Slashdot Mirror
Japan's Military 'Needs Marines and Drones'
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."
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).
We sent Japan six divisions of marines not too many years ago. Now they need more? Those weren't enough?
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
How will this effect anime?
If you disarm somebody, you're morally responsible if they get attacked.
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.)
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.
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.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
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.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
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. 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, 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.
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.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
There where a respectable number of British troupes involved in operation Normandy and the final push against Hitler, along with British air support which had a major role. If you think that we where nothing more than a passive part of Hitler's defeat then you likely have only got your information from moves. With most war moves being made in America with Americans as their fist target audience they have easy access to American army props and accents because of this and the desire to appeal to local audiences they do not usual bother to include or even mention and sometime even outright whitewash or re-attribute non American actions.
In reality the defeat of Hitler was caused by a mixture of two flaws the first was the resource costs of the whole 3 front war, in Africa, against Russia and the UK, as long as none of them went down all of them took resources that could have been spent to beat the others.... The second flaw was the Nazis insufficient respect for the greatest Russian general, General Winter which cost them dear. Hitler was already defend at that point without too much further ailed intervention, but without the allies forcing the issue early Russia would have simply steamrollered Europe as their opponents ran out of resources (and probably finished the UK as part of that), and so for saving us from that I am definitely grateful to all those who fought.
The numbers speak for themselves. The number of American troops during the Normandy beach landings = 63,000, British =60,000. The casualty figures are similarly even.
As you say, Hollywood revisionism is to blame for a lot of the misconceptions about the American role in the war. It was a big role, but far from a one-nation-show.
"Hollywood revisionism is to blame for a lot of the misconceptions about the American role in the war".
By the way, it was the Eastern Front, which claimed 80 percent of all German military casualties in the war. So basically, it was one evil empire against other and the winning one got away with its crimes. That is the reality. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/21/arts/a-job-for-rewrite-stalin-s-war.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
I disagree. They had the terrible punishment of being stuck with Stalin for quite a few more years.
This isn't a US-centric POV, it is the countries that China is bullying that find its behavior obnoxious. That is why the countries that China is bullying are taking their current actions. I'm not really sure how you could be confused on that point.
China is currently trying to take territory from the Philippines, Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan, and there may be others. What parts of Latin America is the United States currently trying to annex? China is militarily threatening many nations around it. Which nations is the US actively threatening, including putting troops ashore on disputed territories, and ramming ships at sea?
I guess some ACs really hate keeping up with current events. *sigh*
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
What parts of Latin America is the United States currently trying to annex? :)
Fun with the "currently" term.
Need a history lesson in that part of the world Cold?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions in list form with dates
The US goes for "security arrangements" now and likes to "lease access" under the banner of "hunting drug traffickers and guerrillas"
Its the same as having a U.S. military base, just the base is still all part of "Colombia".
Cold if you want to understand China "now" and their thinking, recall the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
The use of drugs, silver and terms of settlement has shaped China and its political thinking.
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War might be good reading too.
Recall the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War ?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Now that China isn't using them to spy on India!
Germany's military is built around heavy armored divisions, when there is no plausible scenario where they would be useful.
Zerg rush wins every time. That's their plan.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Like, when the Japanese started rebuilding the Kido Butai? Personally, I'm untroubled by the announcement, but I think it's funny that "marines and drones" are getting notice, but the 27,000-ton carrier under construction and the two 19,000-ton carriers in commission get no mention.
These days even the powerful officials in China may wonder if they would not be personally better off if communism shifts more towards gentle socialism with a bit more capitalistic activity. It is one thing for the common person to ponder such things but when it gets to the point that the rich and powerful have similar thoughts things really might change.
What all nations seem to need is a more realistic formulation of the value of labor so that an economy does what it is supposed to do which is the just and fair distribution of wealth. The US version of right and just is sort of like it was written by Klingons in that what we excuse as competition is more like a pool of sharks murdering each other over a bite of food.
The Germans sold a lot of their tank inventory all over Europe and elsewhere after the Cold War ended. They have like a fifth of the tanks they used to have.
Foshan, Guangdong, PRC, January 2011:
Me: It's a pleasure to meet you, sir.
Retired PLA Colonel: Likewise. Tell me, young man, did your father or perhaps your grandfather fight in Korea?
Me: Actually, I had a couple of great-uncles who saw action there.
He: I too fought in Korea. You realise that they and I were probably shooting at each other over there, right?
Me: Well... I'd not thought about it, but I suppose so.
He: Did they come home?
Me: Yes, they did.
He: Then I am most happy for you and your family, because many did not. Young man, I think you know that some very bad things happened in those days...
Me: So I have heard and read, sir.
He: I think that was a very long time ago, and the world has changed since then. Don't you agree?
Me: Absolutely, sir, absolutely.
He: (*takes my hand and pumps it enthusiastically*) Well, then, let's have a drink together to honour your uncles and all the brave comrades who fought for what they believed in, because that was a very long time ago... and now we are all a little older and wiser, and now we know that we should just all be good friends, don't you think?
Me: Sir! Yes, sir!
And then I took a double-shot of something that was named after a mountain, smelt like flowers, and went down like jet fuel... And the old soldier had to steady me because it damn near knocked me to the floor. :)
I've a photo of the old colonel and me together, taken that day. I keep it on the shelf above my desk. I consider it one of my most prized mementoes.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Ancient Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times
like the UK during WW2--a huge aircraft and troop carrier parked off the coast of Germany. No disrespect to the British, who just happened to be living on "the carrier" when the extra troops arrived
You obviously got your "history" from the movies. Apart from the numbers of American and British invading Europe in 1944 being of the same order, it was the British who stopped a collapse of the US forces in the Battle of the Ardennes in the following winter. Basically the US army, like the French Army, had (still has?) a similar (and fatal) trust in "elan", so the troops had little training in fighting defensively or in retreat; they considered to train for such situations was defeatism. The British OTOH were used to colonial wars in which remote outposts might need to defend themselves for weeks against revolting natives until re-inforcements arrived. The US attitude was fine until they found themselves needing to fight defensively, as in the Ardennes; then they panicked and ran - an episode that US historians tend to gloss over.
The exception in the Ardennes was the US Airborne divisions. Those paratroops were trained in defensive fighting because of their role in capturing bridges etc behind enemy lines and waiting for ground troops to catch up. Hence the brilliant and tenacious defence of Bastogne by the US 101st Airborne.