester and Andy went through the rest of their lives. But I assure you the men that they fought against, hand to hand, rooting out of tunnels, jungles, traps, and who refused to surrender and would rather die were no cowards. Young men who committed suicide by flying their planes into ships, driving human torpedos into ships, come on. You can think of Japan and it’s civilian culture now all you want. But those men who fought against the US in the Pacific were no cowards.

 

[Saintman2884]

None of that excuses their extreme racism and fascist ideals during the first half of the 1900's.

No, it doesn't, but it also ignores the same xenophobic, racist, extremely nationalist trends going on in other countries on a larger scale around the same time. In Italy, especially in Germany, in Spain, even in countries with stronger, more deep-rooted democratic traditions and customs like France, UK, and USA in the 1920's and 30's, there was a sharp rise in far-right, ultra-nationalist groups, fascist and authoritian parties like the second Klan here in the USA, Oswald Mosley's Union of Fascists in UK in the 1930's, and France was a political minefield around the same time. There was a sense among many intellectuals, politicians, writers, artists that bourgeoiuse democracy hadn't worked or wasnt working as it should, so we're willing to try and explore alternatives. Thats why Soviet-styled Communism was so popular among many Western intellectuals in the 1930's until word started getting out about Stalin's murderous meglamania, purges of his own party, ordinary Russian citizens, the Red Army, in the Moscow show trials of the late 1930's.

The Japanese were just following the same socio-political trends or extreme polarizations going on in other highly-industrialized nations, plus there had been a rising militarist movement among many young Japanese officers and generals after the end of WWI that felt that the military along with the Emperor should be the sole rulers of Japan, not the Japanese Diet Parliament or ineffectual cabinet ministers. Historians have called these militant, politicized Japanese officers the "young officers clubs"

 

[Goatman Saint]

None of that excuses their extreme racism and fascist ideals during the first half of the 1900's.

I’m not sure they are any more of a racist culture than any other. Also, you cannot change a culture in 50-100 years. They went from Shogun to possibly the third most powerful military in less than 100 years. They were the first non white country to win a war against a western country (against Russia) and that I’m sure continued their thinking of being better.

Now, the fascist argument is much more of a military, ultranationalist approach rather that true fascism. Japan has had a long and not very happy history with China and Korea, so as Japan grew in power, it looked at its traditional enemies. The initial takeover of Manchuria was for natural resources to power its economy, and really the whole basis of the Pacific war was around natural resources for the Japanese economy. Oil from the indies, iron and coal from Manchuria, scrap steel from the US all of that. If you step back and really look at the Japanese thinking during this time, it very much makes sense what they were doing and how they were thinking. Japan has little natural resource, so by expanding they were able to get what they needed.

And yes, the US bases and the military there have had some issues which does infuriate the Japanese at times. Public drunkenness, lack of having respect (in the Japanese sense) the rapes and other crimes which have been committed are a sore spot. And when the stance of the military for years was too bad, you can see where this clash has become an issue on Okinawa and overall in Japan. .

 

[El Caliente]

Undoubtedly. However you look at their strike on Pearl Harbor, attacking without warning is solid military strategy, and the way that things were going the United States hands were not clean in forcing Japan to take some kind of action.

Now as far as cowards. I had family members who served in the marines and the army that did clean up on those islands after the marines landed. We won’t get into the lifelong mental trauma Swede, Lester and Andy went through the rest of their lives. But I assure you the men that they fought against, hand to hand, rooting out of tunnels, jungles, traps, and who refused to surrender and would rather die were no cowards. Young men who committed suicide by flying their planes into ships, driving human torpedos into ships, come on. You can think of Japan and it’s civilian culture now all you want. But those men who fought against the US in the Pacific were no cowards.

Our hands were certainly not clean in the run up to Pearl Harbor, however between their attack on PH, their treatment of POWs, and the disregard for previously enacted conventions, they are kind of lucky they only got two a bombs dropped on them.

We listened to Unbroken (the Louis Zamperini story), and what they did to US POWs (like Zamp) was tragic. I have no doubt that your family that fought over there carried some scars throughout life.

If the US were to withdraw from East Asia, things would spiral out of control quite rapidly I suspect, For one, you would see Japan and probably South Korea move to acquire nukes.

Yeah, but at least the Japanese wouldn’t have to deal with the US military in their country, and isn’t that what they would like?

Well, if you have a history of seizures, at least in Montana, you need to have a doctor’s certification that they are under control, if you don’t have that, you are not issued a license.

Now if you have a completely out of the blue medical emergency I simply do not know. I’m not that into law. I do know from experience with a friend who fell asleep coming home late in high school who fell asleep, completely sober, simply fell asleep, was charged and convicted of 2 counts of vehicular manslaughter, was given a suspended sentence, community service and a fine. The grounds of the conviction was because it was 2:30am, and the family he was with knew he was tired and asked him to stay because of it, that was grounds enough for the conviction. (He committed suicide less than 2 years later)

In the case in Japan, if he was suffering some kinds of symptoms, or if there ness anything leading up to it then yes I can see the conviction. In Japan he could’ve gotten 7 years, so it was a light sentence. Im sure playing into this in some way was the fact his wife, who was more than likely a licensed driver, wasn’t driving. If he fell asleep, then they knew or would’ve shown signs of being tired. If he was suffering from altitude sickness, it would’ve also been obvious to the passengers (I’ve seen it myself) leaving the option for either someone else to drive, or to stop and wait to feel better. In either case, there would’ve been warnings.

So, that’s the basis of my knowledge.

reading through the details, he didn’t have a history of this, and he passed out suddenly. His daughter (who was the first to notice that he had passed out) kicked his chair, and tried to wake him up (they all tried waking him up) and he wouldn’t wake.

What is the usual verdict in these type cases?

 

[El Caliente]

None of that excuses their extreme racism and fascist ideals during the first half of the 1900's.

I always found it interesting that the Nazis thought that they had the superior race, and that the Japanese felt the same, yet they were willing to put aside their superiority complexes in order to conquer the world.

What were those bozos planning on doing if they and their gimp (Italy) actually won?

Were they going to Man in the High Castle this out?

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

I always found it interesting that the Nazis thought that they had the superior race, and that the Japanese felt the same, yet they were willing to put aside their superiority complexes in order to conquer the world.

What were those bozos planning on doing if they and their gimp (Italy) actually won?

Were they going to Man in the High Castle this out?

The Japanese were limited to East Asia (though came very close to South Asia) and the Germans were limited to Europe / North Africa and parts of the Middle East.

Neither seriously entertained touching the Americas, although technically the Japanese did invade the Aleutians (part of Alaska). The Japanese were hoping for a repeat of the 1905 Russo-Japanese war. Obtain a few early decisive victories and then have the other side sue for peace. Outside of places such as the Philippines, they weren't interested in US territory. The Germans were hoping they could come to a similar agreement with the UK and a division of spheres of influence in Europe, in return the Germans would let the UK keep their overseas empire - but on the other hand, Japan had something to say about that, and Pearl Harbor made that idea unworkable. Its possible that Germany would have abandoned their alliance with Japan, had the UK decided that tangling with both Germany and Japan was too much and tried to negotiate with Germany. Not that there was much to that "alliance" at all.

 

[El Caliente]

The Japanese were limited to East Asia (though came very close to South Asia) and the Germans were limited to Europe / North Africa and parts of the Middle East.

Neither seriously entertained touching the Americas, although technically the Japanese did invade the Aleutians (part of Alaska). The Japanese were hoping for a repeat of the 1905 Russo-Japanese war. Obtain a few early decisive victories and then have the other side sue for peace. Outside of places such as the Philippines, they weren't interested in US territory. The Germans were hoping they could come to a similar agreement with the UK and a division of spheres of influence in Europe, in return the Germans would let the UK keep their overseas empire - but on the other hand, Japan had something to say about that, and Pearl Harbor made that idea unworkable. Its possible that Germany would have abandoned their alliance with Japan, had the UK decided that tangling with both Germany and Japan was too much and tried to negotiate with Germany. Not that there was much to that "alliance" at all.

Off topic, but Any thoughts on Pattons desire to continue on after Germany into Russia?

 

[SystemShock]

I can only assume he means Pearl Harbor.

What's cowardly about it?