Shinano wreck-why no exploration?

[Matt Wiser]

I was reading Bob Ballard's book on the Pacific War (and he has a wish list of wrecks from
the Pacific that he'd like to find and survey-Lexington, Hornet, the Japanese Midway carriers,
Shokaku, Indianapolis, etc.), and he indicated that a survey of the wreck of the carrier
Shinano, the largest ship ever sunk by a submarine was on his list. However, when he
approached the Japanese government, they refused permission, even though the wreck is
outside Japanese territorial waters. Nobody complained when he found Bismarck or USS
Yorktown, and he did notify the West German Navy and the USN in both cases, along with
his Ironbottom Sound wrecks (USN, Australian Navy, and the JMSDF). Is this EEZ related,
or does the Japanese Government want the wreck surveyed by a local first before allowing
others to go for a look?

[Weatherlawyer]

Post by Matt Wiser
I was reading Bob Ballard's book on the Pacific War (and he has a wish list of wrecks from
the Pacific that he'd like to find and survey-Lexington, Hornet, the Japanese Midway carriers,
Shokaku, Indianapolis, etc.), and he indicated that a survey of the wreck of the carrier
Shinano, the largest ship ever sunk by a submarine was on his list. However, when he
approached the Japanese government, they refused permission, even though the wreck is
outside Japanese territorial waters. Nobody complained when he found Bismarck or USS
Yorktown, and he did notify the West German Navy and the USN in both cases, along with
his Ironbottom Sound wrecks (USN, Australian Navy, and the JMSDF). Is this EEZ related,
or does the Japanese Government want the wreck surveyed by a local first before allowing
others to go for a look?

Roughly where is it?

Since the ship was engaged in an illegal war and the wreck may be as
you say: outside their territory, the ship is open for grabs. Japan
may not wish to help -for any of a number of reasons, not least an
intention to find it themselves.

[d***@aol.com]

Post by Weatherlawyer

Post by Matt Wiser
I was reading Bob Ballard's book on the Pacific War (and he has a wish list of wrecks from
the Pacific that he'd like to find and survey-Lexington, Hornet, the Japanese Midway carriers,
Shokaku, Indianapolis, etc.), and he indicated that a survey of the wreck of the carrier
Shinano, the largest ship ever sunk by a submarine was on his list. However, when he
approached the Japanese government, they refused permission, even though the wreck is
outside Japanese territorial waters. Nobody complained when he found Bismarck or USS
Yorktown, and he did notify the West German Navy and the USN in both cases, along with
his Ironbottom Sound wrecks (USN, Australian Navy, and the JMSDF). Is this EEZ related,
or does the Japanese Government want the wreck surveyed by a local first before allowing
others to go for a look?

Roughly where is it?
Since the ship was engaged in an illegal war and the wreck may be as
you say: outside their territory, the ship is open for grabs. Japan
may not wish to help -for any of a number of reasons, not least an
intention to find it themselves.

His approach to the Japanese govt may have been a courtesy as much
as anything else, but does a small private corp really want to piss
off a nation with a navy? It seems the Spanish had a pissy reaction
earlier this year.

[Pete Granzeau]

Post by d***@aol.com

Post by Weatherlawyer

Post by Matt Wiser
I was reading Bob Ballard's book on the Pacific War (and he has a wish list of wrecks from
the Pacific that he'd like to find and survey-Lexington, Hornet, the Japanese Midway carriers,
Shokaku, Indianapolis, etc.), and he indicated that a survey of the wreck of the carrier
Shinano, the largest ship ever sunk by a submarine was on his list. However, when he
approached the Japanese government, they refused permission, even though the wreck is
outside Japanese territorial waters. Nobody complained when he found Bismarck or USS
Yorktown, and he did notify the West German Navy and the USN in both cases, along with
his Ironbottom Sound wrecks (USN, Australian Navy, and the JMSDF). Is this EEZ related,
or does the Japanese Government want the wreck surveyed by a local first before allowing
others to go for a look?

Roughly where is it?
Since the ship was engaged in an illegal war and the wreck may be as
you say: outside their territory, the ship is open for grabs. Japan
may not wish to help -for any of a number of reasons, not least an
intention to find it themselves.

His approach to the Japanese govt may have been a courtesy as much
as anything else, but does a small private corp really want to piss
off a nation with a navy? It seems the Spanish had a pissy reaction
earlier this year.

Why would the Spanish have a "pissy reaction" to a search for the
Shinano?

[Eugene Griessel]

Post by Pete Granzeau

Post by d***@aol.com

Post by Weatherlawyer

Post by Matt Wiser
I was reading Bob Ballard's book on the Pacific War (and he has a wish list of wrecks from
the Pacific that he'd like to find and survey-Lexington, Hornet, the Japanese Midway carriers,
Shokaku, Indianapolis, etc.), and he indicated that a survey of the wreck of the carrier
Shinano, the largest ship ever sunk by a submarine was on his list. However, when he
approached the Japanese government, they refused permission, even though the wreck is
outside Japanese territorial waters. Nobody complained when he found Bismarck or USS
Yorktown, and he did notify the West German Navy and the USN in both cases, along with
his Ironbottom Sound wrecks (USN, Australian Navy, and the JMSDF). Is this EEZ related,
or does the Japanese Government want the wreck surveyed by a local first before allowing
others to go for a look?

Roughly where is it?
Since the ship was engaged in an illegal war and the wreck may be as
you say: outside their territory, the ship is open for grabs. Japan
may not wish to help -for any of a number of reasons, not least an
intention to find it themselves.

His approach to the Japanese govt may have been a courtesy as much
as anything else, but does a small private corp really want to piss
off a nation with a navy? It seems the Spanish had a pissy reaction
earlier this year.

Why would the Spanish have a "pissy reaction" to a search for the
Shinano?

Oh dear ...... is he serious or dumb?

Eugene L Griessel

The best way to keep kids at home is to make the home a pleasant
atmosphere ... and let the air out of their tires.

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

[Ray O'Hara]

Post by Eugene Griessel

Post by Pete Granzeau

Post by d***@aol.com
His approach to the Japanese govt may have been a courtesy as much
as anything else, but does a small private corp really want to piss
off a nation with a navy? It seems the Spanish had a pissy reaction
earlier this year.

Why would the Spanish have a "pissy reaction" to a search for the
Shinano?

Oh dear ...... is he serious or dumb?
Eugene L Griessel

maybe he doesn't follow every treasure hunt and doesn't know about the
spanish wreck.
it is an ambiguous statement.

[Dan]

Post by Ray O'Hara

Post by Eugene Griessel

Post by Pete Granzeau

Post by d***@aol.com
His approach to the Japanese govt may have been a courtesy as much
as anything else, but does a small private corp really want to piss
off a nation with a navy? It seems the Spanish had a pissy reaction
earlier this year.

Why would the Spanish have a "pissy reaction" to a search for the
Shinano?

Oh dear ...... is he serious or dumb?
Eugene L Griessel

maybe he doesn't follow every treasure hunt and doesn't know about the
spanish wreck.
it is an ambiguous statement.

Or maybe he's having fun with you...

Dan

[Matt Wiser]

Dan

If a wreck predates the international conventions on such matters, doesn't that make the
wreck fair game to salvors? Which would nip the Spanish claim regarding the recent treasure
find by a Florida-based outfitl null and void. End result is that the Spanish get no more
New World treasure, and the salvors and their investors get the goodies.

[Ogden Johnson III]

Post by Matt Wiser
If a wreck predates the international conventions on such matters, doesn't that make the
wreck fair game to salvors? Which would nip the Spanish claim regarding the recent treasure
find by a Florida-based outfitl null and void. End result is that the Spanish get no more
New World treasure, and the salvors and their investors get the goodies.

Admiralty Law is best left to that class of certifiable
masochists known as Admiralty Lawyers.

[Matt Wiser]

Dan

And those certifiable masochists will want, as part of their fee, a cut of the treasure,
no doubt. Too bad that feeding them to the sharks won't do much, as professional
courtesy will apply....

[John Szalay]

Post by Matt Wiser

Dan

And those certifiable masochists will want, as part of their fee, a
cut of the treasure, no doubt. Too bad that feeding them to the sharks
won't do much, as professional courtesy will apply....

" The Salvage of the Century" by Ric Wharton

Hell of a story..

[k***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article

Post by Weatherlawyer
Since the ship was engaged in an illegal war and the wreck may be as
you say: outside their territory, the ship is open for grabs.

How do you define an illegal war? The US did declare war on Japan. As
such the ship counts as a war grave, with access controlled by the
owning government.



Ken Young

[BF Lake]

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
How do you define an illegal war? The US did declare war on Japan.

True it was legal fair and square

I'm not sure they did "declare war" in the same sense that they did in say
1812 as the aggressor. As the victim nation on this occasion, the
president spoke saying that (since the attack on Pearl) "a state of war has
existed." This IMO is not the same as a declaration of war. If Congress
"declared war" after his speech I don't know how they resolved the timing
that he had already noted that war with Japan had existed since the previous
day.

Regards,
Barry

[Ogden Johnson III]

Post by BF Lake

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
How do you define an illegal war? The US did declare war on Japan.

True it was legal fair and square
I'm not sure they did "declare war" in the same sense that they did in say
1812 as the aggressor. As the victim nation on this occasion, the
president spoke saying that (since the attack on Pearl) "a state of war has
existed." This IMO is not the same as a declaration of war.

It's a shame you didn't refresh your memory before posting.
President Roosevelt's actual statement did not say that "(since
the attack on Pearl) "a state of war has existed."" What he
actually said was:

"I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and
dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of
war has existed between the United States and the Japanese
Empire."

Post by BF Lake
"If Congress "declared war" after his speech I don't know how
they resolved the timing that he had already noted that war with
Japan had existed since the previous day."

Since he noted it by stating that in addition to the fact that at
Pearl Harbor:

"Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy -
the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately
attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan."

that:

"Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack
against Malaya.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam.
Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island.
And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island."

I would suspect that the members of the Senate and the House of
Representative saw the logic in President Roosevelt's suggestion
that the war started on Dec 7th (US time, it actually started on
Dec 8th Japanese time).

The complete text of President Roosevelt to Congress on Dec 8,
1941, copied from
http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/fdr-infamy.htm :

"Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, members of the Senate and the
House of Representatives:

"Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy -
the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately
attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

"The United States was at peace with that nation, and, at the
solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its
government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of
peace in the Pacific.

"Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced
bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador
to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary
of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And, while
this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing
diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or
of armed attack.

"It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes
it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or
even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese
Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States
by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

"The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe
damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell
you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition,
American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas
between San Francisco and Honolulu.

"Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack
against Malaya.
"Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
"Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam.
"Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
"Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island.
"And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

"Japan has therefore undertaken a surprise offensive extending
throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today
speak for themselves. The people of the United States have
already formed their opinions and well understand the
implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

"As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that
all measures be taken for our defense, that always will our whole
nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.

"No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated
invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win
through to absolute victory.

"I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the
people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to
the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of
treachery shall never again endanger us.

"Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our
people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

"With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding
determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph.
So help us God.

"I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and
dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of
war has existed between the United States and the Japanese
Empire."

"Franklin D. Roosevelt - December 8, 1941"

[BF Lake]

Post by Ogden Johnson III
It's a shame you didn't refresh your memory before posting.
President Roosevelt's actual statement did not say that "(since
the attack on Pearl) "a state of war has existed."" What he
"I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and
dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of
war has existed between the United States and the Japanese
Empire."

snip

My point remains that there is an essential difference between the (false)
notion you should "declare war" before attacking another nation, and what
you do after being attacked in the way of putting yourself "at war", for the
purpose of "legalizing" your war measures.

The victim does not "declare war" the other guy did that (or not)

You have war measures against the attacker limited by some "legalities" plus
you have domestic war measures that require a law to be passed enacting
them, like censorship, rationing, or making GM build tanks instead of cars.

(Hence all the fuss over the War on Terror and the "legalities" of domestic
measures when the enemy is not a "nation" etc
After 911, the president went to Congress and said (approx) that what had
happened was not "just terror" but "an act of war" hoping Congress would
pass various "war measures." ) The extent of these "measures" is what all
the political fuss is about. In addition, there are those (wussies IMO) who
think it was indeed "just terror" (where the terrorists are criminals so
subject to the justice system) and not "enemy forces" so subject to a
different standard ("Kill Japs," per Halsey)

How did the "after-the -fact" US wording go after Germany declared war on
the US in 1941?

Regards,
Barry

[The Horny Goat]

Post by BF Lake

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
How do you define an illegal war? The US did declare war on Japan.

True it was legal fair and square
I'm not sure they did "declare war" in the same sense that they did in say
1812 as the aggressor. As the victim nation on this occasion, the
president spoke saying that (since the attack on Pearl) "a state of war has
existed." This IMO is not the same as a declaration of war. If Congress
"declared war" after his speech I don't know how they resolved the timing
that he had already noted that war with Japan had existed since the previous
day.

FDR could say what he wanted - in the end Congress decided as other
than Jeanette Rankin it was unanimous.

That's how division of powers work and even I (a non-American) knows
that.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Post by The Horny Goat
FDR could say what he wanted - in the end Congress decided as other
than Jeanette Rankin it was unanimous.
That's how division of powers work and even I (a non-American) knows
that.

I'm wrong or Jeannette Rankin's only vote against acknowledge of a state
of war was in the voting on Italy's war declaration ?

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[Ogden Johnson III]

Post by dott.Piergiorgio

Post by The Horny Goat
FDR could say what he wanted - in the end Congress decided as other
than Jeanette Rankin it was unanimous.
That's how division of powers work and even I (a non-American) knows
that.

I'm wrong or Jeannette Rankin's only vote against acknowledge of a state
of war was in the voting on Italy's war declaration ?

"Jeannette Rankin (June 11, 1880 – May 18, 1973) was the first
woman elected to the United States House of Representatives and
the first female member of Congress. A lifelong pacifist, she was
the only member of Congress to vote against United States entry
into World War II and one of fifty to vote against World War I.
Additionally, she led resistance to the Vietnam War. To date, she
is the only woman to be elected to Congress from Montana."

"On April 6, 1917, only 4 days into her term,[1] the House voted
on the resolution to enter World War I. Rankin cast one of 50[2]
votes against the resolution, earning her immediate vilification
from the press. Suffrage groups canceled her speaking
engagements. Despite her vote against entering the war, she
devoted herself to selling Liberty Bonds and voted for the
military draft."

"In 1940, Rankin was again elected to Congress, this time on an
anti-war platform. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, she once
again voted against entering a World War, the only member of
Congress to do so, saying "As a woman, I can't go to war and I
refuse to send anyone else. I vote 'NO'". However she did not
vote against declaring war on Germany and Italy following their
declaration of war on the U.S. Instead, she voted merely
"Present."

"Rankin did not bother to run for re-election because she became
so unpopular from her decision. During the remainder of her life,
she traveled to India seven times and was a devotee of Gandhian
principles of non-violence and self-determination."

Extracts from WIkipedia entry on Rankin.

[Derek Lyons]

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Weatherlawyer
Since the ship was engaged in an illegal war and the wreck may be as
you say: outside their territory, the ship is open for grabs.

How do you define an illegal war? The US did declare war on Japan. As
such the ship counts as a war grave, with access controlled by the
owning government.

The legality of the war or the presence of the crew is meaningless -
ownership of a warship's remains and control of access thereto always
vests with the owning goverment.

D.

[Eugene Griessel]

Post by Derek Lyons

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Weatherlawyer
Since the ship was engaged in an illegal war and the wreck may be as
you say: outside their territory, the ship is open for grabs.

How do you define an illegal war? The US did declare war on Japan. As
such the ship counts as a war grave, with access controlled by the
owning government.

The legality of the war or the presence of the crew is meaningless -
ownership of a warship's remains and control of access thereto always
vests with the owning goverment.

Under which international treaty is this right guaranteed? And when
was it agreed upon? I am interested for a number of reasons, which
mostly centre on the Birkenhead.

The Birkenhead, variously referred to as "HMS" and "HMT" - I know not
for sure whether she was a commissioned vessel of the RN or a
troopship - went down off Danger Point in 1852 with the loss of
several hundred souls.

Since that time there have been a number of expeditions attempting to
salvage a postulated 3 tons of gold aboard her (whether the gold ever
existed is also moot - it probably did not). I know a couple of the
people, ex-navy types, who have participated in such salvage attempts.
I think one or two of these attempts have brought HM government
complaints. Just recently I argued with one of the guys again - and
according to him the whole thing hinges on the fact that Birkenhead
was not a commissioned warship - and is thus fair game.

Eugene L Griessel

Few people can be happy unless they hate some other person, nation,
or creed.

- I usually post only from Sci.Military.Naval -

[Fred J. McCall]

***@dynagen..co..za (Eugene Griessel) wrote:
:
:Under which international treaty is this right guaranteed? And when
:was it agreed upon? I am interested for a number of reasons, which
:mostly centre on the Birkenhead.
:

See The Law of the Sea Convention, Articles 95-96 and also the 1958
High Seas Convention Articles 8-9.

:
:The Birkenhead, variously referred to as "HMS" and "HMT" - I know not
:for sure whether she was a commissioned vessel of the RN or a
:troopship - went down off Danger Point in 1852 with the loss of
:several hundred souls.
:
:Since that time there have been a number of expeditions attempting to
:salvage a postulated 3 tons of gold aboard her (whether the gold ever
:existed is also moot - it probably did not). I know a couple of the
:people, ex-navy types, who have participated in such salvage attempts.
:I think one or two of these attempts have brought HM government
:complaints. Just recently I argued with one of the guys again - and
:according to him the whole thing hinges on the fact that Birkenhead
:was not a commissioned warship - and is thus fair game.
:

It doesn't matter whether the vessel in question is "a commissioned
warship" or not. The issue is whether the vessel is a 'state' vessel
or not. In order to qualify as a 'state' vessel, a vessel must be
"owned and operated by a state and used at the time they sank only on
government non-commercial service". Such vessels retain 'sovereign
immunity' even after sinking and are still the property of the owning
state.

Note that civilian ships pressed into government service as troopships
would probably not qualify as 'state' vessels, nor would vessels
rented by the state or which conduct any commercial service at all
(even if the vessel is owned by the state).

The Birkenhead (originally built and commissioned as a frigate but
converted by the Admiralty into a troopship) would appear to qualify
as a 'state vessel' and would presumably still be the property of HMG.

Besides, given the behaviour of Lt Col Seaton and his men, the thing
ought to be left alone out of respect regardless of any legal fine
points.

To stand and be still
to the Birken’ead Drill
is a damn tough bullet to chew.

-- "Soldier an' Sailor Too"
Rudyard Kipling

[Weatherlawyer]

Post by Fred J. McCall
:Under which international treaty is this right guaranteed? And when
:was it agreed upon? I am interested for a number of reasons, which
:mostly centre on the Birkenhead.
See The Law of the Sea Convention, Articles 95-96 and also the 1958
High Seas Convention Articles 8-9.

Interesting thread even if it is On Topic. (I wish such were marked
so.)

I am adamant in my ignorance that since Japan was engaged in a war
that she never declared prior to all-out hostilities that the OP's
ship in question is a free-booter inso much as she comes under
wherever jurisdiction that applies to her location.

Along with my argument the surrender of Japan was totally
unconditional and she can no more claim that ship than she needs to
publically admit her atrocities. (There was some sort of move about
that a few years back andd Japan's response was it was all covered in
the peace treaty.)

But what I had not considered was that the Shinano is a war grave.
That puts things in another perspective. Never mind all the politics
and sea law. A grave is a grave.

******

What on earth is this:
Loading Image...

It doesn't look like a WW 2 Carrier.

[Greggie Gibson]

Post by Weatherlawyer
******
http://www.shipschematics.net/yamato/images/edf/attackcarrier_shinano.jpg
It doesn't look like a WW 2 Carrier.

http://www.shipschematics.net/yamato/

Space Battleship Yamato

[Fred J. McCall]

Greggie Gibson <***@noonecares.com> wrote:

:Weatherlawyer <***@hotmail.com> wrote in news:e4fde039-b79c-4a67-
:99ee-***@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
:>
:> What on earth is this:
:> http://www.shipschematics.net/yamato/images/edf/attackcarrier_shinano.jpg
:>
:> It doesn't look like a WW 2 Carrier.
:>
:
:http://www.shipschematics.net/yamato/
:
:Space Battleship Yamato
:

Hard to believe the big space engines and the gun on the BOTTOM of
'Shanano' didn't give Weatherlawyer a clue.

Phew, what a loony....

[Greggie Gibson]

Post by Fred J. McCall
:>
:>

http://www.shipschematics.net/yamato/images/edf/attackcarrier_shinano.j

Post by Fred J. McCall
:> pg
:>
:> It doesn't look like a WW 2 Carrier.
:>
:http://www.shipschematics.net/yamato/
:Space Battleship Yamato
Hard to believe the big space engines and the gun on the BOTTOM of
'Shanano' didn't give Weatherlawyer a clue.
Phew, what a loony....

Yeh, I was sure it was some sort of spaceship carrier, but didn't realize
it was from a TV show.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Post by Greggie Gibson
Yeh, I was sure it was some sort of spaceship carrier, but didn't realize
it was from a TV show.

Drifting a bit towards science fiction, and reckoning the relative
ignorance of sci-fi authors in Naval matters (I remember a pair or two
asking here how to do Naval setting in space) someone can say something,
positive or negative, about the military science fiction series about
Honour Harrington ? seems to me a sort of "Hornblower in space" but I
don't know much on it.... Opinion and/or comments ?

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[d***@aol.com]

On Dec 4, 1:42 am, "dott.Piergiorgio"

Post by dott.Piergiorgio

Post by Greggie Gibson
Yeh, I was sure it was some sort of spaceship carrier, but didn't realize
it was from a TV show.

Drifting a bit towards science fiction, and reckoning the relative
ignorance of sci-fi authors in Naval matters (I remember a pair or two
asking here how to do Naval setting in space) someone can say something,
positive or negative, about the military science fiction series about
Honour Harrington ? seems to me a sort of "Hornblower in space" but I
don't know much on it.... Opinion and/or comments ?

The series was much better in the beginning. The early books are
great space opera. I'd say Weber should've wrapped it up at around 5-6
books. The later books are formulaic and way too long. Actually, the
books are all formulaic. I just think the formula got old as the
series progressed. Also, Harrington is more Nelson than Hornblower.

Post by dott.Piergiorgio
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[Alistair Gunn]

Post by dott.Piergiorgio
Drifting a bit towards science fiction, and reckoning the relative
ignorance of sci-fi authors in Naval matters (I remember a pair or two
asking here how to do Naval setting in space) someone can say something,
positive or negative, about the military science fiction series about
Honour Harrington ? seems to me a sort of "Hornblower in space" but I
don't know much on it.... Opinion and/or comments ?

I quite like them myself, though they're not without their flaws IMHO. I
tend to think he has his ships and missiles accelerating *way* too fast,
and the 'wedges' his ship drives produce seem pretty damn big too. The
later books in the series start bring in a lot more politics too (because
Honor Harrington has become more senior and is thus involved in them),
which may or may not be a good thing depending on your point of view.

The first two books in the series, namely _On Basilisk Station_ and _The
Honor of the Queen_ are available as free downloads from the Baen Free
Library (http://www.baen.com/library/), along with the short story
collection _Changer of Worlds_.

Unlike certain other writers/publishers at least some of the short
stories are about events which are important in the 'main sequence', so
if you like the first two books I'd hold on on reading the stories in
_Changer of Worlds_ until you get to around _Ashes of Victory_ and _War
of Honor_.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Alistair Gunn ha scritto:

Thanks to both of you !

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Post by Fred J. McCall
:>
:> http://www.shipschematics.net/yamato/images/edf/attackcarrier_shinano.jpg
:>
:> It doesn't look like a WW 2 Carrier.
:>
:http://www.shipschematics.net/yamato/
:Space Battleship Yamato
Hard to believe the big space engines and the gun on the BOTTOM of
'Shanano' didn't give Weatherlawyer a clue.
Phew, what a loony....

I'm appalled of the huge mistake of Mr. Weatherlawyer; I can only guess
(and hope) that he was drunk at keyboard (also I have made once or twice
the same mistake)....

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 02:37:09 -0700, Fred J. McCall

Post by Fred J. McCall
:Under which international treaty is this right guaranteed? And when
:was it agreed upon? I am interested for a number of reasons, which
:mostly centre on the Birkenhead.
See The Law of the Sea Convention, Articles 95-96 and also the 1958
High Seas Convention Articles 8-9.

At various times both German and Japanese warships were used as
targets for American conventional and nuclear forces in the 1945-55
era.

I would assume the legal rationale for this was that these ships had
been surrendered as part of the general surrender of Germany and Japan
respectively and were thus the United States governments to use for
target practice, blow up, blow to smithereens at Eniwetok and other
test sites etc.

So how would Japan legally retain rights over the Shinano and other
wrecks? Wouldn't that right have passed to the United States in
September 1945?

Similarly why would the legal status of Prinz Eugen be any difference
from the Bismarck?

The usual IANAL of course.

[Fred J. McCall]

The Horny Goat <***@home.ca> wrote:
:
:So how would Japan legally retain rights over the Shinano and other
:wrecks? Wouldn't that right have passed to the United States in
:September 1945?
:

No, because those ships were never surrendered.

:
:Similarly why would the legal status of Prinz Eugen be any difference
:from the Bismarck?
:

The Bismarck was never surrendered. That's what makes the difference.

[Keith Willshaw]

Post by Fred J. McCall
:So how would Japan legally retain rights over the Shinano and other
:wrecks? Wouldn't that right have passed to the United States in
:September 1945?
No, because those ships were never surrendered.
:Similarly why would the legal status of Prinz Eugen be any difference
:from the Bismarck?
The Bismarck was never surrendered. That's what makes the difference.

Neither was the Tirpitz, that didnt stop the Norwegians breaking
it up for scrap after the war.

Keith

[d***@aol.com]

On Dec 1, 9:18 am, "Keith Willshaw"

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Fred J. McCall
:So how would Japan legally retain rights over the Shinano and other
:wrecks? Wouldn't that right have passed to the United States in
:September 1945?
No, because those ships were never surrendered.
:Similarly why would the legal status of Prinz Eugen be any difference
:from the Bismarck?
The Bismarck was never surrendered. That's what makes the difference.

Neither was the Tirpitz, that didnt stop the Norwegians breaking
it up for scrap after the war.
Keith

It was in their territorial waters.

[Fred J. McCall]

"Keith Willshaw" <***@kwillshaw.nospamdemon.co.uk> wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:***@4ax.com...
:> The Horny Goat <***@home.ca> wrote:
:> :
:> :So how would Japan legally retain rights over the Shinano and other
:> :wrecks? Wouldn't that right have passed to the United States in
:> :September 1945?
:> :
:>
:> No, because those ships were never surrendered.
:>
:> :
:> :Similarly why would the legal status of Prinz Eugen be any difference
:> :from the Bismarck?
:> :
:>
:> The Bismarck was never surrendered. That's what makes the difference.
:>
:
:Neither was the Tirpitz, that didnt stop the Norwegians breaking
:it up for scrap after the war.
:

She was inside Norwegian territorial waters.

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Fred J. McCall
:So how would Japan legally retain rights over the Shinano and other
:wrecks? Wouldn't that right have passed to the United States in
:September 1945?
No, because those ships were never surrendered.
:Similarly why would the legal status of Prinz Eugen be any difference
:from the Bismarck?
The Bismarck was never surrendered. That's what makes the difference.

Neither was the Tirpitz, that didnt stop the Norwegians breaking
it up for scrap after the war.

I suppose it just depends on how close to your own sovereign territory
the wrecks lie---and how you can enforce the concept of
sovereignty.

[d***@aol.com]

Post by Gernot Hassenpflug

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Fred J. McCall
:So how would Japan legally retain rights over the Shinano and other
:wrecks? Wouldn't that right have passed to the United States in
:September 1945?
No, because those ships were never surrendered.
:Similarly why would the legal status of Prinz Eugen be any difference
:from the Bismarck?
The Bismarck was never surrendered. That's what makes the difference.

Neither was the Tirpitz, that didnt stop the Norwegians breaking
it up for scrap after the war.

I suppose it just depends on how close to your own sovereign territory
the wrecks lie---and how you can enforce the concept of
sovereignty.

And Germany wasn't really in a position to complain.....

Post by Gernot Hassenpflug
--
Firmware update in the coffee machine

[Fred J. McCall]

Gernot Hassenpflug <***@nict.go.jp> wrote:

:"Keith Willshaw" <***@kwillshaw.nospamdemon.co.uk> writes:
:
:> "Fred J. McCall" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:> news:***@4ax.com...
:>> The Horny Goat <***@home.ca> wrote:
:>> :
:>> :So how would Japan legally retain rights over the Shinano and other
:>> :wrecks? Wouldn't that right have passed to the United States in
:>> :September 1945?
:>> :
:>>
:>> No, because those ships were never surrendered.
:>>
:>> :
:>> :Similarly why would the legal status of Prinz Eugen be any difference
:>> :from the Bismarck?
:>> :
:>>
:>> The Bismarck was never surrendered. That's what makes the difference.
:>>
:>
:> Neither was the Tirpitz, that didnt stop the Norwegians breaking
:> it up for scrap after the war.
:
:I suppose it just depends on how close to your own sovereign territory
:the wrecks lie---and how you can enforce the concept of
:sovereignty.
:

It's only a matter of 'how close' if the wreck is actually in your
territorial waters. Outside of them, sovereign immunity applies.

[Derek Lyons]

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Fred J. McCall
:So how would Japan legally retain rights over the Shinano and other
:wrecks? Wouldn't that right have passed to the United States in
:September 1945?
No, because those ships were never surrendered.
:Similarly why would the legal status of Prinz Eugen be any difference
:from the Bismarck?
The Bismarck was never surrendered. That's what makes the difference.

Neither was the Tirpitz, that didnt stop the Norwegians breaking
it up for scrap after the war.

You don't know that the Norwegians didn't get the appropriate
permission do you?

D.

[Vince]

Post by Derek Lyons

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Fred J. McCall
:So how would Japan legally retain rights over the Shinano and other
:wrecks? Wouldn't that right have passed to the United States in
:September 1945?
No, because those ships were never surrendered.
:Similarly why would the legal status of Prinz Eugen be any difference
:from the Bismarck?
The Bismarck was never surrendered. That's what makes the difference.

Neither was the Tirpitz, that didnt stop the Norwegians breaking
it up for scrap after the war.

You don't know that the Norwegians didn't get the appropriate
permission do you?
D.

Under international law the surrender of Germany included the surrender
of all military equipment wherever situated.

It was up to the allies to award rights in the property.


Vince

[Peter Skelton]

Post by Vince

Post by Derek Lyons

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Fred J. McCall
:So how would Japan legally retain rights over the Shinano and other
:wrecks? Wouldn't that right have passed to the United States in
:September 1945?
No, because those ships were never surrendered.
:Similarly why would the legal status of Prinz Eugen be any difference
:from the Bismarck?
The Bismarck was never surrendered. That's what makes the difference.

Neither was the Tirpitz, that didnt stop the Norwegians breaking
it up for scrap after the war.

You don't know that the Norwegians didn't get the appropriate
permission do you?
D.

Under international law the surrender of Germany included the surrender
of all military equipment wherever situated.
It was up to the allies to award rights in the property.

The Norweigans were in a position to charge rent and/or require
removal of the obstruction. Failure to comply could result in
confiscation.


Peter Skelton

[Vince]

Post by Peter Skelton

Post by Vince

Post by Derek Lyons

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Fred J. McCall
:So how would Japan legally retain rights over the Shinano and other
:wrecks? Wouldn't that right have passed to the United States in
:September 1945?
No, because those ships were never surrendered.
:Similarly why would the legal status of Prinz Eugen be any difference
:from the Bismarck?
The Bismarck was never surrendered. That's what makes the difference.

Neither was the Tirpitz, that didnt stop the Norwegians breaking
it up for scrap after the war.

You don't know that the Norwegians didn't get the appropriate
permission do you?
D.

Under international law the surrender of Germany included the surrender
of all military equipment wherever situated.
It was up to the allies to award rights in the property.

The Norweigans were in a position to charge rent and/or require
removal of the obstruction. Failure to comply could result in
confiscation.
Peter Skelton

no, the allies owned the wreck. Wrecks in national waters were turned
over the the allied nation.

Vince

[Peter Skelton]

Post by Vince

Post by Peter Skelton

Post by Vince

Post by Derek Lyons

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Fred J. McCall
:So how would Japan legally retain rights over the Shinano and other
:wrecks? Wouldn't that right have passed to the United States in
:September 1945?
No, because those ships were never surrendered.
:Similarly why would the legal status of Prinz Eugen be any difference
:from the Bismarck?
The Bismarck was never surrendered. That's what makes the difference.

Neither was the Tirpitz, that didnt stop the Norwegians breaking
it up for scrap after the war.

You don't know that the Norwegians didn't get the appropriate
permission do you?
D.

Under international law the surrender of Germany included the surrender
of all military equipment wherever situated.
It was up to the allies to award rights in the property.

The Norweigans were in a position to charge rent and/or require
removal of the obstruction. Failure to comply could result in
confiscation.
Peter Skelton

no, the allies owned the wreck. Wrecks in national waters were turned
over the the allied nation.

WTF? The wreck was in an area Norway owned, and it had the
responsibility for safety of navigation there. Who they charged
rent, or required to remove the obstruction is irrelevant to the
truth of my comment.


Peter Skelton

[Vince]

Post by Peter Skelton

Post by Vince

Post by Peter Skelton

Post by Vince

Post by Derek Lyons

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Fred J. McCall
:So how would Japan legally retain rights over the Shinano and other
:wrecks? Wouldn't that right have passed to the United States in
:September 1945?
No, because those ships were never surrendered.
:Similarly why would the legal status of Prinz Eugen be any difference
:from the Bismarck?
The Bismarck was never surrendered. That's what makes the difference.

Neither was the Tirpitz, that didnt stop the Norwegians breaking
it up for scrap after the war.

You don't know that the Norwegians didn't get the appropriate
permission do you?
D.

Under international law the surrender of Germany included the surrender
of all military equipment wherever situated.
It was up to the allies to award rights in the property.

The Norweigans were in a position to charge rent and/or require
removal of the obstruction. Failure to comply could result in
confiscation.
Peter Skelton

no, the allies owned the wreck. Wrecks in national waters were turned
over the the allied nation.

WTF? The wreck was in an area Norway owned, and it had the
responsibility for safety of navigation there. Who they charged
rent, or required to remove the obstruction is irrelevant to the
truth of my comment.
Peter Skelton

You are confusing two different things

1) Who owned the wreck

Norway "owned" the wreck as a result of the German surrender and the
subsequent disposition of enemy property. Same is true of the Blucher

2) Who pays to remove the wreck

Could Norway force Germany to clean it up? tis is a question of war
reparations , which were settled by various treaties

Vince

[Peter Skelton]

Post by Vince

Post by Peter Skelton

Post by Vince

Post by Peter Skelton

Post by Vince

Post by Derek Lyons

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Fred J. McCall
:So how would Japan legally retain rights over the Shinano and other
:wrecks? Wouldn't that right have passed to the United States in
:September 1945?
No, because those ships were never surrendered.
:Similarly why would the legal status of Prinz Eugen be any difference
:from the Bismarck?
The Bismarck was never surrendered. That's what makes the difference.

Neither was the Tirpitz, that didnt stop the Norwegians breaking
it up for scrap after the war.

You don't know that the Norwegians didn't get the appropriate
permission do you?
D.

Under international law the surrender of Germany included the surrender
of all military equipment wherever situated.
It was up to the allies to award rights in the property.

The Norweigans were in a position to charge rent and/or require
removal of the obstruction. Failure to comply could result in
confiscation.
Peter Skelton

no, the allies owned the wreck. Wrecks in national waters were turned
over the the allied nation.

WTF? The wreck was in an area Norway owned, and it had the
responsibility for safety of navigation there. Who they charged
rent, or required to remove the obstruction is irrelevant to the
truth of my comment.
Peter Skelton

You are confusing two different things

The hell I am

Post by Vince
1) Who owned the wreck
Norway "owned" the wreck as a result of the German surrender and the
subsequent disposition of enemy property. Same is true of the Blucher

Totally irrelevant to my comment/

Post by Vince
2) Who pays to remove the wreck
Could Norway force Germany to clean it up? tis is a question of war
reparations , which were settled by various treaties

Also totally irrelevant to my comment

I know it's Monday and the brain works slowly but please look for
your thinking cap until you find it.



Peter Skelton

[Vince]

Post by Peter Skelton

Post by Vince

Post by Peter Skelton

Post by Vince

Post by Peter Skelton

Post by Vince

Post by Derek Lyons

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Fred J. McCall
:So how would Japan legally retain rights over the Shinano and other
:wrecks? Wouldn't that right have passed to the United States in
:September 1945?
No, because those ships were never surrendered.
:Similarly why would the legal status of Prinz Eugen be any difference
:from the Bismarck?
The Bismarck was never surrendered. That's what makes the difference.

Neither was the Tirpitz, that didnt stop the Norwegians breaking
it up for scrap after the war.

You don't know that the Norwegians didn't get the appropriate
permission do you?
D.

Under international law the surrender of Germany included the surrender
of all military equipment wherever situated.
It was up to the allies to award rights in the property.

The Norweigans were in a position to charge rent and/or require
removal of the obstruction. Failure to comply could result in
confiscation.
Peter Skelton

no, the allies owned the wreck. Wrecks in national waters were turned
over the the allied nation.

WTF? The wreck was in an area Norway owned, and it had the
responsibility for safety of navigation there. Who they charged
rent, or required to remove the obstruction is irrelevant to the
truth of my comment.
Peter Skelton

You are confusing two different things

The hell I am

Post by Vince
1) Who owned the wreck
Norway "owned" the wreck as a result of the German surrender and the
subsequent disposition of enemy property. Same is true of the Blucher

Totally irrelevant to my comment/

Post by Vince
2) Who pays to remove the wreck
Could Norway force Germany to clean it up? tis is a question of war
reparations , which were settled by various treaties

Also totally irrelevant to my comment
I know it's Monday and the brain works slowly but please look for
your thinking cap until you find it.
Peter Skelton

Post by Vince

Post by Peter Skelton

Post by Vince

Post by Peter Skelton
The Norweigans were in a position to charge rent and/or require
removal of the obstruction. Failure to comply could result in
confiscation.

If Norway already owns the wreck neither rent nor confiscation is an issue

Sheesh

Vince

[Peter Skelton]

Post by Vince

Post by Peter Skelton

Post by Vince

Post by Peter Skelton

Post by Vince

Post by Peter Skelton

Post by Vince

Post by Derek Lyons

Post by Keith Willshaw

Post by Fred J. McCall
:So how would Japan legally retain rights over the Shinano and other
:wrecks? Wouldn't that right have passed to the United States in
:September 1945?
No, because those ships were never surrendered.
:Similarly why would the legal status of Prinz Eugen be any difference
:from the Bismarck?
The Bismarck was never surrendered. That's what makes the difference.

Neither was the Tirpitz, that didnt stop the Norwegians breaking
it up for scrap after the war.

You don't know that the Norwegians didn't get the appropriate
permission do you?
D.

Under international law the surrender of Germany included the surrender
of all military equipment wherever situated.
It was up to the allies to award rights in the property.

The Norweigans were in a position to charge rent and/or require
removal of the obstruction. Failure to comply could result in
confiscation.
Peter Skelton

no, the allies owned the wreck. Wrecks in national waters were turned
over the the allied nation.

WTF? The wreck was in an area Norway owned, and it had the
responsibility for safety of navigation there. Who they charged
rent, or required to remove the obstruction is irrelevant to the
truth of my comment.
Peter Skelton

You are confusing two different things

The hell I am

Post by Vince
1) Who owned the wreck
Norway "owned" the wreck as a result of the German surrender and the
subsequent disposition of enemy property. Same is true of the Blucher

Totally irrelevant to my comment/

Post by Vince
2) Who pays to remove the wreck
Could Norway force Germany to clean it up? tis is a question of war
reparations , which were settled by various treaties

Also totally irrelevant to my comment
I know it's Monday and the brain works slowly but please look for
your thinking cap until you find it.
Peter Skelton

Post by Vince

Post by Peter Skelton

Post by Vince

Post by Peter Skelton
The Norweigans were in a position to charge rent and/or require
removal of the obstruction. Failure to comply could result in
confiscation.

If Norway already owns the wreck neither rent nor confiscation is an issue
Sheesh

Why do you think title was granted to them? And to the
"landlords" of all simillarly situated wrecks? Do you think that
the people involved had some mild appreciation of the physical,
and legal situations?

Sheesh yourself


Peter Skelton

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Post by Peter Skelton

Post by Vince
Under international law the surrender of Germany included the surrender
of all military equipment wherever situated.
It was up to the allies to award rights in the property.

The Norweigans were in a position to charge rent and/or require
removal of the obstruction. Failure to comply could result in
confiscation.

What is the situation about the issue of the oil spilling from the wreck
of the Blucher in Oslo ? IIRC last time I heard on it, there was talking
between FRG and Norway about what and how to do....

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[Derek Lyons]

Post by Eugene Griessel

Post by Derek Lyons

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article

Post by Weatherlawyer
Since the ship was engaged in an illegal war and the wreck may be as
you say: outside their territory, the ship is open for grabs.

How do you define an illegal war? The US did declare war on Japan. As
such the ship counts as a war grave, with access controlled by the
owning government.

The legality of the war or the presence of the crew is meaningless -
ownership of a warship's remains and control of access thereto always
vests with the owning goverment.

Under which international treaty is this right guaranteed? And when
was it agreed upon? I am interested for a number of reasons, which
mostly centre on the Birkenhead.

IIRC it's part of the various Law of the Sea conventions and part of
the varied conventions on Maritime Salvage.

It's been a while since I reviewed this - but it was also the dodge
the US Government used to claim Hunley. ("Since the USA government
has taken over the CSA government's assets at the end of the War, this
included the Hunley" went the logic.)

Post by Eugene Griessel
The Birkenhead, variously referred to as "HMS" and "HMT" - I know not
for sure whether she was a commissioned vessel of the RN or a
troopship - went down off Danger Point in 1852 with the loss of
several hundred souls.
Since that time there have been a number of expeditions attempting to
salvage a postulated 3 tons of gold aboard her (whether the gold ever
existed is also moot - it probably did not). I know a couple of the
people, ex-navy types, who have participated in such salvage attempts.
I think one or two of these attempts have brought HM government
complaints. Just recently I argued with one of the guys again - and
according to him the whole thing hinges on the fact that Birkenhead
was not a commissioned warship - and is thus fair game.

Just because a government owns a wreck does not imply they will
exercise that interest. She may also predate the various
international conventions on the matter - which makes her fair game.

D.

[Richard Casady]

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
How do you define an illegal war? The US did declare war on Japan. As
such the ship counts as a war grave, with access controlled by the
owning government.

War graves have no special status. All warship wrecks belong to their
original owner and are not to be disturbed. " government property" has
more to do with it than " war grave". I think anyone can dive
warships, it's taking stuff away, especially, that is not allowed.

Casady

[Fred J. McCall]

***@earthlink.net (Richard Casady) wrote:

:On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:18:09 -0600, ***@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
:
:>How do you define an illegal war? The US did declare war on Japan. As
:>such the ship counts as a war grave, with access controlled by the
:>owning government.
:
:War graves have no special status. All warship wrecks belong to their
:original owner and are not to be disturbed. " government property" has
:more to do with it than " war grave". I think anyone can dive
:warships, it's taking stuff away, especially, that is not allowed.
:

The correct legal phrase is 'sovereign immunity'. See my other
posting on the subject.

Note that wrecks INSIDE the territorial waters of other states have a
much more questionable status. It is only those wrecks outside
territorial waters that are guaranteed to retain their sovereign
immunity.

Whether the ship surrendered or was taken prior to its sinking will
also affect this.

[John Szalay]

Post by Matt Wiser
I was reading Bob Ballard's book on the Pacific War (and he has a wish
list of wrecks from the Pacific that he'd like to find and
survey-Lexington, Hornet, the Japanese Midway carriers, Shokaku,
Indianapolis, etc.), and he indicated that a survey of the wreck of
the carrier Shinano, the largest ship ever sunk by a submarine was on
his list. However, when he approached the Japanese government, they
refused permission, even though the wreck is outside Japanese
territorial waters. Nobody complained when he found Bismarck or USS
Yorktown, and he did notify the West German Navy and the USN in both
cases, along with his Ironbottom Sound wrecks (USN, Australian Navy,
and the JMSDF). Is this EEZ related, or does the Japanese Government
want the wreck surveyed by a local first before allowing others to go
for a look?

I will venture a <SWAG> Warships of all nations are considered under
that nations ownership, no matter where she lies.
The Japanese Govt has always been very protective of wargraves because
of the nature of thier religious beliefs. I suspect that they would not
allow exploration on that grounds.

For the record IIRC: they were VERY upset when a exploration team
announced plans to visit the wreck of the I-52 and its cargo of Gold.

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by John Szalay

Post by Matt Wiser
I was reading Bob Ballard's book on the Pacific War (and he has a wish
list of wrecks from the Pacific that he'd like to find and
survey-Lexington, Hornet, the Japanese Midway carriers, Shokaku,
Indianapolis, etc.), and he indicated that a survey of the wreck of
the carrier Shinano, the largest ship ever sunk by a submarine was on
his list. However, when he approached the Japanese government, they
refused permission, even though the wreck is outside Japanese
territorial waters. Nobody complained when he found Bismarck or USS
Yorktown, and he did notify the West German Navy and the USN in both
cases, along with his Ironbottom Sound wrecks (USN, Australian Navy,
and the JMSDF). Is this EEZ related, or does the Japanese Government
want the wreck surveyed by a local first before allowing others to go
for a look?

I will venture a <SWAG> Warships of all nations are considered under
that nations ownership, no matter where she lies.
The Japanese Govt has always been very protective of wargraves because
of the nature of thier religious beliefs. I suspect that they would not
allow exploration on that grounds.
For the record IIRC: they were VERY upset when a exploration team
announced plans to visit the wreck of the I-52 and its cargo of Gold.

A very large wargrave, at that, as over 1,400 crewman died in the
sinking.

I can certainly see why the Japanese government would oppose.

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Post by John Szalay

Post by Matt Wiser
I was reading Bob Ballard's book on the Pacific War (and he has a wish
list of wrecks from the Pacific that he'd like to find and
survey-Lexington, Hornet, the Japanese Midway carriers, Shokaku,
Indianapolis, etc.), and he indicated that a survey of the wreck of
the carrier Shinano, the largest ship ever sunk by a submarine was on
his list. However, when he approached the Japanese government, they
refused permission, even though the wreck is outside Japanese
territorial waters. Nobody complained when he found Bismarck or USS
Yorktown, and he did notify the West German Navy and the USN in both
cases, along with his Ironbottom Sound wrecks (USN, Australian Navy,
and the JMSDF). Is this EEZ related, or does the Japanese Government
want the wreck surveyed by a local first before allowing others to go
for a look?

I will venture a <SWAG> Warships of all nations are considered under
that nations ownership, no matter where she lies.
The Japanese Govt has always been very protective of wargraves because
of the nature of thier religious beliefs. I suspect that they would not
allow exploration on that grounds.

Nothing to do with religious beliefs there. Simple matter of keeping
what you have for yourself and not sharing with others unless
beneficial for oneself. Any information that could leak out might end
up being detrimental to national interests.