Japan Says It Faces Increasing Threats from China, North Korea

[News_Editor]

Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, second left, and Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera, third left, review an honor guard at the Defense Ministry in Tokyo on Jan. 20, 2013. (Photo: Reuters)

TOKYO ” Japan faces increasingly serious threats to its security from an assertive China and an unpredictable North Korea, a defense ministry report said on Tuesday, as ruling politicians call for the military to beef up its ability to respond to such threats.

The report, the first since hawkish Prime Minister Shinzo Abe took office vowing to boost Japan's defenses, was likely to prompt a sharp response from Beijing, whose ties with Tokyo are strained by a territorial row. China is also upset by remarks from Abe suggesting he wants to cast Tokyo's wartime history in a less apologetic tone.

"There are various issues and destabilizing factors in the security environment surrounding Japan, some of which are becoming increasingly tangible, acute and serious," the annual defense white paper said.

"China has attempted to change the status quo by force based on its own assertion, which is incompatible with the existing order of international law," the report said, echoing recent comments by Abe and his cabinet. "China should accept and stick to the international norms."

A Sino-Japanese dispute over rival claims to tiny East China Sea islets flared up last September after Japan nationalized the isles, known as the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China.

Japan has been gradually ratcheting up its expressions of concern about Beijing's military expansion. Last year's defense white paper, issued before the islands flare-up, flagged the risks of the army's role in shaping Chinese foreign policy.

Patrol ships from both countries routinely shadow each other near the islands, raising concerns that an unintended collision or other incident could lead to a broader clash.

"Some of China's activities involve its intrusion into Japan's territorial waters, its violation of Japan's territorial airspace and even dangerous actions that could cause a contingency, and are extremely regrettable," the paper said.

Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera said in February that a Chinese naval vessel had locked its fire control radar on a Japanese destroyer. Directing such radar at a target can be considered a step away from actual firing.

China denied the warship had locked its radar on the Japanese vessel. But the white paper said Beijing's assertion was "inconsistent with the facts."

Abe returned to power for a rare second term after his ruling bloc won a general election late last year, promising to revive the economy and strengthen Japan's defenses. He also wants to revise the post-World War Two pacifist constitution to legitimize the military, although winning support for contentious revisions is likely to take time.

Japan is already bolstering defense of the disputed islands and this year raised its defense budget for the first time in 11 years.

The military is conducting joint drills with the United States, its main security ally, and fortifying defenses against missile attacks, while the government is reviewing its mid-term defense policy.

Japan plans to draw up a new defense plan by December, and Abe's Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) submitted recommendations to the government last month that included looking into acquiring the capability to attack enemy targets.

Japan has long maintained that it has the right to strike enemy targets when an intention to attack Japan is clear, the threat is imminent and there are no other options.

But any sign that Japan is moving to obtain such capabilities could upset China and South Korea, where resentment against Japan's wartime aggression and colonization runs deep.

The LDP also recommended that, in order to boost the defense of remote islands, the military should set up an amphibious Marines division equipped with tilt-rotor aircraft like the V-22 Osprey.

"The balance of power will be lost if we don't start considering striking back when attacked," said Osaka University professor Kazuya Sakamoto, who sits on a panel advising Abe on security policies.

"If we don't have weapons that reach an enemy, Japan cannot defend itself. It cannot maintain deterrence."

Such moves, Sakamoto added, should not unnerve China, with its arsenal of nuclear weapons.

Abe, whose LDP is expected to cement its grip on power in this month's upper house election, also wants to revise an interpretation of the constitution that bans using the right of collective self-defense, or aiding an ally under attack.

A panel set up during Abe's first 2006-07 term recommended that the ban be lifted in certain cases, such as intercepting ballistic missiles bound for the United States. A new committee of advisers is expected to reach similar conclusions.

North Korea launched a missile in December, stepping up the threat that the isolated, impoverished state poses to rivals. In February, it conducted a third nuclear test, which moved Pyongyang closer to developing long-range nuclear missiles. "The launch of a missile … showed that North Korea has advanced its technologies to extend the range and improve the accuracy of ballistic missiles," the white paper said.

Source: Irrawaddy.org

[Sing_Sling]

Stuck between a rock and a hard place . . . China and North Korea.

Lovely, can't say I envy Japan one bit to have such neighbours

(waiting for those who still believe Japan didn't apologise, hurt their grandfather etc...)

[NeverSure]

It's just talk. Other than having nukes, China is a paper tiger. The US has a treaty to defend Japan and has moved more than 1/2 of its naval resources into Asia. It has restocked Guam, reopened Clark Air Force Base and Subic Bay, and has 3 carrier groups now in the area. It has nuclear subs in the water that China can't even see.

China is way, way behind in developing conventional hardware. They don't have stealth fighters and bombers and they don't have the missiles with pinpoint accuracy.

If China or N. Korea lays a finger on Japan or The Philippines they'll have a lot of scrap iron on the bottom of the ocean.

[Sing_Sling]

I don't think anything will happen as China has bided its time for millennia - they're not about to go all warships and missiles on Tokyo . . .

Different. Attrition. Striking only where and when they know they can do so with minimal blowback.

Perhaps we don't like the Chinese (as in PRC leadership and their henchmen) but it would be unwise just to show what big muscles we have

[NeverSure]

I don't think anything will happen as China has bided its time for millennia - they're not about to go all warships and missiles on Tokyo . . .

Different. Attrition. Striking only where and when they know they can do so with minimal blowback.

Perhaps we don't like the Chinese (as in PRC leadership and their henchmen) but it would be unwise just to show what big muscles we have

Agreed. They'd have to start something serious first such as follow through on their original threat to take sole ownership of the South China Sea fishing rights, or invade and take one or more of The Philippine Islands which they claim, or something like that.

Then their hardware would end up on the bottom of the ocean.

Same with N. Korea. They'd actually have to start firing missiles at S. Korea or Japan, or as they threatened, launch a nuke at Hawaii. Then they might just turn into a glass parking lot.

I don't think either has the guts stupidity to try any of that.

[jamhar]

I wondered how long it would take for Japan (and Germany) to come out of the post ww2 pacifist stance and start developing their military.

I guess its japan to come to that realization first. With some of the japanese public wanting to kick out the US military, and not having a sufficient military to fill that void. they are between a rock and a hard place. And they are also pinched between the Chinese playing bad cop, and the NK's playing the insane cop.

If i were in the Japanese position, i would be looking to jump start strengthening my defensive capabilities ASAP, as they are.

Given the revelation regarding the Chinese missiles program, I’d start quickly, AND with amplitude.

Link - china-has-worlds-most-active-missile-programs-US-says

[Credo]

Given that Japan has such a shortage of young people, this will probably be the first military that recruits those over 65.

The Japanese really don't have a lot of young people to spare for a military build up.

[Sing_Sling]

Given that Japan has such a shortage of young people, this will probably be the first military that recruits those over 65.

The Japanese really don't have a lot of young people to spare for a military build up.

Well, with an unemployment rate at 4% and an underemployment rate in double digits I'm sure they could find enough 'bodies' among 140 million people, but you're right - they certainly wouldn't have the cream of the crop.

I wondered how long it would take for Japan (and Germany) to come out of the post ww2 pacifist stance and start developing their military.

Well, they both still are in pacifist mode, still enshrined in their constitution and their militaries are defensive in nature.

Luckily Germany is surrounded by countries who have placed WWII into the shelves of the past and whose general demeanor isn't that of aggressive and impossible to calculate countries like China and NK

[jamhar]

I agree with SS and Credo

But i also agree that you can find the bodies you need, if you had to.

Actually i think a bigger problem with Japan will be funding the military. With its national debt north of 200% of its GDP, theres not a lot of coins left in its purse.

imf - National Debt vs GDP

Yikes, and i thought the US national Debt was bad

(yes it is)

[NeverSure]

I wondered how long it would take for Japan (and Germany) to come out of the post ww2 pacifist stance and start developing their military.

I guess its japan to come to that realization first. With some of the japanese public wanting to kick out the US military, and not having a sufficient military to fill that void. they are between a rock and a hard place. And they are also pinched between the Chinese playing bad cop, and the NK's playing the insane cop.

If i were in the Japanese position, i would be looking to jump start strengthening my defensive capabilities ASAP, as they are.

Given the revelation regarding the Chinese missiles program, I’d start quickly, AND with amplitude.

Link - china-has-worlds-most-active-missile-programs-US-says

Japan and Germany rely almost solely on the US for defense. That's due to treaties after being so battered in WWII.

Japan doesn't have nukes. Germany doesn't either. They really aren't in any position to ask the US to leave them alone.

As an American I would be happy to require Japan and Germany to defend themselves simply because our military budget is so huge. But their economies aren't dragged down much by military spending. I think it's high time they stepped up to the plate and did their own part instead of the US having the huge military bases in, for instance, Germany.

As for Japan needing to jump start a missile program, the US has nuclear subs in the water that China can't even see, with several kinds of missiles including some nukes that can be launched from deep under water. The US also installed a defense barrier along the N. and S. Korea border that would also protect Japan.

[Sing_Sling]

I wondered how long it would take for Japan (and Germany) to come out of the post ww2 pacifist stance and start developing their military.

I guess its japan to come to that realization first. With some of the japanese public wanting to kick out the US military, and not having a sufficient military to fill that void. they are between a rock and a hard place. And they are also pinched between the Chinese playing bad cop, and the NK's playing the insane cop.

If i were in the Japanese position, i would be looking to jump start strengthening my defensive capabilities ASAP, as they are.

Given the revelation regarding the Chinese missiles program, I’d start quickly, AND with amplitude.

Link - china-has-worlds-most-active-missile-programs-US-says

Japan and Germany rely almost solely on the US for defense. That's due to treaties after being so battered in WWII.

Japan doesn't have nukes. Germany doesn't either. They really aren't in any position to ask the US to leave them alone.

As an American I would be happy to require Japan and Germany to defend themselves simply because our military budget is so huge. But their economies aren't dragged down much by military spending. I think it's high time they stepped up to the plate and did their own part instead of the US having the huge military bases in, for instance, Germany.

As for Japan needing to jump start a missile program, the US has nuclear subs in the water that China can't even see, with several kinds of missiles including some nukes that can be launched from deep under water. The US also installed a defense barrier along the N. and S. Korea border that would also protect Japan.

You have that completely back-arsewards . . . Germany does not need the US to defend it and neither Germany nor Japan wants nukes.

Should Germany start creating enemies like the US to justify a massive army again?

Please don't pretend that it is Germany and Japan that wants/needs the US forces to stay - that is cold-war neo-con nonsense. Rather it is the US wanting to remain - especially in Japan's case - in the area with its 'defense' forces to remain relevant in the region.

Japan is fourth and Germany ninth in military spending and just because the US needs to remain on a constant war-footing - thereby bankrupting themselves - doesn't mean others are stupid enough to do the same.

So, please stop pretending that everyone needs the US military on their soil for their 'protection' . . . not everyone does and it is by no means a selfless act

[NeverSure]

I wondered how long it would take for Japan (and Germany) to come out of the post ww2 pacifist stance and start developing their military.

I guess its japan to come to that realization first. With some of the japanese public wanting to kick out the US military, and not having a sufficient military to fill that void. they are between a rock and a hard place. And they are also pinched between the Chinese playing bad cop, and the NK's playing the insane cop.

If i were in the Japanese position, i would be looking to jump start strengthening my defensive capabilities ASAP, as they are.

Given the revelation regarding the Chinese missiles program, I’d start quickly, AND with amplitude.

Link - china-has-worlds-most-active-missile-programs-US-says

Japan and Germany rely almost solely on the US for defense. That's due to treaties after being so battered in WWII.

Japan doesn't have nukes. Germany doesn't either. They really aren't in any position to ask the US to leave them alone.

As an American I would be happy to require Japan and Germany to defend themselves simply because our military budget is so huge. But their economies aren't dragged down much by military spending. I think it's high time they stepped up to the plate and did their own part instead of the US having the huge military bases in, for instance, Germany.

As for Japan needing to jump start a missile program, the US has nuclear subs in the water that China can't even see, with several kinds of missiles including some nukes that can be launched from deep under water. The US also installed a defense barrier along the N. and S. Korea border that would also protect Japan.

You have that completely back-arsewards . . . Germany does not need the US to defend it and neither Germany nor Japan wants nukes.

Should Germany start creating enemies like the US to justify a massive army again?

Please don't pretend that it is Germany and Japan that wants/needs the US forces to stay - that is cold-war neo-con nonsense. Rather it is the US wanting to remain - especially in Japan's case - in the area with its 'defense' forces to remain relevant in the region.

Japan is fourth and Germany ninth in military spending and just because the US needs to remain on a constant war-footing - thereby bankrupting themselves - doesn't mean others are stupid enough to do the same.

So, please stop pretending that everyone needs the US military on their soil for their 'protection' . . . not everyone does and it is by no means a selfless act

This makes no sense at all. The US just re-opened Clark and Subic in The Philippines. Subic is sized to fit Nimitz-class carrier groups.

The amount of money that Japan and Germany spend on military is tiny, and Germany isn't even on the list of the main spenders so yes it does need protection per the treaty. So does Japan.

Enemies like the US? You mean like the London train bombing or the bombing of the Aussie Embassy in Jakarta, both since 9/11?

You need to get it that terrorists are everyone's enemy and they believe that all infidels must die. Do you think I care that terrorists consider the US an enemy, or that I believe that anything the US does would prevent a soldier from getting hacked to death in London?

Here's your list of military spending, and Japan is pathetic and Germany isn't on the list. Why doesn't anyone screw with them? Treaties with the US.

[Sing_Sling]

I wondered how long it would take for Japan (and Germany) to come out of the post ww2 pacifist stance and start developing their military.

I guess its japan to come to that realization first. With some of the japanese public wanting to kick out the US military, and not having a sufficient military to fill that void. they are between a rock and a hard place. And they are also pinched between the Chinese playing bad cop, and the NK's playing the insane cop.

If i were in the Japanese position, i would be looking to jump start strengthening my defensive capabilities ASAP, as they are.

Given the revelation regarding the Chinese missiles program, I’d start quickly, AND with amplitude.

Link - china-has-worlds-most-active-missile-programs-US-says

Japan and Germany rely almost solely on the US for defense. That's due to treaties after being so battered in WWII.

Japan doesn't have nukes. Germany doesn't either. They really aren't in any position to ask the US to leave them alone.

As an American I would be happy to require Japan and Germany to defend themselves simply because our military budget is so huge. But their economies aren't dragged down much by military spending. I think it's high time they stepped up to the plate and did their own part instead of the US having the huge military bases in, for instance, Germany.

As for Japan needing to jump start a missile program, the US has nuclear subs in the water that China can't even see, with several kinds of missiles including some nukes that can be launched from deep under water. The US also installed a defense barrier along the N. and S. Korea border that would also protect Japan.

You have that completely back-arsewards . . . Germany does not need the US to defend it and neither Germany nor Japan wants nukes.

Should Germany start creating enemies like the US to justify a massive army again?

Please don't pretend that it is Germany and Japan that wants/needs the US forces to stay - that is cold-war neo-con nonsense. Rather it is the US wanting to remain - especially in Japan's case - in the area with its 'defense' forces to remain relevant in the region.

Japan is fourth and Germany ninth in military spending and just because the US needs to remain on a constant war-footing - thereby bankrupting themselves - doesn't mean others are stupid enough to do the same.

So, please stop pretending that everyone needs the US military on their soil for their 'protection' . . . not everyone does and it is by no means a selfless act

This makes no sense at all. The US just re-opened Clark and Subic in The Philippines. Subic is sized to fit Nimitz-class carrier groups.

The amount of money that Japan and Germany spend on military is tiny, and Germany isn't even on the list of the main spenders so yes it does need protection per the treaty. So does Japan.

Enemies like the US? You mean like the London train bombing or the bombing of the Aussie Embassy in Jakarta, both since 9/11?

You need to get it that terrorists are everyone's enemy and they believe that all infidels must die. Do you think I care that terrorists consider the US an enemy, or that I believe that anything the US does would prevent a soldier from getting hacked to death in London?

Here's your list of military spending, and Japan is pathetic and Germany isn't on the list. Why doesn't anyone screw with them? Treaties with the US.

"This makes no sense at all. The US just re-opened Clark and Subic in The Philippines."

. . . what is this in reference to? Japan? Germany? You are confused.

"The amount of money that Japan and Germany spend on military is tiny, and Germany isn't even on the list of the main spenders so yes it does need protection per the treaty. So does Japan."

Either you can't read or you refuse to . . . Japan is in fourth, Germany in ninth place and to mention that their military expenditure is fallacious at best, simply idiocy at worst. Please take a look at economies of scale and requirements, or perceived requirements.

Who is threatening Germany? Have you ever heard of NATO? The US presence is no longer required, quite simple - the cold war is over

"Enemies like the US? You mean like the London train bombing or the bombing of the Aussie Embassy in Jakarta, both since 9/11?"

And did you see wither country go ape-shi! afterwards, invading other countries unrelated to the events, losing thousands more lives and murdering hundreds of thousands of innocents like the US did after 11/9.

"You need to get it that terrorists are everyone's enemy and they believe that all infidels must die"

You need to 'get it' that FOX shouldn't be your only source of information

Why doesn't anyone screw with them? Treaties with the US.

Partly, yes, of course . . . fat lot of good that is doing with China and Korea's aggressive stance and actions . . . and who is screwing or would want to screw with Germany???

Added to which, treaties are there for a reason - they are effective - just have a look at how WWI started for the opposite - though for this exercise we'll say they are useful, because they are, but they don't require soldiers on the ground

[NeverSure]

This makes no sense at all. The US just re-opened Clark and Subic in The Philippines. Subic is sized to fit Nimitz-class carrier groups.

The amount of money that Japan and Germany spend on military is tiny, and Germany isn't even on the list of the main spenders so yes it does need protection per the treaty. So does Japan.

Enemies like the US? You mean like the London train bombing or the bombing of the Aussie Embassy in Jakarta, both since 9/11?

You need to get it that terrorists are everyone's enemy and they believe that all infidels must die. Do you think I care that terrorists consider the US an enemy, or that I believe that anything the US does would prevent a soldier from getting hacked to death in London?

Here's your list of military spending, and Japan is pathetic and Germany isn't on the list. Why doesn't anyone screw with them? Treaties with the US.

"This makes no sense at all. The US just re-opened Clark and Subic in The Philippines."

. . . what is this in reference to? Japan? Germany? You are confused.

"The amount of money that Japan and Germany spend on military is tiny, and Germany isn't even on the list of the main spenders so yes it does need protection per the treaty. So does Japan."

Either you can't read or you refuse to . . . Japan is in fourth, Germany in ninth place and to mention that their military expenditure is fallacious at best, simply idiocy at worst. Please take a look at economies of scale and requirements, or perceived requirements.

Who is threatening Germany? Have you ever heard of NATO? The US presence is no longer required, quite simple - the cold war is over

"Enemies like the US? You mean like the London train bombing or the bombing of the Aussie Embassy in Jakarta, both since 9/11?"

And did you see wither country go ape-shi! afterwards, invading other countries unrelated to the events, losing thousands more lives and murdering hundreds of thousands of innocents like the US did after 11/9.

"You need to get it that terrorists are everyone's enemy and they believe that all infidels must die"

You need to 'get it' that FOX shouldn't be your only source of information

Why doesn't anyone screw with them? Treaties with the US.

Partly, yes, of course . . . fat lot of good that is doing with China and Korea's aggressive stance and actions . . . and who is screwing or would want to screw with Germany???

Added to which, treaties are there for a reason - they are effective - just have a look at how WWI started for the opposite - though for this exercise we'll say they are useful, because they are, but they don't require soldiers on the ground

Clark and Subic are within easy striking distance for Japan, and Japan doesn't have the facilities of Subic or Clark. There's your relevancy.

Place them wherever you want, Japan and Germany's military spending is tiny. They also don't have nukes.

Only 5 countries have nukes, and that includes Russia and China. NO one has the defense or delivery capability of the US. NATO? They need backup from the US.

I can see you are a US hater but the next time you are threatened, you'll be hollering for help.

[Sing_Sling]

Clark and Subic are within easy striking distance for Japan, and Japan doesn't have the facilities of Subic or Clark. There's your relevancy.

Place them wherever you want, Japan and Germany's military spending is tiny. They also don't have nukes.

Only 5 countries have nukes, and that includes Russia and China. NO one has the defense or delivery capability of the US. NATO? They need backup from the US.

I can see you are a US hater but the next time you are threatened, you'll be hollering for help.

You raise a false equivalence with your Subic Bay reference . . . and as for military expenditure being 'tiny' . . . tiny compared to the military behemoth that dwarfs all others? You don't comprehend 4th and 9th?

They don't have nukes? Good God, man - how dense are you?! They neither want nukes nor does anyone else want them to have nukes - quite rightly so. Look at the hoo-ha created by NK and Iran even having the potential of having them . . .

If you think only five countries have nukes then you are as dense as plutonium . . . and correct - no-one has the delivery capability of the US . . . how does that support your argument? Does this negate the purpose of having soldiers stationed in foreign countries? Remember that 'treaty' thing?

NATO? US? the US is part of NATO . . . groan . . .

I am not a US hater, though that is such an easy comment to make when you have nothing of substance while you drape yourself in the stars and stripes . . . and I have never 'hollered' for the US, Jethro . . . and you use the two least relevant countries for your 'hollered' quip

[Payboy]

Japan Says Faces Increasing Threats from China, North Korea

They should try installing a new emperor in China, or sweat it out, I say.

[NeverSure]

Clark and Subic are within easy striking distance for Japan, and Japan doesn't have the facilities of Subic or Clark. There's your relevancy.

Place them wherever you want, Japan and Germany's military spending is tiny. They also don't have nukes.

Only 5 countries have nukes, and that includes Russia and China. NO one has the defense or delivery capability of the US. NATO? They need backup from the US.

I can see you are a US hater but the next time you are threatened, you'll be hollering for help.

You raise a false equivalence with your Subic Bay reference . . . and as for military expenditure being 'tiny' . . . tiny compared to the military behemoth that dwarfs all others? You don't comprehend 4th and 9th?

They don't have nukes? Good God, man - how dense are you?! They neither want nukes nor does anyone else want them to have nukes - quite rightly so. Look at the hoo-ha created by NK and Iran even having the potential of having them . . .

If you think only five countries have nukes then you are as dense as plutonium . . . and correct - no-one has the delivery capability of the US . . . how does that support your argument? Does this negate the purpose of having soldiers stationed in foreign countries? Remember that 'treaty' thing?

NATO? US? the US is part of NATO . . . groan . . .

I am not a US hater, though that is such an easy comment to make when you have nothing of substance while you drape yourself in the stars and stripes . . . and I have never 'hollered' for the US, Jethro . . . and you use the two least relevant countries for your 'hollered' quip

Name for me the countries beyond 5 that have nukes. And with China and Russia having them someone had better have a deterrent to stop them.

Yes, I know the US is part of NATO, groan. But without the US NATO would be a paper tiger. Look at the military expenditure of the rest of them. Look at their lack of hardware and lack of technology.

And I do have something of substance. It's that graph showing military expenditure. It's the massive technology of stealth and pinpoint missiles and drones and nuclear subs and large nuclear powered carrier groups and on and on.

That graph shows what keeps China from trying to carry out its threats in Asian waters.

[geriatrickid]

How about putting some of the US defense spending in perspective? The US military is forced to maintain unnecessary military bases that consume billions of $$ every year. This is in effect a subsidy for communities. This then leads into the extent of US military involvement in NE Asia. The South Koreans and Okinawans don't want the US troop presence. Fine. Bring home the troops. A reduction of at least 50,000 would also save billions. Japan and South Korea can then see their economies collapse as they would be forced to pick up the slack.

[NeverSure]

The Philippines is a perfect example. They had somewhat of a falling out partly because many of their people didn't want US troops there any more. Subic had been developed to handle Nimitz-class carrier groups and nuclear subs, and of course Clark was a full blown air force base.

Then recently when China started threatening to take some of The Philippine Islands it claims, and threatened to take sole use of the South China Sea's fishing rights, The Philippines wanted the US back in a hurry.

The US has various treaties to protect most of the Asian nations including Thailand. Of course that also includes Japan and S. Korea and the Phils and others.

So here comes the US with more than 1/2 of its naval hardware and personnel, restocking Guam and The Philippines and putting some carrier groups and subs in the water.

Also of course there are the threats by N. Korea against Japan and S. Korea. So the US installs an expensive but effective defense system on the border of N. and S. Korea which will also protect Japan.

So what's the US to do? Walk away and let China take over all of Asia?

It's a good question and your comments are good comments. Maybe we should step back and let the UK take care of it?

[Sing_Sling]

Name for me the countries beyond 5 that have nukes. And with China and Russia having them someone had better have a deterrent to stop them.

Yes, I know the US is part of NATO, groan. But without the US NATO would be a paper tiger. Look at the military expenditure of the rest of them. Look at their lack of hardware and lack of technology.

And I do have something of substance. It's that graph showing military expenditure. It's the massive technology of stealth and pinpoint missiles and drones and nuclear subs and large nuclear powered carrier groups and on and on.

That graph shows what keeps China from trying to carry out its threats in Asian waters.

Ok, let's just assume there is a country called Israel . . . But no . . . it's not on your list.

You really need to get out of the cold war mentality with your focus on nukes . . . if you're that worried about them then you shouldn't be. France and the UK have them . . . and they're in Europe. Solved.

If you know the US is in NATO then why your superfluous 'point'?

Expenditure, expenditure, expenditure . . .

Substance means real. No-one else is as deranged as to spend so much on their military. No-one invades other countries at a whim. That's why you believe you need more and more and more.

[Sing_Sling]

How about putting some of the US defense spending in perspective? The US military is forced to maintain unnecessary military bases that consume billions of $$ every year. This is in effect a subsidy for communities. This then leads into the extent of US military involvement in NE Asia. The South Koreans and Okinawans don't want the US troop presence. Fine. Bring home the troops. A reduction of at least 50,000 would also save billions. Japan and South Korea can then see their economies collapse as they would be forced to pick up the slack.

You overvalue the presence of troops . . . and do you really think the Korean and Japanese economies would collapse? Oh yes, because a few thousand soldiers keep the whole country afloat.

Please show me some numbers as to the economic effect of troops leaving - and how this would mean the collapse of Japan and Korea.

[Sing_Sling]

The Philippines is a perfect example. They had somewhat of a falling out partly because many of their people didn't want US troops there any more. Subic had been developed to handle Nimitz-class carrier groups and nuclear subs, and of course Clark was a full blown air force base.

Then recently when China started threatening to take some of The Philippine Islands it claims, and threatened to take sole use of the South China Sea's fishing rights, The Philippines wanted the US back in a hurry.

The US has various treaties to protect most of the Asian nations including Thailand. Of course that also includes Japan and S. Korea and the Phils and others.

So here comes the US with more than 1/2 of its naval hardware and personnel, restocking Guam and The Philippines and putting some carrier groups and subs in the water.

Also of course there are the threats by N. Korea against Japan and S. Korea. So the US installs an expensive but effective defense system on the border of N. and S. Korea which will also protect Japan.

So what's the US to do? Walk away and let China take over all of Asia?

It's a good question and your comments are good comments. Maybe we should step back and let the UK take care of it?

Let the UK take care of it? That's the first sensible post you've made

[Scott]

I think most of the points and counter points have been made so let's get back on the topic and stick to it.

Further off-topic discussions will be deleted.

[Publicus]

Given that Japan has such a shortage of young people, this will probably be the first military that recruits those over 65.

The Japanese really don't have a lot of young people to spare for a military build up.

The modern military doesn't need huge numbers. A small military force - the U.S. has a total of only 1.5 million - with modern technology is devastating, from pinpoint localized drone attacks, to anti-missile defense, to nuclear attack. This is what PM Shinzo Abe wants and is in the process of establishing (minus a nuclear arsenal)..

The U.S. since 9/11 has focused on Special Operations Combined Forces so now has 25,000 in an integrated command of army, navy, air force, marines under a four-star commander. (Historically, a four-star commanded hundreds of thousands of forces and massive assets.)

The integrated land, air, sea Special Ops are highly effective in today's world of non-state forces, tinhorn state forces, and menacing states such as the CCP-PRC. Witness the Operation Neptune Spear, which had integrated Special Ops of land, air, sea go on a kill mission of bin Ladin in a foreign country (Pakistan). The commander of U.S. Special Operations Combined Forces, Admiral Bill McRaven personally oversaw and commanded the bin Ladin operation from training through to the conclusion of the operation, which ended with a big splash.

That's exactly what Japan is looking to do defend itself against the CCP-PRC and N Korea. Japan with an anti-missile defense also would defend the United States against N Korean missile attack right off the N Korean launch pad.

The U.S. sees Japan as the UK of the East, a totally trustworthy island ally off the continental mainland, separate and distinct from the continent, connected to the Pacific Ocean, cooperating with the U.S. and other US allies 100%. PM Abe sees the same thing.

PM Shinzo Abe is a strategic thinker of the first order. He's already advocated a "Democracy Diamond" from Japan to Hawaii, to Australia to India, back through SE Asia, Guam to Japan. He coined the strategic term the Indo-Pacific Strategic Ocean and is working closely with India, to include first time naval maneuvers off Japan earlier this year - naval maneuvers made in China and North Korea..

Made in China: A US-Japan-Philippines Axis?

http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2013/06/29/made-in-china-a-us-japan-philippines-axis/comment-page-1/

Asia’s Democratic Security Diamond

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/a-strategic-alliance-for-japan-and-india-by-shinzo-abe

U.S. Special Operations Combined Command

https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/socom/factbook-2012.pdf

[jamhar]

Getting back on point, Actually Japan has a decent sized military. Ranked #9 in world by one ranking.

The numbers vary depending on the source but using wiki

Annual Defense Budget $55B
Military Personnel 250K (active) 50K (reservist)
Aircraft 791 F2 (F16 variant), F4s and F15s
Navy Ships 139 ~40 Destroyers (various sizes) 16 subs (diesel/electrics), and various others

Not enough to defend a far off contested island, as an example but enough to defend the primary islands, or at least a deterrence.

Still way behind China who have an aircraft carrier (just one) but 11 nuke subs, and ~50 reg subs,

naval vessels up to destroyer class, and the largest active military in the world.

So if Japan wants to contest China for any maritime disagreements, their military budget maybe ramping up soon.

The smart thing to do is to team up with SK, so they can get some economy of scale, to share the cost burden of R&D,

and defending the common region but they have their own issues.

Or they can do what they are doing now, which is to develop some things and buy the rest on the free market.

Either way the spending will have to go up, or give up the outlying islands.

(references from various sources, wiki, janes, ect)

[jamhar]

The U.S. sees Japan as the UK of the East, a totally trustworthy island ally off the continental mainland, separate and distinct from the continent, connected to the Pacific Ocean, cooperating with the U.S. and other US allies 100%. PM Abe sees the same thing.

I would have to agree Pub.

But i would add SKorea in that mix.

The US and Japan have been doing joint marine/land exercises at Camp Pendleton this year near San Diego, to develop the Japanese Marines.

The Japanese commander said in an interview that the goal was to develop a Japanese Marine Corp that has the capabilities of the US Marine Corp.

Sounds like the Japanese are interested in protection some islands.

[Publicus]

It's just talk. Other than having nukes, China is a paper tiger. The US has a treaty to defend Japan and has moved more than 1/2 of its naval resources into Asia. It has restocked Guam, reopened Clark Air Force Base and Subic Bay, and has 3 carrier groups now in the area. It has nuclear subs in the water that China can't even see.

China is way, way behind in developing conventional hardware. They don't have stealth fighters and bombers and they don't have the missiles with pinpoint accuracy.

If China or N. Korea lays a finger on Japan or The Philippines they'll have a lot of scrap iron on the bottom of the ocean.

You need to stop underestimating our enemy. It's the oldest and worst mistake of history. The U.S. Pacific Commander, Admiral Locklear at Pearl Harbor, said last year the missile is now operational. You need to stop being dismissive of the enemy.

Chinese 'Carrier-Killer' Missile Could Reshape Sea Combat

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/08/06/chinese-carrier-killer-missile-game-changer-expert-says/

[Publicus]

The U.S. sees Japan as the UK of the East, a totally trustworthy island ally off the continental mainland, separate and distinct from the continent, connected to the Pacific Ocean, cooperating with the U.S. and other US allies 100%. PM Abe sees the same thing.

I would have to agree Pub.

But i would add SKorea in that mix.

The US and Japan have been doing joint marine/land exercises at Camp Pendleton this year near San Diego, to develop the Japanese Marines.

The Japanese commander said in an interview that the goal was to develop a Japanese Marine Corp that has the capabilities of the US Marine Corp.

Sounds like the Japanese are interested in protection some islands.

Hey dude, nobody's forgetting South Korea - S Korea is a given in all of this.

From left, Japanese Minister of Defense Itsunori Onodera, U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and South Korea Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin pose for reporters before their meeting at the Shangri-La Hotel in Singapore on June 1. (Atsushi

Japan, U.S., S. Korea reaffirm cooperation against N. Korea

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201306020021

I reiterate that all of this is made in China and also North Korea. We already know they make crappy products, to include foreign and military policies and acts.

Beijing and Pyongyang together want to upset the status quo in East Asia, SE Asia, the Indian Ocean. They're doing a much better job of it than either Beijing or Pyongyang had ever imagined. They're bringing everyone together to protect and defend against both aggressive totalitarian fascist states, the CCP-PRC and the DPRK.

Beijing and Pyongyang are remaking a new pro democracy and freedom status quo that is encompassing fencesitting nations into the US orbit, happily to the Indo-Pacific countries and for us, and it's being done with all deliberate speed. Thailand remains the laggard among Asean countries, along with pro-Beijing Cambodia. Even Myanmar has moved over to the side of the good guys; Malaysia too has taken a clear side with democracy and freedom. Singapore for years has been hosting US aircraft carriers and other naval ships.

The keys to all of this new cooperation are the strong ties and influence of Japan and India working together. Because Japan and India are working with the US, the line of Indo-Pacific governments outside the door of the US is only getting longer. They want to sign up now.

Thank you very much to the Boyz in Beijing for making themselves clear for all to see, and for establishing a greater and stronger status quo against the shameless boldfaced aggression of Beijing and Pyongyang. The Boyz in Beijing are klutzes who give no mind to Sun Tzu. They are blunderbrain CCP's.

[NeverSure]

It's just talk. Other than having nukes, China is a paper tiger. The US has a treaty to defend Japan and has moved more than 1/2 of its naval resources into Asia. It has restocked Guam, reopened Clark Air Force Base and Subic Bay, and has 3 carrier groups now in the area. It has nuclear subs in the water that China can't even see.

China is way, way behind in developing conventional hardware. They don't have stealth fighters and bombers and they don't have the missiles with pinpoint accuracy.

If China or N. Korea lays a finger on Japan or The Philippines they'll have a lot of scrap iron on the bottom of the ocean.

You need to stop underestimating our enemy. It's the oldest and worst mistake of history. The U.S. Pacific Commander, Admiral Locklear at Pearl Harbor, said last year the missile is now operational. You need to stop being dismissive of the enemy.

Chinese 'Carrier-Killer' Missile Could Reshape Sea Combat

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/08/06/chinese-carrier-killer-missile-game-changer-expert-says/

This is an unseen, untested, news rumor which in theory wouldn't work. It's an ICBM, so the story goes. How do you hit a moving target with an ICBM while trying to defeat the US's ability to shoot down ICBMs? It's a non issue.

It's a "game changer" for news outlets hungry for a story.

Also, even if someone had such a thing and if it worked which it wouldn't, we have to assume there's a real war. China isn't going to start that. They simply don't have the hardware or technology to compete.

Japan will, for many years to come, rely on the US for protection. Their military is tiny when compared to China or the US.

[Sing_Sling]

Also, even if someone had such a thing and if it worked which it wouldn't, we have to assume there's a real war. China isn't going to start that. They simply don't have the hardware or technology to compete.

So why are you so worried about nukes and military budgets? You really have to decide which way you swing