11 ms·
Japan to begin extracting rare earth metals from seabed in 2024
- bdhcuidbebe 4y agoHere comes Godzillaaaaaaaarghhhh
- pcurve 4y agoJapan's tiny remote island cluster allows it to have huge exclusive economic zone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamitorishima#/media/File:Japan_Exclusive_Economic_Zones.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamitorishima#/media/File:Ja... especially compared to South Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone#/media/File:Koreez.PNG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone#/media...
- foolfoolz 4y agochina has shown your EEZ is only exclusive if you can enforce it
- rdl 4y agoGuess what is the second most powerful navy in the world (and is a very close ally of the most powerful navy in the world?). Japan's "maritime self defense force".
- missedthecue 4y agoNot sure the US is eager to get into a kinetic conflict with China, which actually has a larger navy, and more importantly, is in their own front yard rather than 10,000km from home.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- lmm 4y agoThe US has a large naval presence in the area, not least the ships based in Japan. No-one wants a shooting war, but the US is eager to keep China contained, and enforcing the EEZ rules serves that interest.
- mlindner 4y agoUS Navy is stationed closer than the Chinese navy. The US’s seventh fleet is permanently based out of Yokosuka Japan. Only US fleet not based out of somewhere in the US.
- jakear 4y agoThe fifth fleet is based out of Bahrain.
- largepeepee 4y agoNot true. Besides 7th in Japan, there's 6th fleet is in Italy and 5th in Bahrain. So really half the US Navy is always stationed overseas with the first fleet being inactive.
- smt88 4y ago> China, which actually has a larger navy The US has a far more advanced navy (a large proportion of Chinese ships are patrol ships without much tactical significance) and many more aircraft carriers. Aircraft are extremely important in naval conflicts.
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y agoYawn. China itself is the larger aircraft carrier. They also have advanced rocketry, which may render the other ones obsolete.
- missedthecue 4y agoChina doesn't need aircraft carriers though. They aren't trying to fight wars 10,000km from home. They have hundreds of air bases in China.
- smt88 4y agoThe US literally can't fight a war 10,000 km from "home" (a friendly country with military bases) because we have an enormous number of bases. Most importantly, we have tons of bases in Japan and South Korea[1]. 1. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-military-presence-around-the-world-interactive https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-mili...
- missedthecue 4y agoOne task force out of Japan is probably insufficient against the entire PLAN
- SkyMarshal 4y ago> (a large proportion of Chinese ships are patrol ships without much tactical significance) If each one is armed with a few anti-ship missiles, a swarm attack from many different directions might be a real threat to a carrier group. You either waste a ton of ordinance taking them all out, or some portion are able to launch against you.
- baybal2 4y ago[dead]
- mlindner 4y agoMost of the ships aren’t ocean going vessels. They’re coastal ships.
- dirtyid 4y agoPRC has more proper blue water surface and subsurface combatants than USN currently and has for years. Many of which more modern. Last years count of "ocean going" / blue water capable is like ~350 PLAN vs ~300 USN. PRC also has a fuckload of "coastal" ships, but at this point even Chinese coast guard has sizable blue water fleet (retired PLAN ships go there). US still has more displacement via super carriers, better subsurface and larger replenishment fleet to enable more persistent blue water ops. Incidentally PLA is rapidly building up replenishment capabilities, but ultimately most of fleet will stick around PRC shores, with some moving into IndoPac for SLOC security or Africa for anti piracy. But currenly PLAN has MORE "ocean going" vessels than USN, and gap is expected to widen to PLAN 400+ wheras USN ship building lucky to maintain 300 by end of decade.
- mlindner 4y agoIf you build hundreds/thousands of boats with little to no effectiveness to prop up your numbers for the domestic public then it's easy to claim large navy sizes. My previous comment was with respect to actual effectiveness. China has no significant blue water navy.
- dirtyid 4y ago> little to no effectiveness to prop up your numbers for the domestic public Citation needed. This is borderline beyond "useful idiot" hot take because even DoD propaganda/analysis or defense wonks do not allege this, and they allege a lot of dumb shit with respect to PRC modernization. Western assesment of PLAN in last few years, with respect to blue water surface combatants, being commissioned at tremendous rates, is one branch where recent DoD writings / analysis has no substantial tech/hardware criticisms, relegating to, their hardware good but maybe software (training/jointness) lacking. Also to repeat "Many of which more modern". PLAN's blue water surface combatants built since 2010s are considered on par, if not superior with equivalent USN platforms in terms of systems and armaments, including latest flights. Certainly more than the significant portion of USN's aging hulls, many of which are not modernized to latest tech and are held together by duct tape / soon to retire. Like USN isn't going to have anything comparable to a type 55 for another 10+ years in DDG(X). It's hard to overstake the amount of USN program/procurement fuckups in the past decades and ongoing state of US ship building that enabled PRC to catch up in both quality and quantity. Majority of which concentrated in PRC backyard, on new hulls with better maintenance and readiness rates, that widens regional blue water naval power gap even further.
- more_corn 4y agoIt’d come down to tech. The us probably has a leg up today. China being able to field new tech faster would pull ahead in a protracted conflict or one that starts in five or ten years.
- dmix 4y agoWorlds most powerful navy VS hundreds of Chinese fishing boats harassing you over multiple years Your move hegemony. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK7nzZU6C90 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK7nzZU6C90
- scottLobster 4y agoKey word is "harassing". Like gnats or mosquitos. A nuisance, not a threat. Plus starting a shooting war with China isn't in our best interest, yet. If we ever get there the fishing boats will make exactly zero difference in the outcome.
- dmix 4y agoI wasn’t making a serious comparison. But it is a critical problem for modern geopolitics for which Navy’s play a major role in. Paramilitia Fishing boats are like the local insurgents in Afghani/Iraqi cities. They are still there when big expensive American boats leave the other 99% of the year. They don’t provide real military prowess but they blend in with the locals (meaning hard to permanently bully out of neighbourhoods) and constantly apply pressure tactics and surveillance resources that benefit the parent resistance org. It also critical keeps their flags waving 24/7.
- hinkley 4y agoSouth Korea still makes all of the heaviest commercial vessels in the world, does it not? They're next door neighbors. I don't think China really wants anyone switching from commercial to military production.
- antifanboy 4y ago[dead]
- pffft8888 4y agoI would expect a huge qualitative difference in our favor when it comes to war strategy and execution, not to mention that we are far ahead in our experience "managing" a war on the world stage, and that we still have an edge in military technology and war machine maintenance. China would ultimately resort to having just one option, like Russia, to use or not use their nukes, which is an end of world scenario.
- lettergram 4y agoOr a virus that targets caucasians. Or knockout the GPS satellites. Or target 3-4 internet backbone nodes. Or a high altitude EMP (which would probably come from a nuke). There’s a lot of scary scenarios. The issue the west has with China, is that China produces all the consumer goods and a decent amount of the heavy equipment. The issue China has is the west provides access to food and energy. While that’s changing, to-date the two are too entangled for war imo.
- neltnerb 4y agoWait, who is "we" here? I assumed we were talking about this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_So... which isn't really related to Japan.
- Teever 4y agoWe is everyone who wants to live in a world not dominated by an authoritarian regime.
- albertopv 4y agoChinese reclamations are absurd, they want economic exclusive zone even in front of Malaysia, ~1500kms from their shores, it's basicslly a call for war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3AMap_of_territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea.webp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3AMap_of_territorial_disp...
- elashri 4y agoNot something that is new. Absurd claims are something that even a European country can do like Greece interpretation of exclusive economic zone [1]. Not to say that this ia justification for China. Just to say that this is something happens with less outrage at different places. [1] https://cdn.cosmosphilly.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Exclusive-Economic-Zone-2-815x544.jpg https://cdn.cosmosphilly.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2020/01...
- dirtyid 4y agoNot to mention these are originally ROC / Taiwanese claims passed down to PRC when UN recognition formally switched, i.e. technically PRC didn't make these claims, but doing the geopolitically responsible / prudent thing of protecting them. Claims which btw predates other parties in the region, or UNCLOS formation, who does not rule on soverignty which makes PRC historic claims absurd and but also as legally valid as any other claims at UN (which does not recognize PCA "ruling" / kangaroo court).
- largepeepee 4y agoIt's not even limited to Europe or China. The US lays claims to many deserted islands in the middle of nowhere in the Pacific for their HUGE EEZs and bird poop. No one dares contest the most well-armed navy on those though...or else.
- albertopv 4y agoNot every claim is the same. You can't really compare China to Greece, China is a nuclear power, millions of soldiers, she already showed not fearing using force.
- tjpnz 4y agoSo much for not interfering in the internal affairs of other nations.
- chii 4y agoClaim EEZ, then say that anyone disagreeing is interfering with internal affairs.
- dirtyid 4y agoWould need time travel for this interpretation to be true. Technically, ROC(TW)/PRC claims came first post WW2 at UN. So technically other parties who claimed after are interfering in ROC/PRC internal affairs/sovereignty, which post PRC recognition at UN, PRC is now entitled to defend. Through actions which all things considered, are pretty tame for a G5 member whose should get away with being more equal than the others.
- MomoXenosaga 4y agoJapan was fighting the Americans for their economic independence all the way back in the 19th century.
- walrus01 4y agoAre there any Hughes mining barges or CIA involved this time? Giant claws to grab submarines? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Azorian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Azorian
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoProbably a cover for kaiju hunting.
- nickhalfasleep 4y agoTo be fair, that had plenty of rare earth metals in it.
- walrus01 4y agoEnriched weapons grade plutonium, the rarest of metals, indeed
- anakaine 4y ago[flagged]
- Ztynovovk 4y ago[dead]
- slothtrop 4y agoMining exploration of any kind impacts ecosystems, what of it?
- Ztynovovk 4y ago[dead]
- TaylorAlexander 4y agoYes and that’s what makes mining an environmental issue. Considering what humanity is doing to the earth it’s always worth asking if what we’re doing is really the right thing. Just because a resource exists does not mean we have to extract it.
- slothtrop 4y agoYou would be scarcely rubbing two sticks together rather than browsing HN if we did not extract resources. Encroachment is not a function of the specificity of resources but of demand. Damaging a marginal piece of Earth in and of itself does not matter in any existential sense, the only thing that does is long term survival. Since population growth is poised to stagnate in 100 years or so globally, we can expect demand to level off in kind, all the while gains in efficiency through innovation and recycling will continue to the extent that encroachment will be minimal. There is far more damage done owing to the demand for fossil fuels, which is still irreplaceable currently for non-electrical cases (75% of their use). We use it for ammonia, steel, concrete, plastics, all pillars of modern civilization. The most rapid viable intervention in the near term is lowering growth, by expanding access to contraceptives, and other incentives. Westerners treat that as a right so everyone should be on board.
- h0l0cube 4y ago> from the mud on the deep sea bottom in an area off Minami-Torishima Island, a coral atoll in the Pacific Ocean about 1,900 kilometers southeast of Tokyo. If they were a way to make resource extraction from asteroids commercially feasible, I’d take that over ruining this or any other planet to make our gadgets.
- midoridensha 4y agoThat would be nice, but it's a ways off. The question here is: which is ecologically worse? Conventional mining on land, or mining the sea beds? I don't know the answer here.
- h0l0cube 4y agoIt’s an easier decision for me when it’s just digging a deeper and deeper hole in the ground to extract iron ore to make steel structures vs deforesting large swathes of forest for timber. But I’d err to destroy ecosystems we somewhat understand and can rehabilitate vs deep sea where we can’t even comprehend the damage we’re doing, if those were my only choices.
- idontwantthis 4y agoThis is probably crazy, but I wonder if it would be possible to leave these sites with better ecology than they have now. What if, after mining, a smaller amount of the minerals are put back, closer to the surface so that a smaller amount are more easily consumed and life could flourish again with less available?
- satellites 4y agoWhy are you assuming that rare earth metals deep below the surface of the earth would benefit the life ON the surface that has evolved to live in the absence of those metals? Even if for some bizarre reason the metals were beneficial, what about when the mining operation is done and humans leave the area? It just goes back to the previous status quo. It’s a disruption either way.
- idontwantthis 4y agoBecause life does depend on these deposits at the surface. That’s why this is a huge danger to globally ecology. They feed a unique ecosystem.
- satellites 4y agoYes, but in specific quantities, no? Manually depositing them on the surface after extraction would still disrupt the system’s balance.
- jfoster 4y agoBut a good or bad disruption? Are you arguing that the ecosystem is currently optimal? It seems unlikely. So there's interesting questions; what's an optimal ecosystem look like? How can it be achieved?
- satellites 4y agoIndustrialized humans have a historically abysmal track record of ham-fistedly “optimizing” ecosystems. Any manual intervention into an ecosystem generally requires establishing an indefinite commitment to more manual maintenance. Who determines what “optimal” means? Who implements the optimization? Who pays for it? What happens in a few decades when people lose political interest in the project? Which creatures do we optimize for? Why are we doing this at all? How have similar projects fared in the past? I can tell you haven’t seriously studied ecology from the way you are approaching this question, so I’m not too worried. But consider questions like those as you ponder this scenario.
- shmerl 4y agoReminds Leviathan.
- neonate 4y agohttps://archive.ph/cmEkC https://archive.ph/cmEkC
- dirtyid 4y agoCtr+f for "refining", 0 results. Extracting is not the PRC rare earth dominance bottle neck, it's the decades of infra and tech built up for processing. This is JP spending 40M on research+trial hoping for some sort of resource "moonshot". The lack of strategic resource land deposite continues to cripple the islands security, but underwater recovery/extraction unlikely to be economically feasible vs land producers. And where is JP going to process without fucking up the enviroment? ~80% of PRC rare earth is refined in relatively sparsely populated parts inner mongolia or sichuan, which are more or less periphery. Which part of JP is going to be sacrificed to turn into Mordor? Maybe Hokkaido? Or are these extracted materials going to be shipped to PRC for refining (like many current short/medium term plans for new AU/US rare earth extraction efforts), thereby negating the point of reducing reliance on PRC.
- bozhark 4y agoWhy does Japan hate the Ocean so much?
- uwuemu 4y ago[dead]
- bamboozled 4y agoI can't read the article as it's pay walled but I wonder if Japan has considered just being friendly with another country that has rare earth minerals already being mined? Such as Australia, America or Thailand? Seems kind of stupid to start doing this when it already has apparently strong ties with other suppliers. I don't want to be too negative but a lot of "unusual thinking" seems to be coming out of Japan lately. One thing I struggle with when it comes to Japanese news is it very often comes across as "Pro-Japan" propaganda these days. The headlines always seem to start with "Japan to <something awesome/edgy/innovative>"
- mccorrinall 4y agoTo me it seems like it’s the same anti-globalization thing that’s going on everywhere. Suddenly no one wants to have any dependency on anyone. Everyone sees possible levers which others could use against you if you import from them. Everybody wants to be self sufficient now. Really a strong mind shift across society and I don’t like it.
- bamboozled 4y agoOf course it's completely impractical. What's starting to concern me, I know this sounds ageist, but a lot of countries have aging politicians and voting populace who (scarily) might think this is possible. It started with Brexit IMO.
- to11mtm 4y agoI think all of the supply chain shortages from events of the last 3 years has caused a bit of a push-back on long supply chains and to some extent globalism. Given their auto and tech industries (they do have fabs after all), having a local source of metals for semis and battery production makes a lot of sense.
- bamboozled 4y agoNot an expert in this area but the supply chain issues seem as simple as, let's have China (a dangerous dictatorship) do basically everything, including making all our medical equipment seemed stupid.
- Abimelex 4y agoEnvironmental impact could be the worst, I hope they are not gonna proceed with these planes.
- campak 4y agoAs long as they don't get Vibranium. I watched Wakanda Forever...