Japan's Military 'Needs Marines and Drones' 159
arisvega writes "The State of Japan is apparently seeking 'Deter and Respond' military capabilities, perhaps as an artifact from being 'embroiled in a bitter row over islands with China' and being 'deeply concerned by North Korea's nuclear ambitions,' as reported by the BBC. Since the end of WW II, under Article 9 of its post-war constitution, Japan is blocked from the use of force to resolve conflicts except in the case of self-defence. Now, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is looking to expand the scope of Japanese military activities — potentially a highly controversial move that would anger its neighbours. The post-war constitution was of course put in place by the then victorious west, who would now have an interest to fully back up this move: though Japanese officials claim that any new upgrades will not be used for preemptive strikes, the result will be arms and battalions installed close to The People's Republic of China, The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and The Russian Federation. It will be interesting to track how this plays out."
Good news for us, I suspect... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless Abe has some unwisely-published rantings about the reestablishment of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere stashed in his closet somewhere, this seems like the sort of 'controversial' that will lead to grumblings and not a whole lot else.
It's not as though any of Japan's neighbors are necessarily going to like it; but nation-states maintaining armed forces, even potentially threatening ones, is sufficiently universal that there isn't exactly any complaints department who would take you seriously. "Dear the UN, I think Japan may be deciding to maintain a military larger than the one that the Americans let them keep after fighting a particularly nasty war with them, that's mean!"
It also wouldn't be a total surprise if some of the Japanese increase is aimed specifically at replacing the (never entirely popular) American bases in the area, which would leave the total amount of force roughly constant, just changing the label (and hopefully saviing the US some cash).
If (Score:2, Insightful)
If you disarm somebody, you're morally responsible if they get attacked.
Re:japan is a fascist nation that was spared (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if it successfully withered away and died, how can it possibly be a threat to China? :)
(There's an inherent contradiction in what you say.)
Re:japan is a fascist nation that was spared (Score:5, Insightful)
The military was neutered, but the constitution that was forced on Japan was basically a Western system of government with a token emperor. Surprisingly, this worked really well for Japan. Without any possibility to create a hawkish foreign policy and with a government that generally respects human rights, Japan advanced faster than almost any other country in history--from rubble and millions dead to massive manufacturing industries and cities full of skyscrapers in less than 50 years. This is what can happen when you spend 1% or less of your GDP on the military. Perhaps this should be a lesson to some other countries in the world.
Yeah, every country should sign a defense treaty with the United States and have America provide a security guarantee.
Re:It will be interesting to track how this plays (Score:5, Insightful)
As always, follow de Monet...
It will be interesting to track how this plays out ... unless you happen to live in a country or belong to a race that the Chinese think have historically wronged China, or a race that the Chinese see as being inferior, in which case it could be scary to see Chinese attitudes of resentful nationalism closely tracking those of Japan and Germany prior to WW II.
Re:japan is a fascist nation that was spared (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, every country should sign a defense treaty with the United States and have America provide a security guarantee.
There are a number of countries that spend even less [wikipedia.org]. Most countries have no disputed borders, and no hostile direct neighbors. Most military spending in the world is out of tradition or political calculation rather than any real security need. Even countries that need to keep their military, often have more than they need, and they focus on the wrong skills and capabilities. For example, two decades after the end of the cold war, Germany's military is built around heavy armored divisions, when there is no plausible scenario where they would be useful. On the eve of the 9/11 attacks, the US Army's top priority was the Crusader Artillery [wikipedia.org], a 99 ton monstrosity what would have proved nearly useless in the the ensuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even GWB had enough sense to kill that.
Re:Sun Tzu would be proud (Score:5, Insightful)
but it should be somewhere because US is following that to the letter and the rest of their (for now) allies are following the example.
It is China's arrogant, bullying, overbearing behavior, treating its neighbors like the vassal states of Imperial China, trying to take their territory, that is driving its neighbors to affirm their defensive alliances, and seek new arms to defend themselves.
Trying to blame this on the US and its allies simply demonstrates you either pay no attention to the news, or have a pathological animus towards the US.