
Japan to increase military spending - anigbrowl
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20130110a1.html
======
veidr
It's worth noting that this is a tiny, tiny amount of money by US standards. A
couple billion USD is not a big deal (financially or militarily, other than as
a signal).

Still, as a Japanese resident, I am happy with this use of my tax money. With
the Cold War with China already well underway, I think Japan needs a much
stronger military than at any time since losing WWII. Partly because of the
economic ascendance of China (which a lot of people these days somehow forget
is a brutal, repressive, totalitarian state, not an advanced democracy like
Japan) and partly because of the decline of the USA as comptent and rational
actor on the world stage. Treaty-bound or not, I don't have much faith that
the USA would do much wrt Chinese aggression toward Japan, short of an actual
invasion (which hopefully will remain very unlikely).

~~~
nubela
As a Chinese, do you remember the atrocities you did to the Chinese people?
You might not remember, but my grandparents remember it vividly. Now the
question is, what has Chinese people done to you so far to have you make such
a statement?

~~~
veidr
That present-day China is a totalitarian state is just a statement of fact
about its government, not an opinion or a judgement about the Chinese people.
(And personally, I really wish them the best in changing that situation.)

But, the Chinese government being what it is, you have to consider it when
deciding to live or do business here.

Japan was indeed once a dangerous and belligerent actor on the world stage
(Nanjing massacre, sex slave camps, attempted genocide, and lots more evil
stuff.) However, Japan's military was then thoroughly annihilated, its cities
were nuked, its capital was burned to the ground, and most of its leaders were
put to death. Throw in a new constitution protecting human rights and the
creation of a functioning democratic government, and we end up with an
extremely different Japan today, 67 years later.

And (in my opinion), today's Japan is a really great place to live and to do
almost any kind of technology-related business.

So I'm not making any statement absolving Japan's historical atrocities
(incidentally, I'm American, and both my grandfathers fought against Japan in
WWII). But I also don't think they are all that relevant to the times we live
in. The perpetrators are now all dead, and the empire they fought for was
thoroughly dismantled before I was born.

On the other hand, I'm a lot more interested in what's happening right now.
And as far as I can see, Japan doesn't threaten its neighbors or the stability
of the region in any way. China, on the other hand, with with its recent
threats of military action against Japan, almost daily maritime incursions
into Japanese territory, support of North Korea, and so forth, seems extremely
unhelpful. (Plus, that whole totalitarianism thing... historically, seems to
usually end badly.)

So as a practical matter, I think that the interests of regional stability and
peaceful business pursuits would probably be better served if Japan had a
military more in line with its economic power, rather than relying on the
protection of a country across the ocean, most of whose citizens couldn't find
Japan on a map.

~~~
handrake
After seeing how Japanese government handled Fukushima accident, I as a Korean
don't feel very safe with them wanting to play with a bigger gun. If Japanese
government doesn't or can't take care of its own people, how do I believe it
will care so much about world peace?

~~~
OGinparadise
What makes you think S Korea or USA would have handled it differently? History
is full of cases where governments to lie and cover up.

------
anigbrowl
This might not seem that relevant to HN at first blush, but a war between the
two would involve the US (by treaty), and result in an unprecedentedly severe
disruption in technology supply chains (not to mention a complete upending of
supply and demand if the conflict were to gain any sort of traction).

~~~
rdl
I don't see how anything but the most limited war there wouldn't turn into
ww3. It may not go nuclear, but it would be a bigger deal than Vietnam, Korea,
or anyof the Gulf/Oil wars.

~~~
anigbrowl
Well yeah, that's why this saber-rattling is so worrying. It wouldn't be first
war to start over such nominally small stakes. The mods have changed the
title, but the point of posting it was to draw attention to the fact that the
two countries are flying fighter jets past each other now, which is a worrying
escalation in my view. Aerial brinksmanship can go wrong a lot faster than the
naval kind.

~~~
rdl
I also think it will go hot a lot more likely than the US-USSR cold war due to
culture.

The US and Russia didn't hate each other for anything but ideology. The last
time we were actually fighting a war total, we were on the same side, killing
Nazis together and saving the world.

Communism vs. Capitalism was certainly a huge difference, but it wasn't "your
grandfather raped and killed my great-aunt and all of her village", and, by
the time it was US vs. USSR, both countries were at least pretty stable
domestically (China is still rapidly evolving).

------
batgaijin
finally stepping past the limits of article 9.

I think it's not fair that we crippled japan's military autonomy; I mean the
military funding in the usa is why we are at the front of the computer
revolution.

I just want a japanese competitor to wintel :'(

~~~
nekojima
Article 9, along with Japan's reduced military spending and lack of a local
Military Industrial Complex, or one that was substantially reduced in scope
after the Second World War with focus redirected to consumer goods, is a
significant reason why Japan was able to recover quickly after the war and to
develop into the modern nation it has become.

What's missing from that news article, is the announcement on Friday of the
ten naval patrol boats Japan will supply or lend to the Philippines to help
protect against Chinese naval and fishing fleet incursions in local waters.

~~~
hkmurakami
Pardon me for the non-sequitur.

I just wrote a fairly lengthy comment about the possible merits of an expanded
Japanese military industrial complex (in helping Japan's languishing economy)
given the industrial strengths of Japan that suit arms manufacturing well and
potential interest in SE and South Asian nations of non-US non-Russian
weaponry, but couldn't get myself to post the comment for fear that because my
user ID clearly indicates that I am ethnically Japanese, I could be taken as
an imperialist nationalist; a strange psychological phenomenon to say the
least. I wonder if there is a name for such a double take?

~~~
berntb
>> I wonder if there is a name for such a double take?

"Funny"?

(Sorry for a non-serious answer to a serious comment, I'm making a point that
you should relax. The lack of taking responsibility (school education etc) for
what happened in the 2nd world war might make other countries nervous, but
afaik only Germany ever took responsibility for large war atrocities. Not
Turkey, Pakistan, the Chinese communist party, etc, etc. No one expects a
return of the militaristic Japan.)

~~~
wyuenho
Depends on what you mean by "taking responsibility". Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan
all have received the wrath of US military power and paid with enormous human
and economic costs.

The revival of a militaristic Japan is actually more likely than you think,
tho still very unlikely. The reason is simple, most of the conditions that led
to WWII still exist today. Japan is still controlled by a largely hawkish
right-wing elite aristocratic class. Japan still brainwashes its population by
denying war crimes committed during WWII. Japan still has virtually no natural
resources enough to sustain its large population. Japan is still the premier
military power in East Asia. Japan still spends an enormous amount of money on
its military, however "defensive" it may be (I honestly don't know how a
military that has helicopter carriers is defensive in nature). The only
difference is that Japan is now militarily aligned with the U.S. and that
China is no longer a political, technological, economical and military
weakling. The Chinese would like to believe that the only thing standing
between a peaceful Japan and a militaristic Japan is the PLA.

~~~
berntb
>>"taking responsibility". Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan all have received the
wrath of US military power and paid

With "take responsibility" in English afaik, it means that you take
responsibility for the situation (often implied I believe -- that you caused).
If something else is implied by the expression, please enlighten me.

I have a hard time believing that Japan would start doing military adventures.
It is, more or less, a functioning democracy. See the democratic peace theory,
not even USA makes wars against democracies...

(And about your examples... Syria could use some responsibility from the self
proclaimed world cop. It is a horror story probably worse than ex Yugoslavia;
a shame for Obama. It just doesn't fit his priorities.)

~~~
wyuenho
One would say that external constraints imposed upon a criminal, which often
includes said criminal taking action to correct his mistake in whatever form
the imposer deems appropriate, as the criminal "taking responsibility".
Germany is in no way the only country which has taken responsibility for war
atrocities, but it is AFAIK, the only country which repent voluntarily and
willingly. You may want to keep this in mind next time you play with
semantics.

Only direct, total democracy leads to peace. There is no such government in
place in the world right now. The US, though it has not formally declared war
against other "democracies", it has in many instances, conducted clandestine
subversive activities that one nation may use as the _casus belli_. For
example, in 2001, Haiti democratically reelected a Catholic priest as
president for the third time. In 2004, with the backing of the CIA, the
president Jean-Bertrand Aristide was removed from office in a coup for reasons
many accused as Aristide simply not being obedient to Western powers.

The US has also openly supported many oppressive regimes in the past and
present time. This is also one of the pretexts Al-Qaeda used as justifications
of their attacks against the US.

While Japan may not return to its imperial and militaristic roots in the past,
it is perfect as a proxy vanguard against China and Russia. The US is good at
proxy wars. As long as Japan is catering to the US's demands, the US may just
turn a blind eye and condone Japan's rise as yet another aggressive nation in
North East Asia. It only took Germany a decade to become Nazi Germany after
all.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Haitian_coup_d%27etat>

~~~
berntb
I'll leave the semantic discussion aside, since English is neither of ours
native language.

>>Only direct, total democracy leads to peace.

Huh? Check the democratic peace theory on wikipedia. It says that democracies
don't make wars. This "direct" and "total" democracy sounds like a place I'd
be careful moving to...

The problems with democracies is that foreigners can't vote, the behaviour
outside can be as dirty as for a "traditional" country. But the home opinion
cares more with more internationalisation, it has gotten much better over 50
years or so. (The Aristide example seems shocking, I thought such US behaviour
ended with the cold war.)

You present conspiracy theories about the US -- afaik, it isn't US interests
where the sea borders around China are. They are not the ones playing the
jingoism card.

